# Appendix A

Configuration and Cost Assumptions fo r Airport Hydrant Fuel Distribution

Systems (AHFDSs) and UST Systems wi th Field-Constructed Tanks (FCTs)

# A-1 

# This appendix provides detailed de scriptions of the costs of the pr oposed rule as they pertain to

UST systems with field-constructed tanks (FCTs) and airport hydrant fuel distribution systems

(AHFDSs). The appendix begins wi th a broad overview of these two tank types and the costs

they will incur as a result of the proposed rule, and then provides a detailed breakdown of cost

calculations.

A.1 Description of FCTs and AHFDSs

In addition to conventional underg round storage tank (UST) systems, regulatory revisions of the

proposed rule would affect tw o additional classes of tanks:

• Underground storage tank systems and anci llary equipment that are a part of an

airport hydrant fuel distribution system us ed to fuel aircraft (AHFDSs). These

systems do not have a dispenser at the e nd of the piping run, but instead have a

pressurized hydrant (fill stand).

• UST systems with field-constructed tanks (FCTs) that have a capacity greater

than 50,000 gallons and ar e constructed onsite.

EPA believes that large commercial and military airports employ AHFDSs, but most commercial

systems typically use aboveground storage tanks for these systems. Similarly, existing

underground FCTs appear to be used only by fe deral facilities (prima rily Department of

Defense); commercial facilities requiring bulk st orage appear to use above-ground systems.

A review of existing state regulations suggest s that 57 percent of FC Ts and 40 percent of

AHFDSs are currently located in states that regu late these systems in a manner consistent with

the regulatory revisions of the proposed rule (i.e., these state programs already require

compliance with state regulations that are roughly consistent with the proposed rule). 1 

# We

therefore assume that 43 percent of FCTs and 60 percent of AHFDSs will incur additional costs

due to the removal of deferrals associated w ith the proposed rule. For simplicity, however,

detailed cost discussions in th is appendix adjust for baseline regulatory complia nce only after

calculation of all costs.

A.2 Key Cost Components of the Rem oval of Deferrals – Preferred Option

Both AHFDSs and FCTs are currently deferred fro m most of the requirements in 40 CFR Part

280. However, the Spill Prevention, Control, an d Countermeasure (SPCC) requirements of 40

CFR Part 112 (as well as some existing state regu lations) require these systems and tanks to be

subject to structural standards relatively consiste nt with the regulatory re visions of the proposed

rule, and will therefore not requ ire substantial cap ital upgrades. In addition, the majority of costs

associated with the removal of deferrals from both these types of tank systems are associated

with meeting the proposed release detection requirements.

1 

# Industrial Economics, Inc., “Preliminary Assessment and Scoping of Data Related to Potential Revisions

to the UST Regulations,” Work Assignment 1-25, Tasks 2-4, February 21, 2009, Appendix A, Exhibits 4 and 5.

# A-2 

# Release Detection Requirements

Our analysis assumes that 50 percent of FCTs do not use an automatic tank gauge (ATG) for

release detection, and would be required to conduct annual pr ecision testing under the proposed

rule. We also assume that those FCTs that do use ATGs do not currently conduct monthly

release detection monitoring nor co nduct annual operability tests of their ATGs. Therefore, we

assume that the proposed rule will impose costs a ssociated with these ac tivities on owners of

FCTs. In addition, those FCTs with ATGs currently operating at a leak rate between 0.3 and 1.0

gallon per hour and between 1.0 and 2.0 gallons per hour will be required to conduct tri-annual

and bi-annual precision testi ng, respectively, to achieve th e proposed release detection

requirements.

Our analysis assumes that no release detection methods are currently in stalled in the piping

associated with FCTs. We assume that all pipi ng associated with FCTs will need to undergo

semiannual precision testing to achieve the proposed release detection requirements.

For the tanks associated with AHFDSs, our anal ysis assumes that 50 percent do not currently

have ATGs installed and will n eed to install them to achieve the proposed release detection

requirements. In addition, we assume that thos e tanks with ATGs installed do not currently

conduct monthly release detection monitoring or annual operability tests of their ATGs. The

proposed rule will impose costs associated with these activities on all owners and operators of

AHFDSs.

Finally, we assume that no release-detection me thod is currently installed in the piping of

AHFDSs. We therefore assume that all AHF DS piping must undergo semiannual precision

testing to achieve the proposed release detection requirements.

Other Requirements

Removing deferrals for AHFDSs and FCTs will also require these systems to comply with

Subparts B, C, E, G, and H of 40 CFR Part 280. 2 

# Furthermore, AHFDSs and FCTs will incur

costs associated with other requir ements of the proposed rule that will apply to all UST systems.

These include: walkthrough insp ections; overfill prev ention equipment tests; spill prevention

equipment tests; testing after repairs; notificati on of ownership change; re cordkeeping associated

with compatibility; and operator training. 3 

# Lastly, these systems will have to incur costs with a

one-time notification of existen ce to the implementing agency.

2 

# Subpart H requires owners and operators of regulated USTs to demonstrate financial responsibility (FR).

EPA assumes that the two commercial airport facilities with AHFDSs will be able to demonstrate FR through the

use of the financial test, and would therefore incur no co st to obtain financial assurance. The two commercial

facilities would incur reporting and recordkeeping costs asso ciated with filing proof of financial responsibility. EPA

estimates this cost to consist of 0.25 technical labor hour (at $73.80/hr) and 0.1 clerical labor hour (at $39.11/hr) per

year per facility, for a total of $45 across the two fac ilities. EPA assumes that the other AHFDSs and FCTs are

owned or operated by federal entities, which would exempt them from the requirements of Subpart H.

3 

# While EPA plans on requiring secondary containment on new tanks and piping, based on EPA’s

discussion with various parties, EPA is assuming no new installations of underground FCTs and tanks being

installed at AHFDSs are aboveground storage tanks (ASTs). As a result, we assume that there are no costs

associated with requiring secondary containment for new tanks (since no new underground tanks are assumed to be

# A-3 

# Exhibit A-1 presents a breakdown of costs incurred by AHFDSs and FCTs as a result of the

proposed rule.

Exhibit A-1 – Cost Summary, Preferred Option

REQUIREMENT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH

AHFDSS ($ MILLIONS) COSTS ASSOCIATED

WITH FCTS ($ MILLIONS) TOTAL COSTS

($ MILLIONS)



# Release detection (including

management costs) $22.0 $5.3 $27.2

All other requirements

associated with the removal

of deferrals (Subparts B, C,

E, and G) $0.1 $0.04 $0.1

Other requirements of the

proposed rule (Walkthrough

inspections; overfill

prevention equipment tests;

spill prevention equipment

tests; testing after repairs to

spill and overfill prevention

equipment, and interstices;

operator training; one-time

notification of existence) $0.5 $0.4 $0.8

Total $22.5 $5.7 $28.2

Note: These figures are adjusted for baseline regu latory compliance (i.e., only 43 percent of FCTs

and 60 percent of AHFDSs incur costs associated with the removal of deferrals). However, these

figures are not discounted to refl ect the proposed three-year phase-in period associated with the

removal of deferrals. With discounting, the total co sts associated with regulating AHFDSs and FCTs

under the preferred option are $22.6 million ($18 million for AHFDSs and $4.6 million for FCTs).

Columns and/or rows may not sum exactly due to rounding.



# A.3 Key Cost Components of the Removal of Deferrals – Alternative Option 1

Alternative Option 1 imposes more extensive re lease detection requirements on both FCTs and

AHFDSs than the Preferred Option. 4 

# For FCTs, those tanks utiliz ing an ATG operating at a leak

rate greater than 0.2 gallon per hour, or without an existing ATG, will be required to undergo a

installed for these systems). For AHFDS piping, EPA does not believe secondary containment with interstitial

monitoring is appropriate due to the extreme length of AHFDS piping runs, which complicates the need to slope

piping back to a containment sump, and the need for steel piping given the hi gh pressures (since corrosion due to

water in the interstitial space is hard to prevent or control). As a result, EPA is not requiring secondary containment

for piping associated with these syst ems; therefore, we also assume that there are no costs associated with

requirement secondary cont ainment for new piping.

4 

# EPA assumes that FCTs and AHFDSs would meet the current release detection requirements by using 40

CFR 280.43(h) Other methods . Specifically, EPA assumes that tanks woul d be required to monthly detect a leak

rate of 0.2 gallon per hour, and piping would be required to monthly detect a leak rate of 3 gallon per hour (in lieu of

an automatic line leak detector) with an annual test of 0.1 gallon per hour. Furthermore, in estimating costs for these

systems, EPA assumes that DoD will have third-party vendors come on-site to conduct the periodic tests.

# A-4 

# monthly precision test at 0.2 gallon per hour. In addition, monthly release detection monitoring

and annual operability tests of existing AT Gs operating at 0.2 gallon per hour. Testing

requirements for piping associated with FCTs wi ll also be required, and are assumed to be

identical to those required fo r AHFDSs described below.

For AHFDSs, Alternative Option 1 requires that a ll piping undergo both a m onthly precision test

at 3.0 gallons per hour, as well as an annual pr ecision test at 0.1 gallon per hour. Requirements

concerning the installation of ATGs, monthl y release detection monitoring, and annual

operability tests are identical to the Preferred Option. Costs incu rred under the other subparts are

also identical to the Preferred Option. Exhibit A-2 presents a breakdown of costs incurred by

AHFDSs and FCTs because of the proposed regulato ry requirements under Alternative Option 1.

Exhibit A-2 – Cost Summary, Alternative 1

REQUIREMENT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH

AHFDSS ($ MILLIONS) COSTS ASSOCIATED

WITH FCTS ($ MILLIONS) TOTAL COSTS

($ MILLIONS)



# Release detection (including

management costs) $141.8 $40.4 $182.1

All other requirements

associated with the removal

of deferrals (Subparts B, C,

E, and G) $0.1 $0.04 $0.1

Other requirements of the

proposed rule (Walkthrough

inspections; overfill

prevention equipment tests;

spill prevention equipment

tests; testing after repairs to

spill and overfill prevention

equipment, and interstices;

operator training; and onetime notification of

existence) $0.6 $0.6 $1.2

Total $142.5 $41.0 $183.5

Note: These figures are adjusted for baseline regu latory compliance (i.e., only 43 percent of FCTs

and 60 percent of AHFDSs incur costs associated with the removal of deferrals). However, these

figures are not discounted to refl ect the proposed three-year phase-in period associated with the

removal of deferrals. With discounting, the total cost of this requirement under Alternative 1 is $153

million ($120 million for AHFDSs and $33 million for FCTs).

Columns and/or rows may not sum exactly due to rounding.

# A-5 

# A.4 Detailed Cost Analysis – Release Detection

Release detection requirements repr esent a majority of all costs pertaining to FCTs and AHFDSs.

It is also the most complex part of the cost calculations, with numerous inputs and parameters.

Exhibit A-3 displays these values as well as the assumptions or basis behind them. 5



# Exhibit A-3

INPUT/PARAMETE R VALUE SOURCE/BASIS



# Number of FCTs 239 See Chapter 2

Percent of FCTs without existing ATGs 50% EPA assumption

Percent of FCTs with existing ATGs 50% 100% less 50% of FCTs without existing ATGs

Percent of FCTs with existing ATGs

operating at 0.2 gallon per hour 25% EPA assumption

Monthly release dete ction monitoring

cost for ATGs $5.24 ATG monthly costs, ICR Cost Inputs, Tab 11

Annual operability test cost for ATGs $72.89 Annualized cost for AT G operability tests,

Cost Model Inputs 3-22-10 “Revised Costs” for

Operability tests for release detection

methods

Percent of FCTs with existing ATGs

operating at more than 0.2 gallon per

hour 75% 100% less 25% of FCTs with existing ATGs

operating at 0.2 gallon per hour

Percent of FCTs with existing ATGs

operating at more than 0.2 gallon per

hour operating at 0.3 – 1.0 gallon per

hour 50% EPA assumption

Percent of FCTs with ATGs operating at

more than 0.2 gallon/ hour operating

at 1.0 – 2.0 gallons/hour 50% 100% less 50% of FCTs with existing ATGs

operating at more than 0.2 gallon per hour

operating at 0.3 – 1.0 gallon per hour

Average FCT size 250,000

gallons EPA assumption

Percent of FCTs with “long” associated

piping of one mile 100% EPA assumption

Percent of FCTs with “short”

associated piping of 300 feet 0% 100% less 100% of FCTs with “long” associated

piping of one mile

Percent of FCTs with “short”

associated piping using electronic line

leak detectors 50% EPA assumption

Percent of FCTs with “short”

associated piping using mechanical line

leak detectors 50% 100% less 50% of FCTs with “short” associated

piping installing electronic line leak detectors

Electronic line leak detector

installation cost $77 TO 3003 TDD#9, page 8, annualized over 20

years with a 7 percent discount rate

Mechanical line leak detector

installation cost $23 TO 3003 TDD#9, page 8, annualized over 20

years with a 7 percent discount rate

5 

# Due to major data limitations, except otherwise indicated, the assumptions used to model these systems

are based on EPA’s best professional judgment.

# A-6 INPUT/PARAMETE R VALUE SOURCE/BASIS



# Annual line leak detector line tightness

cost $114 ICR page 63, Exhibit 1

Line leak detector annual operability

test cost $75 Annualized cost for LLD operability tests, Cost

Model Inputs 3-22-10 “Revised Costs” for

Operability tests for release detection

methods

Number of AHFDSs 162 See Chapter 2

Number of tanks per AHFDS 8 See Chapter 2

Percent of tanks associated with

AHFDSs with existing ATGs 50% EPA assumption

Percent of tanks associated with

AHFDSs without existing ATGs 50% 100% less 50% of tanks associated with AHFDSs

with existing ATGs

Installation cost for an ATG with eight

probes (suitable for an AHFDS with

eight associated tanks) $1,276 Conversation with OUST, May 5, 2010:

Annualized cost of: $4,051, cost of ATG with

one probe (from TO 3003 TDD#9, page 8);

plus eight hours of labor at $75/hour for

installation; plus $1,352 per probe for seven

additional probes

Percent of AHFDSs using precision

testing of piping as their release

detection mechanism 100% EPA assumption

Number of miles per AHFDS (piping

run) 5 EPA assumption

Number of “sections” per mile of

piping in an AHFDS 2 EPA assumption

Percent of AHFDSs using an automatic

line leak detector at 3.0 gallons per

hour as their release detection

mechanism 0% 100% less 100% of AHFDSs using precision test

of piping as their release detection

mechanism

Average precision test cost – tanks $8,566 Average of the estimated precision testing

costs for a 250,000 gallon tank as provided via

three methods: Vista, Mass. Tech., and

Varec. Vista costs $6,500 per tank, Mass.

Tech. costs $2,000 - $25,000 depending on

the size of the tank ($6,839 for a 250,000

gallon tank), and Varec costs $8,200 - $28,000

depending on the size of the tank ($12,358

for a 250,000 gallon tank).

Average precision test cost – piping run $96,600 Average of the estimated precision testing

costs for a piping run of five miles, with two

sections per mile, provided via three

methods: HCNA, Vista, and Varec. HCNA costs

$5,500 per section, Vista costs $5,000 per

section, and Varec costs $7 per foot. *



# *The proposed rule differentiates release detection requirements by requiring precision testing and

ATGs to monitor tanks and piping systems at a cert ain gallon per hour standard. Although it takes

longer to complete a pr ecision test at a lower leak rate, we do not cost out the downtime

associated with these precision tests. We do not co st out this downtime because, as virtually all

FCTs and AHFDSs are located at Department of De fense (DoD) facilities, it is likely that these

facilities both have a plan in place to preven t the loss of essential functions during routine

maintenance such as a precision test and that th ese facilities do not ha ve perpetual operations

that would incur costs when forced to stop for a precision test. In addition, we believe that it is

# A-7 INPUT/PARAMETE R VALUE SOURCE/BASIS



# reasonable to assume that these DoD facilities wi ll have backup systems in place such that routine

maintenance would not impede operations. Simila rly, for the few commercial airport facilities

with AHFDSs, we assume that the precision testing can be scheduled during facility downtime, so

that no additional costs a ssociated with a longer pr ecision test are incurred.



# Release Detection for FCTs – Preferred Option

Release detection costs for FCTs can be broken down into costs related to tanks and costs related

to the piping associated with FCTs. Under the proposed release detection requirements for FCTs,

FCTs are required to utilize an acceptable release detection me thod, which entails any of the

following:

• an ATG operating at a leak rate of 0.2 gallon per hour;

• annual precision testing at a l eak rate of 0.5 gallon per hour;

• an ATG operating at a leak rate of 0.3 to 1.0 gallon per hour, and precision testing

at 0.1 gallon per hour ev ery three years; or

• an ATG operating at a leak rate of 1.0 to 2.0 gallons per hour, and precision

testing at 0.1 gallon pe r hour every two years. 6



# We use the assumptions described in Exhibit A-3 to calculate the re lease detection costs

associated with FCTs.

Given the assumptions that 50 percent of all FCTs have existing ATGs, and of these, 25 percent

operate at a leak rate of 0.2 gallon per hour, we calculate mont hly release detection monitoring

costs of $1,879 (239*0.5*0.25*$5.24*12) and annual operability test costs of $2,178

(239*0.5*0.25*$72.89). Thus, FCTs with ATGs currently operating at a leak rate of 0.2 gallon

per hour incur a cost of $4,056 annually.

We assume that remaining FCTs with existing AT Gs operate at leak ra tes of either 0.3 to 1.0

gallon per hour or 1.0 to 2.0 gallons per hour, and must therefore al so include a tri-annual or biannual precision test, respectively. We also assume that the remaining universe of FCTs with

existing ATGs is divided evenly between th e two groups. For those with existing ATGs

operating at a leak rate of 0.3 to 1.0 gallon per hour, we calcula te monthly release detection

monitoring costs of $2,818 (239*0.5*0.75*0.5*$5.24*12), annua l operability test costs of $3,266

(239*0.5*0.75*0.5*$72.89) and bi-annual precision testing costs of $191,927

(239*0.5*0.75*0.5*$8,566/2). Thus, FCTs with ATGs currently operating at a leak rate of 0.3 to

1.0 gallon per hour incur a cost of $198,011 annually.

6 

# Under the proposed rule, FCTs can also use any other monitoring method approved by the implementing

agency as a method of release detection. For modeling pur poses, however, we assume, that owners or operators will

only use the methods listed above.

# A-8 

# For FCTs with existing ATGs operating at a leak rate of 1.0 to 2.0 gallon s per hour, we calculate

similar monthly release detection monitoring and annual operability test costs, and tri-annual

precision testing costs of $127,951 (239*0.5*0.75*0.5*$8,566/3). Thus, FCTs with ATGs

currently operating at a leak rate of 1.0 to 2.0 gall ons per hour incur a cost of $134,036

($127,951+$2,818+$3,266) annually.

For the 50 percent of existing FCTs without ATGs currently installed, we assume that an annual

precision test is conducted. The total cost incurred by these FCTs annually is $1,023,612

(239*0.5*$8,566).

We assume that all FCTs have one mile of a ssociated piping, which is subject to the release

detection requirements applicable to AHFDSs (see below). The total costs incurred by the piping

associated with FCTs is $9,234,960, or 239*$96,600/5 (s tandard testing cost s apply to a fivemile-long piping run)*2 (testing is performed semiannually).

Total FCT release detection costs are $10,594,675, of which over 87 percent are related to the

piping associated with these systems.

Release Detection for FCTs – Alternative Option 1

Under Alternative Option 1, for modeling purposes, we assume that FCTs will be able to meet

release detection require ments by either using an ATG operati ng at a leak rate of 0.2 gallon per

hour, or by conducting a mont hly precision test.

Those FCTs with existing ATGs operating at a le ak rate of 0.2 gallon pe r hour will incur costs

similar to those incurred under the Preferre d Option: $4,056. However, FCTs with existing

ATGs operating at a greater leak rate must undergo monthly preci sion testing. The total annual

costs are $9,212,507 (239*0.5*0.75*$8,566*12). In addition, t hose FCTs without existing ATGs

must also undergo monthly precisi on testing, which to tal $12,283,343 annually

(239*0.5*$8,566*12). Finally, piping asso ciated with FCTs must undergo the same testing

requirements as AHFDSs under Alternative Option 1 (239*$96,600/5 (standard testing costs

apply to a five-mile-long piping run)*13 (monthl y testing plus an annual test, or $60,027,240).

Under Alternative Option 1, total costs for release detection associated with FCTs are

approximately $81,527,000, with over 70 percent of th is related to the associated piping.

Release Detection for AHFDSs – Preferred Option

Release detection costs for AHFDSs can be divide d into tank costs and as sociated piping costs.

We assume that all tanks associated with AHFDSs will utilize an ATG operati ng at a leak rate of

0.2 gallon per hour as the release detection me thod (i.e., none will use a precision test).

Furthermore, we assume that 50 percent of th e systems have ATGs al ready installed on them,

while ATGs would have to be installed on the re mainder. For those systems with existing ATGs,

we calculate monthly release detec tion monitoring costs to be $40,746 (162*8*0.5*$5.24*12)

and annual operability test costs for the ATGs to be $47,233 (162*8*0.5*$72.89). Total annual

costs for these tanks are thus $87,979.

# A-9 

# For the other 50 percent of existing tanks associat ed with AHFDSs that lack ATGs, we calculate

annualized ATG installation costs to be $103,333 (162*0.5*$1,276). Monthly release detection

monitoring and annual operability test costs for th e ATGs are identical to those stated above.

Total annual costs for these tanks are t hus $191,312 ($87,979+$103,333). Overall, total annual

costs for all tanks associated with AHFDSs are $279,291 ($87,979+$191,312).

The Preferred Option would require that the pi ping of AHFDSs undergo semiannual precision

testing. 7 

# Total annual costs for the precision tes ting of piping associat ed with AHFDSs are

$31,298,400, or 162*2*$96,600.

We calculate total annual re lease detection costs incurr ed by AHFDSs to be $31,577,691, of

which over 99 percent are related to the piping associated with AHFDSs.

Release Detection for AHFDSs – Alternative Option 1

Under Alternative Option 1, release detection for AHFDSs consists of a monthly precision test at

3.0 gallons per hour as well as an annual precisi on test at 0.1 gallon per hour. Because we do not

differentiate costs for precision te sts by their leak rate (see Note 1 in Exhibit A-3), this is the

equivalent of 13 precision test s annually. Total costs for tank s associated with AHFDSs do not

change between the Preferred Option and Alte rnative Option 1: they remain $279,291. The cost

of 13 precision tests annually for AHFDS piping is $203,439,600, or 162*13*$96,600.

Under Alternative Option 1, total annual costs fo r release detection associated with AHFDSs are

$203,718,891, of which over 99 percent are related to the piping associated with AHFDSs.

Management Costs Associated with Release Detection – Preferred Option

In addition to the direct costs of the proposed release detection requirements, we also estimate

management costs associated with the regulati on. These management costs consist of five

percent overhead costs associated with governme nt/contractor program management, ten percent

government contracting costs, a nd one percent base support costs. 8 

# Altogether, we estimate a

sixteen percent management cost a ssociated with release detection.

Sixteen percent of to tal FCT release detec tion costs is $1,695,948. Sixt een percent of total

AHFDS release detection costs is $5,052,431. Total annual manageme nt costs associated with

release detection are thus $6,747,579. In sum, u nder the Preferred Optio n, release detection

costs for FCTs and AHFDSs, incl uding management costs, are $48,919,945.

7 

# The proposed rule also allows owners and operat ors of AHFDSs to use alternate release detection

methods: automatic line leak detector capable of detecting a leak at 3.0 gallons per hour at 10 psi line pressure

within 1 hour or equivalent plus qu arterly interstitial monitoring; continuous interstitial monitoring; or another

method approved by the implementing agency. For modeling purposes, however, we assume that owners or

operators will only use the methods listed above.

8 

# Bulk Field Construct UST Testing Summary and Pipeline Testing Cost Summary provided by DESC

March 8, 2010, in “EPA Cost Summary.xlsx.”

# A-10 

# Management Costs Associated with Release Detection – Alternative Option 1

Sixteen percent of to tal FCT release detec tion costs under Alternative Option 1 is $13,043,678.

Sixteen percent of total AHF DS release detection costs under Alternative Option 1 is

$32,595,023. Total management costs associated with release detection unde r Alternative Option

1 are thus $45,638,701. In sum, under Alternative Option 1, release detection costs for FCTs and

AHFDSs, including management costs, are $330,885,403.

A.5 Detailed Cost Analysis – Subparts B, C, E, G

Subpart B

Subpart B concerns the design, construction, installation, and no tification of new FCTs and

AHFDSs. We assume, however, that no new FCTs or AHFDSs will be installed. Thus, the

requirements associated with Subpart B incur no costs. 9



# Subpart C

EPA assumes that both FCTs and AHFDs are al ready equipped with co rrosion protection (i.e.,

constructed of: non-corrodible mate rial, coated and cathodically pr otected steel according to a

code of practice developed by a nationally reco gnized association or independent testing

laboratory, fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP), or steel tank clad with FRP). 10 

# EPA assumes

continual monthly and annual insp ections for corrosion protection. As a result, EPA assumes no

incremental costs will occur associated with the cathodic protection insp ection of Subpart C.

However, we do assume that AHFDSs and FCTs w ill incur a recordkeeping cost associated with

these inspections.

To estimate recordkeeping costs, we assume th at each owner/operator will incur approximately

$3.91 in labor cost (0.1 clerical hours) and a pproximately $0.10 in operation and maintenance

costs. As each FCT is required to comply with this requirement, the annual cost for FCTs is

$958.66 (approximately $4.01*239 FCTs). AHFDSs incur similar costs for maintaining records,

which total $649.80 per year ($4.01*162 AHFDSs) (note that minor rounding affects these

calculations).

Subpart C also requires owners and operators to ma intain repair records. This consists of: (1)

gathering information on each repair; (2) conducti ng a tightness test 30 days after repair; and (3)

maintaining records. EPA assumes three pe rcent of FCTs and AHF DSs require repair

annually. 11 

# Gathering information on repair requires one technical hour of labor ($73.80), while

maintaining records requires 0.1 clerical hour of labor ($3.91) and $0.10 in operation and

maintenance costs.

9 

# EPA assumes that existing systems already meet spill, overfill, and corrosion protection requirements

(based on meeting with DESC on February 18, 2010).

10 

# Based on a meeting between EPA/OUST and Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) on February 18,

2010.

11 

# OUST 2007 ICR.

# A-11 

# For FCTs, we assume that tightness tes ting performed after a repair costs $1,750. 12 

# The total

costs for FCTs to test and maintain records are $13,105.39 ($73.80+$1,750+$4.01*7.17, which is

three percent of 239 existing FCTs). Tota l FCT costs for Subpart C are then $14,064.05.

For AHFDSs, tightness testing foll owing a repair must occur for every tank within the system.

Given our assumption of an average of eight ta nks associated with each AHFDS, we calculate

costs associated with this portion of subpart C for AHFDSs to be $68,418.15

($73.80+$1,750*8+$4.01*4.86, which is three percent of 162 existing AHFDSs). Total AHFDS

costs for Subpart C are then $69,067.95.

Subpart E

Subpart E requires owners and operators to re port to the implementing agency suspected or

actual releases of regulated subs tances, release investigation a nd confirmation, and reporting and

cleanup of spills and overfills. Gather ing information occurs on two le vels – the facility level and

the contractor level. Fa cilities are assumed to use one managerial hour and four technical hours

on gathering information ($385.94 total), as well as $2,653 in operation and maintenance costs.

We assume contractors use five managerial hours, 31 technical hours, and 15 clerical hours

($3,328.13 total) with no operation and maintenance co sts. We assume five percent of all FCTs

suspect a releas e each year. 13 

# In addition, we assume 60 percent of facilities with suspected

releases report them, which requires 0.25 managerial hours ($ 22.69) and $0.43 in operation and

maintenance costs. Three percent of all FCTs ar e assumed to report a fill or overfill, and three

percent are also assumed to notify the agency in th e event that they are unab le to clean up a spill.

These notification costs are identical: 0.5 managerial hours ($45.37 and $3.00 in operation and

maintenance costs). Total FCT costs for Subpart E are then $76,945.84, or the sum of

($385.94+$2,653+$3,328.13*11.95, or five percent of 239), and ($22.69 + $0.43 + $45.37 +

$45.37 + $3.00 + $3.00 * 7.17, or three percent of 239).

AHFDSs incur identical costs to FCTs for complia nce with Subpart E, w ith the only difference

that there are 162 existing AHFDS s as compared to 239 existing FCTs. Total AHFDS costs for

Subpart E are $52,155,76, or the sum of ($385.94+$2,653+$3,328.13*8.1, or five percent of

162), and ($22.69+$0.43+$45.37+$45.37+$3.00+$3.00*4.86, or three percent of 162).

Subpart G

Subpart G requires that owners and operators conduct a site a ssessment of the excavation zone,

as well as provide notification of the closure or change-in-serv ice. In addition, owners and

operators must maintain records after permanent closure or change-in-service for at least three

years, and mail records to the implementing agency if they are unable to maintain them on site.

We assume that one FCT will close every five years. 14 

# Notification of closure or change-in-

12 

# Email from George Thuemling at Varec, October 23, 2009.

13 

# PCCI, “Summary of the Preliminar y Assessment of Baseline and Cost Im pacts Associated with Deferred

UST Systems,” July 2008, Attachments 6 and 11, Note 3.

14 

# Information provided by OUST, March 17, 2010.

# A-12 

# service requires 0.25 managerial hours ($22.69) and $3.00 for operation and maintenance costs.

Site assessment of the excavation zone takes pl ace on two levels—the facility level and the

contractor level. The facility level requires 2.75 managerial hours ($249.56) and $2,333 for

operation and maintenance costs. The contractor level requires 6 managerial hours, 40 technical

hours, and 18 clerical hours ($5,113.86). Maintaini ng records requires 0.1 hours of clerical time

($3.91) and $0.10 for operation and maintenance costs. We assume that records for all FCTs will

be maintained on site, and will not be mailed to an implementing agency. Total FCT costs for

Subpart G are calculated as $1,545.22. (($22.69+$3.00+$2,333+$249.56+$5,113.86+$4.01)*

0.0008368). Note that this calculation multipli es the costs enumerated above by 0.0008368, or

the number of FCTs closing every five years (1/(239*5)).

Subpart G for AHFDSs is similar to that for FC Ts. We assume that one AHFDS will close every

five years. 15 

# In addition, unlike FCTs, we assume that closing AHFDSs cannot maintain records

on site, and will have to mail them to them impl ementing agency at a cost of 0.5 clerical hours

($19.56) and $3.00 in operation and maintenance cost s. Thus, total AHFDS costs for Subpart G

are $1,549.73 (($22.69+$3.00+$2,333+$249.56+$5,113.86+$4.01+$19.56+$3.00)*0.0012346).

Note that this calculation multiplies the co sts enumerated above by 0.0012346, or the number of

AHFDSs closing every fi ve years (1/(162*5)).

A.6 Detailed Cost Analysis – Ot her New Regulatory Requirements

If deferrals are removed from AHFDS and FCT systems, additional requirements under the

proposed regulations also become mandatory for these systems. This section summarizes the

methodology for valuing those requirements. Note that the estimates in this section are generally

consistent with the timing and costs required for ot her types of tanks (see Chapter 3), but reflect

a different labor rate more consistent with work performed at DoD facilities.

Walkthrough Inspections

The proposed regulation requires monthly walkthr ough inspections for all tanks, including FCTs

and AHFDSs. For FCTs, the walkthrough inspecti on, which includes the cost of repairs, if

necessary, requires 50 minutes of technical labor ($63.47) 16 

# plus $0.13 in time value of money

costs. 17 

# In addition, recordkeep ing for this requirement costs $4. 01 in total (0.1 hour of clerical

labor at $3.91 and $0.10 in operation and maintena nce costs). As walkthrough inspections are

required monthly under both the Pr eferred Option and Alternative Option 1, the annual cost of

this requirement for FCTs is $188,258.71 (($63.47+$0.13+$4.01)*239*12).

For AHFDSs, the walkthrough inspection requi res 85 minutes of technical labor ($124.20) 18 

# as well as $1.32 in time value of money costs. 19 

# In addition, recordk eeping for walkthrough

15 

# Information provided by OUST, March 17, 2010.

16 

# Information provided by OUST, December 11, 2009.

17 

# This is an annual cost stemming from costs incurred due to finding problems earlier under the regulatory

requirements as compared with th e baseline. See Appendix D for discussion on the time value of money.

18 

# Information provided by OUST, March 22, 2010.

# A-13 

# inspections for AHFDSs are identical to those for FCTs. The annual cost of this requirement for

AHFDSs is $213,605.82 (($124.20+$1.32+$4.01)*162*12).

Overfill Prevention Equipment Tests

Under the Preferred Option, the proposed regulat ion requires overfill prevention equipment tests

for all tanks, including FCTs and AHFDSs, ever y three years. The testing component costs $214

annually per tank. In addition, there is a time value of money cost of $11.00. 20 

# Recordkeeping for

this requirement costs $4.01 ($3.91 for 0.1 hours of clerical labor and $0.10 in operation and

maintenance costs). We calculate total annual costs for FCTs for the requirement to be

$18,244.81 (($214+$11.99+$4.01)*239/3).

Costs for overfill prevention equipment tests are similar for AHFDSs, except that overfill

prevention equipment tests take place on a by-ta nk basis. Since we assume eight tanks per

AHFDS, the total testing cost at one AHFDS is approximately $1,800 (($214+$11.00)*8).

Correspondingly, total annual costs for AHFDSs for this requirement are $97,418.00

(($1,800+$4.01)*162/3).

Under Alternative Option 1, overfill prevention equipment tests would be required every year.

The time value of money co st in this case is $3.92. 21 

# Total annual costs for overfill prevention

equipment tests for FCTs and AHFDSs would be $336,113.37 ((($214+$3.92+$4.01)*239) +

($1,743+$4.01)*162)).

Spill Prevention Equipment Tests

Under the Preferred Option, the proposed regulat ion requires annual spill prevention equipment

tests for all tanks, including FCTs and AHFDSs. The testing component, which does not include

the cost of repair, costs $125 per spill prevention equipment unit, as well as $3.34 in time value

of money costs. 22 

# As with the other requirements, th ere is a $4.01 recordkeeping component

($3.91 for 0.1 hours of clerical labor and $0.10 in operation and maintenance costs). For FCTs,

the total annual cost of this requir ement is $31,631.67 ($125+$3.34+$4.01*239). We assume

that the tanks associated with AHFDSs do not have spill prevention equipment, and therefore do

not require any spill prevention equipment tests. 23

19 

# This is an annual cost stemming from costs incurred due to finding problems earlier under the regulatory

requirements as compared with the baseline. See Ap pendix D for discussion on the time value of money.

20 

# This is an annual cost associated with the cost of finding issues requiring repair three years earlier as a

result of requiring operability tests every year. See Ap pendix D for discussion on the time value of money.

21 

# The time value of money cost falls since tests are required each year. For more information on how the

time value of money is calculated, see Chapter 3 and Appendix D.

22 

# This is an annual cost associated with the cost of finding issues requiring repair three years earlier as a

result of requiring the tightness test every year. See Appendix D for discussion on the time value of money.

23 

# The underground storage tanks associ ated with AHFDSs are typically intermediate tanks that are fed by

larger tanks through perm anently connected piping.

# A-14 

# Under Alternative Option 1, spill prevention equipm ent would have to be replaced every three

years, rather than being tested annually. Th e cost of replacing a sp ill bucket is $2,000 and the

recordkeeping component applies for each replaceme nt, so the total annual cost is calculated by

annualizing the cost of a $2,000 replacement plus $4.01 in recordkeeping every three years. This

cost is $182,508, or $763.63 ($2,004.01 annualized ove r three years with a seven percent

discount rate) times 239.

Testing after Repairs to Spill and Overfill Prevention Equipment

The proposed regulation requires spill preven tion equipment testing, overfill prevention

equipment testing, and the recordkeeping associated with both of these activ ities for all tanks that

have undergone repairs, includi ng FCTs and AHFDSs. We assume that 15.6 percent of all spill

prevention equipment requires repairs every year, as the average spill prevention equipment test

pass rate is 84.4 percent. 24 

# We also assume that 21.4 of all overfills require repairs every year, as

the average overfill equipment te st pass rate is 78.6 percent. 25 

# The testing costs associated with

these tests are the same as thos e stated in earlier sections. For FCTs, the total annual cost for

testing spill prevention equipment after repairs is $4,810.05 (($125+$4.01)*37.28, or 15.6

percent of 239 FCTs), and the total annual cost for testing overfill prevention equipment after

repairs is $11,150.40 (($214+$4.01)*51.15, or 21.4 percent of 239 FCTs). The total cost for this

requirement for FCTs comes out to $15.960.45.

The tanks associated with AHFDSs do not have spill prevention equipment. However, since the

overfill prevention equipment tests is performed on a per-tank basis, each AHFDS requiring a

repair incurs the testing cost for each of its tanks. We assume an average of eight tanks

associated with each AHFDS. Thus, for AHFDSs, the total annual cost for testing overfill

prevention equipment after repairs is $59,490.67 (($214*8+$4.01)*34.67, or 21.4 percent of 162

AHFDSs).

Ownership Change Notification

The proposed regulation requires no tification of ownership change s from all facilities changing

ownership. Each of these notif ications requires 0.25 manageri al hours, or $22.69. We assume

that one percent of all FCTs (2.39 FCTs) will change ownership every year. Thus, the total

annual cost for FCTs pertaining to this requirement is $54.22 ($22.69*2.39).

The costs incurred under this re quirement are identical for AHFDSs. The total annual cost for

AHFDSs is $36.75, or $22.69*1.62 (one pe rcent of existing AHFDSs).

Recordkeeping Associated with Compatibility

EPA assumes that existing AHFDSs and FCTs are not storing regulated substances blended with

more than ten percent alcohol, a nd therefore, owners and operato rs of these systems would not

24 

# Based on information on test pass rates for spill bucket sumps.

25 

# Based on information on test pass rates for overf ill alarms, flow restrictors, and automatic shutoff

devices.

# A-15 

# choose to demonstrate compatibil ity with those fuel blends. However, the proposed regulation

would require that owners and operators reta in equipment records for all new and replaced

equipment. EPA assumes that all owners and operators of these systems will incur this cost

annually as part of annual maintenance and replacement of UST system components. This

recordkeeping cost is $1.88 per re cord, plus $0.01 to permanently st ore the record. Total annual

recordkeeping costs associated with comp atibility are $2,895 ($1.89 * 239 FCTs + $1.89 * 162

AHFDSs * 8 UST systems per AHFDS).

Operator Training

The operator training requirement includes both the costs of tes ting and training operators, as

well as associated recor dkeeping. Testing and training costs in clude both yearly and first-year

costs. First-year costs are initia l training costs incurred by all facilities. Yearly costs are costs of

training new staff necessary to serve as operato rs. These costs are calculated according to the

methodology below.

For modeling purposes, we assume that each facility will require one Class A (managerial labor,

facilities), one Class B (technical labor, facilities ), and three Class C (military pay grade of E-6)

operators. 26 

# For Class A and B operators, we assume 20 percent “test out” and do not require

training. 27 

# For those testing out, the faci lity incurs the cost of a te st (assumed to be $60), as well

as the 1.5 hours necessary to take the test. 28,29 

# Because only 20 percent of operators “test out,”

the test costs are, on average, $39.22 for Class A operators and $34.14 for Class B operators, or

$60 plus (1.5* the labor rate)*0.2. For the 80 per cent that cannot “test out,” each operator must

take a no-cost online training that culminates in a final exam. The final exam costs $169, and the

training process requires ten hours of time. 30 

# Thus, the cost for operator training for those not

testing out is $861.18 for Class A operators and $725.58 for Class B operators, or $169 plus (10*

the labor rate)*0.8.

Class C operators are assumed to be trained by Class B operators. This training is assumed to

take one hour of time for the Class B operator, as well as one hour each for the Class C operators

being trained. Thus, the costs per facility for training Cl ass C operators are $144.83, or $73.80

(Class B operator hourly rate ) plus $66.56 (the hourly rate for three Class C operators). The total

one-year cost for a facility then, incurred in the first year that the Oper ator Training requirement

26 

# Assumption provided by OUST, September 8, 2009.

27 

# Assumption provided by OUST, September 10, 2009.

28 

# See Industrial Economics, Inc. “Draft Methodology for Assessing Cost-Effectiveness of Operator

Training Options,” Work Assi gnment 1-19, Task 4, December 30, 2008, page 12, Exhibit 2. Tests range from $45 to

$75; $60 is the average test cost.

29 

# See http://www.iccsafe.or g/certification/ust-ast/2009UST-AST.pdf , 1.5 hours is the length of California’s

test.

30 

# See http://www.petroleumtrainingsoluti ons.com/resources/ColoradoAB.pdf , the Colorado “webinar.”

The exam requires approximately two hours, and the training consists of two four-hour sessions, for a total of ten

hours.

# A-16 

# goes into effect, is $1,804.49, which, in its annualized form and incl uding recordkeeping costs, is

$170.33.

Yearly costs stem from turnover among operators, and the need to train new operators. Assuming

a turnover rate of 22 percent per year for all operators, and that 20 percent of new Class A and

Class B operators continue to “test” out while all new Class C operators must receive initial

training, we obtain yearly costs of $332.84: (0.2*0.8*$861.18 plus 0.2*Class A labor rate) plus

(0.2*0.8*$725.58 plus 0.2*Class B labor rate) plus ($140.35/3*0.66). 31



# For FCTs, operator training incurs a to tal annual cost of $119,299.92, or $170.33 plus $328.83

*239. For AHFDSs, operator training incurs a total annual cost of $80,864.38, or $170.33 plus

$328.83*162.

One-Time Notification of Existence

The proposed rule requires owners and operators of AHFDSs and FCTs to provide a one-time

notification to appropriate implem enting agencies that their systems exist. EPA assumes that it

will take 15 minutes of managerial labor to pr epare and submit the notification. For AHFDSs,

total annual costs is $3,675 (162 * 0.25 * $90.75) . Annualized over a 20-year regulatory

horizon, these costs are $347 per year. For FC Ts, total annual costs is $5,422 (239 * 0.25 *

$90.75). Annualized over a 20-year regulatory horizon, these costs are $512 per year.

31 

# We assume turnover rates for all classes to be be tween 20 and 24 percent pe r year; 22 percent is the

average turnover rate. For Class C operat ors, this means that there is an annu al turnover of 66 percent since we

assume three Class C operators per FCT/AHFDS.

# Draft Work Product - Do Not Cite Or Circulate



# Appendix B

Estimation of Affected UST Univ erse and Baseline State Regulations

# B-1 

# B.1 Assumptions used for Universe Affected by Each Proposed Change

For each requirement, only facilities in states th at do not already require each regulation will be

required to comply. This appendix presents EPA/OUST’s assumptions regarding the proportion

of facilities that will be subject to additional costs in these states.

The proportions presented below include all c onventional UST facilities and EGTs. Airport

hydrant field distribution systems (AHFDSs) a nd UST systems with field constructed tanks

(FCTs) exist in addition to the number of sy stems counted by EPA and require the following

under the proposed rule: walkthrough inspections; overfill prevention equi pment testing; spill

prevention equipment testing; spill and overfill pr evention equipment, and interstitial integrity

testing after repairs; change of ownership notification; operator training; and one-time

notification of existence.

EGTs are included among conventional USTs, excep t in the case of Alte rnative Option 2, where

the deferrals remain in place. In that instance, we exclude EGTs from the universes affected

under operability testing, addition of SIR/CITLD to regulations with pe rformance criteria, and

adjustment of release detection leak rate probabilities. Under th e Preferred Option and

Alternative Option 1, we include EGTs in the universes of those calculations.

B.1.1 Release Prevention

Walkthrough Inspections

• Requirement applies per facility.

• All facilities will be required to comply.

• In states where some walkthrough inspections are already required, owners and operators

will be required to conduct additional walkth rough inspections. For example, if a state

currently requires owners/opera tors to do one walkthrough in spection per year, they will

now be required to conduct 11 additi onal walkthrough inspections per year.

Overfill prevention equipment tests

• Requirement applies per UST system.

• One overfill device per UST system.

• All facilities with overfill devices (i.e., all facilities) are required to comply.

Spill prevention equipment tests

• Requirement applies per UST system.

• One set of spill prevention equipment (e.g., spill bucket) per UST system.

# B-2 

# • OUST assumes that 10 percent of existing spill prevention equipment is double-walled

and has a self-monitoring mechanis m to detect potential releases.

• Remaining 90 percent of spill prevention equipment will need to test.

Interstitial integrity tests

• Requirement applies per UST system.

• According to an analysis performed by E 2 

# Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 5, 19.76 percent of

the universe of UST systems uses interstiti al monitoring. OUST assumes that 95 percent

of these use continuous sensors, pressure, vacuum or liquid filled leak detection

monitoring mechanisms, and therefore do not need to perform an integrity test.

Consequently, 0.99 percent of the univer se of tanks will require this test.

• The same analysis shows that 18.30 percent of piping uses interstitial monitoring. OUST

assumes that 10 percent of pipes use conti nuous pressure, vacuum or liquid filled leak

detection monitoring mechanisms, and therefore do not need to perform an integrity test.

Consequently, 16.47 percent of piping systems will require this test.

Spill prevention equipment test after repair

• Requirement applies per UST system.

• OUST assumes that 75 percent of spill prevention equipment is replaced, rather than

repaired.

• OUST assumes that spill prevention equipment re quires repair every 4 years, such that 25

percent of the universe is affected each year.

• Implies 6.25 percent of UST systems require testing each year.

Overfill prevention equipment test after repair

• Based on an analysis performed by E 2 

# Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 7, OUST assumes that

100 percent of tanks have an overfill device.

• OUST assumes that these devices require repa irs every 5 years. This implies 20 percent

of the universe is affected each year.

• OUST assumes that 75 percent of these repair s result in replacement rather than repair.

• Implies five percent of UST sy stems require testing each year.

Interstitial integrity test after repair

# B-3 

# • Results of analyses and assumptions used for interstitial integrity testing suggest that 0.99

percent of the universe of UST systems uses a type of monitori ng that would require

integrity testing (see above).

• OUST assumes that an UST requires repair onc e every 20 years. This means five percent

of the universe is affected each year. Toge ther these assumptions imply 0.05 percent of

UST systems require this type of testing each year.

• Similarly, 16.47 percent of piping uses a type of monitoring that woul d require interstitial

integrity testing.

• OUST assumes that piping requir es repair once every 5 years, which means 20 percent of

the universe is affected each year. Together, these assumptions imply 3.29 percent of

piping systems require this type of testing each year.

Eliminate flow restrictors in vent lines as ove rfill prevention option for all new tanks and when

overfill devices are replaced

• Requirement applies per UST system.

• OUST assumes that UST systems are replaced ev ery 20 years. This means five percent

of the universe is replaced each year.

• OUST assumes that 13 percent of all new tanks would have installed flow restrictors.

This implies that the total uni verse affected by this requireme nt each year is 0.65 percent.

• Correspondingly, at the midpoint of population turnover, which occurs in Year 10, 6.5

percent of the universe will be affected by this requirement.

B.1.2 Release Detection

Operability test for automatic tank gauges (ATGs)

• Requirement applies per UST system.

• According to an analysis performed by E 2 

# Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 5, 33.66 percent of

the universe of UST systems uses an automa tic tank gauge as thei r release detection

method.

• Each UST system using an automatic tank gauge is required to comply.

Operability test for interstitial monitoring

• Requirement applies per UST system.

• According to an analysis performed by E 2 

# Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 5, 19.76 percent of

the universe of UST systems uses interstiti al monitoring. However, OUST assumes that

five percent of tanks with interstices us e manual testing and therefore would not be

# B-4 

# required to conduct operability tests. As a result, we estimate that 18.77 percent of the

universe of UST systems is required to comply with this requirement.

Operability test for line leak detection (LLD)

• Requirement applies per UST system.

• This requirement applies to all UST systems that use pressurized pi ping delivery systems.

• According to an analysis performed by E 2 

# Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 5, 82.44 percent of

the universe of UST systems uses a pressurized piping product delivery system. Of these,

33.42 percent use electronic line leak detec tion, and 66.58 percent use mechanical line

leak detection. As a result, EPA estimates that 27.55 percent of all UST systems use

electronic line leak detection for their pressurized piping de livery system. EPA assumes

that all of these systems will incur the cost of operability testing and the associated costs

related to necessary repairs that may result from the testing.

• In addition, for the 54.89 percent of all UST systems that use mechanical line leak

detection for their pressurized piping product de livery system, EPA assumes that they are

currently conducting an annual operability test. For m odeling purposes, however, EPA

does include the costs associated with any n ecessary repairs to the mechanical line leak

detector that may result from this test.

Elimination of vapor and groundwater mon itoring as release detection methods

• Requirement applies per UST system.

• According to an analysis performed by E 2 

# Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 5, five percent of

the universe of UST systems uses vapor m onitoring, and 5.51 percent of the universe of

UST systems uses groundwater monitoring. Of these, 1.07 percent use only groundwater

monitoring; 1.54 percent us e only vapor monitoring; and 2.56 percent use both

groundwater and vapor monitoring.

• Each UST system using vapor or groundwat er monitoring as their primary release

detection method is required to comply.

Add SIR or CITLD to certain regula tions with performance criteria

• Requirement applies per UST system

• According to an analysis performed by E 2 

# Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 5, 12.96 percent of

the universe of UST systems uses st atistical inventor y reconciliation.

• OUST assumes 15 percent of these UST systems will be affected because they currently

use methods that report only qualitative SIR re sults. Furthermore, OUST assumes that of

these, only 25 percent will incur costs to co mply with this requirement (i.e., these will

need to change service providers to obtain quantitative SIR results). As a result, this

requirement affects 0.05 percent of the universe of UST systems.

# B-5 

# Adjust release detection probability of detec tion and false alarm for automatic tank gauges

• Requirement applies per UST system

• According to an analysis performed by E 2 

# Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 5, 33.66 percent of

the universe of UST systems uses an automa tic tank gauge as a release detection method.

• Each UST system using an automatic tank gauge is required to comply.

Adjust release detection probability of detec tion and false alarm for line leak detection

• Requirement applies per UST system

• This requirement applies to those UST syst ems using pressurized piping product delivery

systems.

• According to an analysis performed by E 2 

# Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 5, 82.44 percent of

the universe of UST systems uses a pre ssurized piping product delivery system, and

33.42 percent of the universe of UST systems us es electronic line leak detection. As a

result, the 27.55 percent of the universe of UST systems that use electronic line leak

detection and a pressurized piping product de livery system must comply with this

requirement.

Adjust release detection probability of detection and false alarm for SIR

• Requirement applies per UST system

• According to an analysis performed by E 2 

# Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 5, 12.96 percent of

the universe of UST systems uses statistica l inventory reconcilia tion. OUST assumes 15

percent of these UST systems will be affected because they currently use methods that

report only qualitative SIR results. As a result, 1.94 percent of the universe of UST

systems would have to comply with this requirement.

Adjust release detection probability of detection and false alarm for CITLD

• Requirement applies per UST system

• According to an analysis performed by E 2 

# Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 5, 33.66 percent of

the universe of UST systems uses an auto matic tank gauge as a method of release

detection. Of the UST systems using an au tomatic tank gauge as a method of release

detection, OUST assumes that 75 percent use CITLD. As a result, 25.25 percent of the

universe of UST systems must co mply with this requirement.

# B-6 

# Require response to interstitial monitoring alarms

• Requirement applies per UST system

• According to an analysis performed by E 2 

# Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 5, 19.76 percent of

the universe of UST systems contains ta nks using interstiti al monitoring, and 18.30

percent of the universe of UST systems cont ains piping using interstitial monitoring.

• OUST assumes that three percent of alarms associated with tanks and ten percent of

alarms associated with piping activate annuall y. This implies that each year, 0.59 percent

of the UST universe consists of tanks using interstitial monitoring w ith alarms activating,

and 1.83 percent of the UST universe consists of piping using interst itial monitoring with

alarms activating.

• Correspondingly, 2.42 percent of the UST univers e must comply with this requirement.

Remove deferrals for EGTs

• All EGTs in states that have not already removed deferrals must comply with this

requirement.

• OUST estimates that three percent of all US T systems are EGTs. This does not include

nuclear EGTs.

B.1.3 Other

Remove deferrals for AHFDSs

• All AHFDSs with associated UST systems must comply with this requirement.

• OUST estimates that 162 AHFDS s have associated UST systems and will be affected by

this requirement. 1



# Remove deferrals for FCTs

• All FCTs must comply with this requirement.

• OUST estimates that 239 FCTs will be affected by this requirement. 2



# Notification of ownership changes

1 

# See Industrial Economics, Inc ., “Preliminary Assessment and Scoping of Data Related to Potential

Revisions to the UST Regulations; Tasks 2-4, Work Assignment 1-25,” November 20, 2008. There are 201 airport

hydrant fuel distribution systems owned by the Department of Defense and 40 airport hydrant fuel distribution

systems located at commercial airports . Of these, 162 are not fueled by ab ove-ground storage tanks (two commercial

airport facilities have UST systems, along with 16 0 of the 201 Department of Defense systems).

2 

# Ibid.

# B-7 

# • Requirement applies per facility.

• According to an analysis performed by E 2 

# Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 27, on average,

approximately ten percent of facilities unde rgo an ownership change each year.

Closure of lined tanks that cannot be repaired accord ing to a code of practice

• Requirement applies per UST system.

• According to an analysis performed by E 2 

# Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 5, five percent of all

UST systems are lined tanks.

• According to an analysis performed by E 2 

# Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 17, twelve percent

of UST systems with lined tanks do not pass an inspection per year. Furthermore, 23

percent of the UST systems that cannot pa ss an inspection cannot be repaired in

accordance with a code of practice.

• OUST assumes that 10 percent of line d tanks are inspected each year.

• As a result, 0.01 percent of the universe of UST systems must comply with this

requirement.

Requirements for determining compatibility

• For existing UST systems, owners must be able to maintain records to demonstrate that

their UST system is compatible with the fuel stored. In order to do this, owners must

have existing records indicating what equipment has al ready been installed, and that

equipment is compatible with alcohol blends greater than ten percent. EPA assumes that

ten percent of existing owners would have adequate installation records. EPA also

assumes these owners would maintain reco rds and demonstrate compatibility on a per

UST system basis.

• For all new and replaced equipment, owners must maintain records for the life of the

UST system, including date of installation or replacement, manufacturer, and model.

EPA assumes one instance of equipmen t replacement per system per year.

B.1.4 Energy Policy Act-related Provisions

Operator training

• Requirement applies per facility.

• Requirement applies to all f acilities in Indian country. OUST estimates that there are

currently 958 facilities in Indian country.

Secondary containment for new and replaced tanks

# B-8 

# • Requirement applies per UST system.

• Requirement applies to all US T systems in Indian country.

• OUST assumes that USTs are replaced every 20 years. This implies five percent of the

universe is replaced each year.

• According to a Tribal Data Analysis performed by E 2 

# Inc., 72.36 percent of tanks in

Indian country are single-walled.

• This means that in year 10, at the midpoi nt of population turnove r, 36.18 percent of all

tanks will have been required to comply with this requirement.

Threshold at which piping must be replaced rather than repaired

• Requirement applies per UST system.

• Requirement applies to all US T systems in Indian country.

• OUST assumes that interstitial piping n eeds to be repaired every five years.

• According to a Tribal Data Analysis performed by E 2 

# Inc., 60.30 percent of piping

associated with UST systems is single-walled.

• Because EPA’s supplemental piping analysis suggests that no systems would incur

incremental costs under a requirement to repla ce all piping if more than 50 percent of

piping is replaced, no systems in Indian country are affected.

Under-dispenser containment for all new dispensers

• Requirement applies per UST system.

• Two under-dispenser containment devices per UST system.

• Requirement applies to all US T systems in Indian country.

• OUST assumes that an UST system is replaced every 20 years. This means five percent

of the universe is replaced each year.

• According to an analysis performed by E 2 

# Inc, if 5 percent of the universe is replaced

each year, 4.85 percent of the UST systems in Indian country must comply with this

requirement each year.

• This means that at year 10, the midpoint of population turnover, 48.50 percent of the UST

systems in Indian country will have complied with this requirement.

# B-9 

# B. 2 Assessment of State Regulatory Universes

This section provides information on current state regulatory environm ents as they pertain to the

proposed requirements of the regulatory universe. Within the tables below, each requirement of

the proposed rule has a value for each state. Wher e the cell for a given stat e and requirement pair

contains a zero, this indicates that the state does not have a similar requirement already in place.

Where the cell for a given state and requirement pair contains a value, the meaning of this value

varies according to the requirement in question:

• Walkthrough inspections – the monthly freque ncy within which inspections are required

(a “12” in a cell indicates th at the state requires annual wa lkthrough inspections, a “1” in

a cell indicates that the state requi res monthly walkthrough inspections)

• Overfill prevention equipment tests – the m onthly frequency within which testing is

required

• Spill prevention equipment tests – the monthly frequency within which testing is required

• Interstitial integrity tests – the monthly frequency within whic h testing is required

• Spill prevention equipment test after repair – a “1” in a cell indicates that the state

requires testing after repair

• Overfill prevention equipment test after repair – a “1” in a cell indicates that the state

requires testing after repair

• Interstitial integrity test after repair – a “1 ” in a cell indicates that the state requires

testing after repair

• Eliminate flow restrictors in vent lines as overfill prevention option for all new tanks and

when overfill devices are replaced – a “1” in a cell indicates that the state has this

requirement in place

• Operability test for ATGs – the monthly fr equency within which testing is required

• Operability test for interstitial monitoring – th e monthly frequency within which testing is

required

• Operability test for vapor monitoring – the monthly frequency within which testing is

required

• Operability test for groundwater monitori ng – the monthly frequency within which

testing is required

• Operability test for mechanical line leak de tection – the monthly frequency within which

testing is required

# B-10 

# • Operability test for electronic line leak de tection – the monthly frequency within which

testing is required

• Adding SIR/CITLD to regulations with perfor mance criteria – a “1” in a cell indicates

that the state has this requirement in place

• Adjusting release detection leak rate for ATGs – the required leak rate probability of

detection and false alarm (Pd/Pfa) within the state

• Adjusting release detection leak rate for LLD s – the required leak rate probability of

detection and false alarm (Pd/Pfa) within the state

• Adjusting release detection leak rate for SI R – the required leak rate probability of

detection and false alarm (Pd/Pfa) within the state

• Adjusting release detection leak rate for CITLD – the required leak rate probability of

detection and false alarm (Pd/Pfa) within the state

• Deferrals removal for EGTs – a “1” in a cell in dicates that the state has this requirement

in place

• Deferrals removal for AHFDSs – a “1” in a cell indicates that the state has this

requirement in place

• Deferrals removal for FCTs – a “1” in a cell in dicates that the state has this requirement

in place

• Notification of ownership change – a “1” in a cell indicates that the state has this

requirement in place

• Closure of lined tanks that canno t be repaired according to a code of practice – a “1” in a

cell indicates that the state has this requirement in place

• Response to interstitial monitoring alarms – a “1 ” in a cell indicates th at the state has this

requirement in place

• Operator training – a “1” in a cell indicates that the state has this requirement in place

• Secondary containment for new and replaced ta nks – a “1” in a cell indicates that the

state has this requirement in place; “0” indicates that it does not. For modeling purposes,

EPA is applying this requirement only to Indian country.

• Threshold for pipe replacement – the percenta ge threshold for pipe replacement within

the state. For modeling purposes, EPA is a pplying this requirement only to Indian

country.

# B-11 

# • Under-dispenser containment – a “1” in a cell in dicates that the state has this requirement

in place. For modeling purposes, EPA is a pplying this requirement only to Indian

country.

Subsequent to the completion of this analys is, EPA identified several changes in state

regulations that affect its estimates of the cost of the proposed rule. These are as follows:

• Walkthrough inspections: TN re vised from one to three;

• Overfill prevention equipment testing: RI revi sed from six to 24, TX revised from one to

zero;

• Interstitial integrity testing: NC revised from 12 to 36, RI revised from 24 to zero.

EPA estimates that, in total, th e changes to these input s increase the total cost of the proposed

rule by approximately $5 million. EPA will update its RIA for the final rule to reflect these and

any further changes to state regulatory requirements that have since occurred.B-12Proposed Regulatory Change*StateState nameWalkthroughinspectionsOverfillpreventionequipmenttestsSpillpreventionequipmenttestsInterstitialintegritytestsSpill preventionequipment testafter repairOverfill preventionequipment test afterrepairInterstitialintegrity testafter repairElimination offlow restrictors invent linesAK Alaska 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0AL Alabama 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0AR Arkansas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0AS American Samoa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0AZ Arizona 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0CA California 1 12 12 36 0 0 1 0CO Colorado 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0CT Connecticut 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0DC District of Columbia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0DE Delaware 0 0 12 12 0 0 1 1FL Florida 0 0 12 36 0 0 1 0GA Georgia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GU Guam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0HI Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0IA Iowa 0 0 0 24 0 0 1 0Tribal Tribal lands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0ID Idaho 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0IL Illinois 0 0 0 36 0 0 1 1IN Indiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0KS Kansas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0KY Kentucky 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LA Louisiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0MA Massachusetts 1 36 0 0 0 0 0 0MD Maryland 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0ME Maine 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 1MI Michigan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0MN Minnesota 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0MO Missouri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0MPNorthern MarianaIslands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0MS Mississippi 0 12 12 12 0 1 1 0B-13Proposed Regulatory Change*StateState nameWalkthroughinspectionsOverfillpreventionequipmenttestsSpillpreventionequipmenttestsInterstitialintegritytestsSpill preventionequipment testafter repairOverfill preventionequipment test afterrepairInterstitialintegrity testafter repairElimination offlow restrictors invent linesMT Montana 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0NC North Carolina 0 0 36 36 0 0 1 0ND North Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NE Nebraska 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1NH New Hampshire 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NJ New Jersey 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NM New Mexico 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NV Nevada 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NY New York 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0OH Ohio 12 12 0 12 0 0 1 0OK Oklahoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0OR Oregon 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0PA Pennsylvania 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 1PR Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0RI Rhode Island 24 24 0 0 0 0 1 1SC South Carolina 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0SD South Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0TN Tennessee 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0TX Texas 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1UT Utah 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0VA Virginia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0VI Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0VT Vermont 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0WA Washington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0WI Wisconsin 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0WV West Virginia 0 0 0 36 0 0 1 0WY Wyoming 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0*Subsequent to the completion of this analysis, EPA identified several changes in state regulations that affect its estimates of the cost of the proposed rule. These are as follows:walkthrough inspections - TN revised from oneto three; overfill prevention equipment testing - RI revised from six to 24, TX revised from one to zero; interstitial integrity testing -NC revised from 12 to 36, RI revised from 24 to zero. EPA estimatesthat, in total, the changes to these inputs increase the total cost of the proposed rule by approximately $5million. EPA will update its RIA for the final rule to reflect these and any further changes that have since occurred.B-14Proposed Regulatory ChangeStateState nameOperabilitytest -ATGsOperabilitytest -IMOperability test -vapormonitoringOperabilitytest -groundwatermonitoringOperability test -ELLDOperabilitytest -MLLDAddSIR/CITLDAdjustingreleasedetectionleak rates- ATGAdjustingreleasedetectionleak rates- LLDAdjustingreleasedetectionleak rates- SIRAdjustingreleasedetectionleak rates- CITLDDeferralsremoval -EGTsDeferralsremoval -AHFDSsDeferralsremoval -FCTsAK Alaska 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.05 0.95/.050.95/.050.95/.051 1 1AL Alabama 0 0 0 0 0 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.051 0 0AR Arkansas 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0AS American Samoa 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0AZ Arizona 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.051 0 0CA California 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.051 1 1CO Colorado 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0CT Connecticut 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0DCDistrict ofColumbia 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.051 0 0DE Delaware 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.051 0 0FL Florida 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 1 1GA Georgia 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0GU Guam 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.051 1 1HI Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0IA Iowa 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0Tribal Tribal lands 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0ID Idaho 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.051 1 1IL Illinois 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.051 0 0IN Indiana 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0KS Kansas 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0KY Kentucky 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0LA Louisiana 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0MA Massachusetts 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 1 1MD Maryland 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 1 1ME Maine 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.051 1 1MI Michigan 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0MN Minnesota 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 1B-15Proposed Regulatory ChangeStateState nameOperabilitytest -ATGsOperabilitytest -IMOperability test -vapormonitoringOperabilitytest -groundwatermonitoringOperability test -ELLDOperabilitytest -MLLDAddSIR/CITLDAdjustingreleasedetectionleak rates- ATGAdjustingreleasedetectionleak rates- LLDAdjustingreleasedetectionleak rates- SIRAdjustingreleasedetectionleak rates- CITLDDeferralsremoval -EGTsDeferralsremoval -AHFDSsDeferralsremoval -FCTsMO Missouri 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0MPNorthernMariana Islands 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0MS Mississippi 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0MT Montana 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.051 0 0NC North Carolina 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0ND North Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0NE Nebraska 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0NH New Hampshire 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.051 1 1NJ New Jersey 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 1 1NM New Mexico 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.051 0 0NV Nevada 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0NY New York 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.051 1 1OH Ohio 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0OK Oklahoma 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 1OR Oregon 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0PA Pennsylvania 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 1 1PR Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.051 0 1RI Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.051 1 1SC South Carolina 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0SD South Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 1 1TN Tennessee 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0TX Texas 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.051 1 1UT Utah 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0VA Virginia 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0VI Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0VT Vermont 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.051 1 1WA Washington 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.051 0 0WI Wisconsin 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.051 0 0WV West Virginia 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050 0 0B-16Proposed Regulatory ChangeStateState nameOperabilitytest -ATGsOperabilitytest -IMOperability test -vapormonitoringOperabilitytest -groundwatermonitoringOperability test -ELLDOperabilitytest -MLLDAddSIR/CITLDAdjustingreleasedetectionleak rates- ATGAdjustingreleasedetectionleak rates- LLDAdjustingreleasedetectionleak rates- SIRAdjustingreleasedetectionleak rates- CITLDDeferralsremoval -EGTsDeferralsremoval -AHFDSsDeferralsremoval -FCTsWY Wyoming 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.95/.050.95/.050.95/.050.95/.051 0 0B-17Proposed Regulatory ChangeStateState nameNotification ofownershipchangeClosure ofirreparable linedtanksResponse tointerstitialmonitoringalarmsOperatortrainingSecondarycontainment - newand replaced tanks(Indian CountryOnly)Threshold forpipereplacement(%)UnderdispensercontainmentAK Alaska 1 0 0 1 0 1AL Alabama 1 0 0 1 0.05 1AR Arkansas 1 0 0 1 0.05 0AS American Samoa 1 0 0 1 0 0AZ Arizona 0 0 0 1 0.25 0CA California 1 0 1 1 0 1CO Colorado 1 0 0 1 0.5 0CT Connecticut 1 1 0 1 0 0DC District of Columbia 1 0 0 1 1 0DE Delaware 1 1 1 1 0 1FL Florida 1 1 1 1 0 1GA Georgia 0 0 0 1 0.25 0GU Guam 1 0 0 1 0 0HI Hawaii 1 0 0 1 0 0IA Iowa 1 0 1 1 0.1 1Tribal Tribal lands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0ID Idaho 0 0 0 1 0 0IL Illinois 1 1 1 1 0.2 1IN Indiana 1 1 0 1 0.5 0KS Kansas 1 0 0 1 0 0KY Kentucky 1 0 0 1 0 0LA Louisiana 1 0 0 1 0.25 1MA Massachusetts 1 0 0 1 0 1MD Maryland 1 1 0 1 0.4 1ME Maine 1 1 0 1 0 1MI Michigan 1 1 0 1 0.5 0MN Minnesota 1 1 1 1 0.1 1MO Missouri 1 0 0 1 0 0MP Northern Mariana Islands 1 0 0 1 0 0B-18Proposed Regulatory ChangeStateState nameNotification ofownershipchangeClosure ofirreparable linedtanksResponse tointerstitialmonitoringalarmsOperatortrainingSecondarycontainment - newand replaced tanks(Indian CountryOnly)Threshold forpipereplacement(%)UnderdispensercontainmentMS Mississippi 1 0 1 1 1 1MT Montana 1 0 0 1 0.5 1NC North Carolina 0 0 1 1 0 0ND North Dakota 0 0 0 1 0.1 1NE Nebraska 1 0 0 1 0.1 0NH New Hampshire 1 1 0 1 1 1NJ New Jersey 1 0 0 1 0 0NM New Mexico 1 0 0 1 0.05 1NV Nevada 0 0 0 1 1 0NY New York 1 0 0 1 1 0OH Ohio 1 1 1 1 0 0OK Oklahoma 1 1 0 1 0.2 1OR Oregon 1 0 0 1 1 0PA Pennsylvania 1 1 0 1 0.5 1PR Puerto Rico 1 0 0 1 0 0RI Rhode Island 1 0 1 1 1 0SC South Carolina 0 0 0 1 0.25 0SD South Dakota 1 0 0 1 0.25 1TN Tennessee 1 0 0 1 1 0TX Texas 1 0 0 1 0.2 1UT Utah 1 0 0 1 0.99 0VA Virginia 1 0 0 1 0.5 0VI Virgin Islands 0 0 0 1 0 0VT Vermont 1 1 0 1 0 1WA Washington 1 0 0 1 0 0WI Wisconsin 1 0 0 1 0.2 0WV West Virginia 1 0 1 1 0.5 1WY Wyoming 1 0 0 1 1 1

# Appendix C

Analysis of Piping Replacement Thresholds

# 1

October 28, 2009 

# MEMORANDUM | December 31, 2009

TO 

# Cho-Yi Kwan, EPA

FROM 

# Cynthia Manson, IEc

SUBJECT 

# Assessment of Piping Systems Affected ( on Tribal Lands)Under Different Potential

Regulatory Thresholds (WA 2-25, Task 8)

This document outlines IEc’s methodology for estimating the number of units affected by

secondary containment regulations on pi ping on Tribal Lands. The accompanying

spreadsheet (“Calculations”) is organized to identify the distribution of piping repairs of

different lengths.

KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND INPUTS FOR REVIEW



# Below we outline key elements and assumptions that drive the analysis. The most

important elements are the total number of pipes requiring repair in a year, and the

patterns of repairs for different piping types:

1. Number of Events: Based on information provided by EPA, 1 

# we estimate that

20 percent of Tribal piping systems ( 442 systems ) require repair in a year (piping

repairs required once in five years). This differs significantly from our previous

assumption that piping repairs occur wh en releases occur. Using end-of-year

data and autopsy data, we previously estimated that approximately 24 releases

occur on Tribal lands and 31percent of tho se releases are related to piping, for a

total of approximately 7 releases.

2. Distribution of Piping Systems by Type: Previous data provided by EPA

indicate that, of the piping systems located on Tribal lands (2208), 54 percent are

fiberglass systems, 22 percent are flex-pipe systems, and 25 percent are steel pipe

systems.



# 3. Fiberglass Repairs: Conversations with John Kneece and Marcel Moreau are

consistent with earlier informa tion collected, and indicate that:

a. Fiberglass piping is “virtually always” damaged as a result of “trauma” –

or some accident that damages the pipe (e.g., a backhoe). We interpret

this to mean that roughly 90 percent of fiberglass piping is repaired to

correct trauma.

b. Trauma-related repairs to fiberglass pipe typically involve small (roughly

5-foot or less) sections of pipe.

c. Repairs not related to trauma are related to “failure” – or structural issues

related to the piping. For fiberglass th is is nearly always a problem with

glue, and the entire run must be replaced/repaired. We assume that 10

1 

# PEI indicated that repairs to the in terstitial space of piping (including repairs of secondarily-contained piping sumps)

occur once every five years. We assume th is repair frequency fo r all piping systems.

# 2

October 28, 2009 

# percent of fiberglass repairs therefore involve replacement of 100 feet

(100 percent) of piping.

4. Flex-pipe Repairs: Conversations with John Kneece and Marcel Moreau are

also consistent with earlier information collected, and indicate that:

a. Flex-piping is damaged as a result of trauma “most” of the time. We

interpret this to mean that roughly 80 percent of flex-piping is repaired

to correct trauma.

b. Trauma-related repairs to flex-piping require replacement of an entire

portion (section) of a piping run; based on conversations with EPA, we

estimate that a typical UST would have one section of 50 feet and three

section of 16.7 feet. We therefore assume that a typical repair would

involve 16.7 feet of flex-piping.

c. Repairs due to failure in flex-piping typically involve connection or

compatibility issues; in both cases the entire run must be replaced. We

assume that 20 percent of flex-piping repairs therefore involve

replacement of 100 feet (100 percent) of piping.

5. Steel Pipe Repairs: A conversation with John Kneece on October 9, 2009 is

again, consistent with earlier, more ge neral conversations, and indicates that:

a. The majority (75 percent) of repairs to steel piping is associated with

failure; only 25 percent of repairs to steel piping are related to trauma.

b. For all repairs to steel piping, the length of pipe requiring repair varies

across lengths with equal probability, though trauma-related repairs are

typically smaller than failure-related repairs. We therefore assume that

100 percent of trauma-related repairs range from 10 to 50 feet in length.

For failure related repairs, we assume that 50 percent of failure-related

repairs range from 10 to 50 feet in length. We assume that the

remaining 50 percent of failure-related repairs are greater than 50 feet

in length.

6. Full Replacement Threshold: Consistent with earlier cost analysis, we assume

that repairs over 50 feet would result in full replacement of pipes in the baseline.

Prior analysis suggested that the breakeven point was roughly 58 feet, but this is

subject to uncertainty, and we use 50 feet in this analysis.

KEY ANALYTIC ASSUMPTIONS



# While we have information on the number of repairs required (see item 1 above) we must

estimate the distribution of these repairs acr oss piping types. To accomplish this, we

assume the following:

• Trauma-related repairs are distributed proportionately across facilities and

piping. We assume that these events occur rand omly, and therefore, they would occur

equally across piping types. 

# To satisfy the proportions of trauma:failure repairs for

each piping type (as described in items 3 through 5 above), we determine that 54

percent of repairs (238) are trauma-related.

# 3

October 28, 2009 

# • Based on the assumptions outlined above, we assume that the following pipes

would be replaced in the baseline, and are unaffected by the rule:

o All fiberglass failure-related repairs;

o All flex-pipe failure-related repairs;

o All steel pipe failure-related repair s over 50 feet (50 percent of all

steel pipe failure-related repairs).

• Steel pipe replacement curve: to approximate steel pipe repairs without

programming a continuous curve, we even ly distribute baseline repair lengths

across five 8-foot intervals ranging from 10 feet to 50 feet.

RESULTS



# The analysis concludes the following:



# • Of 442 repairs to pipes on Tribal lands, 235 involve steel pipes, 142 involve

fiberglass pipes, and the remaining 65 involve flex-pipes.

• The 142 fiberglass pipe repairs (32 percent of all repairs) are unaffected by the

rule, because they are either too short (i.e., fi ve feet or less) to trigger a threshold,

or are already replaced in the baseline.

• Another 101 repairs (23 percent) are unaffected by the rule because they

represent full replacement in the baseline (13 flex-pipe replacements and 88 steel

pipe replacements).

• The remaining 199 (45 percent) repairs could potentially trigger full replacements

under the rule, depending on the threshold. At a threshold of 10 feet, all 199

repairs, including 52 trauma-related re pairs to flex-pipe, would require

replacement. At thresholds equal to or great than 20 feet, only steel piping (88

piping systems) is affected by the rule.

Exhibit 1 below summarizes the number of systems affected (i.e., the number of systems

that would require replacement instead of repair) at different regulatory thresholds.

EXHIBIT 1: ANNUAL NUMBER OF SYSTEMS AFFE CTED UNDER DIFFERENT REGULATORY THRESHOLDS

THRESHOLD NUMBER OF SYSTEMS A FFECTED TYPE OF SYSTEMS AFFECTED



# 10% threshold 199 (45%) Steel (147 systems)

Flex-pipe (52 systems)

15% threshold 170 (38%) Steel (118 systems)

Flex-pipe (52 systems)

20% threshold 88 (20%) Steel (88 systems)

25% threshold 88 (20%) Steel (88 systems)

40% threshold 29 (7%) Steel (29 systems)

50% threshold 0 (0 %) None

# Appendix C

Analysis of Piping Replacement Thresholds

[continued]

# 3 October 2008 

# MEMORANDUM | 3 October 2008

TO 

# Cho Yi Kwan and Timothy Roberts, U.S. EPA

FROM 

# N eal Etre and Cynthia Manson, Industrial Economics, Inc.

SUBJECT 

# Methodology for Secondary Containment for Piping (Work Assignment 1-19, Task 5)

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA 's) Office of Underground Storage Tanks

(OUST) is currently exploring options relate d to federal rulemaking action(s) associated

with implementing provisions of Title XV, S ubtitle B of the Energy Policy Act of 2005

(entitled the Underground Storage Tank Co mpliance Act of 2005). The Energy Policy

Act expands eligible uses of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund

and includes provisions regarding inspections , operator training, delivery prohibition,

secondary containment and fina ncial responsibility, and cleanup of releases that contain

oxygenated fuel additives.

Concerning secondary containment, the Ener gy Policy Act (EPAct) specifically amends

Section 9003 of the SWDA to require states receiving Subtitle I funding to implement

secondary containment measures for USTs locat ed within 1,000 feet of any existing

community water system or any existing potable drinking water well (secondary

containment provision) or require fina ncial responsibility for manufacturers and

installers. Currently, EPA is exploring options associated with implementing the

secondary containment provision.

One option under consideration requires sec ondary containment for “replaced” piping,

but not for “repaired” piping. In order to implement this requirement, EPA needs a clear

definition for when piping is considered to be “replaced.” Currently, EPA’s “Grant

Guidelines to States for Implementing the Secondary Containment Provisions of the

Energy Policy Act of 2005”, published in Nove mber 2006, allows states to determine the

definition of “replaced” piping. An EPA de finition of replaced piping would in some

cases take the place of state definitions.

To assist EPA in exploring this option, I ndustrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc) is

developing an approach for assessing the co st to a typical UST facility based on the

following definitions for “replaced” piping:

• Piping replacement defined by a fixed footage of piping;

• Piping replacement defined by a fixed per centage of the overall piping length; and

• Piping replacement defined by a fixed percentage of the cost of replacing the

entire piping run with secondary containment.

This memorandum outlines a draft methodology for assessing costs to a typical UST

facility based on the three options for defini ng “replaced” piping. After a brief discussion

on the secondary containment provision and owner/operator behavior, we outline a BACKGROUND AND

INTRODUCTION

# 2

3 October 2008 

# preliminary methodology to analyze the differe nces in potential costs to a “typical” UST

facility associated with the different definiti ons of “replaced” piping. To explain the

methodology, we use previously collected EPA data and additi onal research conducted

under this effort. Finally, we present some initial findings based on available cost data,

and note key limitations, uncertainties, and potential next steps.

Note that we developed this memorandum as a companion to an Excel-based model that

will allow EPA to explore the potential co sts associated with the definitions for

“replaced” piping. The model will provide EPA with the flexibility to adjust the various

assumptions, including costs, length of piping, and the definition triggers for “replaced”

piping.

Secondary containment for piping refers to release prevention and release detection

systems for piping connected to UST system s. The 2006 Grant Guidelines state that

release prevention involves piping having an inner and outer barrier. The release

detection system involves monitoring the in terstitial space between the inner and outer

barriers for evidence of a leak or release of regulated substances. 1 

# Many UST facilities

that do not have secondary containment use “single-walled” piping. Without the

additional leak barrier and opportunity for straightforward monitoring, single-walled

piping presents a higher potential for releases of regulated substances to the environment.

The EPAct secondary containment provisi on requires the installation of secondary

containment for “replaced” piping, but not “r epaired” piping. If an owner/operator’s

actions trigger the definition of “replaced” at a facility with single-wall piping, then the

owner would be required to install secondary containment for the entire piping run, and

not just replace the portion that required main tenance. For the replacement definitions

investigated in this analysis, EPA has dete rmined that a piping run includes the piping

from a single tank to its associated dispensers. A typical facility has multiple piping runs.

If a replacement was triggered, the owner/ope rator would only be required to replace the

affected piping run. 2 

# For a repair of single-walled piping, an owner would not install

secondary containment. Therefore, the key de terment in both cost to facilities and the

number of facilities affected by the secondary containment provision is the definition of

“replaced” piping.

This initial effort focuses on the cost to a ty pical facility that may result from a secondary

containment requirement; therefore, it is im portant to understand the factors that drive

owner/operator decisions related to re pairing UST piping. In some cases,

owner/operators choose to repair damaged sec tions of piping, and at other times, they

decide to replace the entire piping run (i.e., the run of piping from one tank to one or

more dispensers) or all of the piping at the facility, regardless of regulatory requirements.

Ideally, a well-focused regulation would re quire secondary containment in all cases

where an owner-operator would have replaced piping under any circumstances, while

minimizing the number of times that a sma ll repair would trigger a total piping

replacement. Based on EPA’s prior resear ch and additional discussions with UST

1 

# U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “Grant Guidelines to States fo r Implementing the Secondary Containment

Provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.” November 2006

2 

# Cho Yi Kwan, EPA. Personal Communication. May 2008. 

# FACTORS THAT AFFECT

OWNER/OPERATOR

DECISION-MAKING

# 3

3 October 2008 

# equipment installers, we identified several factors that drive this decision-making process,

including: 3



# • Existing single-walled piping type. According to the installers, the existing

piping material is the most important f actor in determining whether to repair a

section of piping or to replace the entire pipi ng run. In general, three types of

single-walled piping exist:

o Fiberglass piping. Single-walled fiberglass piping is non-reactive

and relatively reliable. Leaks can occur at joints, if the piping was

installed improperly. Problematic sections of single-walled

fiberglass piping can be effectively repaired if the owner/operator

chooses to do so. Typically, installe rs cut out the section in need of

repair plus an extra margin, and then glue in a new piece of

fiberglass piping. Secondarily contained fiberglass is commonly in

use.

o Flexible piping (flexpipe). Single-walled flexpipe is typically a

polyurethane pipe coated with an ti-corrosive material, installed as

large continuous line between sumps (25 to 100 feet long). It can be

installed within concrete condui t or imbedded in gravel; one

installer estimated that the conduit was used at half of flexpipe sites

he had evaluated. Single-walle d flexpipe technology is not

frequently installed and has been found to deteriorate when placed

in long-term contact with fuel. Single-walled flexpipe may be

repaired, but requires a transition sump at the repair site. Flexpipe

in conduits may be slightly less e xpensive to repair than flexpipe

installed without a conduit, because it requires less excavation.

According to the installers contact ed for this effort, they rarely

repair single-walled flexpipe, as it is likely to fail in the future.

Typically, the installers encourage replacing all of the single-walled

flexpipe at the facility. One installer noted that repairing singlewalled flexpipe “is not an option.” 4,5 

# Although less frequently

installed than secondarily contained fiberglass piping, secondarily

contained flexpipe is currently in use.

3 

# As part of this effort, IEc reviewed previous EPA research on the activities and costs associat ed with the installation, repai r,

and replacement of single and secondarily co ntained piping. The prior research reported on the results of interviews with

UST equipment installers from the Pe troleum Equipment Institute (PEI). E 2 

# (for EPA) conducted a series of phone surveys

with seven installers located around th e U.S under Task Order No. 1010 – Gene ral Technical and Prog rammatic Support in

Implementing the Energy Policy Act of 2005 Task 1010-04 – Technical Research/Analysis And Summarize Information Subject

4 – Secondary Containment Subtasks SC-03 and SC-04. June and July 2006. In a ddition, to supplement this research, IEc

attempted to contact the same installers (and held discussions with three of them) in an effort to seek additional

information and clarify their prev ious responses. We derive ou r description of the decision-ma king factors and later, cost

data, from this research.

4 

# For a discussion on the problems associated with flexible piping, see “Fact Sheet: Thermoplastic Flexible Piping in

Underground Tank Systems.” Maryland Department of the Environment, Oil Control Program.

http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/Land Programs/Oil_Control/USThome/index.asp

5 

# Duane Grippe, O'Day Equipment LLC. Pe rsonal Communication. July/August 2008.

# 4

3 October 2008 

# o Steel piping. Steel piping is typically found at older sites, often in

rural areas. It is susceptible to corrosion when not adequately

protected through cathodic protection methods. The installers

contacted for this effort indicated that they almost never repair steel

piping; instead, they encourage replacement of all piping at the

facility. 6



# • Cause and extent of the problem. One of the most common causes for piping

damage is the accidental piercing of a pipe section by mechanical equipment such

as a backhoe. For single-walled fiberglass piping damaged by equipment,

installers typically repair the broken section. It is rarer for the installers to repair

single-walled flexpipe damaged by equipm ent and more typical to replace all of

the single-walled flexpipe at the facility. Depending on the extent of the issues,

other problems such as leaking joints or in-pipe corrosion may require the

replacement of the entire piping run, regard less of piping type. One installer noted

that when a bad glue job is detected at a facility with fiberglass piping, he

typically recommends replacing the entire run, because the poor glue job likely

affects all of the joints and pipes in the system.

• Location of the problem along the piping run. Problems located in the

dispenser sump (found under the dispenser) or in the flex connector (found at the

tank and the end of the piping run) may be easier to repair because they require

less excavation. A leak found in the midd le of the piping run may be difficult to

find and require extensive excavation to locate the problem. When extensive

excavation has already taken place, the marg inal cost of installing piping with

secondary containment is modest.

• Overall cost of repair. When the cost of replacement is comparable to the cost of

repair, it often makes better fiscal sense for the owner/operator to replace the

single-walled piping to reduce future repair costs and liability concerns. This is a

personal decision made by the owner/operators, but the installers indicated that

facilities typically replace single- walled piping during renovations.

• Existing state regulation. Presently, at least 19 states require some form of

secondary containment for piping. Depending on the state, owners may have

limited options to repair existing single-walled piping. 7 

# It is expected that as a

result of the EPAct Guidelines, more states will enact secondary containment

provisions for piping. For example, Colorado’s secondary containment provision

recently went into effect on August 1, 20 08. The provision defines “replaced” as

repairing over 50 feet in length or 50 percent of the costs of replacing the entire

piping run with secondary containment.

6 

# In addition, 40 CFR part 280.33(c) does not allow the repair of steel piping that has released product.

7 

# Underground Storage Tank Guide . Thomson Publishing Company. 2008.

# 5

3 October 2008 

# The installers contacted for this effort st ated that they strongly recommend the use of

secondary containment (regardless of piping type ) and stress to their clients its benefits,

namely better leak protection and monitoring. The installers emphasize to clients that

while the costs of installing secondary containm ent may be higher, the benefits associated

with reduced leaks and the peace of mind provided by secondary containment far

outweigh the additional costs. They estimate that secondary containment has become the

industry standard for newly installed piping and that anytime they need to replace an

entire piping run, they would install secondary c ontainment. This implies that the use of

single-walled piping will likely be phased out over time in most states. 8 

# The rate at which

the phase-out occurs will likely depend on EPA’s and states’ definition(s) of “replaced”

piping established under the secondary cont ainment provision. Since the industry

generally rates single-walled steel and flexib le piping as less effective products, it is

likely that they will continue to be phased out regardless of EPA’s rulemaking.

However, facilities may be less inclined to replace single-walled fiberglass piping, as it

has a relatively low failure rate. In order to substantially reduce the number of facilities

using single-walled fiberglass piping, EPA may wish to set a strict standard for the

definition of “replaced” to target these facilities. An additional benefit of this approach

would be that the stricter standard would lik ely catch facilities that use steel and flexpipe

as well. EPA will have to weigh its options car efully, as a strict standard may result in an

undue burden on some facilities.

In this section, we present our preliminary methodology for assessing costs to a typical

UST facility based on the three options for de fining “replaced” piping. For each of the

options presented below, we compare the cost of replacing the entire piping run to the

baseline costs that the facility would incur in absence of the secondary containment for

piping provision. As mentioned above, our discussions with installers suggest that for

single-walled flexpipe and single-walled steel piping, a typical UST facility would

replace its failed piping with secondary containment, regardless of how the standard

defines “replaced.” Therefore, we focused our effort on developing an assessment for

typical facilities that use single-walled fiberglass piping, since they are the group most

likely to repair their piping. 9



# ASSUMPTIONS USED TO DEMONSTRATE THE METHODOLOGY



# EPA’s prior research gathered cost info rmation from installers on various UST

installation and repair practices. The installe rs caution that these cost estimates, based on

specifications given to them by the researchers, are their best efforts given limited

information about the facility. 10 

# Given the wide variations in costs, we employ the midpoint values presented in the EPA research . Where values are not available, we

supplement with information from our discussions with the installers. In practice, high

variability in equipment costs and site specific conditions result in a wide range of costs.

8 

# We talked with installers from Califo rnia, Colorado, and South Dakota. Californ ia has required secondary containment for

piping since the 1980s. Colorado recent ly (August 1, 2008) enacted new secondar y containment requirements for piping.

South Dakota currently does not requ ire secondary containment for piping.

9 

# While a specific facility may decide to repair steel pipi ng or single-wall flex-piping with a single-wall option, these

facilities are likely to have fewer option s for repair than a facility with fiberglass piping; therefore the difference betwee n

“repair” and “replace” is mo re important to facilities with fiberglass systems.

10



# Researchers gave the installers the follow ing specifications to base their costs on: three USTs per facility; 300 feet per

piping run; and four dispensers. EPA gathered cost information in the summer of 2006. Given the wide variation and

uncertainty in the cost estimates, we do not adjust the costs prov ided to EPA for inflation. 

# PRELIMINARY

METHODOLOGY

AND EXAMPLE

RESULTS

# 6

3 October 2008 

# The Excel-based model that accompanies this memorandum provides the flexibility to

adjust these cost estimates and other fac ility-based assumptions. Exhibit 1 present

assumptions used to characterize a typical UST facility. We selected these assumptions

based on those previously developed by EPA. 11 

# To verify the reasonableness of these

assumptions, we presented them to the insta llers, who generally agreed that they

represented a typical site.

EXHIBIT 1 ASSUMPTIONS USED TO DESCRIBE A TYPICAL UST FACIILTY

METRIC ASSUMPTION



# Number of tanks per facility (i.e., number of piping runs) 3

Typical length of single-walled fiberglass piping per facility (feet) 300

Typical length of piping run per tank (feet) 100

Source:

Task Order No. 1010 – General Technical and Pro grammatic Support in Implementing the Energy

Policy Act of 2005 Task 1010-04 – Technical Research/Analysis And Summarize Information

Subject 4 – Secondary Containment Subtasks SC-03 and SC-04. June and July 2006.



# The baseline cost to repair a section of singl e-walled fiberglass piping depends largely on

two factors:

• The location of the section of pipe in need of repair. According to the

installers, if the repair is in the area of the dispenser sump or flex connector, the

costs associated with re pair ranges from $250 to $1,500, an average of $667. 12



# Typically, these repairs do not require exte nsive (or expensive) excavation. Since

the annualized costs over 10 years for these repairs ($95) are relatively low and

they impact a relatively small area at the facility, they will not likely trigger the

“replaced” requirement under the definition options explored in this

memorandum. We therefore assume that the only repairs that may trigger the

“replaced” definition involve pipe buried in concrete.

• The size of the repair. The larger the damaged section of piping, the more

expensive the repair job. Installation re quires additional excavation, piping length,

equipment, and paving.

Exhibit 2, below, presents the assumptions u sed to develop estimates of baseline repair

costs and the cost to replace the entire piping run with secondary containment (i.e.,

secondarily contained fiberglass piping plus interstitial monitoring costs). Based on

previous EPA research, we estimate annualized cost to repair 10 feet of single-walled

fiberglass piping to be $641. For each a dditional 5-foot section, we estimate the

annualized cost to run an additional $214. Th erefore, for example, the annualized cost to

repair a 25-foot section of single-walled fiberglass pipe totals $1,283 [(3 x $214) + $641]

.

11 

# Task Order No. 1010 – General Technical an d Programmatic Support in Implementing the Energy Policy Act of 2005 Task

1010-04 – Technical Research/Analysis And Summa rize Information Subject 4 – Second ary Containment Subtasks SC-03 and

SC-04. June and July 2006.

12



# Task Order No. 1010 – General Technical an d Programmatic Support in Implementing the Energy Policy Act of 2005 Task

1010-04 – Technical Research/Analysis And Summa rize Information Subject 4 – Secondar y Containment Subtask SC-04. June

2006.

# 7

3 October 2008 

# EXHIBIT 2 ASSUMPTIONS USED TO CALCULATE POTENTIAL COSTS OF SECONDARY CONTAINMENT



# The baseline assumes that a typical facility , in the absence of a secondary containment

provision, would repair existing single-walled fiberglass piping up to a certain length. At

a threshold length, the owner determines that it is more cost-effective to replace the run of

single-walled piping with secondary containment. Because of variations in

owner/operator preferences and tolerance for ri sk, the installers had difficulty identifying

a specific pipe length or cost point that would trigger the replacement of the piping run.

For this exercise, we make an initial screeni ng-level assumption that if repairs cost more

than 75 percent of the cost to replace the piping run, then the owner/operator would ACTIVITY COST RANGE AVERAGE ANNUALIZED a



# BASELINE



# Baseline repair costs (for replacing 10

feet of single-walled fiberglass piping) b,c 

# $1,200 - $12,500 $4,500 d 

# $641

Baseline repair costs for additional five

feet of single wall piping $1,000 - $2,000 $1,500 $214

CAPITAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH REPLACING ENTIRE 100 FOOT PIPING RUN WITH SECONDARY CONTAINMENT



# Excavation costs $1,600 - $2,000 $1,800 $256

Material costs e 

# $3,400 - $6,400 $4,900 $698

Labor costs $3,900 - $5,200 $4,550 $648

Paving $2,200 - $2,800 $2,500 $356

Electrical $1,100 - $3,200 $2,150 $306

Interstitial monitoring equipment f 

# - $3,000 $427

Total Annualized Costs $2,691

Notes:

a 

# Capital costs were annualized over 10 years (i.e., th e expected time required to pay off the project)

using OMB’s approved discount rate of seven percent. OMB Circular A-94.

b 

# Includes the cost of excavation, cutting damaged pipe, installing new pipe, and repaving. This analysis

assumes that no additional sumps have been added to the system during the repair.

c 

# EPA research estimated the average re pair for fiberglass piping is seven feet. To simplify this analysis,

we round up to 10 feet. Discussions with insta llers confirm that the co st range is comparable.

d 

# Based on the average repair cost reported for single-walled fiberglass piping with excavation of

concrete with rebar.

e 

# Material costs include 100 feet of secondarily contained fiberglass, and all necessary pipe fittings,

connections, and valves.

f 

# This may overestimate costs of installing interstiti al monitoring, as many facilities may already have

adequate leak detection in place.

Sources:

Task Order No. 1010 – General Technical and Programma tic Support in Implementing the Energy Policy

Act of 2005 Task 1010-04 – Technical Research/Analysis And Summarize Information Subject 4 –

Secondary Containment Subtasks SC-01, 03 and 04. June/July 2006.

Robert Renkes. Petroleum Equipment Institute. Personal Communication. June 2008.

Duane Grippe, O'Day Equipment LLC. Personal Communication. July/August 2008.

Jerry Thomas. C.E. Thomas Company. Personal Communication. July 2008.

Ken Korneychuck, Eaton Sales and Service Co. Personal Communication. August 2008.

# 8

3 October 2008 

# choose replacement (with secondary cont ainment) regardless of regulations. 13 

# Therefore,

if the total cost of repair exceeds the 75 percent threshold, we assume no incremental

costs to the facility would result from the sec ondary containment provision. For example,

if the annualized cost of repair exceeds $2,018 [0.75 x $2,691] , we assume the

owner/operator chooses to replace the entire pi ping run with secondary containment in

the baseline, and the regulation would cause no change in costs.

As shown in Exhibit 2, we estimate the annualized cost to replace single-walled fiberglass

piping with secondary containment to be $2,691. This includes the cost to excavate,

install secondarily contained piping, and repave the site. We also include the potential

costs of installing interstitial monitoring equipmen t, as this is a requirement for secondary

containment. Note that we investigated the most recent OUST ICR in an attempt to

gather the operations and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with interstitial

monitoring. The ICR does not clearly id entify O&M costs specific to interstitial

monitoring for piping. Moreover, it is no t clear that a requirement for interstitial

monitoring would represent an additional mon itoring requirement, or a replacement for

some current monitoring activity. As a resu lt, for this illustrative effort, we assume no

O&M costs attributable to interstitial m onitoring. The Excel model contains a

placeholder (set at 0) should EPA wish to test scenarios with O&M costs for interstitial

monitoring for piping. 14



# METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH AND EXAMPLE RESULTS



# We define the costs of the secondary containment provision for piping as the incremental

cost associated with triggering the definition of “replaced.” Simply put, if the repair

triggers the regulatory requirement for replaceme nt of the piping run, the incremental cost

is the difference between the replacement cost s and the baseline repair costs. However,

if, as stated previously, the baseline cost ex ceeds 75 percent of the replacement costs, we

then assume that a facility would have replaced the piping regardless of the rule.

Therefore, no incremental cost is assigned to the facility. 15



# In contrast to most regulatory analyses, in th is case, the baseline cost of repairs drives the

incremental costs, since replacement costs remain constant and it is the difference

between these replacement costs and the repa ir costs that would have been incurred

without the regulation that is measured. Below, we present the preliminary methodology

for calculating the incremental cost to a typi cal facility for the three “replaced” piping

definitions. We use the example data deri ved from EPA research to demonstrate our

approach.

Option 1: Piping replacement defined by a fixed footage of piping



# Under the first definition option, “replaced” piping is determined by a fixed footage of

piping. In this case, the trigger to require the installation of secondary containment is

based on the length of the piping section in need of repair. We first select a threshold

value that triggers the definition of “repl aced” piping. For this exercise, we chose a

13



# We select 75 percent because one installe r indicated that this was a reasonable thre shold. Note that in the Excel model

accompanying this memorandum, the user wi ll have the flexibility to adjust the point at which the facility chooses to

replace piping instead of repair.

14



# Underground Storage Tanks: Technical and Financial Requirements, and State Program Approval Pr ocedures, EPA ICR

Number 1360.08.

15



# For facilities with steel and single-wall ed flexible piping, we assume that oper ators would replace their piping regardless

of whether it is required by EPA.

# 9

3 October 2008 

# threshold value of 25 feet – that is, once a piping repair job spans 25 feet in length, a

facility is required to replace the entire run of piping (in this case, we assume the piping

run is 100 feet in length). Based on this trigger threshold, Exhibit 3 presents our

approach to estimating the incremen tal costs associated with Option 1.

EXHIBIT 3 ILLUSTRATIVE RESULTS: REPLACEMENT IS DETERMINED BY A FIXED FOOTAGE (25 FEET)

LENGTH OF REPAIR RELATIVE TO

A 25 FOOT THRESHOLD LENGTH

OF REPAIR

(FEET) ANNUALIZED COST OF

REPLACING PIPING RUN

WITH SECONDARY

CONTAINMENT ANNUALIZED COST

TO REPAIR SINGLE

WALLED

FIBERGLASS PIPING ANNUALIZED

INCREMENTAL COST

OF SECONDARY

CONTAINMENT



# Repair length is below threshold 10 $2,691 $641 a 

# $0 a



# Repair length is at threshold 25 $2,691 $1,281 $1,410

Repair length is above threshold 35 $2,691 $1,709 $982

Repair length is substantially above

threshold 50 $2,691 $2,349 $0 b



# Notes:

a 

# This scenario assumes that the owner/op erator would choose to re pair the single-walled pipi ng and, therefore, would

incur no incremental costs for secondary containment.

b 

# In this scenario, the annualized cost of a 50-foot repair would be $2,349, which represents more than 75 percent of the

annualized cost to replace piping run with secondary containment. We assume that this facility would replace the entire

piping run in the absence of the rule and, therefore, incurs no incremental costs for secondary containment.



# Exhibit 3 demonstrates the cost to a typical facility when “replaced” piping is determined

by a fixed footage. The facility with a short repair length of 10 feet does not trigger the

replacement standard; thus it incurs no increm ental costs. On the contrary, the facility

with the length of repair at the threshold realizes a high incremental cost, because it

would be forced to replace its piping, while th e cost of repairs remains relatively low.

When repair length is beyond the threshold (e.g ., the facility with the 35 foot repair), the

incremental cost of replacement is lower, because its repair costs would have been

relatively high. Finally, when repair length is substantially greater than 25 feet, the repair

cost exceeds the point at which the operator woul d likely have chosen to replace the pipes

in absence of the rule. In this case the annua lized cost of a 50-foot repair would be

$2,349, which represents more than 75 percent of the cost of replacement. Therefore, we

assume that this facility would have replaced pipes in the absence of the rule and incurs

no incremental costs. This example shows th at the incremental costs are sensitive to the

change in repair length, particularly around the threshold value.

Option 2: Piping replacement defined by a fixed percentage of the overall piping

length



# Under the second definition option, “replaced” piping is determined when a certain

percentage of the total piping run is replaced. Our approach to this option is very similar

to Option 1, only we add a step to the calculation. The first step is to convert the

threshold percentage to a length of piping. For example, we assume under Option 1 that a

typical piping length is 100 feet. The incremental cost calculation first converts the

percentage of piping to feet by multiplying the length of the piping run by the percentage.

As a result, under the previous example, a 25 percent threshold is equivalent to 25-foot

# 10

3 October 2008 

# threshold. In the Excel-based model, the u ser has the option to change the typical length

of a piping run to explore how this definition differs from Option 1. To highlight the

change in pipe run length, Exhibit 4 illust rates Option 2 based on a 25 percent threshold

for “replaced” piping and typical pipe run length of 125 feet. Note that because we

increase the length of the piping run, the annualized cost of replacing the entire run with

secondary containment also increases. 16



# EXHIBIT 4 ILLUSTRATIVE RESULTS: REPLACEMENT IS DETERMINED BY A FIXED PERCENTAGE OF

OVERALL PIPING LENGTH (25%) WITH A PIPING LENGTH OF 125 FEET

PERCENTAGE OF PI PING REPAIRED

RELATIVE TO A 25 PERCENT

THRESHOLD PERCENTAGE

OF PIPING

LENGTH ANNUALIZED COST OF

REPLACING PIPING RUN

WITH SECONDARY

CONTAINMENT a 

# ANNUALIZED COST

TO REPAIR SINGLE

WALLED

FIBERGLASS PIPING ANNUALIZED

INCREMENTAL COST

OF SECONDARY

CONTAINMENT



# Percentage of piping length is

below threshold 10% $3,364 $747 b 

# $0 b



# Percentage of piping length is at

threshold 25% $3,364 $1,548 $1,815

Percentage of piping length is

above threshold 30% $3,364 $1,815 $1,548

Percentage of piping length is

substantially above threshold 50% $3,364 $2,883 $0 c



# Notes:

a 

# We assume a linear relationship between annualized replacement costs and piping length.

b 

# This scenario assumes that the owner/op erator would choose to re pair the single-walled pipi ng and, therefore, would

incur no incremental costs for secondary containment.

c 

# In this scenario, the annualized cost of repairing 50 percent of the piping run would be $2,883, which represents more

than 75 percent of the annualized cost to replace piping run with secondary contai nment. We assume that this facility

would replace the entire piping run in the absence of the rule and, therefore, incurs no incremental costs for secondary

containment.



# Exhibit 4 demonstrates how changing the length of a typical piping run alters incremental

costs under Option 2. By extending the pipe length, we increase the size of the area in

need of repair and the overall costs to repl ace the piping run with secondary containment.

As expected the incremental cost of repl acement increases as pipe length increases.

Option 3: Piping replacement determined by a fixed percentage of the cost of

replacing the entire piping run with secondary containment



# Under the third definition option, “replaced” piping is determined by a fixed percentage

of the cost of replacing the entire piping run with secondary containment. For this

approach, we estimate a cost threshold to determine when a facility must install

secondary containment. Exhibit 5 presents the results of our approach to this option.

Based on a 25 percent cost threshold, we determine that any repairs over $673 [0.25 x

$2,691] would trigger the secondary containment requirement. As in the previous

options, those over the 75 percent cost thres hold do not incur incremental costs associated

16



# We assume a linear relationship between a nnualized replacement costs and piping length.

# 11

3 October 2008 

# with secondary containment provision, since we assume they wouldreplace their pipes in

the absence of the rule.

EXHIBIT 5 ILLUSTRATIVE RESULTS: REPLACEMENT IS DETERMINED BY A FIXED PERCENTAGE (25%)

OF THE COST OF REPLACING THE ENTIRE PIPING RUN WITH SECONDARY

CONTAINMENT

PERCENTAGE RELA TIVE TO A 25

PERCENT COST THRESHOLD PERCENTAGE

OF COST OF

PIPING RUN ANNUALIZED COST OF

REPLACING PIPING RUN

WITH SECONDARY

CONTAINMENT ANNUALIZED COST

TO REPAIR SINGLE

WALLED

FIBERGLASS PIPING ANNUALIZED

INCREMENTAL COST

OF SECONDARY

CONTAINMENT



# Percentage of cost is below

threshold 10% $2,691 $269 a 

# $0 a



# Percentage of cost is at threshold 25% $2,691 $673 $2,018

Percentage of cost is above

threshold 30% $2,691 $807 $1,884

Percentage is substantially above

threshold 80% $2,691 $2,153 b 

# $0 b



# Notes:

a 

# This scenario assumes that the owner/op erator would choose to re pair the single-walled pipi ng and, therefore, would

incur no incremental costs for secondary containment.

b 

# Since 80 percent of the annualized costs of replacing the entire run ($2,153) exceeds the 75 percent cost-effectiveness

threshold, we assume that this facility wo uld replace the entire piping run in the ab sence of the rule and, therefore, incurs

no incremental costs for secondary containment.

LIMITATIONS



# The three definitions for “replaced” pipi ng provide EPA with several options as it

considers the goals and scope of a proposed rulemaking action on secondary containment.

As EPA considers the merits of each option, it is important recognize the key limitations

of this methodological approach, including:

• Data may not be representative of a typical UST facility. In 2006, EPA

collected UST installation and cost data from seven UST equipment installers,

several of which we followed up with as part of this effort. Since not all installers

provided information for all cost areas, the sample size of the data is small and

represents the experience of only a few equi pment installers. The collection effort

focused on one-on-one phone discussions, not a more systematic survey method to

guarantee the installers received the same questions. As such, the cost data and

other assumptions represent the experien ces and opinions of a few installers

contacted by EPA. To the extent that their experiences differ from the general

population of equipment installers, the data may not adequately represent a typical

UST facility. 17

17



# Similarly, other assumptions, such as the length of piping per facility, may not adequately represent the typical UST

facility. In fact, some installers told EPA that facilities may contai n substantially more piping than the 300 feet presented

in this analysis.

# 12

3 October 2008 

# • Data may not capture site-specific costs. According to the installers, facilityspecific conditions such as geographic location, soil type, and facility size

determine the types of equipment installe d at UST facilities. To account for sitespecific variability, facilities may need to purchase different or additional

equipment. For example, some states, such as Wisconsin and Montana, require

the installation of interstitial monitoring for new sumps installed during a piping

replacement job. 18 

# Facilities in these states bear the additional costs of the

installation and operation and maintenan ce costs of interstitial monitoring. The

current methodology does not attempt to account for potential site-specific

characteristics. To the extent that these characteristics drive costs at a facility, we

may mischaracterize costs as typical.

• Data may not capture potential variability in operator behavior. To simplify

the methods for this preliminary appr oach to secondary containment, we

generalize operator behavior down to a few simple decision rules, based on the

discussions with the installers. For example, we assume that, in general, operators

will not attempt to repair damaged steel pi ping and single-walled flexpipe. To the

extent owner/operators act differently than the installers suggested, the model may

mischaracterize operator choices and behaviors.

• Cost estimates do not include efforts to find leaks when owner suspects a

problem. Several of the installers suggested that the costs associated with

discovering the location of leaks can be an important factor in determining

whether an owner/operator decides to replace piping. 19 

# To find leaks in piping,

installers typically drill pilot holes or conduct more extensive excavations. If the

cost to discover the leak is high enough, it may be more cost-effective for the

owner to replace the defective or damaged piping entirely. This effort does not

account for these costs or their potential impact on owner/operator behavior.

This approach provides EPA with a reasonable starting point as it considers a rulemaking

under EPAct’s secondary containment provision. While the example data provide

context to evaluate the options for defini ng “replaced” piping, the accompanying Excel

tool gives EPA the ability to evaluate how changes in key assumptions result in changes

to expected costs to a facility. As EPA refin es this approach, it may wish to consider the

following:

• Importance of threshold values. An evaluation of the sample results shows that

the threshold value that triggers the replacement of piping in both the baseline and

the regulatory scenario has a significant im pact on the incremental cost to the

facility. Facilities just under the threshol d are not required to replace piping, and

therefore, do not bear any costs associated with a potential rule. A facility on the

threshold bears the highest costs of a potential rule, as the difference between

replacement cost and repair costs is greatest. As a facility’s repair costs increase

(as a result of larger or more extensive repair), the incremental cost to replace

18



# Duane Grippe, O'Day Equipment LLC. Pers onal Communication. July/August 2008.

19



# It is important to note that one installer disagreed with this statement and fe lt that locating leaks was relatively simple

and inexpensive. Ken Korneychuck, Eaton Sales and Service Co. Pers onal Communication. August 2008. 

# CONSIDERATIONS

AND POTENTIAL

NEXT STEPS

# 13

3 October 2008 

# piping decreases. At an higher threshold, it is practical for the facility to replace

pipes rather than repair them. The magn itude of both threshold values will have a

significant impact on the number of facilities affected by a secondary containment

rulemaking and the cost they bear as a result of the rule.

• Refinement of data on operator behavior and potential costs. EPA may wish

to consider a systematic data collection e ffort to gather more detailed information

on the costs associated with repair and replacement of UST piping, and on the

prevalence of different types of piping cu rrently in place. The current cost data,

derived from a relatively informal discuss ion with a small sample of equipment

installers, may mischaracterize typical costs and behaviors at UST facilities. In

addition, EPA may wish to conduct furthe r analyses to improve estimates of the

frequency in which facilities conduct piping repairs versus replacement when a

problem is discovered. This effort could involve additional interviews or

collection of information from a focus group of installers in different regions.

• Identification of the number of potentially affected facilities. The current

effort focuses on isolating potential impacts of the secondary containment

provision at a typical UST facility. The next logical step is to assess the number

and location of facilities that may be affected by potential secondary containment

requirements. This may be a challenging effort, as data categorizing the types of

piping employed at facilities may not be readily available. Information on state

regulations should inform this effort.

• Incorporation of behavior associated with finding leaks when owners suspect

a problem. As stated above, for a facility with a suspected pipe leak, the cost

associated with discovering the location of the leak, while not part of the explicit

repair or replacement cost, is likely a factor in determining whether an

owner/operator decides to replace piping in the baseline scenario, regardless of

regulation. Owner/operators who find it more cost-effective to replace piping due

to the expense of finding a leaking pipe would incur no incremental costs resulting

from the secondary containment provision. EPA may therefore wish to consider

methods to incorporate this decision-making behavior into the cost model. This

effort would likely require the collection of additional information, including:

o Information on the processes used to locate suspected leaks in piping;

o Costs associated with efforts to find suspected pipe leaks;

o Information on the decision-making behavior of owne r/operators and

the extent to which the cost of lo cating suspected leaks influences their

decision to repair or replace piping; and

o The typical number of facilities that may suspect leaking pipes in a year.

# Appendix D

Methodology for Calculating Compliance Costs

# D-1 

# D.1 Universal Assumptions Regarding a Typical UST Facility

For modeling purposes, EPA (based on its pr ofessional judgment) assumes that a typical

(average) conventional UST system is configured as follows:

Exhibit D-1: Universal cost model assumptions

Variable Total per Facility

Tanks per facility: 2.74 tanks 2.74 tanks

Pipes per tank: 1 pipe 2.74 pipes

Feet per pipe: 100 feet 274 feet

# of under-dispenser containment (UDC)

per tank: 2 UDCs ~ 5.5 dispensers

# of fill pipes per tank: 1 fill pipe 2.74 fill pipes

# of spill prevention equipment per fill pipe: 1 spill prevention

equipment 2.74 spill prevention

equipment

# of turbine sumps per tank: 1 turbine sump 2.74 turbine sumps



# In addition, we assume that the baseline numbe r of existing tanks is 611,449 tanks (based on

FY2009 data). 1 

# We also assume that the baseline number of tanks remain constant over time (i.e., new

facilities will replace closures). 2 

# This assumption simplifies the analysis by establishing a constant

nominal compliance cost per year.

D.2 Labor Rates

The facility labor costs presented herein reflect la bor, overhead, and fringe benefits rates that EPA

believes best reflect a “typical” UST facility. These labor rates are representative of skilled labor costs at

motor fuel retailers, which own and operate r oughly 80 percent of the universe of UST systems. 3 

# We

present these calculations in Exhibit D-2.

1 

# Assuming 2.74 tanks per facility, this is equivalent to a total of 223,157 facilities that have USTs

nationwide. (See “Summary of Key Data from State Public Record Postings,” E2, Incorporated, Task Order No.

1010 – Subtask A1-06C Technical Directive No. 36, Table 1.)

2 

# Recent trends in the number of active USTs reported to EPA have shown a declin ing trend; in most recent

years the net decline in the UST system population has been roughly 1.4 percent, with closures more than offsetting

replacements and new installations. If th is trend continues, the annual cost s of the regulation will likely decrease

over time as fewer systems require compliance. However, in absence of other data, we assume that new installations

and upgrades will offset all closures, and that annual compliance costs will remain constant.

3 

# These rates are based on data from the Bureau of La bor Statistics (“BLS”) and the Office of Management

and Budget (“OMB”). These rates differ from the labor rates contained in OUST’s 2007 Information Collection

Request (ICR) 1360.08. The labor rates listed in the ICR are reflective of economy-wide average wages, benefits,

and overhead, and may overstate costs because they reflec t industries with highly sk illed labor requirements and

benefits (e.g., law firms.)

# D-2 

# Exhibit D-2: Labor Rates Used in Central Cost Estimates

Labor Category SOC Code Labor Rates Before Overhead

and Benefits Loaded Labor Rate 1



# Legal 5 

# 23-1011 $53.17 $93.69

Managerial 4 

# 11-0000 $32.85 $51.31

Technical 4 

# 53-1021 $18.04 $28.18

Clerical 4 

# 43-9061 $11.37 $17.76

Technical for operability tests 5 

# 49-2094 $23.68 $36.99

OMB overhead 2 

# 12%

BLS fringe benefits 3 

# 28.30%

Notes:

1. Rates are calculated according to (labor ra te)*(1/(1-benefits factor))*(1+overhead factor)

2. Overhead factor comes from Office of Ma nagement and Budget Circular A-76, p. D-7

3. Fringe benefits factor comes from Bureau of Labor Se rvices Employer Costs for Empl oyee Compensation, September

2009. Table 10: All workers, service-providing industries

4. Managerial, technical, and clerical wages are ba sed on the May 2008 National Industry-Specific Occupational

Employment and Wage Estimat es for NAICS 447100 – Gasoline States from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

(http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/ naics3_447000.htm). For the ma nagerial labor category, EPA uses the standard

occupational category (SOC) code for all management occupations (11-0000) to capture all types of managers that may

work at gas stations (e.g., chief executi ves, marketing managers, food service manage rs). For the techni cal labor category,

EPA uses SOC code 53-1021 (first-line supervisors/managers of he lpers, laborers, and material movers). For the clerical

labor category, EPA uses SOC code 43-9061 (general o ffice clerks).

5. Legal and technical labor to conduct operability tests are based on the May 2008 National Occupational Employment

and Wage Estimates – United States from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

( http://www.bls.gov/oes/ 2008/may/oes_nat.htm ). EPA uses the national wage estimates for these two labor categories

because they were unavailable under the industry-specific wage estimates for NAICS 447100.



# The costs presented in this appendix reflect our centr al cost estimates. For sensitivity analyses, we

recalculated costs using the labor rates presented in Exhibit D-3 and D-4 . A discussion of these labor

rates, and the results of the sensitivity analyses can be found in Chapter 3.5 of the main text.

Exhibit D-3: Labor Rates Used in Upper Cost Estimates

Labor Category BLS Labor Category 3 

# Labor Rates Before

Overhead Loaded Labor Rate 1



# Legal SOC 23-1011 - Lawyers $59.98 $100.17

Managerial Management, professional, and

related (service industries) $54.34 $90.75

Technical Professional and te chnical services $44.19 $73.80

Clerical Office and administrative support $23.42 $39.11

Technical for operability tests Professional and te chnical services $44.19 $73.80

Benefits and overhead 2 

# 67% of wage rate

1. Rates are calculated according to (1 + benefits and overhead rate)*(labor rate).

2. Overhead rate used is 67 percent from OUST Information Collection Request 1360.08 from October 24, 2007. See U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, “Underg round Storage Tanks: Technical and Fina ncial Requirements, and State Program

Approval Procedures,” Supportin g Statement for EPA Informa tion Collection Request Number 1360.08, October 24, 2007.

3. Upper Estimate relies BLS Employer Costs For Employee Compensation, September 2008 for Managerial (Table 9,

Management, Professi onal, and Related); Technical and Technical for operability testing (Table 10, Professional and

Technical Services (Service Industries )); and Clerical (Table 11, Office an d Administrative Support); and BLS National

Occupational Employ ment and Wages, May 2008 for Legal (23-1011 Lawyers).

# D-3 

# Exhibit D-4: Labor Rates Used in Lower Cost Estimates

Labor Category BLS Labor Category 4 

# Labor Rates Before

Overhead and Benefits Loaded BLS Labor Rate 1



# Legal 23-1011 $59.98 $89.09

Managerial 41-1011 $15.66 $23.26

Technical 53-1021 $18.04 $26.80

Clerical 53-6031 $9.22 $13.70

Technical for operability tests 49-2094 $23.68 $35.17

OMB overhead 2 

# 12%

BLS fringe benefits 3 

# 24.60%

Notes:

1. Rates are calculated according to (labor ra te)*(1/(1-benefits factor))*(1+overhead factor)

2. Overhead factor comes from Office of Ma nagement and Budget Circular A-76, p. D-7.

3. Benefits rate is 24.6 percent of wages, as reported in BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, September 2008.

Table 10: Trade, transportation, and utilities - retail trade.

4. Lower Estimate relies on BLS Industry-Sp ecific Occupational Em ployment and Wages, NAICS 447000 - Gasoline

Stations, May 2008 for: Managerial (41- 1011 First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Retail Sales Workers): Technical (53-1021

First-Line Supervisors/Managers of He lpers, Laborers, and Material Movers, Hand); Clerical ( 53-6031 Service Station

Attendants); and BLS National Occ upational Employment and Wages, May 2008 for Technical fo r operability testing (49-

2094 Electrical and Electronics Repairers, Commercial and I ndustrial Equipment) and Lega l (23-1011 Lawyers). Assumes

that service station attendants perform walkthrough inspections.



# D.3 Time Value of Money Costs

Time Value of Money (“TVM”) costs are indirect costs to owners and operators that arise as a

consequence of the proposed rule. These costs arise b ecause as more frequent testing of equipment leads

to earlier identification and correction of problems re lated to UST systems, ow ners and operators incur

costs earlier than they woul d in the absence of the rule. 4 

# In the near term, requirements such as operability

tests of release detection methods are likely to iden tify equipment issues (i.e., technical problems that may

or may not already have leaks associated with them ) that would not have been identified in baseline

activities in the same time frame. 5



# As an initial step toward estimating these costs, EPA used the model presented in Exhibit D-5 . When a

test detects a problem, equipment can be replaced or repaired; when a test does not detect a problem, the

owner or operator does not incur any costs. It is cl ear that these costs depend on the proportion of the time

that each test or walkthrough inspection detects a probl em. For each part of the proposed rule that requires

a test, EPA calculates a weighted-average expected co st that accounts for the types of equipment tested.

These weighted-average costs are assumed to reflect th e expected annual costs of equipment repair or

replacement associated with each test; that is, they refl ect the costs that an owner or operator would incur

after operating their equipment for one year. We furt her assume that these costs scale linearly over time:

4 

# Note that this is also true for the walkthrough inspections being proposed as part of the rule.

5 

# Baseline activities include periodic regulatory inspections, and other requirements that exist before the

proposed rule becomes effective. These activities also incl ude anything that owners and operators might do in the

absence of the proposed rule.

# D-4 

# if a test occurs every three year s instead of annually, we assume that the repairs and replacements

identified by testing every three years will cost thr ee times more than those id entified by annual tests. 6



# Exhibit D-5: Calculation of Weighted-Average Cost of Repairs and Replacement per Annual Test

After obtaining an expected cost for the repairs an d replacements required per test, we calculate the

expected costs for repairs and replacements under th e baseline and the proposed rule. We assume that

testing under the proposed rule will identify any equipmen t in disrepair with absolute certainty, i.e., every

test performed under the proposed rule identifies issu es with 100 percent probability. In the baseline, we

assume that baseline activities do not identify all i ssues that require repair or replacement. As a

consequence, owners and operators enjoy a benefit under the baseline: a problem not identified in the

baseline can be addressed farther in the future, which allows the owner or operator to employ those funds

in some other manner.

To calculate the cost of repairs and replacements un der the baseline, we assu me that baseline activities

succeed in identifying issues a percent of the time per year; they fail to do so with b = 1- a probability.

Such a setup is commonly known as a binomial or Bernoulli experiment and is described by a binomial

distribution. In these types of problems, only two outcomes (referred to as “successes” and “failures”) are

possible. In this case, success implies that a problem is detected, while failure implies that a problem is

not detected.

Since we assume that testing under the proposed regul ation always identifies all issues and that costs

accumulate over time, the outcome is certain: ever y test causes the owner or operator to incur the

weighted-average cost of repairs or replacement associ ated with that test. For example, if we calculate a

weighted-average cost of repair or replacement of $100 cost per annual test for a hypothetical

requirement, each annual test under the propo sed rule will generate $100 in cost.

Under the baseline, existing activities lead to a chance of catching issues every year that is less than 100

percent. Suppose that baseline activities detect problems with probability of a = 60 percent. We can

describe the expected cost unde r the baseline as the sum of the following infinite series:

6 

# The underlying assumption of linear growth for the equipment damage function is that wear-and-tear of

capital equipment accrues at a constant rate over time. We a ssume this form for the damage function for analytical

convenience. Test Equipment

No cost Repair Cost Replacement Cost Fail Test Pass Test

# D-5 

# • Year 1: the odds that existing issues are identified are Pr(detection) = 0.60. Since the total cost of

repairs and replacements is $100, the expected cost in year one is $60 = 0.60 x $100.

• Year 2: the odds of detection are Pr(not detec ting problems in the first year) x Pr(detection in

second year) = 0.40 x 0.60 = 24 percent. Since the to tal cost of repairs and replacements is $100,

we obtain $24 = 0.24 x $100. However, because the cost is delayed by one year, we must also

discount this amount by the prevailing interest rate to reflect the opportunity cost of funds (i.e.,

the time value of money). If we assume an interest of seven percent, the exp ected cost in year two

is $22.43 = $24/(1.07).

• Year 3: the odds of detection are Pr(not detec ting in the first year) x Pr(not detecting in second

year) x Pr(detection in third year) = 0.40 x 0.40 x 0.60 = 10 percent. Again, since the total cost of

repairs and replacements is $100, we obtain $10 = 0.10 x $100. However, because the cost is

delayed by two years, we must also discount this amount by the prevailing interest rate to reflect

the time value of money. Again assuming an interest of seven percent, the expected cost in year

three is $10 = $10/(1.07) 2



# .

We repeat this calculation for a number of years la rge enough such that approximately 100 percent of the

probability of detection and its associated costs are ca ptured. In this example, the cumulative probability

of detection is close to 100% after only the sixth period, i.e., baseline activities will virtually always

identify the issues by the sixth year. Exhibit D-6 illustrates the calculation of the probabilities for the

example described above.

Exhibit D-6: Annual and Cumulative Probability of Detecting Issues under the Baseline

a = Pr(detection) 60%

b = Pr(no detection) 40%

Period Pr(detection) in current

period Annual Pr(detection) Cumulative Pr(detection)

1 a 60% 60%

2 a x b 24% 84%

3 a x b x b 10% 94%

4 a x b x b x b 4% 97%

5 a x b x b x b x b 2% 99%

6 a x b x b x b x b x b 1% 100%



# We combine the annual probabilities of detection with the discounted cost of repair or replacement to

obtain the expected weighted-average baseline repair or replacement cost. This cost incorporates both the

expected cost per year and the discounting of costs that occur in th e future, as shown in Exhibit D-7 . The

bottom line represents the sum of the present value of the cash flows expected under baseline activities. In

this example, actions performed under the baseline have an expected cost of $95.56. This outcome is, of

course, dependent on the cost of $100 per test a nd 60 percent probability of identifying problems.

# D-6 

# Exhibit D-7: Expected Cost per Baseline Inspection

Period Annual Pr(detection) PV cost

($100, 7% discount) Expected cost

per year

1 60% $100.00 $60.00

2 24% $93.46 $22.43

3 10% $87.34 $8.39

4 4% $81.63 $3.13

5 2% $76.29 $1.17

6 1% $71.30 $0.44

Expected cost per inspection

(sum of expected costs in each year) $95.56



# Given that a test under the proposed would produce a cost of $100, the difference of $4.44 represents an

incremental cost of the proposed rule over the baselin e, and is referred to as the “time value of money”

(TVM) cost.

Note that this calculation is particularly depende nt upon the probability of detection: the lower the

probability, the larger the proportion of costs that o ccur in the future and the lower the expected cost

under the baseline. Exhibit D-8 illustrates the sensitivity of the above results to changes in the probability

of detection under the baseline. In general, for proba bilities of detection above 40 percent, a small change

in probability of detection produces a relatively smal l change in TVM costs. For probabilities below 40

percent, marginal changes become larger as the probability of detection approaches zero.

Exhibit D-8: Change in Expected Cost as a Function of Probability of Detection

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Probability of detecting an issueCost 

# Expected Cost Incremental Cost

# D-7 

# EPA assumes the following for th e number of years to identif y a problem in the baseline:

• For walkthrough inspections, overfill operability testing, spill bucket tightness testing, and

operability testing of all types, baseline activities would identify all issues in, at most, three years.

This implies annual probability of successfully identifying issues of 83 percent. 7



# • For integrity testing of interstitial areas, baselin e activities would identify all issues in, at most,

five years. This implies an annual probability of successfully identifying issues of 66 percent. 8



# D.4 Calculation of Constant Annual Cash Flows for Proposed Changes with Variable Affected

Universes

Certain proposed changes, including regulations rela ted to flow restrictors for new tanks and secondary

containment, differ from other proposed changes in that they apply only to new or replaced systems rather

than existing systems. This introduces two dynamic elements into the calculation. First, the annual

payment of costs associated with th ese changes increases with each additio nal year that the proposed rule

is in effect because additional operators become subj ect to them as prior operators continue to make

payments. 9 

# Second, because a discount rate is in effect, the first units subject to these proposed changes

also experience the highest (i.e., least discounted) costs (and most immediate cost savings). These

characteristics cause the costs and avoided releases asso ciated with these propo sed changes to change

over time.

To obtain a constant measure of the costs and benef its associated with chang es that involve affected

population of changing sizes, EPA proceeded as follows: 10



# • Assuming an average life of 20 years for an UST system, annual turnover is approximately five

percent annually. The analysis assumes that new in stallations and replacements are covered under

this rate of turnover, and the affected universe thus grows at a constant increment each year. A

turnover rate of five percent also implies that th e universe will have been completely replaced by

year 20, such that all systems that could be aff ected by the proposed change will be subject to it

by that time. After year 20, the affected universe will be constant, as will be the associated costs

and positive impacts; however, we do not assess cost s in perpetuity, instead accounting only for

costs over the initial 20-year horizon.

• EPA assembled 20-year schedules of costs and benefits that reflect the growth of each affected

universe. For each year, the analysis calculat es the present value of cash flows based on the

system cost or avoided cost due to compliance. The present values of the cash flows are summed

7 

# We selected the lowest probability of detection that would guarantee that 99.5 percent of problems would

be identified by the third year to satisfy the condition that all problems are found by that time. If we use 99 percent

as the threshold for “all issues,” a probability of detection of 79 percent is sufficient. In general, lowering the

threshold increases TVM costs. The overall impact of TVM costs on the total cost of the rule depends on the choice

of threshold, the expected cost per test, and the number of years until all issues are found.

8 

# If we use 99 percent as the threshold for “all issues,” a probability of detection of 61 percent is sufficient.

9 

# EPA assumes that this phase-in period will last 20 years, the average life of a UST system. Note that

cost-savings associated with avoided releases follow the same pattern of growth as the population of system

upgrades.

10 

# While the example that follows relies on a 20-year time horizon, EPA also uses a horizon of three years

to phase in the costs of operator training, and five years to phase out groundwater and vapor monitoring as release

detection methods.

# D-8 

# to obtain the total benefit over 20 years. This sum of cash flows is annualized into constant cash

flows over a 20 year period, which creates an adjusted unit cost of compliance that distributes the

effect of the phase-in of costs and benefits uniformly over the affected universe.

These constant cash flows are used as the basis for th e cost and avoided cost calculations presented in

Chapters 3 and 4 of this report. Along with these va lues, EPA relies on the ultimately-affected universe

(i.e., the universe affected at year 20) when calculating total costs or benefits associated with the proposed

changes. Exhibit D-9 shows an example calculation, including the nominal values of cash flows at each

period. In the example, assuming a turnover rate of five percent per year, 64,919 systems (over 20 years)

will be subject to the requirement that flow rest rictors in vent lines will be eliminated as overfill

prevention. Before adjusting for growth in the affect ed universe, the cost of compliance is $886, or $83.63

per year when amortized at seven percent interest ov er 20 years (see “Eliminate Flow Restrictors for in

Vent Lines as Overfill Prevention for All New Tanks” below for details). After accounting for changes in

the size of the universe and greater discounting for future costs, the annual cost of the requirement falls to

$37.21.

Exhibit D-9: Example Calculation of Constant Annual Unit Costs, Overfill Protection for New

Units

Cumulative number of

tanks affected Year Nominal value at

year PV at year 1

3,246 1 $271,466 $271,466

6,492 2 $542,933 $507,414

9,738 3 $814,399 $711,328

12,984 4 $1,085,865 $886,389

16,230 5 $1,357,332 $1,035,502

19,476 6 $1,628,798 $1,161,310

22,722 7 $1,900,264 $1,266,226

25,968 8 $2,171,730 $1,352,445

29,214 9 $2,443,197 $1,421,963

32,460 10 $2,714,663 $1,476,597

35,706 11 $2,986,129 $1,517,997

38,951 12 $3,257,596 $1,547,660

42,197 13 $3,529,062 $1,566,946

45,443 14 $3,800,528 $1,577,084

48,689 15 $4,071,995 $1,579,190

51,935 16 $4,343,461 $1,574,270

55,181 17 $4,614,927 $1,563,236

58,427 18 $4,886,393 $1,546,907

61,673 19 $5,157,860 $1,526,025

64,919 20 $5,429,326 $1,501,254

Total cost $25,591,207

Annualized cost $2,415,629

Annualized cost

per system $37.21

Notes:

1. EPA assumes that the entire affected universe w ill be affected after 20 year s. In this example, 13

percent of 499,378 tanks in unregulated states will have to eventually install another overfill

protection device.

2. Unit cost before adjusting for phase-in effects is $83.63.

# D-9 

# As noted in Exhibit 2-4 in Chapter 2, EPA uses the affected universe in the tenth year to represent a

central tendency for the cost of requirements such as these.

EPA adds that this approach do es not capture two significant factor s. First, it assumes that current

declining trends in the number of UST facilities do not continue and the universe size remains constant. If

the approach incorporated trends of declining numbers of UST systems, it would commensurately

decrease the costs and positive im pacts for each proposed change. Second, this approach does not

consider the possibility that new technologies may reduce compliance costs while achieving equal or

greater positive impacts. For example, problems rela ted to steel tanks are less frequent today partly

because owners and operators have sw itched to materials such as fiberglass. It is possible that similar

shifts could occur in relation to flow restrictors and secondary containment, leading to substantially lower

compliance costs.

D.5 Cost for Individual Regulations

Estimates of costs for individual regulations are based on publicly available data on equipment,

installation, and testing costs, and information co llected from professionals in industries that provide

relevant equipment and services. To the best of its ability, where data is limited or not available, EPA

uses its professional expertise and judgment to make assumptions for cost modeling purposes.

D.5.1 Release Prevention

Walkthrough Inspections

Exhibit D-10 summarizes the items that we assume to be covered by the walkthrough inspection. Based

on Exhibit D-10 , we estimate the per-unit cost of a walkthr ough inspection to be fifty minutes (.83 hours)

of technical labor, or $23.48 (2008 $), plus recordkeepi ng. We apply this cost on a per-facility basis for

all facilities. Recordkeeping costs include 0.1 hour of cl erical labor costs, or $1.78 (2008 $) and $0.10 in

material costs (based on 2007 OUST ICR for maintaining records).

Exhibit D-10: Minimum Walkthrough Inspection to be Conducted by Owner/Operator (Based on

the PEI RP900)

Category Description Time



# Spill buckets All items listed under Tank Fill Area on the Daily checklist (p. 42) 7 minutes

Sumps/

Dispensers The following items listed under Other Sump s on the Annual checklist (p. 46) assuming

the overall time is split evenly across all the items listed:

Any water or product removed a nd disposed of properly 4 minutes

Sump is free of cracks, holes, bulges, or other defects 4 minutes

Penetration fittings intact and secured 4 minutes

Sump sensor properly mounted at the bottom of the sump 4 minutes

Sump lid, gasket, and seals present and in good condition 4 minutes

Monitoring/

Observation Wells Item listed under Observation and Monitoring We lls on the Monthly checklist (p. 44) 10 minutes

Impressed Current

Rectifiers Items listed under Corrosion Protection on the Monthly checklist (p. 44) 7 minutes

Subtotal: 44 minutes

Release Detection (depending on RD method) 5-10

minutes

Total: 49-54

minutes

# D-10 Note: The time estimates shown above are ba sed on information provided by PEI and a ssumes a four-tank in stallation (i.e., 4

tanks, fill ports, spill buckets, overfill devices and tanks su mps) and four dispensers. Si nce the walkthrough inspections

primarily focus on sumps and dispensers, EPA believes that on av erage, these estimates provide a reasonable indication of the

amount of time it would take to inspect a facility (a typical facility is likely to have more than four dispensers, but less th an four

sumps).



# The TVM cost for walkthrough inspections assumes th at 10 percent of all walkthrough inspections will

encounter a problem in one of the dispensers, sump s, gauges, piping alarms, or other equipment. On

average, EPA assumes that this repair will cost $100. We estimate that this repair cost would have been

incurred within three years without this requireme nt. The weighted-average cost of repairs and

replacements is $10, and the incr emental annual TVM cost between the proposed rulemaking and the

baseline is $0.13.

Overfill Prevention Equipment Tests

The unit costs associated with requiring an overfill prevention equipment test include the cost of

conducting the test, plus recordkeeping. We estimate the average cost of conducting an overfill

equipment test on UST overfill equipment at $214.00 (2008 $) per tank (TDD No. 21 – Overfill Testing).

Recordkeeping costs include 0.1 hours of clerical labor costs, or $1.78 (2008 $), and $0.10 in material

costs (based on 2007 OUST ICR for maintaining records), for a total of $0.68 per system.

The TVM cost for overfill prevention equipment t esting assumes that across all overfill components

(alarms, flow restrictors, and automatic shuto ff devices), about 21 percent of all overfill prevention

equipment tests will encounter a problem (21 percent of alarms, 19 percent of flow restrictors, and 24

percent of automatic shutoff devices will encounter a problem when tested; roughly 15.5 percent of

overfills use alarms, and 42.3 percent of overfills each use flow restrictors and automatic shutoff devices).

The analysis assumes that 25 percent of overfills will be repaired, at a cost of $100, and 75 percent of

overfills will be replaced, at a cost of $1,811 (the weighted average cost of replacement of the overfill

components). We assume that the inspection of eac h overfill component will detect a problem within

three years. The weighted-average cost of repairs and replacements is $212, which implies an incremental

TVM cost of $3.92 per year. Because testing occurs on a three-year basis under the Preferred Option, we

use the present value of three years’ worth of this cost, which equals $11.00 at seven percent interest.

Spill Prevention Equipment Tests

The unit costs associated with requiring spill preven tion equipment tests include the cost of conducting

the test, plus recordkeeping. We estimate the aver age cost of conducting tightness testing on spill buckets

by vacuum at $125.00 (2008 $) per spill bucket. Recor dkeeping costs include 0.1 hours of clerical labor

costs, or $1.78 (2008 $), and $0.10 in material costs (based on 2007 OUST ICR for maintaining records),

for a total of $0.68 per system.

The TVM cost for spill prevention equipment test assumes that across the country, approximately 16

percent of all spill prevention equipment tests will encount er a problem. This is a weighted average of the

13 percent chance to encounter a problem during such a test in states that already require tightness testing

of spill prevention equipment and the 30 percent chan ce to encounter a problem during such a test in

states that do not currently require such testing. The analysis assumes that 25 percent of spill prevention

equipment will be repaired, at a cost of $475, and 75 percent will be replaced, at a cost of $2,000. We

estimate that these costs would have been incurred within three years without this requirement, but are

incurred immediately as a result of the proposed rulema king. The weighted-average cost of repairs and

replacements is $252.53, which implies an annual TVM cost of $3.34.

# D-11 

# Interstitial Integrity Tests

The per-unit costs associated with requiring interstitial integrity tests include the cost of conducting the

test, plus recordkeeping. We estimate the average co st of conducting an interstitia l integrity test on a tank

at $146.85 (2008 $) per tank. We estimate the average cost of conducting an interstitial integrity test on

piping at $111.49 (2008 $) per line. We estimate th e average cost of conducting an interstitial integrity

test on sumps at $207.84 (2008 $) per sump. (These costs are based on E 2 

# Inc., TO 3003, TD #9; and SC05 State Periodic Interstitial Testing Requirements.)

For modeling purposes, we assume that only a certain percentage of tank and piping systems that use

interstitial monitoring is affected:

• Tanks: 19.76 percent have interstitial monitoring. Of these, five percent, or 0.99 percent of all

tanks, do not use continuous pressure/vacuum/liquid -filled leak detection monitoring systems and

must be tested.

• Piping and sumps: 18.30 percent have interstitial monitoring. Of these, 90 percent, or 16.47

percent, do not use continuous pressure/vacuum/li quid-filled leak detection monitoring systems

and must be tested.

Furthermore, we assume that the tank systems that use IM do not overlap with the piping systems that use

IM. The interstitial integrity test cost for tanks is us ed to estimate the cost for tank systems (rather than a

combined test that would be less expensive). For pipi ng systems, the cost of the interstitial integrity test

adds the cost for testing the piping and the sump (i .e., two separate test costs). After accounting for the

above factors, the weighted total cost per test is $309.56. Recordkeeping costs include 0.1 hours of

clerical labor costs, or $1.78 (2008 $), and $0. 10 in material costs (based on 2007 OUST ICR for

maintaining records), for a total of $0.68 per system.

The TVM cost of interstitial integrity tests assumes th at approximately 5 percent of all tests on tanks will

encounter a problem, that approximately five percent of all tests on piping will encounter a problem, that

approximately 25 percent of all tests involving th e turbine sump will encounter a problem, and that 21

percent of all tests on dispensers will encounter a pr oblem. The analysis assumes that all tanks, 70

percent of piping, and 75 percent of turbine sumps and dispensers will require a repair; the rest will

require replacement. Replacement costs are assumed to be $69,807 for tanks (the cost of an UST system

less the cost for 100 feet of piping), $18,900 for piping, $3,000 for turbine sumps, and $2,000 for

dispensers; repair costs are assumed to be 10 percen t of replacement costs fo r tanks and piping ($6,981

and $1,890, respectively), $675 for turbine sumps, and $450 for dispensers. This yields a total weighted

average of $686 for repairs and $691 for replacement. We estimate that the repair/replacement costs

would be incurred within five years without this requirement but immediately under each test under the

proposed rulemaking. The weighted-average cost of repairs and replacements is approximately $1,377, or

$44.91 per year. Because testing occurs on a three-y ear basis under the Preferred Option, we use the

present value of three years’ worth of this cost , which equals $126.10 at seven percent interest.

Spill Prevention Equipment Test After Repair

As described above, the cost of the spill prevention equipment test, plus recordkeeping, is $125.68.

Overfill Prevention Equipment Test After Repair

As described above, the cost of the overfill preventio n equipment test, plus recordkeeping, is $214.68.

# D-12 

# Interstitial Integrity Test After Repair

As mentioned above, the average cost of conducting an interstitial integrity test on a tank is $146.85

(2008 $) per tank, the average cost of conducting an interstitial integrity test on piping is $111.49 (2008

$) per line, and the average cost of conducting an interstitial integrity test on sumps is $207.84 (2008 $)

per sump. To estimate the cost of an interstitial integrity test after repair, we first average the cost of the

tests for piping and sumps; we assume that an inte rstitial integrity test of piping will include sumps.

(111.49+207.84)/2 = $159.67. We then weight the costs of the test for tank and the test for piping/sump

by the frequency of repairs. We assume that on average there would be approximately four piping/sump

repairs for every tank repair. Therefore, the cost of an interstitial integrity test after repair is (0.8 *

$159.67) + (0.2 * $146.85) = $157.10, plus recordkeeping ($0.68).

Eliminate Flow Restrictors for in Vent Lines as Overfill Prevention for All New Tanks and When

Overfill Devices are Replaced

The cost for this requirement is the incremental cost between what would have been installed (i.e., ball

float) and the least-cost alternative (i.e., automatic shutoff valve), or $886 (2 008 $) per tank (= $1,042 -

$156, cost of automatic shutoff value l ess cost of new ball float). (Based on E 2 

# , Inc., TO3003 TDD7,

Table 1) This cost phases in over time and is adjusted as shown in Exhibit D-11

.

Exhibit D-11

Adjustment for Phase in: Eliminate Flow Restrictor s in Vent Lines as Overfill Protection for New

and Replaced Tanks

Number of tanks affected Year Nominal value at year PV at year 1

3,246 1 $271,466 $271,466

6,492 2 $542,933 $507,414

9,738 3 $814,399 $711,328

12,984 4 $1,085,865 $886,389

16,230 5 $1,357,332 $1,035,502

19,476 6 $1,628,798 $1,161,310

22,722 7 $1,900,264 $1,266,226

25,968 8 $2,171,730 $1,352,445

29,214 9 $2,443,197 $1,421,963

32,460 10 $2,714,663 $1,476,597

35,706 11 $2,986,129 $1,517,997

38,951 12 $3,257,596 $1,547,660

42,197 13 $3,529,062 $1,566,946

45,443 14 $3,800,528 $1,577,084

48,689 15 $4,071,995 $1,579,190

51,935 16 $4,343,461 $1,574,270

55,181 17 $4,614,927 $1,563,236

58,427 18 $4,886,393 $1,546,907

61,673 19 $5,157,860 $1,526,025

64,919 20 $5,429,326 $1,501,254

Total $25,591,207

PV cost per tank $394.20

Annual cost over 20 years $37.21

# D-13 

# These costs only apply to new tanks that would have installed ball floats (based on PEI estimate of

percent of new installs over the last three years that use ball floats as overfill protection).

D.5.2 Release Detection

Operability tests

Note: We assume no state currently h as this requirement for any of th e release detection methods below

(i.e., all systems in all states will incur costs).

Operability test for ATGs

The cost for the operability test would be the techni cal labor involved (1.5 hours) in conducting the test,

or $55.48 (2008 $), plus recordkeeping equal to $0.68 (c lerical labor of 0.1 hours and materials that cost

$0.10).

The time value of money cost of operability testing for ATGs assumes that five percent of all testing of

probes and 10 percent of all testing of floats identifies a problem. The analysis assumes all ATGs are

replaced, with a cost of $1,352 for probes and $170 for fl oats. The average cost of replacement, weighted

by the probabilities of requiring replacement and th e number of each component is $84.60 (each ATG has

both components). We estimate that this repair cost would have been incurred within three years without

this requirement, but is incurred immediately as a r esult of the proposed rulemaking. We estimate that

these costs would have been incurred within three years without this requirement, but are incurred

immediately as a result of the proposed rulemaking. This implies an annual TVM cost of $1.12.

Operability test for Interstitial Monitoring (IM) Systems

The cost for the operability test would be the techni cal labor involved (0.25 hours) in conducting the test,

or $9.25 (2008 $), plus recordkeeping equal to $0.68 (clerical labor of 0.1 hours and materials that cost

$0.10).

The time value of money cost of operability testi ng for interstitial monitoring systems assumes that 20

percent of all testing of liquid points and UDCs/sumps and seven percent of all testing of the pressure of

vacuum sensors identifies a problem. The analysis assumes that these components are always replaced,

with a cost of $455 for the former and $1,000 for the latter. The average cost of replacement, weighted

by the probabilities of requiring replacement and the number of existing interstitial monitoring systems

with each type of component, is $87.59 (86 percent of interstitial monitoring systems use liquid points

and UDCs/sumps, 14 percent use the pressure of a v acuum sensor). We estimate that these costs would

have been incurred within three years without this re quirement, but are incurred immediately as a result of

the proposed rulemaking. This implies an annual TVM cost of $1.16.

Operability test for LLDs

The cost for the operability test for a LLD would be the technical labor involved (1.5 hours) in conducting

the test, or $55.48 (2008 $), plus recordkeeping equal to $0.68 (clerical labor of 0.1 hours and materials

that cost $0.10).

The time value of money cost of operability testing for line leak detectors assumes that 20 percent of all

testing of mechanical line leak detectors and 20 percent of all testing of electronic line leak detectors

identifies a problem. The analysis assumes that th ese components are always replaced, with a cost of

$292 for the former and $813 for the latter. The averag e cost of replacement is $58.44 for mechanical

LLDs and $162.60 for electronic LLDs. For both typ es of LLD, we estimate that these costs would have

been incurred within three years without this require ment, but are incurred immediately as a result of the

proposed rulemaking. This implies an annual TVM cost of $0.77 for mechanical LLDs and $2.15 for

electronic LLDs.

# D-14 

# Operability test for Vapor Monitoring Systems

The cost for the operability test for vapor monitoring would be the technical labor involved (0.25 hours)

in conducting the test, or $9.25 (2008 $), plus recordk eeping equal to $0.68 (clerical labor of 0.1 hours

and materials that cost $0.10).

The time value of money cost for operability testi ng of vapor monitoring systems assumes that 20 percent

of all testing will encounter a problem. All sensors are assumed to be replaced at a cost of $426, which

implies an expected cost per inspection of $85.20. We estimate that these costs would have been incurred

within three years without this requirement, but ar e incurred immediately as a result of the proposed

rulemaking. This implies an annual TVM cost of $1.13.

Operability test for Groundwater Monitoring Systems

The cost for the operability test would be the techni cal labor involved (0.25 hours) in conducting the test,

or $9.25 (2008 $), plus recordkeeping equal to $0.68 (clerical labor of 0.1 hours and materials that cost

$0.10).

The time value of money cost of operability testing fo r groundwater monitoring systems assumes that 20

percent of all testing of sensors and 10 percent of all testing of the bailers identifies a problem. The

analysis assumes that these components are always re placed, with a cost of $426 for the former and $30

for the latter. The average cost of replacement, we ighted by the probability of requiring replacement and

the number of existing interstitial monitoring systems w ith each type of component, is $44.10 (half of all

groundwater monitoring systems use sensors while the other half use bailers). We estimate that these

costs would have been incurred within three years w ithout this requirement, but are incurred immediately

as a result of the proposed rulemaking. Th is implies an annual TVM cost of $0.58.

Elimination of Groundwater Monitoring and Vapor Monitoring as Release Detection Methods

The cost to eliminate groundwater monitoring includes the cost of sw itching to SIR ($25 one-time cost

plus $15 per month for monthly reconciliation) l ess the one-time cost of groundwater monitoring

equipment ($463, from p.63 in OUST ICR 1360.08) and $125 in annual costs to record monthly

monitoring (1.67 hours of technical labor, from p.63 in OUST ICR 1360.08). The cost of eliminating

vapor monitoring includes the cost of switching to SIR ($25 one-time cost plus $15 per month for

monthly reconciliation) less the cost of vapor monitoring equipment ($733, from p.63 in OUST ICR

1360.08) and $125 in annual costs to record monthly m onitoring (1.67 hours of technical labor, from p.63

in OUST ICR 1360.08).

Because the requirement is phased-in over five years, we also account for the cost of groundwater or

vapor monitoring operability tests, including TVM cost s, as described in the “Operability test for Vapor

Monitoring Systems” and “Operability test fo r Groundwater Monitoring Systems” sections above.

Add SIR/CITLD to Regulations with Performance Criteria

We assume that CITLD users will be able to meet the performance criteria with no additional cost.

Certain SIR users would incur a one-time $10 (2008$) cost for a new service agreement to switch to a

SIR vendor that would be capable of providing quantita tive results necessary to meet this requirement.

Adjust Probability of Detection and Probability of False Alarms (“Pd/Pfa”) for Release Detection to

95/5

This requirement applies only under Alternative 1 of th e proposed rule. Under this requirement, a portion

of users of the following technologies will be required to either switch to a new technology or adapt to the

new leak rate probabilities requirements. These would include:

• ATG users: some will upgrade software systems, while others will replace ATGs.

# D-15 

# • ALLD users: some will upgrade software systems, while others will replace detectors.

• SIR users: both qualitative and quantitative SIR user s will be able to satisfy requirements by

obtaining a new service agreement.

• CITLD users: some will need to upgrade software.

In all cases, upgrades should result in fewer costly false alarms, which slightly offsets the cost of the new

requirements. Exhibits D-12 through D-15 summarize the costs and avoided costs of each of the

outcomes outlined above. In all cases, the avoided costs are $15 per SIR alarm and $100 per other alarm.

Exhibit D-12: Pd/Pfa - ATGs

Adjust Pd/Pfa: ATG

% of tanks with ATGs 34%

# of tanks with ATGs 205,814

% of users with false alarms 10%

% of false alarms avoided 80%

Among systems using ATG:

% of tanks with ATGs upgrading software 41%

# of tanks with ATGs upgrading software 84,384

Compliance cost for upgrading software $400

False alarms avoided for these tanks 6,751

Subtotal compliance costs for soft ware upgrades $33,753,452

Subtotal avoided via software upgrades ($675,069)

% of tanks with ATGs replacing them 59%

# of tanks with ATGs replacing them 121,430

Compliance cost for replacing ATG $3,843

False alarms avoided for these tanks 9,714

Subtotal compliance costs for AT G replacements $466,655,885

Subtotal costs avoided via ATG replacements ($971,441)

Total compliance cost s $500,409,337

Total costs avoided ($1,646,510)

Cost per system:

One-time compliance costs $2,431.37

Annualized one-time costs $229.50

Avoided compliance costs ($8.00)

# D-16 Exhibit D-13: Pd/Pfa - ALLDs

Adjust Pd/Pfa: ALLD

% of tanks with ALLDs 28%

# of tanks with ALLDs 168,454

% of users with false alarms 20%

% of false alarms avoided 60%

Among systems using ALLD:

% of tanks with ALLDs upgrading software 97%

# of tanks with ALLDs upgrading software 163,401

Compliance cost for upgrading software $400

False alarms avoided for these tanks 19,608

Subtotal compliance costs for soft ware upgrades $65,360,229

Subtotal avoided via software upgrades ($1,960,807)

% of tanks with ALLDs replacing detectors 3%

# of tanks with ALLDs replacing detectors 5,054

Compliance cost for replacing detector $813

False alarms avoided for these tanks 606

Subtotal compliance costs for detector

replacements $4,108,598

Subtotal costs avoided vi a detector replacements ($60,644)

Total compliance co sts $69,468,827

Total costs avoided ($2,021,450)

Cost per system:

One-time compliance costs $412.39

Annualized one-time costs $38.93

Avoided compliance costs ($12.00)

# D-17 Exhibit D-14: Pd/Pfa - SIR

Adjust Pd/Pfa: SIR

% of tanks with qualitative SIR 2%

# of tanks with qualitative SIR 11,862

% of tanks with quantitative SIR 11%

# of tanks with quantitative SIR 67,382

% of users with false alarms 40%

% of false alarms avoided 40%

Among systems using SIR:

% using new service agreement 100%

# of tanks with qualitative SIR using new service agreement 11,862

Compliance cost for new service agreement $15

False alarms avoided for these tanks 1,898

Total compliance costs for tanks with qualit ative SIR $177,932

Costs avoided via new service agreement ($28,469)

% of tanks with quantitative SIR 11%

# of tanks with quantitative SIR using new service agreement 67,382

Compliance cost for new service agreement $15

False alarms avoided for these tanks 10,781

Total compliance costs for tanks with quantitative SIR $1,010,725

Costs avoided via new serv ice agreement $161,716

Total compliance co sts $1,188,657

Total costs avoided ($190,185)

Cost per system:

One-time compliance costs $15.00

Annualized one-time costs $1.42

Avoided compliance costs ($2.40)

# D-18 Exhibit D-15: Pd/Pfa - CITLD

Adjust Pd/Pfa: CITLD

% of tanks with CITLD 25%

# of tanks with CITLD 154,360

% of users with false alarms 10%

% of false alarms avoided 80%

Among systems using CITLD:

% upgrading software 20%

# of tanks upgrading software 30,872

Compliance cost for software upgrade $400

False alarms avoided for these tanks 2,470

Subtotal compliance costs for ta nks using CITLD $12,348,824

Subtotal costs avoided for tanks using CITLD ($246,976)

Total compliance co sts $12,348,824

Total costs avoided ($246,976)

Cost per system:

One-time compliance costs $80.00

Annualized one-time costs $7.55

Avoided compliance costs ($1.60)



# Require Response to Interstitial Monitoring Alarm

The cost associated with this requirement would be the incremental cost difference between a tightness

test ($151.59, currently required) and an interstitial integrity test ($229.78), which is $78.19 (2008$)

(based on E 2 

# , Inc., TO 3003, TDD#9, SC-05 State Periodic Interstitial Testing Requirements and ICR).

Removal of deferrals for Emer gency Generator Tanks (EGTs) 11



# Based on FY2009 data, the total number of active U STs is 611,449. EPA assumes that three percent of

these tanks, or 18,344, are EGTs. Among these, 11,704 ar e in states that currently defer release detection

regulations on this type of UST (and therefor e would be affected by the deferral removal).

EPA assumes that one-third of the universe of tanks in states with deferrals in place (the left branch in the

figure below) already voluntarily employ release detection technologies that are distributed as other

operability testing requirements. This subset of EGTs accrues only the incremental testing costs

associated with operability testing. The other two-thir ds of the EGT universe in states with deferrals in

place accrue both the costs to inst all new release detection equipmen t (apportioned as 60 percent of the

universe to SIR and 6.7 percent to ATG) and operability tests. 12 

# We assume that the proportion of EGTs

that switch to SIR also incur th e costs associated with the additi on of SIR/CITLD with performance

criteria.

11 

# The proposed rule does not address emergency tanks at nuclear power plants, which are regulated by the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission under 10 CFR Part 50.

12 

# For modeling purposes, we assume the majority of EGTs would use SIR as the release detection method

($25) because it is the least-cost method. However, EPA assumes that ten percent of EGTs would be in remote

locations, and would therefore use ATGs as their release detection method.

# D-19 

# Allocation of Costs to the Universe of EGTs

11,704 EGTs in states with

deferrals in place



# Incur testing costs

identically to other

operability testing Incur installation and O&M

(removal of deferral) and

operabilitytesting costs subject

to distribution shown below.

All percentages refer to the entire affected universe of 11,704 EGTs. 

# SIR ATG 60% 6.7%

•ATG

•SIR

•Int. monit. Release detection

for these tanks are

assumed to be the

same as national

distribution. 

# 33.3% 33.3% 66.7%



# Costs are assigned as follows:

• The cost for the operability test for tanks that already use automatic tank gauge systems would be

the technical labor involved (1.5 hours) in conducting the test, or $55.48 (2008$), recordkeeping

cost of $0.68, and annual TVM cost of $1.12. We a pply this cost to the percentage of tanks that

currently use ATG as their leak detection method.

• The cost for the operability test for tanks that already use interstitial monitoring systems would be

the technical labor involved (0.25 hours) in conducting the test, or $9.25 (2008 $), recordkeeping

cost of $0.68, and annual TVM cost of $1.16. We a pply this cost to the percentage of tanks that

currently use IM as their leak detection method.

• The cost for the operability test for tanks that already use vapor monitoring systems would be the

technical labor involved (0.25 hours) in conducti ng the test, or $9.25 (2008 $), recordkeeping cost

of $0.68, and annual TVM cost of $1.13. We ap ply this cost to the percentage of tanks that

currently use vapor monitoring as their leak detection method.

• The cost for the operability test for tanks that already use groundwater monitoring systems would

be the technical labor involved (0.25 hours) in conducting the test, or $9.25 (2008 $),

recordkeeping cost of $0.68, and annual TVM cost of $0.58. We apply this cost to the percentage

of tanks that currently use GW monitoring as their leak detection method.

# D-20 

# • We estimate the cost of installing new automa tic tank gauge systems at $3,843 (2008$) (TO3003

TDD #9). We estimate the annual monitoring cost s associated with these systems at $222.62 per

unit.

• We estimate the cost of installing new SIR syst ems at $25. We estimate the annual monitoring

costs associated with SIR at $180.

• Current qualitative SIR users would incur a one -time $10 (2008 $) cost for a new service

agreement to switch to a SIR vendor capab le of providing quantitative results.

• EGTs will also be required to perform annual line tightness tests and mainta in associated records

(based on OUST’s ICR 1360.08, this cost is $38.90).

• All EGTs will be required to pr ovide a one-time notification of existence to the implementing

agency. We estimate this one-time cost to be the managerial labor (0.25 hours), or $12.83,

required to notify the implementing agency (based on ICR).

The foregoing requirements affect various subsets of the universe, many of which do not overlap. For

example, systems are generally subject to only on e operability test requirement, and relatively few

systems will be required to install an ATG. If we sum the bulleted costs without accounting for the

universe affected, we significantly overstate the cost per EGT system. We thus estimate the unit cost of

this group of requirements by dividing the total cost of the affected universe by the total universe of units

affected. Doing so produces an average one-time cost per system of $298.56 and average O&M cost per

system of $172.74.



# D.5.3 Other

Notification of Ownership Changes

The cost associated with this requirement is the managerial labor (0.25 hours), or $12.83, required to

notify the implementing agency (based on ICR). Only facilities that change ownership will incur the cost.

Closure of Irreparable Lined Tanks

The cost associated with this requirement is the in cremental cost between what an owner/operator would

be able to do instead of replacement (i.e., switch to cathodic protection) and what the owner/operator

needs to do as a result of the requirement (i.e., cl ose the tank, and replace with a double-walled tank). 13



# We assume that this requirement will cause owners or operators to replace their systems, on average, 10

years earlier (i.e. incur costs over years one through 20, rather than years 10 through 30, following the

proposed rule’s implementation). Incremental costs are $72,204 (= $79,254 (2008$) to install a doublewalled system minus $7,050 for the cost of switc hing to cathodic protection, from SC-03 UST Cost

Comparison and EPA correspondence, 8/7/2009). The difference between these two streams of

discounted cash flows (i.e., cash flows for years one to 20 and cash flows from years 10 to 30) is $35,499.

Recordkeeping Associated with Compatibility

For existing UST systems, owners and operators must be able to maintain records to demonstrate that

their UST system is compatible with the fuel stored. In order to do this, owners and operators must have

existing records indicating what equipment has already been installed, and that equipment is compatible

with alcohol blends greater than ten percent. EPA assumes that a portion of existing owners of UST

systems would have adequate installation records. EPA also assumes each owner would maintain records

13 

# EPA assumes that the owner/operator will choose to continue operations by installing a new doublewalled tank instead of closing the tank and discontinuing operations.

# D-21 

# and demonstrate compatibility on a per UST system ba sis. In addition, owners and operators must

maintain retain equipment records for all new and re placed equipment. All records must be maintained

for the life of the equipment. This recordkeeping cost is $1.88 per record (“Maintain records,” under

“UST systems: design, construction, installation a nd notification,” p. 61, OUST ICR 1360.08), plus $0.01

to permanently store the record. EPA assumes that a ll owners and operators will incur this cost annually

as part of annual maintenance and replacement of UST system components.

Removal of deferrals for Airport Hydrant Fuel Distribution Systems (AHFDSs)

For details on how costs are estimated for AHFDSs, see Appendix A. The unit costs presented in Exhibit

3-1 are derived from taking the total costs associated w ith removing the deferral and dividing them by the

number of systems that would be affected by the proposed rule.

Removal of deferrals for UST systems with Field-Constructed Tanks (FCTs)

For details on how costs are estimated for FCTs, see Appendix A. The unit costs presented in Exhibit 3-1

are derived from taking the total costs associated w ith removing the deferral and dividing them by the

number of systems that would be affected by the proposed rule.



# D.5.4 Energy Policy Act (Indian country only)

Operator Training

We model this requirement only for facilities located in Indian country. EPA assumes that there is 1

Class A operator and 1 Class B operator for every 5 f acilities, and 3 Class C operators per facility.

The costs for operator training includes one-time costs associated with training all existing operators, and

annual costs associated with retraining as a result of operator turnover.

One-time costs:

For Class A and B operators, we assume 20 percent of these operators test out. The costs for these

operators consist of the fee to take the test and the time it takes to take the test, or $27.39 for Class A

operators and $20.45 for Class B operators ($60 test fee plus 1.5 hours of test time, from Task 4 memo,

Exhibit 2, with time taken based on California’s test le ngth). The other 80 percent are required to take

training. In the model, this consists of taking a online webinar and then paying for a final exam, or

$545.71 for Class A operators and $360.64 for Class B ope rators ($169 test fee + 10 hours of webinar and

test time, based on Colorado’s training webinar cost).

For Class C operators, we assume all of them will be trained by Class A/B operators. For modeling

purposes, we assume the trainer to be a Class B operato r because of the slightly cheaper labor rate. We

calculate costs to be $73.18, or one hour for a Clas s B operator and one hour for each of three Class C

operators. The total one-time cost comes to $264.02 plus $1.88 of recordkeeping (clerical labor of 0.1

hours and materials that cost $0.10).

Recurring cost:

Each year, we assume that Class A and Class B operato rs will turnover at an average rate of 22 percent.

The same assumption of 20 percent testing out and 80 percent taking training applies. We assume Class

C operators turnover at an average rate of 119.5 per cent. We assume they are trained by Class A or B

operators. We calculate total retraining costs at $128.92 given the above assumptions, plus $1.88 of

recordkeeping (clerical labor of 0.1 hours and materials that cost $0.10).

# D-22 

# Require Secondary Containment of new/replaced tanks and piping

We model this only for facilities in Indian country. The cost associated with this requirement would be

the incremental cost difference be tween the installation of a single- walled tank ($72,102 in 2006$) and

piping and the installation of a double-walled tank and piping ($88,707 in 2006$), or $16,605.17 (2006 $)

(the cost of installing a double-walled tank and piping less the cost of installing a single-walled tank and

piping, from SC-03 UST Cost Comparison, Table 1), or $17,733.84 in 2008 dollars. Because the

universe affected by this facility grows over time due to equipment turnover, we amortize this cost over

20 years at seven percent interest and incorporate th e growing universe to obtain a more accurate estimate

of costs.

EPA data indicate that approximately 72.4 percent of tanks in Indian Country are single-walled. As a

result, EPA assumes that 1,901 of the 2,626 total ta nks in Indian Country will be affected by this

regulation after 20 years for modeling purposes. This implies that about 95 tanks will be replaced each

year.

This cost phases in over time and is adjusted as shown in Exhibit D-16

.

Exhibit D-16

Require Secondary Containment of new/replaced tanks and piping

Number of tanks affected Year Nominal PV at year PV at year 1

95 1 $159,128 $159,128

190 2 $318,255 $297,435

285 3 $477,383 $416,965

380 4 $636,510 $519,582

475 5 $795,638 $606,988

570 6 $954,766 $680,735

665 7 $1,113,893 $742,234

760 8 $1,273,021 $792,773

856 9 $1,432,148 $833,523

951 10 $1,591,276 $865,549

1,046 11 $1,750,404 $889,816

1,141 12 $1,909,531 $907,205

1,236 13 $2,068,659 $918,509

1,331 14 $2,227,786 $924,452

1,426 15 $2,386,914 $925,686

1,521 16 $2,546,042 $922,803

1,616 17 $2,705,169 $916,334

1,711 18 $2,864,297 $906,763

1,806 19 $3,023,425 $894,522

1,901 20 $3,182,552 $880,002

Total $15,001,006

Cost per tank $7,890.18

Annualized cost per

tank $754



# Require Replacement of Piping if Repairs Exceed Certain Threshold

We model this cost only for facilities in Indian country . The cost associated with this requirement would

be the incremental cost difference between the repair of single-walled piping and the installation of new

secondarily-contained piping. This cost occurs only if , during the course of repairing a piping run, an

owner or operator is required to repair more th an a certain proportion of the entire piping run (as

determined in the proposed rule). Further, the cost depends on the particular threshold: the lower the

# D-23 

# threshold, the greater the incremental cost of repl acement (compared with repair) and the larger the

proportion of facilities affected.

EPA estimated incremental costs for three threshol ds: 10 percent (Choice 1), 25 percent (Choice 2), and

50 percent (Choice 3). We calculate th e costs associated with each threshold requirement to be $14,400,

$9,900, and $2,400, respectively (2008 $) (the insta llation of new piping less the cost of repairing singlewalled piping, from Secondary Containment for Piping Calculator). We assume, however, that no owners

or operators would incur incremental costs under a 50 percent replacement threshold, as they would

otherwise replace their piping in the baseline if repairs exceed that proportion.

In Indian country, 60.3 percent pipes are single-walled. For modeling purposes, we assume that 20

percent are affected per year. We also assume that 45 percent of pipes are affected per year under Choice

1, 20 percent are affected per year under Choice 2, and zero percent are affected per year under Choice 3.

This implies that 2,850, 1,267, and zero pipes are a ffected after 20 years, respectively, and that the

number of pipes affected grows uniformly over time. We assume that pipes have lifetimes of 10 years,

but amortize their costs over 20 years.

This cost phases in over time and is adjusted as show n in subsequent exhibits . Because costs depend on

the particular replacement threshold, we calcu late costs for all three different scenarios.

Exhibit D-17

Secondary containment: Replace all pi ping if 10 percent requires repairs

Number of tanks affected Year Nominal PV at year PV at year 1

143 1 $193,712 $193,712

285 2 $387,424 $362,078

428 3 $581,136 $507,587

570 4 $774,848 $632,507

713 5 $968,560 $738,910

855 6 $1,162,272 $828,684

998 7 $1,355,984 $903,549

1,140 8 $1,549,696 $965,073

1,283 9 $1,743,408 $1,014,679

1,425 10 $1,937,120 $1,053,665

1,568 11 $2,130,832 $1,083,207

1,710 12 $2,324,544 $1,104,374

1,853 13 $2,518,256 $1,118,136

1,995 14 $2,711,968 $1,125,370

2,138 15 $2,905,680 $1,126,873

2,280 16 $3,099,392 $1,123,362

2,423 17 $3,293,104 $1,115,488

2,565 18 $3,486,816 $1,103,837

2,708 19 $3,680,528 $1,088,935

2,850 20 $3,874,240 $1,071,260

Total $18,261,285

Cost per tank $6,406.88

Annualized cost per

tank $605

# D-24 Exhibit D-18

Secondary containment: Replace all pi ping if 25 percent requires repairs

Number of tanks affected Year Nominal PV at year PV at year 1

63 1 $59,190 $59,190

127 2 $118,380 $110,635

190 3 $177,569 $155,096

253 4 $236,759 $193,266

317 5 $295,949 $225,778

380 6 $355,139 $253,209

443 7 $414,328 $276,085

507 8 $473,518 $294,883

570 9 $532,708 $310,041

633 10 $591,898 $321,953

697 11 $651,087 $330,980

760 12 $710,277 $337,448

823 13 $769,467 $341,653

887 14 $828,657 $343,863

950 15 $887,847 $344,322

1,013 16 $947,036 $343,250

1,077 17 $1,006,226 $340,844

1,140 18 $1,065,416 $337,283

1,203 19 $1,124,606 $332,730

1,267 20 $1,183,795 $327,329

Total $5,579,837

Cost per ta nk $4,404.73

Annualized cost per tank $416



# Require Under-Dispenser Containment

We model this only for facilities in Indian country. We calculate the cost associated with this requirement

as $2,017 (2008 $) (=$1,500 of installation costs + $5 17 for equipment). We assume that over 20 years,

96.98 percent of tanks will require under-dispenser containment. This implies 127 tanks will require

under-dispenser containment each year. Because the unive rse affected by this facility grows over time due

to equipment turnover, we amortize this cost over 20 years at seven percent interest and incorporate the

growing universe to obtain a more accurate estimate of costs. This cost phases in over time and is

adjusted as shown in Exhibit D-19 . Note that there are two dispensers per tank.

# D-25 Exhibit D-19

Secondary containment: Requi re under-dispenser contain ment for all new dispensers

Number of tanks affected Year Nominal PV at year PV at year 1

127 1 $48,495 $48,495

255 2 $96,989 $90,644

382 3 $145,484 $127,071

509 4 $193,979 $158,344

637 5 $242,473 $184,982

764 6 $290,968 $207,456

891 7 $339,463 $226,198

1,019 8 $387,957 $241,600

1,146 9 $436,452 $254,019

1,273 10 $484,947 $263,779

1,401 11 $533,441 $271,175

1,528 12 $581,936 $276,474

1,655 13 $630,431 $279,919

1,783 14 $678,925 $281,730

1,910 15 $727,420 $282,106

2,037 16 $775,915 $281,227

2,165 17 $824,409 $279,256

2,292 18 $872,904 $276,339

2,419 19 $921,399 $272,609

2,547 20 $969,893 $268,184

Total $4,571,607

Cost per ta nk $1,795.11

Annualized cost per

tank $169.45

# Appendix E

Access Model Structure and Specifications

# E-1 

# EPA/OUST relies on a cost model designed in Access to compute most of the costs of the proposed rule.

The first section of this appe ndix explains the general proces s by which the model works. The

subsequent section provides detailed explanations of the mechanics of the model, including the content

and purpose of its underlying tables, queries, and macros. The part of this appendix provides a brief

user’s guide to the model.

E.1 Introduction

The purpose of this document is to briefly describe the contents and functionality of the underground

storage tank (UST) regulatory cost model. This memora ndum is organized in five parts. The first four

parts explain the contents of the model: 1) tables; 2) queries; 3) forms; 4) re ports. These categories are

analogous to the categories of objects in Access 2 003. The final part briefly outlines model use.

The model operates by performing a series of queries on various tables to arrive at cost estimates for the

regulations under consideration. The model requires four major steps to calculate the costs associated

with each regulation. In or der to arrive at its final output, the model:

1. Determines which states have regulations that ar e less stringent than those selected by the user.

2. Calculates the incremental frequency imposed by the more stringent requirement upon units in

each state. The increment depends on the particular type of regulation considered, but in general

refers to: A) the additional number of inspections required per year, B) a binary increment for

whether a state requires a regulation, or C) a va riable indicating whether the threshold set in a

state is less stringent than that chosen by the user.

3. Calculates the incremental cost in terms of cap ital and O&M. The model considers these by unit

type (facility, tank, or certain sp ecial tank types) and aggregates the costs at a st ate and national

regulation. The costs included in the calculation are in cremental to the regul ations already in

place.

4. Presents a series of report s that display costs aggregated in several formats.

E.2 Identification Of Proposed Changes

To track the costs associated w ith each regulation, we use a three-tiered identification system.

1. The regulation is the most aggregated le vel and is tracked by the RegulationID field. While the

regulation level sometimes contai ns only one proposed regulation, it often has a number of subregulations within it.

2. The sub-regulations, which we call sub-options , are tracked within RegulationID by the

OptionID field. In most cases the RegulationID-Op tionID pair tracks a single proposed rule

throughout the model. For example, the pair 5-1 re fers to sub-option one of regulation five: spill

bucket tightness test after repair.

3. In some cases, the RegulationID-OptionID pair will not uniquely track a record. In these cases,

the ChoiceID field is used to create a unique identifier for the calc ulation. For example, suboption 17-3 has a ChoiceID associated with each of its possi ble user selections. Even if a

regulation does not need the ChoiceID field, we assign ChoiceID = 1 to it by default for

completeness

# E-2 

# The three fields described above create a basis fo r tracking calculations th roughout the model and its

tables. Thus, the example from point two above is tracked by the identifier RegulationID = 5, OptionID

= 1, and ChoiceID = 1. We associate this unique iden tifier to each state to track the effect each

regulation will have at the state level. To arrive at national figures, we sum the effects of regulations

across individual states.

E.3 Tables

The following information is tabulated and used in the model.

• Calculate number of EGTs: computes the number of emergency generator tanks for every model

run. We assume that three percent of th e UST universe is comprised of EGTs

• govt_costs_reg12_and_rewrite: costs of reading regulations and applying for SPA (field:

general_costs), per tank cost of complying with regulation 12 (fie ld: reg_12_costs), and cost of

re-writing any regul ations (field: co st_of_re-writing_regs), by state.

• LU_affected_portion: percentages of the univers e affected by each regulation. These factors

adjust for all possible effects, including pe rsonnel turnover, unit conversions, etc. for each

regulation. For details on the spec ific aspects that are adjusted in each regulation, see the Excel

input spreadsheet.

• LU_Cost_Types: cost type codes; used to track one-time and operations and maintenance costs..

• LU_Cost_Unit_Types: unit types; can be tank, fa cilities, or special tank types: emergency

generator tanks (EGT), airpor t hydrant systems, field-constr ucted tanks, and wastewater

treatment tanks.

• LU_new_and_closed_units: rates at which units are added or closed in the universe.

• LU_number_of_options_by_reg: number of sub-options by regulation.

• LU_Reg_Categories: regulation numbe rs and labels; used in reports.

• LU_reg_opts_costs: regulation cost s categorized by cost type; refl ects input data from Excel.

• LU_reg10_dropdown_list: user c hoices for regulation 10.

• LU_reg10_RD_probs: percentage of tanks affected at each probability option for regulation 10.

• LU_Reg11_special_tank_universe: universe of special tanks used only for regulation 11;

reflects input data from Excel.

• LU_reg17_dropdown: user choices for regulation 17, option 3.

• LU_Reg17_opt2_dropdown: user choices for regulation 17, option 2.

• LU_reg17_opt2_piping: thresholds a nd universe affected at each threshold for piping repair

versus replacement.

# E-3 

# • LU_Reg17_opt3_dropdown: other re gulation 17, option 3 dropdown.

• LU_regs_without_duped_options: options per regulation ex cluding redundant options.

• LU_Selections_Y_N: user choi ces for Yes/No regulations.

• LU_Selections_Y_N_Defer: Ma intain deferral/Remove defe rral user choice table.

• LU_States: list of states.

• LU_states_cost_types: list of states associated with cost types.

• LU_unit_affected_by_reg: re gulations and which un it types they affect.

• LU_Y_N_Defer_singular: choices for regulation 11, option 1.

• Model_Assumptions: model assumpti ons; only life of tanks and disc ount rate are currently used.

• Reg 7 ID conversion for EGT calc: converted regulation identifier s used for the calculation of

costs in regulation 11.1.

• Reg_Opts: regulatory options and their types. The preliminary model includes only frequency

and record-keeping.

• reg11_EGT_costs: generated by the macro reg11_EGT _costs. This table is updated during every

model run to capture the costs from regul ations 7.1-7.6, 9, and 10.1-10.4 attributable to

emergency generator tanks. The query set that compute costs for emergency generator tanks

(regulation 11.1) draws on the va lues from this table as part of its calculation.

• Results_calc_national_unit_cost: used to calcu late the cost of each regulation per tank.

• Results_cost_per_unit: table that und erlies Costs_per_unit, the repor t of the cost of regulations

per unit.

• Results_final_table: final output table from which all the reports are generated.

• Results_govt_costs: output that underlies Govt _costs, the report of government costs.

• Results_regulation_option_table_f or_costs: output that under lies Regulation_option_costs, the

report of national costs by sub-option.

• Results_regulation_option_table_f or_units: output that underlie s Regulation_option_units, the

report of national numbers of un its affected by each sub-option.

• Results_regulation_table: output that underlies Regulation_Costs , the report of national costs by

major regulation.

• Results_state_reg_only_table: outpu t that underlies State_regulati on_costs, the report of state

costs by major regulation.

# E-4 

# • Results_state_reg_option_table_for _costs: output that underlie s State_regulation_option_costs,

the report of state costs by sub-option.

• Results_state_reg_option_table_f or_units: output that under lies State_regulation_option_units,

the report of state numbers of units affected by each sub-option.

• Results_user_inputs: output that und erlies User_inputs, the report of the user’s choice of input.

• Selections_User_Defined user inpu t accepted through the user interface.

• State_Baseline_Descriptives: numbe rs of each unit by state; includes tanks and facilities; reflects

input data directly from Excel.

• state_costs_table: output that contains Boolean va lues to determine which regulations a state has;

used as part of the calcu lation of government costs.

• State_Frequencies: records of whether a state ha s a regulation; if the re gulation involves some

measure of rate (i.e. months betw een inspections), that is record ed here. A frequency of zero is

recorded if a state does not ha ve a regulation in place; reflec ts input data from Excel.

• Temp_All_Costs: interim model cost output.

E.4 Queries

The model contains 31 sets of core queries, each of which performs the calculations for a regulatory

option. Each query set is named according to the template myReg_[regulation number]_Opt_[option

number]_Choice_[choice num ber]_step_[step number] ; regulation, option, and choice numbers,

along with regulations’ descri ptions, can be found in the Reg_Opts table, and step refers to the element

of the calculation performed by the query. As outlined above in the “Summary and Purpose” section of

this memorandum, these queries:

1. Find the states that have regula tions that are less stringent than those entered by the user.

2. Calculate the incremental frequency imposed up on each state by the more stringent requirement.

The increment depends on the particular type of re gulation considered, but in general refers to 1)

the additional number of inspections required per y ear, 2) a binary increm ent for whether a state

requires a regulations, or 3) in the of regulations like regu lation 17, option 2, an increment

calculated from tables within the model.

3. Solve for the incremental cost in terms of cap ital and O&M. The model considers these by unit

type (facility or tank; in th e case of regulation 11, the mode l considers only populations of

emergency generator tanks, airport hydrant system s, field-constructed tanks, and wastewater

treatment tanks).

Results_final_qry generates Results_final_table, the table of final output, the remaining queries that

begin with Results_[...] use to generate the report s of model results. Model re sults used for reports are

stored in tables that begin with Results_[...]

. Throughout the model, additional queries refine or adjust

results to report them in the manner most useful for OUST.

# E-5 

# We amended the queries as the model evolved to match OUST’s vision, but the procedures performed

by the queries can be categorized as follows:

 Regulations 1, 7.1-7.6 : calculates the number of incremental inspections or tests in states that do

not have inspection frequency that at least equa ls the user’s selection. The model multiplies by

the cost per inspection or test and the number of facilities or tanks in the state. Regulation 7.6

also includes the cost of additional equipment re lated to piping, which requires several extra

queries.

 Regulations 2-6, 9, 11.2, 11.3, 12-14, 16, and 17.1 : multiplies the cost of compliance per unit by

the number of units in each state that does not already have the regulatio n in place. Regulation

17.1 applies only to tribal lands.

 Regulations 10.1-10.4 : multiplies the per-unit cost of compliance with the P d 

# /P fa 

# chosen by the

user by the number of tanks in st ates that do not already have P d 

# /P fa 

# at the user’s chosen level.

 Regulation 11.1 : The model uses the queries in the macro reg11_EGT_costs to calculate the

cost of compliance for the population of emerge ncy generator tanks by applying the cost of

compliance with certain regulati ons only to the EGT population (see Appendix A for a detailed

explanation of this calculation).

 Regulation 17.2 : relates the user’s chosen threshold to a factor that determines the proportion of

units in each state that are affected. The calcula tion multiplies this factor by the cost of

compliance per unit and the number of units in stat es that do not already have the regulation in

place. This regulation only applies to Tribal lands.

 Regulation 17.3 : multiplies the cost of compliance per un it by the number of units in each state

that does not already have the regulation in place. The user’s choice of “all dispensers” or “motor

fuel dispensers only” changes th e proportion of units affected. Th is regulation only applies to

Tribal lands.

The queries for each of the above regulations are gr ouped in Access and labeled the associated macros

that link them together with similar names. In additi on to sets of queries that compute costs as described

above, other sets of queries were grouped into m acros. The procedures they comprise are described

below by the name of the macro that contains them; refer to the model for the specific queries included

in each macro.

 Max : maximizes model window when the model is launched.

 reg11_EGT_costs : calculate the non-deferral cost s associated with regulation 11.1.

 Results_cost_per_unit_macro : calculates the cost per unit associated with the scenario

parameterized by the user. This is done using ta nks as the unit and converting all other units to

tanks. 1

1 

# For example, suppose the universe has 100 tanks and consider two regulations: regulation A, which applies to 50% of the

universe at a total cost of $500; and regulation B, which applies to 25% of the universe at a cost of $250. Each regulation has

a cost of $10 if applied only to the units it affects; if we apply them to the entire universe, regulation A costs $5, while

# E-6 

# o The lower bound assumes the total costs for a regulation are divide d across the entire

universe of tanks. This approach does not ad just costs to reflect the fact that each

regulation applies only to a subset of tanks , but provides a national estimate of average

costs.

o The hybrid costs evaluates whether a particul ar regulation applies to over 50 percent of

tanks. If this is the case, it divides the total co st of the regulation by the number of units is

actually affects and applies that cost to all of the units in the universe. Otherwise, it

divides the cost of the regulat ion across the entire universe a nd considers that to be the

per-unit cost attributab le to the regulation.

o The upper bound assumes that all tanks in cur the per-un it cost found by dividing a

regulation’s cost by the number of tanks it affects (not the entire universe).

 Results_final_table_macro: generates table of final output.

 Results_regulation_only_costs_macro : calculates cost s by regulation.

 Results_states_reg_only_macro : calculates costs by state and regulation.

 Results_regulation_option_table_for_costs_macro : calculates costs by regulatory sub-option.

 Results_states_reg_option_for_costs_macro : calculates costs by st ate and regulatory suboption.

 Results_regulation_option_table_for_units_macro : calculates units affected by regulatory

sub-option.

 Results_states_reg_option_for_units_macro : calculates units affected by state and regulatory

sub-option.

 Costs_per_unit_macro : calculates cost of compliance per unit.

 Results_govt_costs_macro : calculates costs accrued to state governments.

 Results_user_inputs_macro : tabulates parameters chosen by the user.

 state_costs_table_macro: generates table used to determine wh ich states have which regulations

in place.

 Warnings : turns off warnings and other messages th at would have occurred during the normal

course of using Access.

E.5 Forms

The Main_page form contains the user interface of the m odel and is launched by default. The remaining

forms either connect to Main_page through the user interf ace or were previously used to generate

queries.

regulation B costs only $2.50. Thus, using the described methodologies, the cost per unit would be: 1) lower bound cost = $5

(A) + $2.50 (B) = $7.50; hybrid cost = $10 (A) + $2.50 = $12.50 (B); and upper bound cost = $10 (A) + $10 (B) = $20.

# E-7 

# E.6 Reports

Reports display the final cost output in a user-fri endly format. The following reports are available:

1. Regulation_Costs : costs by regulation.

2. State_regulation_costs : costs by state and regulation.

3. Regulation_option_costs : costs by regulatory sub-option.

4. State_regulation_option_costs : costs by state and regulatory sub-option.

5. Regulation_option_units : units affected by re gulatory sub-option.

6. State_regulation_option_units : units affected by state and regulatory sub-option.

7. Costs_per_unit : cost of compliance per unit.

8. Govt_costs : costs accrued to state governments.

9. User_inputs : parameters chosen by the user.

Note that the report of units aff ected by regulatory sub-option cannot be aggregated to a total number of

units at the regulatory or state le vel: regulatory sub-options affect different unive rses in many cases. In

addition, in order to avoid possi ble confusion over the reported out put, reports should not be run

separately from the model.

E.7 Using This Model

To use this model, do as follows:

1. Open the Access database project file. If presented with a security warning, click Open

.

2. If not immediately presented with the main page, navigate to the Forms heading under Objects.

Double-click the Main_page form to open the model.

3. Read the information in the yellow box at the top of the model window to identify key caveats

and current status updates.

4. Select the regulatory opt ions you wish to run using the input buttons.

5. Click the Run Model button to calculate the co sts. This may take a moment; you will be notified

by a message when the model is done.

6. Click any report button to display the results in that format. One should print the user input

report as a cover sheet to any cost results that so that they may be later cross-referenced with

costs.

7. A report that contains a summary of the costs will appear. Click the Close button near the upper

left area of the screen to return to the previous window.

# E-8 

# 8. If you would like to run the model w ith different parameters, click the Return to Scenario

Selection Screen button to return to the main model input screen.

9. When you are finished with the model, simply close Access.

E.8 Parameters Used for Calculating Cost to Proposed Rule in Access Model

Exhibit E-1 presents a summary of the parameters used as input to the Access model designed to obtain

the costs presented in the body of this report.

Exhibit E-1: Input Used in Access Model for Preferred Option

DESCRIPTION Preferred

Option Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Input Type

Release Prevention

Walkthrough inspections 1 1 3 Months Between Inspections

Overfill prevention equipment te sts 36 12 36 Months Between Tests

Spill prevention equipment tests 12 N/A 12 Months Between Tests

Interstitial integrity tests 36 12 N/A Months Between Tests

Spill prevention equipment test after repair 1 1 1 1 For Yes; 0 For No

Overfill prevention equipment test after

repair 1 1 1 1 For Yes; 0 For No

Interstitial integrity test after repair 1 1 1 1 For Yes; 0 For No

Eliminate flow restrictors for all new tanks

and when overfill devices are replaced 1 1 0 1 For Yes; 0 For No

Release Detection

Operability test – ATG 12 12 36 Months Between Tests

Operability test - interstitial mon itoring 12 12 36 Months Between Tests

Operability test - line leak dete ction 12 12 36 Months Between Tests

Eliminate vapor and groundwater monitoring

as release detection methods

Add SIR/CITLD to regulations with

performance criteria 1 1 1 1 For Yes; 0 For No

Adjust release detection leak rates (Pd/Pfa) –

ATG N/A 0.99 N/A Probability Of Detecting A

Release

Adjust release detection leak rates (Pd/Pfa) –

LLD N/A 0.99 N/A Probability Of Detecting A

Release

Adjust release detection leak rates (Pd/Pfa) –

SIR N/A 0.99 N/A Probability Of Detecting A

Release

Adjust release detection leak rates (Pd/Pfa) –

CITLD N/A 0.99 N/A Probability Of Detecting A

Release

Deferrals removed for emergency generator

tanks 1 1 1 1 For Yes; 0 For No

Other

Deferrals removed for airport hydrant fuel

distribution systems

Deferrals removed for UST systems with

field-constructed tanks

Notification of ownership change 1 1 1 1 For Yes; 0 For No

Closure of irreparable lined tanks 1 1 1 1 For Yes; 0 For No

Response to interstitial monitoring alarms 1 1 1 1 For Yes; 0 For No

Energy Policy Act-related Provisions

Operator training 1 1 1 1 For Yes; 0 For No

Secondary containment - new & replaced

tanks 1 1 1 1 For Yes; 0 For No

# E-9 DESCRIPTION Preferred

Option Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Input Type

Threshold for pipe repl acement rather than

repair 0.5 0.5 0.5 Pipi ng Replacement Threshold

Under-dispenser contai nment (UDC) for all

new dispensers 1 1 1 1 If Applies To All UDCs; 0

Otherwise

Notes:

1. Entries shown in gray denote items not calculated in the Access model.

2. Entries marked "N/A" denote an item not included in this alternative.

# Appendix F

Analysis of Statistical Rela tionship between State Regulatory Programs and Confirmed

Release Data

# F

- 1 July 16, 2010 

# MEMORANDUM | July 16, 2010

TO 

# Cho-Yi Kwan, U.S. EPA

FROM 

# N adav Tanners, Cynthia Manson, and Robert Paterson, IEc

SUBJECT 

# Documentation of Empirical Investigations of UST Data to Support Regulatory Analysis

EMRAD Work Assignment 3-25, Task 5

In 2009, Industrial Economics (IEc) examin ed available data from EPA’s Office of

Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) to dete rmine whether it would support an empirical

analysis of the impact of selected UST regulations on the rate of UST releases using

multivariate regression analysis. As part of this effort, IEc used a set of state-level data

that included the number of USTs in each state in a given year, the number of releases

from USTs in each year, the number of UST inspections conducted in each year, and the

presence or absence of regulations designed to pr event leaks. The results of this analysis

were presented in an August 2009 memo randum (hereafter “2009 Memo”). This

memorandum updates the 2009 analysis and discusses the implications of its findings.

Before conducting regression analysis on the data set of state USTs and releases, IEc first

adjusted the data to account for a number of data quality concerns. A key data concern

was the relationship between states with lo w frequency inspections and states reporting

small numbers of confirmed releases. To ensure that the reported UST releases

accurately reflected most or all releases taking place, EPA developed an index that scored

each state based on the frequency of inspecti ons. A detailed description of the inspection

frequency index used to remove states suspected of having unreliable release data is

provided in the 2009 Memo, attached to this Appendix. 1



# States that reported inspection rates less frequent than every five years, and/or

inconsistent inspection frequencies over time, were removed from the sample, based on

the assumption that release data from those states may be less reliable due to less frequent

third party verification (i.e., state inspection) of system operations. In other words, we

assume that owners/operators may be less inclin ed to report releases or be fully compliant

if they are in a state where inspections occur infrequently or inconsistently.

1 

# “Work Assignment 2-25, Task 5. Summary of Regression Analysis of UST Regulations by

State.” August 3, 2009. INTRODUCTION

UPDATE OF

PREVIOUS

ANALYSIS

# F-2 July 16, 2010 

# Using the inspection frequency index, IEc ran regressions on the 29 states with the

highest inspection frequency scores (index valu e = 5) and on the 38 states with the two

highest scores (index value > 3). IEc ran three cross-sectional regressions on each group:

one on releases in 2008 (the most recent year for which release data were available), one

on releases in 2005 (the year in which the En ergy Policy Act was passed), and one on the

average number of releases from 2002 to 2006 (meant to represent the number of releases

before and shortly after passage of the 2005 Energy Policy Act).

The results of the 2009 regressions were limit ed. Some regulatory variables (periodic

interstitial integrity testing and periodic ti ghtness testing of spill buckets) had a

statistically significant, negative relationship with the number of releases, some variables

(secondary containment and periodic tightness t esting of dispenser pans) demonstrated a

positive relationship with the number of re leases, and other variables (STP sumps,

continuous interstitial monito ring, and periodic tightness testing of sumps) did not

demonstrate a consistent relationship with the number of releases. 2



# To update the analysis described in the 2 009 Memo, IEc obtained more complete data on

the presence of UST regulations by state, in cluding whether or not states conducted walkthrough inspections at least once per year, as well as data on the number of tanks and

releases in each state in 2009. In a ddition, IEc made the following changes:

1. Regulatory variables that only applied to a single state – namely periodic

interstitial integrity testing (only applie d to California) and periodic tightness

testing of dispenser pans (only ap plied to Delaware) were dropped.

2. In their place, dummy variables for California and Florida were added.

These changes were implemented in order to f acilitate interpretation of the results of the

regression analysis. If a regulatory variable only applies to a single state, then for

purposes of regression it essentially serves as a du mmy variable that measures the unique

impact of that state on the number of releases – all other variables held constant. Dummy

variables for California and Florida were a dded in order to explicitly measure the

difference in the number of releases in each st ate from the number that would be expected

based on average release rates at other states. Note that the variable representing the

requirement of STP sumps was dropped in regressions 1-3 due to insufficient variability

but included in regressions 4-6.

Exhibits 1-5 reproduce the information presented in the 2009 Memo, updated to reflect

the latest analysis. Exhibit 1 lists and defines each of the va riables used in the

regressions, while Exhibit 2 summarizes the six regressions run. Exhibits 3 and 4 present

summary statistics for each of the variables u sed in the regressions and note which states

2 

# IEc also considered examining the rate of releases by state (i.e., the number of releases divided

by the number of USTs in each state). However, screening analyses show ed that specifying the

regressions in this way did not account for the fact th at the number of USTs vari es widely by state.

States with mature UST regulatory programs – specifically California and Florida – have far more

USTs than the average across st ates with frequent inspections. Accordingly IEc included the

number of USTs as an explanatory variable in the regression analysis.

# F

- 3 July 16, 2010 

# have each of the UST regulations represented by regulatory dummy variables. Exhibit 5

presents the results of the regression analysis , noting which regression coefficients are

statistically significant at the 0.1, 0.05, and 0.01 levels. As the exhibit shows, even in the

updated regression analysis, there is not a consis tent, statistically significant relationship

between the regulatory variables and the numbe r of releases by state. For example,

secondary containment requirements are consis tently associated with an above-average

number of releases (though this relationship is not always statistically significant). In

addition, STP sump requirements – when incl uded in the analysis – are consistently

associated with a below-average number of re leases. Continuous interstitial monitoring

and periodic tightness testing of sumps do no t appear to have either a positive or a

negative correlation with the number of releas es by state. Periodic spill bucket testing

and walkthrough inspections are consistently associated with below-average and aboveaverage numbers of releases, respectively, though in neither case is this correlation

significant. The only variables to show st atistically significant, large and negative

correlations with the number of releases are the dummy variables for California and

Florida, but even then those relationships we re not consistently statistically significant

across all of the years examined.

Exhibit 6 shows the degree to which the actual number of releases in Florida and

California in 2009, 2005, and fro m 2002 to 2006 is less than the number of releases that

would be expected based on the release rates ob served at other states. In 2005 and 2009,

the years in which the dummy variable for California was statistically significant from

zero, California had between 56 and 63 percen t fewer releases than would be expected

based on the regression analysis. In 2002- 2006, when the period in which the dummy

variable for Florida was statistically signif icant from zero, Florida had between 60 and 65

percent fewer releases than would be expected . As will be discussed below, IEc strongly

cautions against generalizing these results be yond the states included in the analysis.

However, these numbers do suggest an upper bound of potential avoided leaks associated

with the operation of the mature, relatively stringent programs in both California and

Florida.

# F-4 July 16, 2010 

# EXHIBIT 1. VARIABLES USED IN REGRESSION ANALYSIS

VARIABLE NAME SOURCE DESCRIPTION



# t2009, t2005 RawData Number of USTs in each state in year 2009 and 2005, respectively

r2009, r2005 RawData Number of releases from USTs in each state in year 2009 and 2005, respectively

tavg0206 RawData Average number of USTs in each state from 2002 to 2006

ravg0206 Rawdata Average number of releases from USTs in each state from 2002 to 2006

mapseccon Map Dummy variable: 1 if a state has secondary containment regulation in place by

November 2005

e2stpsump 1 

# E 2 

# Dummy variable: 1 if a state has a requirement for STP sumps

e2contmonit 1 

# E 2 

# Dummy variable: 1 if a state has co ntinuous intersti tial monitoring

e2persump 3 

# E 2 

# Dummy variable: 1 if a state has a requirem ent for periodic tightness testing of sumps

e2persbtest E 2 

# Dummy variable: 1 if a state has a requirem ent for periodic tightness testing of spill

buckets

walkthrough E 2 

# Dummy variable: 1 if a state has a requirem ent for periodic (i.e., more than annual)

walkthrough checks

dum_ca n/a Dummy variable: 1 if the state is California

dum_fl n/a Dummy variable: 1 if the state is Florida

e2perinteg 1,3 

# E 2 

# Dummy variable: 1 if a state has a requiremen t for periodic intersti tial integrity testing

IEcperdptest 3 

# DPRA Dummy variable: 1 if a state has a re quirement for periodic tightness testing of

dispenser pans

insfreqind Insp,

RawData Index variable: 0-5 scale that grades eac h state based on the following scale:

1. If the state’s 2008 UST inspection frequency is once every five years or more often:

two points.

2. If the state’s 2008 UST inspection frequency is between once every five years and

once every ten years: one point.

3. If the state’s average UST inspection frequency from 2003 to 2005 is once every five

years or more often: two points.

4. If the state’s average UST inspection frequency from 2003 to 2005 is between once

every five years and once every ten years: two points.

5. If the standard deviation of the state’s UST inspection frequencies in 2003, 2004,

2005, and 2008 is three or less: one point.

Notes :

1. We assume that a state without secondary containment regulation in November 2005 would also not have

regulations for stp sumps, continuous in terstitial monitoring, or periodic in terstitial integrity testing at that

time. Thus, values for e2stpsump, e2co ntmonit, and e2perinteg are all set to zero for states where the value of

mapseccon is zero.

2. On the suggestion of Tim Roberts, we also adjusted th e index scores of Minnesota and Washington upward by

one point.

3. Due to a lack of variability in these variables, they we re not included in the regression analysis. e2stpsump was

included in regressions 4-6 but not in regressions 1-3.

# F

- 5 July 16, 2010 

# EXHIBIT 2. SUMMARY OF REGRESSIONS RUN

REGRESSION

# DEPENDENT

VARIABLE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES RESTRICTIONS



# (1) r2009 t2009, mapseccon, e2contmonit, e2persump,

IEcpersbtest, walkthrough, dum_ca, dum_fl insfreqind = 5

(2) r2005 t2005, mapseccon, e2contmonit, e2persump,

IEcpersbtest, walkthrough, dum_ca, dum_fl insfreqind = 5

(3) ravg0206 tavg0206, mapseccon, e2contmonit, e2persump,

IEcpersbtest, walkthrough, dum_ca, dum_fl insfreqind = 5

(4) r2009 t2009, mapseccon, e2stpsump, e2contmonit, e2persump,

IEcpersbtest, walkthrough, dum_ca, dum_fl insfreqind > 3

(5) r2005 t2005, mapseccon, e2stpsump, e2contmonit, e2persump,

IEcpersbtest, walkthrough, dum_ca, dum_fl insfreqind > 3

(6) ravg0206 tavg0206, mapseccon, e2stpsump, e2contmonit,

e2persump, IEcpersbtest, walkthrough, dum_ca, dum_fl insfreqind > 3

EXHIBIT 3. SUMMARY STATISTICS OF VARIABLES USED IN REGRESSIONS 1-3

VARIABLE OBS MEAN STD. DEV. MIN MAX STATES (DUMMIES ONLY)



# t2009 29 9,757 8,738 1,191 36,899

t2005 29 10,219 9,406 1,065 38,753

tavg0206 29 10,429 9,652 1,111 40,142

r2009 29 95 84 6 330

r2005 29 121 123 1 536

ravg0206 29 146 169 1 617

mapseccon 29 0.172 0.384 0 1 CA, FL, HI, ME, NH

e2stpsump 1 

# 29 0.0690 0.258 0 1 FL, NH

e2contmonit 29 0.103 0.310 0 1 CA, ME, NH

e2persump 29 0.276 0.455 0 1 AL, DE, IA, MS, ND, TN,

UT, WY

IEcpersbtest 29 0.172 0.384 0 1 AL, CA, DE, FL, MS

walkthrough 29 0.276 0.455 0 1 CA, CO, NH, NM, SC, TN,

UT, WI

dum_ca 29 0.0345 0.186 0 1 CA

dum_fl 29 0.0345 0.186 0 1 FL

Note:

1 

# e2stpsump was excluded from regressions 1-3 because in the presence of dum_fl it only applies to NH.

# F

- 6 July 16, 2010 

# EXHIBIT 4. SUMMARY STATISTICS OF VARIABLES USED IN REGRESSIONS 4-6

VARIABLE OBS MEAN STD. DEV. MIN MAX STATES (DUMMIES ONLY)



# t2009 38 10,389 8,514 1,191 36,899

t2005 38 10,916 9,179 1,065 38,753

tavg0206 38 11,108 9,404 1,111 40,142

r2009 38 106 89 5 330

r2005 38 125 120 1 536

ravg0206 38 151 165 1 617

mapseccon 38 0.158 0.370 0 1 CA, FL, HI, ME, NH, RI

e2stpsump 38 0.0789 0.273 0 1 FL, NH, RI

e2contmonit 38 0.0789 0.273 0 1 CA, ME, NH

e2persump 38 0.289 0.460 0 1 AL, DE, IA, MN, MS, NC,

ND, TN, UT, WV, WY

IEcpersbtest 38 0.158 0.370 0 1 AL, CA, DE, FL, MS, NC

walkthrough 38 0.237 0.431 0 1 CA, CO, MN, NH, NM, SC,

TN, UT, WI

dum_ca 0.0263 0.162 0 1 CA

dum_fl 38 0.0263 0.162 0 1 FLF-7EXHIBIT 5. REGRESSION RESULTSREGRESSION#DEPENDENTVARIABLE NREGRESSION COEFFICIENTSCONSTANT T2009 T2005 TAVG0206 MAPSECCONE2STPSUMPE2CONTMONITE2PERSUMPIECPERSBTESTWALKTHROUGH DUM_CA DUM_FL(1) r2009 29 6.74 0.0104***9.82 ^ -6.3 -11.9 -9.83 8.98 -245*** -105(2) r2005 29 -30.7 0.0157***39.6* ^ -8.18 7.45 -46.8 32.4 -341** -198(3) ravg0206 29 -45.5 0.0200*** 51.7**^ -6.72 1.49 -48.6 -0.743 -137 -375**(4) r2008 38 8.64 0.0104***9.6 -31.1** 5.97 -3.73 -29.5 13.3 -244*** -55.1(5) r2005 38 -20.7 0.0141***43* -36.4* 1.11 -1.25 -53.3 34.1 -293*** -116(6) ravg0206 38 -46.6** 0.0187*** 58.7** -26.3* 1.95 -2.67 -39.4 4.9 -114 -323***Notes: Regressions used hederoskedasticity-robust standard errors.^ Variable was not included in the regressionbecause it only applies to one state.* Coefficient is significantly different from zero at the 0.1 level.** Coefficient is significantly different from zero at the .05 level.*** Coefficient is significantly different from zero at the .01 level.EXHIBIT 6. COMPARISON BETWEEN ACTUAL AND EXPECTED RELEASESIN CALIFORNIA AND FLORIDA, BASED ON REGRESSION ANALYSISYEARREGRESSIONNUMBERCALIFORNIA FLORIDAACTUAL NUMBEROF RELEASESEXPECTED # OF RELEASES(DUM_CA = 0)PERCENTDIFFERENCEACTUAL NUMBER OFRELEASESEXPECTED # OF RELEASES(DUM_FL = 0)PERCENTDIFFERENCE2009(1)148390** -63%169273 -38%(4) 392** -62% 275 -20%2005(2)256597* -57%254459 -43%(5) 524** -56% 417 -28%2002-2006(3)617758 -18%206578** -65%(6) 705 -16% 536** -60%Notes: * Coefficient for the dummy variable is significantly different from zero at the .05 level.** Coefficient for the dummy variable issignificantly different from zero at the .01 level.

# F

- 8 July 16, 2010 

# STATISTICAL CHALLENGES



# A number of fundamental problems limit the value of the regression analysis conducted

in 2009, and these problems persist with th e updated analysis described above. In

particular, data availability and reliability seri ously limit, if not preclude, measurement of

the effectiveness of UST leak prevention regulati ons in reducing releases in this context.

Estimation and Aggregation Problems



# As described above, consistent, accurate release data are not available. It is likely that

measurement error exists in the recording of confirmed releases across states (the

dependent variable) and that it is related in some systematic way to the regulatory

structure of the state or other explanatory variables (as opposed to random reporting

error) in the analysis. 3 

# In addition, state inspections vary in timing and focus across

states; this, in turn, affects the consistency of third-party verified compliance and release

information. IEc attempted to account for this by selecting only states with a high

frequency of inspections for inclusion in the analysis. Unfortunately, interaction between

inspection frequency and degree and effectiven ess of regulation creates sample selection

problems (i.e., states with higher release rates due to limited regulation may also be states

that do not conduct frequent inspections a nd therefore have less reliable data). 4



# Therefore, normal regression properties do no t hold, and regression analysis may provide

unreliable results. As an example, Exhibit 5 shows that regressions 2, 3, 5, and 6 found a

positive, statistically significant rela tionship between secondary containment

requirements and the number of releases per year, in contrast to empirical data from

Florida which suggest that secondary cont ainment may reduce releases by roughly 50

percent. 5



# Another obstacle to measuring the efficacy of UST regulations, as shown in Exhibit 4, is

that many regulations are present only in a small number of states. In the cross-sectional

analysis described above, IEc dealt with limit ed variation in the presence of regulations

by dropping several regulatory variables from the analysis. Given this lack of variation,

and the small number of potential observations, it is likely that regulatory indicators will

proxy for other relevant characteristics of that state.

This lack of variation can shed some light on the negative, statistically significant

relationship between the number of relea ses per year and STP sumps requirements found

in regressions 4-6. Since only three stat es included in the analysis require STP sumps

(Florida, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island), it is likely that the regression analysis

actually measured the effect of other characteristics of one or more of those states, rather

3 

# As shown in Exhibit 9, release rates in Alab ama and Florida spiked in 1993 after release

detection requirements were implemented, indicating that the reported number of releases in a

particular year might include releases that occurred in prior years.

4 

# The only reliable approach to identify th e relationship between inspection frequency,

compliance, and number of releases would require a large-scale data collection effort. In absence

of this, we use inspection frequency as an indicator of reliable data

5 

# U.S. EPA, Petroleum Releases at Underground Storage Tanks in Florida (Draft). 2005. DISCUSSION

# F

- 9 July 16, 2010 

# than the regulation itself. Indeed, when regressions 4 and 5 are run without the variable

e2stpsump, the coefficient for the dummy vari able for Florida becomes significant at the

0.1 level, suggesting that some unmeasured ch aracteristic of Florida was responsible for

the apparent relationship between STP sump requirements and the number of releases

observed in Florida, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.

Taken together, these issues create serious estimation and inference problems, and

prohibit generalizing any results beyond the sa mple states. In short, the data do not

support a national analysis of the effectiveness of state regulation.

Appropriate Study Design



# Ideally, given accurate release data, an analysis of the effectiveness of UST leak

prevention regulations would employ observations from a large number of states over a

time period the includes years before and after regulations were in place. Such “panel”

data would allow for identification of impacts temporally and spatially. Panel data would

also allow for fixed effects estimation, whic h controls for any unobserved characteristics

of states that might affect release rates (such as soil pH or climate), independent of any

effect of regulation. The data used in this analysis superficially appear to be panel data,

since they provide information on the number or rate of releases from different states in

multiple time periods, along with information on the presence or absence of UST

regulations by state. However, accuracy issues aside, for most UST regulations, it is

unclear both when the regulation was first promulgated and when the effects of the

regulation would be expected to be fully rea lized. As noted in Exhibit 2 (and explained

in more detail in the 2009 Memorandum), th e cross-sectional analysis dealt with this

uncertainty by assuming that states without secondary containment in November 2005

would also lack requirements for STP sumps, continuous interstitial monitoring, or

periodic interstitial integrity testing. Aggreg ation of regulatory measures in this fashion

further exacerbates identification problems ac ross states in the cross-sectional analysis

described above.

Exhibit 7 summarizes some of the statistical challenges described above, explaining why

the data used in this analysis limit its ab ility to measure the effectiveness of UST leak

prevention regulations. Because of these limitations, IEc cautions against drawing strong

conclusions from the results of the regressi on analysis described in this appendix.

EXHIBIT 7. STATISTICAL CHALLENGES TO ANALYZING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF RELEASE-PREVENTION UST

REGULATIONS

STATISTICAL

CONSIDERATION WHY IMPORTANT? REQUIREMENT ACTUAL DATA



# Panel Data Panel Data allows for

fixed effects estimation,

which controls for

unobserved variation

between states. 1. Data must distinguish

between periods before

regulation and periods

after regulation.

2. Sufficient variation in 1. Difficult to determine

before and after periods

for most regulations

2. Too few states have many

regulations. Because of

# F

- 10 July 16, 2010 

# EXHIBIT 7. STATISTICAL CHALLENGES TO ANALYZING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF RELEASE-PREVENTION UST

REGULATIONS

STATISTICAL

CONSIDERATION WHY IMPORTANT? REQUIREMENT ACTUAL DATA



# regulatory status must

be present, both

between states and

between time periods limited variation in

regulatory status among

states, some regulatory

variables may serve as a

proxy for other state

characteristics that

affect release rates.

Random

Sampling In the absence of panel

data, random sampling

ensures that the sample

is not a biased selection

of the general population The sampling process must

not create bias By selecting states based on

the frequency of inspections,

the analysis conducted a

convenience sample, which

likely excludes the worstperforming states.

Exogeneity Exogeneity ensures that

any correlation between

release rates and UST

regulations actually

reflects a causal

relationship. In the

absence of exogeneity,

traditional regression

analysis produces invalid

results. The presence or absence

of UST regulations must

not be related to preexisting release rates. Some states likely implement

regulations in response to

pre-existing release rates.

Measurement

Error If there is measurement

error in the dependent

variable being analyzed,

then the results of

regression analysis will

not reflect the actual

relationship between the

dependent variable and

the explanatory variable. Variables must accurately

measure the information

they are meant to

represent. Reported releases in a given

year may not represent

releases that occurred in

that year. Trends in release

data suggest that

implementing release

detection requirements leads

to detection of releases from

previous years.

ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS



# Recognizing the limitations to the regression analysis described above, IEc employed a

different approach to estimating the poten tial impact of proposed UST leak prevention

regulations. Having identified California a nd Florida as two states with more mature

regulatory systems in place, IEc compared th e release rates in these two states from 2005

to 2009 to release rates in states without any of the proposed UST regulations during that

time period. IEc first identified 12 states w ith no UST regulations and with inspection

frequency index scores of 4 or 5, and then u sed t-tests to compare release rates between

the two groups of states.

The results of this comparison are presented in Exhibit 8. The analysis found that release

rates in California and Florida were significan tly lower than release rates at states with no

regulations in 2005 (p = 0.051) and in 2009 (p = 0.041), but not in 2006, 2007, or 2008.

# F

- 11 July 16, 2010 

# In 2006 and 2007, reported releases in California and Florida actually occurred at higher

rates than in states without UST regulations. Across all five years, California and Florida

had an average release rate lower than the ot her group of states, but this difference was

not statistically significant (p = 0.171). The results in Exhibit 8 suggest that there is no

consistent, statistically significant differe nce between release rates in California and

Florida and release rates in the twelve states with a high frequency of inspections and no

other UST regulations.

EXHIBIT 8. COMPARISON OF RELEASE RATES AT CALIFORNIA AND FLORIDA TO RELEASE RATES AT

STATES WITH NO UST REGULATIONS

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 AVERAGE



# Mean Release Rates

California and

Florida 0.74% 1.22% 0.81% 0.73% 0.53% 0.81%

States with no UST

Regulations 1.05% 0.98% 0.81% 0.97% 1.17% 1.00%

T-test p value 0.051 n/a n/a 0.156 0.041 0.171

Notes:

One-tailed t-tests were performed on release rates in 2005, 2006, 2009, and the average rate

across all five years. T-tests were not performed on release rates in 2006 and 2007 because

mean release rates in California and Florida were equal to or higher than release rates in states

with no UST regulations.

IMPLICATIONS



# As discussed in this appendix, quantitative analysis of annual UST releases by state was

unable to find a consistent measure of the poten tial impact of leak prevention regulations.

Due to a number of data limitations, incl uding limited variation in the presence of

regulations across states and time periods, IE C was not able to use the preferred method

of fixed effects estimation using panel data. In the absence of fixed effects estimation,

the analysis cannot reliably draw conclusi ons about the impacts of regulations on

releases, independent of any unmeasured charact eristics of states that could be affecting

the number of releases in each state. In ot her words, in addition to data quality issues

discussed above, the small number of states with specific UST release prevention

regulations prevents identification of robust , relationships between individual regulations

and the number of releases per year.

However, through cross-sectional analysis, IEC was able to estimate th at release rates in

California and Florida – two states with matu re UST regulation regimes – were about 55-

65 percent less than one would expect based on release rates at other states during the

# F

- 12 July 16, 2010 

# time period examined. 6 

# This difference could serve as an upper bound for the potential of

leak prevention regulations to reduce the rate of UST releases.

Comparing release rates from 2005 to 2009 in California and Florida to release rates in

states without any UST regulations, IEC did not find a consistent, statistically significant

difference. However, by looking only at st ates with a high frequency of inspections, this

comparison likely did not capture the full range of release rates at states without effective

UST regulatory systems. The fact that release rates at states with frequent inspections

and no other UST regulations was not significan tly greater than release rates at California

and Florida could even suggest that the insp ections themselves are effective at limiting

releases (frequent inspections are, in fact, a key component of the new regulations under

consideration).

This conclusion is supported by the trend show n in Exhibit 8, where after an initial spike

in detected releases upon implementing insp ection requirements, release rates in

California, Florida, and Alabama show gradua l, steady declines. Additionally, as noted

by the coefficients for t2009, t2005, and ta vg0206 in Exhibit 5, the average release rate

for the states examined in th e cross-sectional regression analysis – all of which have

frequent inspections – appears to be de creasing over time, from between 1.87 and 2.0

percent in 2002-2006 to 1.04 percent in 2009.

6 

# IEC further tested these results with a supplementary analysis using binary variable s for states that share regulations with

California and Florida. That analysis also found that California and Florida had fewe r releases than other states, even those

that also had significantly fewer releases than the average state.F-13EXHIBIT 9. RELEASE RATES IN CALIFORNIA, ALABAMA, AND FLORIDA OVER TIME0.00%5.00%10.00%15.00%20.00%25.00%1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010CAALFL1993: Releasedetection requiredin Alabama2001: Testing of secondarycontainment componentsrequired in California

# F

- 14 July 16, 2010 

# Appendix F

Analysis of Statistical Rela tionship between State Regulatory Programs and Confirmed

Release Data

[continued]

# F

- 15 August 3, 2009 

# MEMORANDUM | August 3, 2009

TO 

# Cho-Yi Kwan, EPA/OUST

FROM 

# Cindy Manson, Neal Etre, Nadav Tanners, and Aaron Kamholtz, IEc

SUBJECT 

# Work Assignment 2-25, Task 5.

Summary of Regression Analysis of UST Regulations by State

Overall, the statistical analysis we conducte d has not yielded robust results sufficient for

standalone use in a Regulatory Impact Analysis. Some data may be useful to validate or

inform other methods (e.g., literature-based valuation).

Factors confounding the analysis include concerns over data quality and a lack of

variability among the regulatory profiles of different states. Although significant

relationships were found between certain regulat ory variables and leak rates, these results

appear to be driven by a small number of st ates, making it difficult to make generalizable

conclusions about the observed impact of UST regulations on all states.

LEAK PREVENTION



# We examined the number of releases by state as a function of the number of USTs in

each state and the regulatory profile of each state, using compliance data reported to

OUST by states.

When examining the number of re leases by state, we considered:

• Releases in 2008, the most recent year for which data were available.

• Releases in 2005, the year in which th e 2005 Energy Policy Act was passed.

• The average number of releases from 2002 to 2006, meant to represent the

number of releases before and shortly after passage of the 2005 Energy Policy

Act, in order to reduce the influen ce of single-year spikes in releases.

For regulations associated with leak prevention, we considered:

• Whether the state had regulation requiri ng secondary containment for new tanks

and pipes by November 2005, using the 2005 map of states provided by EPA.

• Whether the state had regulation requiri ng STP sumps by November 2005, using

data collected by E 2



# .

• Whether the state had regulation requiring continuous interstitial monitoring by

November 2005, using data collected by E 2



# .

• Whether the state had regulation requiring periodic tightness testing of sumps,

using data collected by E 2



# . SUMMARY OF

FINDINGS

ANALYSES

CONDUCTED

# F

- 16 August 3, 2009



# • Whether the state had regulation requiring periodic interstitial integrity testing of

secondary containment by 2005, using data collected by E 2



# .

• Whether the state had a requirement for release detection from emergency

generator USTs, using data collected by PCCI.

• Whether the state had a requirement for periodic tightness testing of spill buckets

or dispenser pans, using data collected by DPRA.

In order to ensure consistent data qualit y in the states examined, we used data on

inspection rates to filter out states where we suspected that data on releases might not be

reliable. States reporting inspection rates l ess frequent than every five years, and/or

reporting inconsistent inspection frequencies over time, were removed from the sample.

LEAK DETECTION



# We looked at the severity of releases by state as a function of the regulatory profile in

each state, using data from the LUST Autopsy project.

When considering the severity of releases, we looked at a subset of releases with

sufficient data available to develop a severity classification and considered:

• Whether more than 20 percent of such re leases were classified as “large” releases

that reached groundwater.

• Whether fewer than 50 percent of such releases were classified as “small”

releases that did not reach groundwater.

For regulations associated with leak detection, we considered:

• Whether the state had regulation requiring continuous interstitial monitoring by

November 2005, using data collected by E 2



# .

• Whether the state had regulation requiring periodic tightness testing for sumps by

November 2005, using data collected by E 2



# .

• Whether the state had regulation requiring periodic interstitial integrity testing by

November 2005, using data collected by E 2



# .

• Whether the state had regulation requiring release detection for emergency

generator USTs, using data collected by PCCI.

• Whether the state had regulation requiring periodic tightness testing for spill

buckets or dispenser pans by November 2005, using data collected by DPRA.

Exhibits 1 and 2 in the Appendix describe the data sources used, the variables developed,

and the regressions run for each analysis. Exhi bits 3, 4, and 5 summarize the distribution

of the variables used in each regression, and E xhibit 9 lists the values for each variable by

state.

# F

- 17 August 3, 2009 

# SPECIFICATION OF REGULATORY VARIABLES



# Although we used several different data s ources to develop regulatory profiles by state,

we treated evidence of the absence of secondary containment regulation by November

2005 as representative of absence of certain othe r UST regulations. That is, regardless of

whether other data sources indicated that a state had regulatory requirements for STP

sumps, continuous interstitial monitoring, or pe riodic tightness testing for sumps, etc., if

the data source for secondary containment indicated that the state did not have a

secondary containment regulation in place by November 2005, we concluded that the

state did not have any of these other U ST regulations in place by November 2005.

It should be noted that only nine stat es had secondary containment regulations by

November 2005. Thus, 41 states in our analysis were classified as not having the three

regulations listed above, thereby making it difficult to estimate the impact of different

regulatory regimes on the number of releases by state.

DATA QUALITY CONCERNS



# We used inspection rate as a means of gauging the reliability of reported release data in

each state. We developed an index variable that considered:

• Whether the state’s inspection rate in 20 08 was once every five years or less.

• Whether the state’s average inspection rate for 2005-2007 was once every five

years or less.

• The variability of the state’s inspection rate for 2005-2008.

Exhibit 1 in the Appendix details the scoring sy stem we used to make the index variable

with values ranging from 0 to 5. In consideri ng the severity of releases (i.e., for the leak

detection analyses), we only included states in the LUST autopsy effort that reported

eight or more releases with sufficient data to develop a severity classification.

LEAK PREVENTION



# Exhibit 6 summarizes the results of the regr essions we ran to examine the impact of

regulations focused on leak prevention. Re gressions 1-3 considered only the subset of

states with a score of 5 on the data qua lity index based on inspection frequencies.

Regressions 4-6 expanded the dataset to include all states with scores of 4 or 5 (e.g.,

states that have high variability among inspec tion rates between 2005 and 2008 or states

with inspection rates in 2008 of once every ten years or less, rather than once every five

years).

In all six regressions, there is a statistically significant relationship between the number of

tanks and the number of releases in a state. For regressions 1-3, the number of releases is

expected to be between 1.75 and 2.21 percent of the number of tanks in each state, all else

equal. For regressions 4-6, the relationship between releases and tanks is between 1.29

and 1.67 percent.

In regressions 1-3, in which the data set was restricted to the 29 states with the highest

data quality, there appears to be a large a nd statistically significant negative relationship KEY ASSUMPTIONS

AND ADJUSTMENTS

RESULTS

# F

- 18 August 3, 2009 

# between the presence of regulation periodic in terstitial integrity testi ng and the number of

releases, and between the presence of regulation requiring periodic tightness testing of

spill buckets and the number of releases in each state. For a state with an average number

of tanks (about 11,000 in th is sample), requiring periodic interstitial integrity testing

appears to reduce the number of releases by between 269 and 286 per year, and requiring

periodic tightness testing of spill buckets app ears to reduce the number of releases by

between 158 and 188 per year.

By contrast, there appears to be a statistically significant, but counter-intuitive, positive

relationship between the presence of regulati ons requiring periodic tightness testing of

dispenser pans and the number of releases by state. According to regressions 1-3,

requiring secondary containment appears to increase the number of releases by between

212 and 293 per year for a state with an average number of tanks. Similarly, regulations

requiring secondary containment appeared to increase the number of releases by 52 to 82

in a state with an average number of tanks, but this result was not statistically significant.

Estimates of the effects of regulations requiring STP sumps, continuous interstitial

monitoring or periodic tightness testing of sumps were not consistent across the first three

regressions, so it is difficult to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of these

regulations. For example, when looking at the average number of releases from 2002 to

2006, the requirement of STP sumps had a statis tically significant, large negative effect

on release rates, while the requirement of continuous interstitial monitoring had

statistically significant, large positive effect on release rates. However, neither regulation

had a significant impact on release rates when either releases in 2005 or releases in 2008

were examined.

In regressions 4-6, which used a less restricted subset of the data, none of the regulatory

variables had a significant impact on the expected number of releases in each state.

Although the states in the larger sample reflected a wider range of regulatory profiles, the

statistical noise in the larger dataset made it impossible to find a statistically significant

relationship between variation in regulatory profiles and variation in leak rates. The

coefficients for requirements of periodic in terstitial integrity tes ting and of tightness

testing for spill buckets were still large and ne gative, but they were no longer statistically

significant at the 10 percent level.

When interpreting the above results, it should be noted that for some regulatory variables,

only one or two states had the regulation in pl ace, as shown in Exhibits 3 and 4. Indeed,

it appears that the statistically significant re lationships discussed above are largely driven

by California and Florida, which have many regulations in place and much lower leak

rates than nearly all other states. Given the limited variability in this analysis, it is

possible that some unaccounted-for variable in one or both of these states could be

responsible for their reduced leak rates, ra ther than the specific regulations that we

examine. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that periodic integrity testing and spill

bucket tightness testing appear to reduce leak rates in all states in the sample.

However, this analysis has shown that Florida and California have much fewer releases

than would be expected, based on average releas e rates observed at similar states, and that

# F

- 19 August 3, 2009 

# this difference may be attributable to the presence of regulations, such as periodic

interstitial integrity testing, periodic spill buc ked testing, and stp sump requirements.

Exhibit 7 shows that the number of releases in California is between 25 and 60 percent

less than one would expect if California had no UST regulations in place, while the

number of releases in Florida is between 50 and 67 percent less.

LEAK DETECTION



# Exhibit 8 summarizes the results of the regression we ran to estimate the impact of

regulations focused on leak detection.

When limiting the analysis to only the fifteen states with sufficient data to develop a

severity classification for eight or more releas es, much of the variability in the regulatory

variables disappeared. Accordingly, the vari able for periodic interstitial integrity testing

was dropped from the regression. For the remaining five regulatory variables, the

regression analysis found no statistically si gnificant relationship between the presence of

leak detection regulations and the severity of releases in each state.

NEXT STEPS

Leak Prevention Analysis



# The analysis showed some expected results and some difficult-to-explain results. We

believe the analysis has shown that leak rat es at California and Florida are statistically

different than what one would expect based on leak rates at similar states, but the analysis

does not support conclusions about the observed impact of UST regulations on all states.

Leak Detection Analysis



# It does not appear that the data from states in the Autopsy study is robust enough to

identify differences in leak severity across regulatory options; small sample sizes and

limited variation in state regulatory profiles are the cause. No further analysis of this data

set is likely to be useful.

Literature-based evaluation of rule impact is likely to be most cost-effective

approach



# Given the limited statistical outcomes of th e available data, an approach identifying

literature values or estimates for effectiveness of specific interventions is likely to be

most effective.

• Data and results from the statistical analy ses may be useful in validation, support,

or extrapolation of literature results.

• Engineering testing results likely available in literature for physical prevention;

severity related changes due to monitori ng could be estimated using assumptions

about incident, flow rates. Note – may be able to leverage engineering

information for risk work?

# F

- 20 August 3, 2009 

# APPENDIX

DATA SOURCES

Regulatory Information:



# 1. TO 3003, TDD #13, Secondary Containment, 3-26-09 . This spreadsheet was produced by E 2 

# and

provided to IEc by EPA. ( E 2 

# )

2. Appendix A Exhibits, Exhibit #2 . This spreadsheet was produced by PCCI for IEc and EPA.

( PCCI )

3. Appendix B Memorandum, 9-03-08, Table 2 . This spreadsheet was produced by DPRA for IEc

and EPA. ( DPRA )

4. November 2005 – Current Secondary Containment Requirements . This map was provided to IEc

by EPA. ( Map )

5. Inspection Frequency-05_edit050109. This spreadsheet was provided to IEc by EPA. ( Insp )

UST Data



# 1. RawData. This Access database was provided to IEc by EPA. ( RawData )

2. Autopsy Data. This Access database was provided to IEc by EPA. ( Autopsy )

# F

- 21 August 3, 2009 

# VARIABLES

EXHIBIT 1. VARIABLES USED IN REGRESSION ANALYSIS

VARIABLE

NAME SOURCE DESCRIPTION



# t2008, t2005 RawData Number of USTs in each state in year 2008 and 2005, respectively

r2008, r2005 RawData Number of releases from USTs in each state in year 2008 and 2005, respectively

tavg0206 RawData Average number of USTs in each state from 2002 to 2006

ravg0206 Rawdata Average number of releases from USTs in each state from 2002 to 2006

mapseccon Map Dummy variable: 1 if a state has secondary containment regulation in place by

November 2005

e2stpsump 1 

# E 2 

# Dummy variable: 1 if a state has a requirement for STP sumps

e2contmonit 1 

# E 2 

# Dummy variable: 1 if a state has co ntinuous intersti tial monitoring

e2persump E 2 

# Dummy variable: 1 if a state has a requirem ent for periodic tightness testing of sumps

e2perinteg 1 

# E 2 

# Dummy variable: 1 if a state has a requir ement for periodic interstitial integrity

testing

iecemergen PCCI Dummy variable: 1 if a state has a requirement for release de tection from emergency

generator USTs

iecpersbtest DPRA Dummy variable: 1 if a state has a requirement for periodic ti ghtness testing of spill

buckets

iecperdptest DPRA Dummy variable: 1 if a state has a requirement for periodic tightness testing of

dispenser pans

insfreqind Insp,

RawData Index variable: 0-5 scale that grades eac h state based on the following scale:

1. If the state’s 2008 UST inspection frequency is once every five years or less: two

points.

2. If the state’s 2008 UST inspection frequency is between once every five years and

once every ten years: one point.

3. If the state’s average UST inspection frequency from 2003 to 2005 is once every

five years or less: two points.

4. If the state’s average UST inspection frequency from 2003 to 2005 is between once

every five years and once every ten years: two points.

5. If the standard deviation of the state’s UST inspection frequencies in 2003, 2004,

2005, and 2008 is three or less: one point.

sevindex Autopsy Index variable: -1 if more than 20 percent of releases with severity data are

large/groundwater releases and fewer than 50 percent of releases with severity data

are small/soil-only releases. 1 if the reverse is true, and 0 if both or neither are true.

If a state has fewer than 8 releases with seve rity data, it is classified as “no data.”

Notes :

1. We assume that a state without secondary containment regulation in November 2005 would also not have

regulations for stp sumps, continuous in terstitial monitoring, or periodic in terstitial integrity testing at that

time. Thus, values for e2stpsump, e2 contmonit, and e2perinteg are all set to zero for states where the value

of mapseccon is zero.

2. On the suggestion of Tim Roberts, we also adjusted th e index scores of Minnesota and Washington upward by

one point.

# F

- 22 August 3, 2009 

# REGRESSION ANALYSIS

EXHIBIT 2. SUMMARY OF REGRESSIONS RUN

REGRESSION

# DEPENDENT

VARIABLE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES RESTRICTIONS



# (1) r2008 t2008, mapseccon, e2stpsump, e2contmonit, e2persump,

e2perinteg, iecpersbtest, iecperdptest insfreqind = 5

(2) r2005 t2005, mapseccon, e2stpsump, e2contmonit, e2persump,

e2perinteg, iecpersbtest, iecperdptest insfreqind = 5

(3) ravg0206 tavg0206, mapseccon, e2stpsump, e2contmonit,

e2persump, e2perinteg, iecpersbtest, iecperdptest insfreqind = 5

(4) r2008 t2008, mapseccon, e2stpsump, e2contmonit, e2persump,

e2perinteg, iecpersbtest, iecperdptest insfreqind > 3

(5) r2005 t2005, mapseccon, e2stpsump, e2contmonit, e2persump,

e2perinteg, iecpersbtest, iecperdptest insfreqind > 3

(6) ravg0206 tavg0206, mapseccon, e2stpsump, e2contmonit,

e2persump, e2perinteg, iecpersbtest, iecperdptest insfreqind > 3

(7) sevindex e2persump, e2peri nteg, e2contmonit, IEcemergen,

IEcpersbdp sevindex <> “no

data”

EXHIBIT 3. SUMMARY STATISTICS OF VARIABLES USED IN REGRESSIONS 1-3

VARIABLE OBS MEAN STD. DEV. MIN MAX STATES (DUMMIES ONLY)



# t2008 29 9,921 8,992 1,198 37,379

t2005 29 10,219 9,406 1,065 38,753

tavg0206 29 10,429 9,652 1,111 40,142

r2008 29 112 132 2 632

r2005 29 121 123 1 536

ravg0206 29 146 169 1 617

mapseccon 29 0.172 0.384 0 1 CA, FL, HI, ME, NH

e2stpsump 29 0.0690 0.258 0 1 FL, NH

e2contmonit 29 0.0690 0.258 0 1 CA, NH

e2persump 29 0.276 0.455 0 1 AL, DE, FL, IA, MS, ND,

TN, WY

e2perinteg 29 0.0690 0.258 0 1 CA, FL

iecpersbtest 29 0.103 0.310 0 1 AL, CA, DE

iecperdptest 29 0.0345 0.186 0 1 DE

# F

- 23 August 3, 2009 

# EXHIBIT 4. SUMMARY STATISTICS OF VARIABLES USED IN REGRESSIONS 4-6

VARIABLE OBS MEAN STD. DEV. MIN MAX STATES (DUMMIES ONLY)



# t2008 38 10,543 8,739 1,198 37,379

t2005 38 10,916 9,179 1,065 38,753

tavg0206 38 11,108 9,404 1,111 40,142

r2008 38 125 131 2 632

r2005 38 125 120 1 536

ravg0206 38 151 165 1 617

mapseccon 38 0.158 0.370 0 1 CA, FL, HI, ME, NH, RI

e2stpsump 38 0.0789 0.273 0 1 FL, NH, RI

e2contmonit 38 0.0526 0.226 0 1 CA, NH

e2persump 38 0.237 0.431 0 1 AL, DE, FL, IA, MN, MS,

ND, TN, WY

e2perinteg 38 0.0789 0.273 0 1 CA, FL, RI

iecpersbtest 38 0.0789 0.273 0 1 AL, CA, DE

iecperdptest 38 0.0263 0.162 0 1 DE

EXHIBIT 5. SUMMARY STATISTICS OF VARIABLES USED IN REGRESSION 7

VARIABLE OBS MEAN STD. DEV. MIN MAX STATES (DUMMIES ONLY)



# sevindex 15 -0.267 0.799 -1 1

e2persump 15 0.267 0.458 0 1 AL, DE, GA, TN

e2perinteg 15 0 0 0 0

e2contmonit 15 0.133 0.352 0 1 CT, MA

iecemergen 15 0.267 0.352 0 1 AL, DE, ME, VT

iecpersbtest 15 0.133 0.352 0 1 AL, DE

iecpersbdp 15 0.067 0.258 0 1 DEF-24EXHIBIT 6. RESULTS OF REGRESSIONS 1-6REGRESSION#DEPENDENTVARIABLENREGRESSION COEFFICIENTSCONSTANTT2008 T2005 TAVG0206 MAPSECCONE2STPSUMPE2CONTMONITE2PERSUMPE2PERINTEGIECPERSBTESTIECPERDPTEST(1) r2008 29-53.0 0.0186*** 81.6 -55.9 8.55 -6.76 -279** -188* 293**(2) r2005 29-38.1 0.0175*** 52.1 -20.8 7.41 1.81 -286** -158* 212*(3) ravg0206 29-62.8** 0.0221*** 67.0 -204*** 179** -12.1 -269*** -183** 276***(4) r2008 38-4.79 0.0139*** 44.5 4.46-48.4 -33.6 -125 -122 212(5) r2005 38-2.56 0.0129*** 28.4 36.2 -47.9 -15.8 -129 -93.0 136(6) ravg0206 38-17.8 0.0167*** 36.3 -101 78.0 -46.6 -54.0 -94.7 185Notes:* Coefficient is significantly different from zero at the 0.1 level.** Coefficient is significantly different from zero at the .05 level.*** Coefficient is significantly different from zero at the .01 level.EXHIBIT 7. COMPARISON BETWEEN ACTUAL AND EXPECTED RELEASES IN CALIFORNIA AND FLORIDA, BASED ONREGRESSION ANALYSISYEARCALIFORNIA FLORIDAACTUALNUMBER OFRELEASESEXPECTED NUMBER OFRELEASES (WITHOUTREGULATIONS)PERCENTDIFFERENCEACTUALNUMBER OFRELEASESEXPECTED NUMBER OFRELEASES (WITHOUTREGULATIONS)PERCENTDIFFERENCE2008 266 644 -59% 209 470 -55%2005 256 640 -60% 254 507 -50%2002-2006 617 823 -25% 206 624 -67%F-25EXHIBIT 8. RESULTS OF REGRESSION 7REGRESSION#DEPENDENTVARIABLE NREGRESSION COEFFICIENTSCONSTANT E2PERSUMP E2PERINTEG E2CONTMONIT IECEMERGEN IECPERSBTEST IECPERDPTEST(7) sevindex 15 -0.143 0.143 * -0.857 0.143 -0.143 -1.00Notes:* This variable was dropped due to a lack of usable data.F-26EXHIBIT 9. VALUES FOR ALL VARIABLES USED IN THE ANALYSIS BY STATEStatet2008 t2005 tavg0206 r2008 r2005 ravg0206mapseccone2stpsumpe2contmonite2persumpe2perintegiecemergeniecperSBtestiecperDPtestinsfreqindexsevindexCT 97371187112149.4545760.81 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 -1MA 107111136811452.0539497.81 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1ME 310233593477.0968182.61 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 1NH 310229352976.2395244.81 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 5 no dataRI 161916911707.0102021.21 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 no dataVT 308830112989.0182618.61 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 -1NJ 161381793118886.6202286266.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 no dataNY 294192992530332.4467253542.20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 no dataDE 145015981607.0724553.20 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 5 -1MD 858094399345.2246354325.40 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 no dataPA 242352554526565.4259252532.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1VA 199642546426562.2246178281.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 -1WV 561960336183.6698177.80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 -1AL 187281802118377.8101121147.20 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 0FL 280423110918702.4209254206.01 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 no dataGA 299283032033697.2348340383.20 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0KY 121521309813365.8299286338.20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0MS 871887138889.410070100.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 no dataNC 283753027130553.4228287457.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 no dataSC 119251213712265.0149151146.60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1TN 169781614716663.8227330290.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0IL 221922306223328.6632536565.60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 no dataIN 136851404914268.2349243216.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 no dataMI 197972073021538.2253311396.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 no dataMN 146081432814127.6167151150.60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 no dataF-27EXHIBIT 9. VALUES FOR ALL VARIABLES USED IN THE ANALYSIS BY STATEStatet2008 t2005 tavg0206 r2008 r2005 ravg0206mapseccone2stpsumpe2contmonite2persumpe2perintegiecemergeniecperSBtestiecperDPtestinsfreqindexsevindexOH 233822402524949.6403192235.00 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 no dataWI 150441372114489.0105217215.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 no dataAR 934797499807.6425146.60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0LA 122941395314627.83211957.60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 no dataNM 398840984160.6163828.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 no dataOK 110031158211735.61199084.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 -1TX 538385721958068.6428530340.60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 no dataIA 717577167796.4585255.80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 no dataKS 698972367652.2485258.80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 no dataMO 101091030510367.683121117.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 no dataNE 688669996965.0313757.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 no dataCO 793481658172.8164173176.60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 no dataMT 326033113396.2134444.20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 no dataND 215121852201.6311.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 no dataSD 305529803051.8142420.80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 no dataUT 400540514058.0416280.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 no dataWY 195220552047.42107.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 no dataAZ 706181948068.2216382.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 no dataCA 373793875340141.6266256616.81 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 5 no dataHI 167117831828.8503742.81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 no dataNV 377036883686.2111618.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 no dataAK 119810651111.4131222.20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 no dataID 349634983493.4232420.80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 no dataOR 600863756541.677108103.60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 no dataWA 10054103979696.67811689.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 no data

# Appendix G

Expert Consultation: Selection and Data Collection Methodology

# G-1 APPENDIX G: EXPERT CONSULTATION PROCESS



# Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) undertook an expert consultation process to obtain estimates of the likely

change in confirmed releases as a result of elements of the proposed rule. This effort was designed to

obtain data not available in literature or broad empi rical studies, and relied on five independent estimates

based on expert judgment.

While this effort is not intended to be a formal expert elicitation, IEc and EPA/OUST sought to ensure

that the process of identifying and co nsulting experts was transparent a nd consistent in order to obtain

results that would be as robust as possible.

This appendix documents th e expert consultation process, includi ng the identification of appropriate

experts, the materials distributed to the participa ting experts, and documentation of the decision to

exclude the findings from one of the five experts becau se his findings could not be internally validated or

reconciled with EPA’s regulatory baseline.

G.1 IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF EXPERTS



# To ensure that experts identified were independent of EPA and represented a range of experiences and

geographic regions, IEc followed a protocol similar to that used for identifying peer reviewers.

Specifically, the process involved:

• Development of a master list of potential experts . IEc developed a list of potential experts

based on research of literature, review of pub lished conference proceedings, consultation with

engineering experts at other firms, and professi onal experience and contacts. In addition, EPA

identified experts for consideration; these were incl uded in the list for review but not prioritized.

In total, IEc compiled a list of thirteen experts.

• Screening review of specific experts. IEc reviewed publicly availabl e information to prioritize

experts that had multi-state regulatory expe rience, state-level knowledge of regulation

implementation, and engineering and inspection expertise. This initial review also flagged

potential conflicts of interest (e.g., signifi cant work for regulated industry groups) and

geographic location to ensure distribution.

• Phone interview and conflict of interest (COI) checks . Based on the screening review, IEc

contacted seven experts to identify whether they we re available, interested in consulting on the

project, and operating without any specific conflicts of interest (COI). Ultimately five experts

were available and provided input. Of the re maining two experts, one was unavailable and one

had near-term work with a company that, while not a specific conflict of interest, would violate a

contract provision under which IEc operates.

Exhibit G-1 provides a summary of the five experts selected as a result of the process described above.

Their resumes are included after the exhibit.G-2EXHIBIT G-1: SUMMARY OF EXPERTS SELECTEDName Affiliation Potential Conflict of Interests Rationale for Selecting ExpertJohn Cignatta Datanet Engineering,Inc.Possibly O&M requirements Has experience in training UST inspectors and as an expert witness in theUST program. Has significant proprietarydata set from work on insuranceclaims at individual sites, and cross-state experience in spill causality.Available.John Kneece Former UST BranchChief with SouthCarolina’s Departmentof Health andEnvironmental ControlOperator training Worked extensively on UST prevention issues while in SC. Was member ofthe National Work Group on Leak Detection Evaluations. Strong stateregulatory experience in South Carolina; Familiarity with specific ruleprovisions. Available.Marcel Moreau Marcel MoreauAssociatesOperator training Conducts training and researchand has been an expertwitness. Strong stateregulatory experience in Vermont. Familiarity with specific rule provisions.Experience with EPA/state regulatory requirements, interface. Available.Marshall MottSmithMott-Smith ConsultingGroupRepresents Steel Tank Institute,as well as other equipmentmanufacturersHead of the UST program in Florida for 20 years; also active in the nationaltanks program. Also worked with the National Institute for Storage TankManagement. Involved in development of Florida autopsy data. Notedexperience with industry, but no current conflict or work relevant to specificrequirements under proposed regulations. Other experience exceptional.Currently independent consultant on UST issues.Steve Purpora Purpora EngineeringLLCOperator training and possiblyO&M requirementsConducts training and is a consultant. Insurance experience helpful;Midwestern location provides geographic variation. Multi-state experience inleak autopsy.

# John E. Kneece

1968

– 1992 Served 24 years in the United States Air Force as a missile operations crew member, missile

operations staff member, USAF Professional Military Education faculty member and senior staff

member, instructor and staff member in missile combat crew training squadron, missile operations

squadron commander, deputy operations group commander, and deputy base commander. Retired in

1992 as a lieutenant colonel.

1992

– 2009 Manager of the UST Compliance Section for the Department of Health and Environmental

Control for South Carolina. Trained and directed a 16 member staff (including 10 remotely based

inspectors).

Built and conducted state UST inspector training and standardization program. Program

recognized as a national leader in inspector proficiency and getting the job done.

Developed, coordinated, and published changes to the state UST rules to implement the Energy

Policy Act of 2005 initiatives.

Presentations at National Tanks Conference on UST inspection methodology, corrosion protection

testing, inspection support using PDAs, organizing an effective inspection program.

Taught UST inspector training sessions in EPA Regions 3 and 4 regional meetings. Taught UST inspector

training course in Kentucky.

Conducted UST management training for operators from Pilot Corporation and Hess.

As a member of the National Work Group for Leak Detection Evaluation from 1998

– 2008, specialized in

product piping test methods, statistical inventory reconciliation, and non

‐ volumetric tank testing.

Served on the national work group to build the EPA online national inspector training program.

Served on the national work group that developed the significant operational compliance (SOC)

measurements and criteria as well as the SOC guidance documents and forms for OUST.

On national work group to develop guidance documents for implementing the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Owner

– Underground Storage Training and Consulting, LLC (constituted late fall, 2009)

B.S. Biology (Zoology)

– Clemson University 1968

M.S. Adult Education

– Troy State University 1978

# MARCEL MOREAU

Marcel Moreau Associates

73 Bell Street

Portland, ME 04103

(207) 774-9263

email: marcel.moreau@juno.com

QUALIFICATIONS SUMMARY

Mr. Moreau has worked exclusively in the field of liquid storage systems since 1983. His experience

includes four years with Maine Depa rtment of Environmental Protection, where he was instrumental in

the development of Maine's un derground storage system regul atory program, including the

establishment of the first tank inst aller certification program in the c ountry. He then worked for four

years with an environmental engin eering firm, where his duties incl uded inspecting hundreds of existing

storage systems for military and ut ility clients, and developing conceptual designs for new storage

systems.

Presently, he is an independent co nsultant providing information and educational services related to

liquid storage systems for government and private sector clients. He has given dozens of seminars and

training presentations and is widely published and quot ed in trade publications . He specializes in

development and presentation of classroom and on-line training programs, technical writing, and

development of certification programs for storage system installers and removers.

AREAS OF EXPERTISE

 Facility Regulatory Compliance Assessment

 Tank and Piping Technology for Liquid Storage Systems

 Leak Detection Technology

 Storage System Installation

 Tank Installer Certification

RELEVANT WORK EXPERIENCE

1991 - Present: Principal, Marcel Moreau Associates, Portland, Maine

1987-1990: Principal Scientist, ABB E nvironmental Services, Portland, Maine

1983-1986: Geologist, Maine Departme nt of Environmental Protection

EDUCATION

M.S./Oceanography, 1981, University of Maine

B.A./Geology, 1972, Williams College

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

Maine Certified Oil Storage Tank Installer

Petroleum Equipment Institute

# Marcel Moreau Page 2

PROJECT EXPERIENCE (Marcel Moreau Associates)

2010

 Produced a training guidance document in support of Maine’s TankSmart program to provide

training for UST operators.

2009

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleu m Equipment Institute on a new recommended

practice concerning marina fueling facilities.

 Provided consulting services to the Petrol eum Equipment Institute in producing a new

recommended practice concerning the design a nd installation of motor vehicle lubricant

storage and distribution systems

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleum E quipment Institute in revising their document

entitled “Recommended Practices for Installation and Testing of Vapor-Recovery Systems at

Vehicle-Fueling Sites.”

2008

 Completed work as consultant to the Petr oleum Equipment Institute in producing a new

document entitled, “Recommended Practices for Operation and Maintenance of Underground

Storage Systems.”

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleu m Equipment Institute on a new recommended

practice concerning marina fueling facilities.

 Provided consulting services to the Petrol eum Equipment Institute in producing a new

recommended practice concerning the design a nd installation of motor vehicle lubricant

storage and distribution systems

2007

 Completed work as consultant to the Petr oleum Equipment Institu te on a new document

entitled, “Recommended Practices for Overf ill Prevention for Aboveground Storage Tanks.”

 Provided consulting services to the Petrol eum Equipment Institute in producing a new

recommended practice concerning the design a nd installation of motor vehicle lubricant

storage and distribution systems.

2006:

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleu m Equipment Institute in producing three new

recommended practices dealing with overfill pr evention for aboveground tanks, inspection of

underground storage systems, and inst allation of lubrication systems.

 Provided an on-line, interactive exam to re-certify cathodic pr otection testers for the Steel

Tank Institute.

 Provided representation before municipal boards for a large petroleum marketer seeking

approval for constructing new two new facilities in two townships.

 Provided consulting services to create an online survey to determine state agency experience

with various groundwater contaminants.

 Provided cathodic protection te sting of an impressed curre nt system installed on a

commercial fuel oil storage system.

 Continued development of internet-based educ ation program for UST owners and operators.

2005:

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleum E quipment Institute in revising their document

entitled “Recommended Practices for Installati on of Underground Liquid Storage Systems.”

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleum Equipment Institute for their new publication

entitled, Recommended Practices for Inspection and Maintenance of Motor Fuel

Dispensing Equipment.”

 Provided cathodic protection testing of an airport hydrant fueling pipeline.

 Continued development of internet-based educ ation program for UST owners and operators.

 Provided UST management services fo r large Maine gasoline marketer.

 Provided UST design consultation for la rge mid-Atlantic gasoline marketer.

# Marcel Moreau Page 3

2004:

 Investigation of a leak in cident in New Hampshire.

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleum E quipment Institute in revising their document

entitled “Recommended Practices for Installa tion and Testing of Vapor Recovery Systems

at Vehicle Fueling Sites.”

 Provided instructions and support services for inventory control procedures for a marina

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleum Equipment Institute for their new publication

entitled, Recommended Practices for Inspection and Maintenance of Motor Fuel Dispensing

Equipment.”

 Provided cathodic protection te sting and storage system upgr ading recommendations for a

fuel oil storage system.

 Began development of internet-based educat ion program for UST owners and operators.

2003:

 Provided a study guide and certif ication exam for certifying UST inspectors for Maine’s

Board of Underground Storage Tank Installers.

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleum E quipment Institute in revising their document

entitled “Recommended Practices for Installation and Testing of Vapor Recovery Systems at

Vehicle Fueling Sites.”

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleum Equipment Institute to produce the first edition of a

recommended practice concerning the inspection, repair and maintenance of fuel dispensers.



# 2002:

 Managed a project for the Maine DEP to inspect dispensers and submersible pumps at 100

facilities across Maine for l eaks and report on findings.

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleum E quipment Institute in revising their document

entitled “Recommended Practices for Installa tion of Aboveground Storage Systems for

Motor Vehicle Fueling.”

 Provided technical consultation for a project in California to assess the leak detection

accuracy under field conditions of automatic tank gauges and line leak detectors.

2001:

 Provided UST inspector certification exams for removal, installation and operation &

maintenance for Intertribal Council of Arizona.

 Provided testimony at a hearing with regard to the potential sources of releases of MTBE

from an UST system in Morro Bay, California.

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleum Equipment Institute to produce the first edition of a

recommended practice to test the electrical continuity of gasoline dispensing hoses.

 Provided UST inspector and installer certification exam s to be used in certifying UST workers in Iowa.



# 2000:

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleum E quipment Institute in revising their document

entitled “Recommended Practices for Installati on of Underground Liquid Storage Systems.”

 Managed a project for the Main e DEP to test cathodic protec tion systems at approximately

75 underground storage f acilities in Maine.

 Managed a project to review the results of annual operation tests of approximately 300

underground storage facilities in Maine.

 Continued investigation of large l eak incident for the Maine DEP.

 Tested an impressed current cathodic protection system on a tank at a commercial facility in

Maine.

 Troubleshot galvanic cathodic protection syst ems at a private college in Maine.

 Attended regulatory hearing in Florida to discuss proposed rule changes.

1999:

 Managed a project where approx imately 40 UST facilities we re inspected to determine

whether they met the requirements of Ma ine's Environmental Leader program.

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleum E quipment Institute in revising their document

entitled “Recommended Practices for Installa tion of Aboveground Storage Systems for

# Marcel Moreau Page 4

Motor Vehicle Fueling.”

 Tested galvanic cathodic protection systems on tw o tanks at an applianc e distribution facility

in Maine.

 Tested an impressed current cathodic protecti on system on a tank at a public facility in

Maine.

 Tested galvanic cathodic protection systems on fo ur tanks at a retail fu el outlet in Maine.

 Tested an impressed current cathodic protection system on a tank at a commercial facility in

Maine.

 Investigated internal corrosion in a #6 fuel oil tank for the Maine DEP.

 Investigated a large leak incident for the Maine DEP

 Provided commentary to EPA on US T system technology performance.

 Consulted with Vermont DEC concerning two UST leak incidents.

1998:

 Produced a study guide to help tank worker s prepare for the Pennsylvania aboveground

storage system certification exams.

 Updated the study guides for the West Virgin ia underground tank installer, remover, and

tester certifi cation exams.

 Updated the study guide for the Pennsylvani a underground tank installer and remover

certification exams.

 Evaluated and made recommendations with regard to eight galvanically protected storage

tanks that are not meeting cr iteria for cathodic protection.

 Maine DEP, evaluated potential sources of an MTBE release at a newly constructed gas

station.

1997:

 Regulatory compliance consultation for independ ent petroleum marketer in Massachusetts

 Bolling Air Force Base, compliance review a nd operator manual for fu el storage systems

 Managed project to conduct regulatory complia nce inspections at 75 UST facilities for Maine

Department of Environmental Protection

 Provided technical support for reorganiza tion and revisions to Pennsylvania's UST

certification examinations

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleum E quipment Institute in revising their document

entitled “Recommended Practices for Installati on of Underground Liquid Storage Systems”

1996:

 West Virginia DEP, develope d a study guide and examinatio n for tank tightness tester

certification

 Regulatory compliance consultation for inde pendent petroleum marketer in Hawaii

 Clark County Health Department, Las Vegas, NV, analysis of inventory records to determine

regulatory compliance

 Conducted a regulatory review and market su rvey for a foreign ma nufacturer of leak

detection equipment interested in entering the American market

 Provided technical support at re gulatory hearing for Florida Department of Environmental

Protection

 Provided technical support for reorganiza tion and revisions to Pennsylvania's UST

certification examinations

1995:

 USEPA, wrote survey report on flexible piping systems

1994:

 Pennsylvania DEP, wrote study guides and extens ively revised certification examinations for

UST installers, inspectors and removers

 West Virginia DEP, wrote study guides and certif ication examinations for UST installers and

removers

 Independent Petroleum Marketer, re viewed UST management plan

 AIG insurance, reviewed UST compliance docume nts for two industrial facilities in West

# Marcel Moreau Page 5

Germany

1993:

 USEPA, provided drafts of informational bookl ets on inventory control and manual tank

gauging

1992:

 American Petroleum Institute, reviewed of sc ript for instructional video on UST removal

1991:

 Louisiana DEQ, wrote study gui des and certification examinations for UST installers and

removers

 EPA Region I, developed inspection checklist s for use during UST installation, removal and

compliance inspection

SEMINAR AND PRESENTATION EXPERIENCE (Marcel Moreau Associates)

2010

 Wisconsin Department of Commerce, gave a presentation on inventor y control and SIR as

part of an inspector training program provided by Petroleu m Training Solutions

 Maine Department of Environmental Protection, gave a presentation on issues associated

with safety when working ar ound underground storage tanks.

 Iowa Department of Natural Resources, presen ted a one-day course to meet the continuing

education requirements for Iowa tank workers. Topics included safety, ethanol, secondary

containment, and industry recommended practices.

2009

 USEPA All States Conference, gave a presen tation on the equipment involved in Stage I

vapor recovery.

 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, presented a two day course on storage system

components, installation, leak detection, safety, line tig htness testing, internal lining

inspection, and ethanol issu es for Fire Marshal and State DEQ inspectors.

 Maine Oil Dealers Association, ga ve a presentation to tank inst allers on diesel exhaust fluid

and E15.

 Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation, provide d seminar on cathodic

protection, inventory co ntrol, and SIR as part of an in spector training program provided by

Petroleum Training Solutions.

2008

 Oregon Department of Environmental Qual ity, provided seminar on various tank leak

detection and closure issues for Oregon ta nk workers (with Ben Thomas Associates).

 USEPA All States Conference, presented a wo rkshop on graphical analysis of inventory

control records and a presentation on the role of Petroleum Equipment Institute

recommended practices in the operation and main tenance of underground storage systems.

 Tank Management Services, presented two one- day storage system owner operator training

courses in Kansas (with Ben Thomas and Steven Purpora).

 Maine Department of Environmental Protection, gave a presentation on issues associated

with ethanol fuels.

 Tank Management Services, presented two one- day storage system owner operator training

courses in Kansas.

 Nebraska Fire Marshal’s Office, presented a four-day course on underground storage systems

for inspectors.

 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, presented a two day course on storage system

components, installation, leak detection, safety, line tig htness testing, internal lining

inspection, and ethanol issu es for Fire Marshal and State DEQ inspectors.

 Iowa Department of Natural Resources, presen ted a two day course to prepare Iowa tank

installers to take the Iowa tank installer certific ation exam; also presented a one-day course to

meet the continuing education requi rements for Iowa tank workers.

# Marcel Moreau Page 6

 Seneca Petroleum, Des Moines, Iowa, conducted a one-day class to meet the continuing

education requirements for Iowa tank workers.

 West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, presen ted a 3.5 day course for West

Virginia tank inspectors on leak detection, corrosion protection, and regulatory inspection.

 Maine Oil Dealers Association, gave a presentation to tank installers on leak detection issues

at truck stops and high throughput vehicle fueling facilities.

2007

 Oregon Department of Environmental Qual ity, provided seminar on various tank leak

detection and closure issues for Oregon ta nk workers (with Ben Thomas Associates).

 USEPA All States Conference, presented a wo rkshop on graphical analysis of inventory

control records.

 Maine Department of Environmental Prot ection, gave a presentation on compliance

inspection of below-grade piping conn ected to aboveground storage tanks.

 Maine Oil Dealers Association, ga ve a presentation to tank inst allers on factors to consider

when selecting overfill prevention equipment.

 Maine Department of Environmental Protection and Maine Oil Dealers Association, gave a

presentation to tank truck drivers on overfill prevention equipment and tank filling

procedures for underground and aboveground tanks.

 National Institute of Storage Tank Management, gave a presentation on graphical analysis of

inventory control records

 Kentucky Department of Environmental Qua lity, assisted in presenting a five-day

underground storage system in spector training course (w ith Ben Thomas and Steven

Purpora).

 Arizona Department of Environmental Qualit y, underground storage system installation,

removal, leak detection, overfill prevention and corrosion protection for Fire Marshal and

State DEQ inspectors.

2006

 Maine DEP, gave presentation on troubleshooti ng cathodic protection sy stems and analysis

of inventory control records as part of Ma ine tank installer recertification seminar.

 National Ground Water Association, gave pres entation on obstacles to effective leak

detection and analysis of inventory records.

 Region 5, USEPA, 1.5 day training fo r UST inspectors in Illinois.

 Florida Department of Environmental Pr otection, Storage System Annual Inspector

Conference, introduction to leak detection and cathodic protection.

 Nebraska Fire Marshal’s Office, 2-day training for UST inspectors.

 Arizona Department of Environmental Qualit y, underground storage system installation,

removal, leak detection, overfill prevention and corrosion protection for Fire Marshal and

State DEQ inspectors.

2005:

 USEPA All States Conference, participant in session discu ssing UST owner operator versus

UST inspector views of the inspection proces s; presented draft findings of CA ATG study.

 Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, 3-day certifi cation course for underground tank compliance

inspectors in Reno, Nevada.

 Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, 3-day certifi cation course for underground tank compliance

inspectors in Niagara Falls, New York.

 Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, 3-day certifi cation course for underground tank compliance

inspectors in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

 Maine DEP, gave presentation on overfill prevention issues to NEIWPCC meeting of New

England UST regulatory personnel.

 National Ground Water Association, gave pres entation on obstacles to effective leak

detection.

 Region 5, USEPA, 1.5 day training for UST inspectors in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

 Region 5, USEPA, 1.5 day training for UST inspectors in Indiana and Michigan.

 National Institute of Storage Tank Manage ment, presentation on overfill prevention.

# Marcel Moreau Page 7

2004:

 Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, certificat ion course for underground tank compliance

inspectors.

 Florida Department of Environmental Pr otection, Storage System Annual Inspector

Conference, introduction to leak detection and cathodic protection.

 National Institute of Storage Tank Management, presentation on graphical analysis of

inventory control records.

2003:

 USEPA All States Conference, participant in session discussing overfill prevention and

investigating releases.

 UST regulatory officials in Oxnard, CA, in troduction to vapor recovery, MTBE and UST

leak detection.

 Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, certificat ion course for underground tank compliance

inspectors.

 Florida Department of Environmental Pr otection, Storage System Annual Inspector

Conference, introduction to leak detection and cathodic protection.

 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, review of past and present UST codes and

standards for Fire Marsha l and State DEQ inspectors.

 Maine Department of Environmental Pr otection, introduction to underground and

aboveground storage system technology, leak de tection and corrosion protection for State

DEP inspectors.

2002:

 USEPA All States Conference, participant in session discussing line leak detectors.

 Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, certificat ion course for underground tank compliance

inspectors.

 Florida Department of Environmental Pr otection, Storage System Annual Inspector

Conference, introduction to leak detection, how to look for leaks.

 Arizona Department of Environmental Qualit y, underground storage system installation,

removal, leak detection, overfill prevention and corrosion protection for Fire Marshal and

State DEQ inspectors.

2001:

 Alaska Department of Environmental Conser vation, UST operation cour se for owners and

operators of UST syst ems (5 sessions).

 Iowa Department of Natural Resources, UST ope ration course for owners and operators of

UST systems (6 sessions).

 Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, certificatio n course for underground tank installation

inspectors.

 Florida Department of Environmental Pr otection, Storage System Annual Inspector

Conference, line leak detectors, introduction to leak detection

 Arizona Department of Environmental Qualit y, underground storage system installation,

removal, leak detection, overfill prevention and corrosion protection for Fire Marshal and

State DEQ inspectors.

2000:

 Maine Oil Dealers Association, presente d sessions on cathodic pr otection testing and

aboveground tank fittings at a training seminar for tank installers.

 USEPA All States Conference, participant in sessions concerning secondary containment

and SIR.

 Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, certificat ion course for underground tank installation

inspectors.

 New England Interstate Water Pollution Cont rol Commission, basic UST inspection course

for inspectors from New England states.

 New Jersey Department of Environmental Pr otection, UST inspection course for New Jersey

inspectors.

 Mealey Publications, invited speak er at MTBE conference (twice).

# Marcel Moreau Page 8

 Florida Department of Environmental Pr otection, Storage System Annual Inspector

Conference, statistical inventory reconciliation, line leak detectors, introduction to leak

detection.

 Pennsylvania Department of Environmenta l Protection, UST inspection course for

Pennsylvania UST inspectors.

 Iowa Department of Natural Resources, ca thodic protection testi ng of underground storage

systems for UST inspectors.

 New England Interstate Water Pollution C ontrol Commission, advanced UST inspection

course for inspectors from New England states.

 West Virginia Department of Environmen tal Protection, UST cathodic protection tester

certification course.

1999:

 Region 2 EPA, UST leak detection and upgrad ing compliance for hea lth inspectors in

Hunterdon County, New Jersey (three day seminar).

 USEPA All States Conference, participant in sessions con cerning overfill protection, leak

detection evaluation and post 1998 dead line outreach needs and messages.

 Nebraska State Fire Marshal, seminar for US T inspectors focusing on line leak detectors,

overfill prevention and evaluation of impre ssed current cathodic protection systems.

 Region 4 EPA, cathodic protection testing of underground storage systems for UST

inspectors (three day seminar).

 Florida Department of Environmental Pr otection, Storage System Annual Inspector

Conference, statistical inventory reconciliation, line leak detectors, introduction to leak

detection.

 EPA Office of Enforcement and Complia nce Assurance (OECA), UST operations

compliance for OECA inspectors (three day seminar).

 Region 4 EPA, cathodic protection tester certif ication course in Montgomery, AL (3 day

course).

 Region 3 EPA, cathodic protecti on tester course in Morgan town, WV (3 day course).

 Region 3 EPA, cathodic protecti on tester course in Rich mond, VA (3 day course).

 Region 7, EPA, UST inspector course for Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1.5 day

course)

 Region 9, EPA, UST inspector certification c ourse for Native American inspectors in

Arizona (6 day course)

 Region 7, EPA, UST inspector course for Ne braska Fire Marshal's Flammable Liquid

Storage Division (1.5 day course)

 Region 7, EPA, UST inspector course for Kans as Department of Health and Environment

(1.5 day course)

 Region 7, EPA, UST inspector course for Miss ouri Department of Natural Resources (1.5

day course)

 Red Lake band of Chippewa Indians, Depart ment of Natural Resources, UST operation

course for owners and operators of UST systems on tribal lands.

1998:

 Hawaii Department of Health, leak detec tion compliance seminars for inspectors.

 Alabama Department of Environmental Manage ment, cathodic protection tester certification

course for regulatory personnel.

 Maine Oil Dealers Association, moderator for training seminar for tank installers

 Georgia Tank Equipment Contractor's Asso ciation, presentation to the membership

concerning the future of the industry after 1998.

 California Water Resources Control Board UST conference, criteria for cathodic protection

and how MTBE might be escaping from storage systems.

 EPA Region 5, (Chicago) leak detection, a nd upgrading requirements for UST inspectors

 Florida Department of Environmental Pr otection, Storage System Annual Inspector

Conference, special topics in leak detection.

 North Carolina, corrosion, cathodic protec tion and cathodic protection testing (3 day

seminar).

 Virginia, leak detection and 1998 upgradin g compliance seminars for UST owners &

# Marcel Moreau Page 9

operators (3 one-day seminars).

 West Virginia UST installer, tester and remover re-certification workshops (2 one-day

workshops).

 Region 10 EPA, cathodic protection tester cert ification course for regulatory personnel.

 Arizona Department of Environmental Qualit y, underground storage system installation,

removal, leak detection and corrosion protecti on for Fire Marshal and State DEQ inspectors.

 Maine Department of Environmental Protec tion, leak detection and corrosion protection

compliance for UST owners and operators (3 half-day seminars)

 Maine Oil Dealers Association, discussion of overfill prevention for UST installers.

1997:

 Alabama Department of Environmental Manage ment, cathodic protection tester certification

course for regulatory personnel

 Bolling Air Force Base, storage system leak detection and compliance requirements for base

personnel

 Pace Oil Equipment Company, leak detecti on and upgrading requirements for UST owners

and operators

 Maine Oil Dealers Association, moderator for training seminar for tank installers

 Virginia Department of Environmental Qual ity, leak detection and upgrading requirements

for underground storage systems (8 one-day sessions in four locations)

 USEPA All States Conference, participant in sessions con cerning overfill protection, leak

detection and contra ctor certification

 Maine Department of Environmental Prot ection, overview of automatic tank gauge

technology for state UST inspectors

 Vermont Department of Environmental Cons ervation, leak detecti on, upgrading and vapor

recovery requirements for UST owners and operators

 Certification course for UST cathodic protection system tester s presented in South Carolina

 Florida Department of Environmental Pr otection, Storage System Annual Inspector

Conference, leak detectio n and corrosion protection

 Virginia Department of Environmental Qual ity, leak detection, corrosion protection and

upgrading requirements for UST inspectors

 EPA Region 7, corrosion and cathodic protection training for UST inspectors in Missouri and

Kansas

 Arizona Department of Environmental Qualit y, underground storage system installation,

removal, leak detection and upgrading for Fire Marshal and State DEQ inspectors.

 EPA Region 9, UST leak detection and upgradi ng requirements for tanks on Indian lands,

Palm Springs and Ukiah, California and Reno, Nevada.

 EPA Region 4, corrosion, cathodic protection and cathodic protection testing (3 day

seminars) in Georgia and Kentucky.

 EPA Region 5, corrosion, cathodic protection and cathodic protection testing, (2 day

seminar) in Michigan.

 EPA Region 9, UST leak detection and upgradi ng requirements for tanks on Indian lands,

Window Rock, Tuba City and Phoenix, Arizona.

 EPA Region 9, presentation on leak detecti on and upgrading at Indian Lands Tribal

Conference in San Francisco, California.

 EPA Region 2, corrosion, cathodic protection and cathodic protection testing, (2 day

seminar) in New Jersey.

 Nebraska State Fire Marshal, UST leak detection and upgrad ing requirements for

underground storage systems (half- day sessions in five locations)

1996:

 Petroleum Equipment Institute, District 4 meeting, storage system upgrading and safety

during tank removal

 USEPA All States Conference, cathodic pr otection monitoring and interpretation of

regulations

 John W. Kennedy Company, storage system upgrading requirements in New England

 California Water Resources Control Board US T conference, facility compliance inspection

# Marcel Moreau Page 10

procedures and protocol

 Petroleum Equipment Institute, District 6 meeting, storage system upgrading and safety

during tank removal

 Petroleum Equipment Institute, District 7 meeting, storage system upgrading and safety

during tank removal

 Florida DEP, Storage System Annual Inspect or Conference, leak detection and corrosion

protection

 Petroleum Equipment Institute, District 3 meeting, storage system upgrading and safety

during tank removal

 Clark County Health Department, Las Vegas, Nevada, corrosion and upgrading

requirements for storage system inst allers and owners (2 sessions)

 Arizona DEQ, underground storage syst em inspection and leak detection

 Emco Electronics, Cary, North Carolina, regul atory requirements for leak detection and the

1998 deadline

 Region 1 EPA, Portland, Maine, corrosion and cathodic protecti on monitoring for UST

inspectors

 New Jersey DEP, Leak detection and upg rading requirements fo r underground storage

systems (5 one-day sessions in three locations)

 New York DEC, Saratoga Springs, New Yor k, federal UST requirements for UST inspectors

 Petroleum Equipment Institute, Convex ' 96, Orlando, Florida, unt angling the 1998 UST

deadline

 Colorado oil inspection staff, Denver, Colorado, corrosion an d cathodic protection

monitoring for UST inspectors

 Region 8 EPA, Salt Lake City, Utah, corrosi on and cathodic protecti on monitoring for UST

inspectors

 Region 4 EPA, Spartanburg, South Carolina, corrosion and cathodic protection monitoring

for UST inspectors

 Region 9 EPA, leak detection, upgrading and corrective action requirements for UST owners

and operators (5 one-day sessi ons in Arizona and Nevada)

1995:

 Karr & Associates, UST/AST Conferences in Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver,

Canada, technology and leak detection for USTs

 USEPA All States Conference, facility inspection protocol

 California Water Resources Control Boar d UST conference, statistical inventory

reconciliation for leak detection

 Pennsylvania DEP, train the traine r seminar for state UST inspectors

 Pennsylvania DEP, leak detection seminar for UST owner/operators (8 seminars, six

locations)

 Florida DEP, Annual Inspector Conference, st atistical inventory cont rol and automatic tank

gauging for leak detection

 West Virginia DEP, tank tightness testing seminar for state inspectors

 Petroleum Equipment Institute, District 4 meeting, understanding Florida's underground

storage system regulations

 New Mexico Environment Depart ment, field inspection training

 EPA Region 6, corrosion/cathodic pr otection training for UST inspectors

 Colorado-Wyoming Petroleum Marketers, UST upgrading requirements

 Pennsylvania DEP, closure of UST systems seminar for owner/operators (6 seminars, six

locations)

 New Mexico Environment Department, semina r for UST owner/operators on statistical

inventory reconciliation a nd automatic tank gauging

1994:

 Nevada DEP, leak detection and inspec tion training for stat e and county personnel

 Tennessee DEC, leak detection co mpliance for UST owner/operators

 Hawaii Department of Health, l eak detection compliance seminars for inspectors and service

providers

 New Hampshire DES, seminar on spill and overfill prevention for installers

# Marcel Moreau Page 11

 Hazmat South Conference, state- of-the-art of leak detection

 EPA Region 8, corrosion and cathodic protection training for state pers onnel (1-day sessions

in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming and South Dakota)

 California Water Resources Control Boar d UST conference, tank tightness testing

 Nevada DEP, leak detection compliance for UST service providers

 EPA Region I, leak detection training for state inspectors

 Florida DEP Annual Inspector Conference, leak detection compliance inspection

 Pennsylvania DEP, leak detection complian ce for UST owner/operators (6 locations)

 EPA Region X, UST inspector training (2-day sessions in Alaska, Idaho, Washington)

 New Mexico Environment Department, leak de tection compliance for UST owner/operators

 Omega Environmental, overview of UST leak detection

1993:

 South Carolina DHEC, UST inspector seminar

 West Virginia DEP, UST inspector seminar

 USEPA All States Conference, facility inspection protocol

 Florida DEP, leak detection compliance inspection

 Montana DHES, corrosion and cathodic protection for UST inspectors

 Pennsylvania DEP, private sector UST in spector training (thr ee 4-day sessions)

 West Virginia DEP, UST owner/operator leak detection training (five 1-day sessions)

 Tank Installers of Pennsylvania, UST leak detection requirements

1992:

 EPA Region III, UST inspector training for De laware, Pennsylvania and Virginia (three 3-

day sessions)

 Texas Water Commission, UST inspector training (two 2-day sessions)

 West Virginia DEP, UST inspector seminar

 California Water Resources Control Board, US T inspector training (t hree 2-day sessions)

 EPA Region IV, UST inspector training for North Carolina, Al abama and Kentucky (three 1-

day sessions)

 New Mexico Environment Depart ment, UST inspector training

 Marcel Moreau Associates, leak detection a nd corrosion protection for Louisiana installers

 Louisiana DEQ, UST inspector training (two 2-day sessions)

1991:

 Arizona DEQ, UST insp ector training

PUBLICATIONS

 “MTBE as a Ground Water Contaminant,” (with Peter Garrett) Proceedings of the 1986

National Water Well Association/American Pe troleum Institute Conference on Petroleum

Hydrocarbons in Ground Water - Prevention, Detection and Remediation.

 “An Emphasis on LUP's - The Weak Spots in Piping,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 7, December,

1987

 “Some European Perspectives on Prevention of Leaks from Underground Petroleum Storage

Systems,” Ground Water Monitoring Review, Winter 1987

 “Five Key Underground Piping Problems that Need to be Addressed,” Tank Talk, March,

1988

 “Stalking the Elusive .85 Volts - Monitoring Ca thodic Protection,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 8,

May, 1988

 “Pumping Product - The Push Ups vs Pull Ups of Product Delivery Systems - Implications

for Environmental Health,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 10, February, 1989

 “The Leak Detection Dilemma,” L.U. S.T.line, Bulletin 12, February, 1990

 “The Problems with Piping - An Update,” Tank Talk, Volume 5, Number 2, February, 1990

 “Tightness Testing - Let's Begin With Nomenc lature,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 13, August,

1990

 “Inventory Control...The Untold Story,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 14, March, 1991

 “Everything You Wanted to Know About Pi ping Leak Detection,” Tank Talk, Volume 6,

# Marcel Moreau Page 12

Number 3, March 1991

 “Rulers Lie...And Other Little Known Facts About Statisti cs in Leak Detection,”

L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 15, September, 1991

 “UST System Crisis Checklist,” Tank Ta lk, Volume 7, Number 1, January/February 1992

 “What Tightness Test Would You Use?” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 16, March, 1992

 “The A to ZZZs of Pressurized Piping Leak De tection,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 17, October,

1992

 “Overfill Prevention: Are We There Yet?” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 18, April, 1993

 “How Empty Must A Leaking Tank Be For A L eaking Tank To Test Tight?” L.U.S.T.line,

Bulletin 19, January, 1994

 “Underground Storage System Leak Detectio n: Theory, Practice and Prognostications,”

Proceedings of the 1994 Hazmat South Conference, Orlando, Florida

 “To Dream the Possible Dream: UST Complian ce,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 20, June, 1994

 “What Every Tank Owner Should Know About Ov erfill Prevention,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin

21, December, 1994

 “What Every Tank Owner Should Know About Overfill Prevention,” Tank Talk, Volume 9,

Number 5, November/December 1994

 “Survey of Flexible Piping Systems,” Apogee Research, Inc, Washington, D.C., March, 1995

 “What Every Tank Owner Should Know About Automatic Tank Gauges,” Underground

Storage Tank Guide, May 1995

 “Laying Down the Law on SIR,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 22, June, 1995

 “Spills and Overfills: Protect Yourself,” C onvenience Store News Mexico, December 11,

1995

 “Upgrade Now...or Repent Later,” L. U.S.T.line, Bulletin 23, January, 1996

 “Planning for the Unthinkable: Emergency Pr eparedness for Motor Fuel Dispensing

Facilities,” Convenience St ore News Mexico, March, 1996

 “The ABCs of ATGs,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 24, July, 1996

 “Testing Cathodic Protection Systems,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 25, January, 1997

 “Is Leak Detection Working?” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 26, July 1997

 “Piping's Progress,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 27, November, 1997

 “What About Tank Lining,” L.U.S. T.line, Bulletin 28, February, 1998

 “Of Blabbermouths and Tattletales - The Life and Times of Auto matic Line Leak Detectors,”

L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 29, June, 1998

 “The Holes in Our UST Systems,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 30, September, 1998

 “Hmmm...If Only Overfill Prevention Worked!” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 31, March, 1999

 “Combatting CP-Test Heartburn,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 32, June 1999

 “Enough with the Walking Softly, It's Time to Get Out the Stick,” L. U.S.T.line, Bulletin 33,

October 1999

 “Tank Management 101 - You Too Can Be a `P rofessional' UST System Owner/Operator,”

L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 34, February 2000

 “The Problem with Sumps,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 35, June 2000

 “The Quest for the Perfectly Reliable LLD, or Should Electronic Line Leak Detectors Have

an Annual Test of Operation?” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 36, November 2000

 “Plugging the Holes in Our UST Systems,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 37, March 2001

 “Live and Learn,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 38, Ju ne 2001, (with Patricia Ellis and Ellen Frye)

 “Continuous or Isolated? This Is the Question?” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 39, November 2001

 ‘Of Square Pegs and Round Tanks, or..What If Tank Operators Knew How to Operate

Tanks?” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 40, March 2002.

 “Looking for Leaks in All the Wrong Places,” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #41, June 2002.

 “The Tortoise and the Hare Revisite d,” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #43, March 2003.

 “Baffled by a Leak? Check the Inventory Records,” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #44, July 2003.

 “Will the Real Quantitative SIR Method Plea se Stand Up?” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #45,

October 2003

 “The Limits of Leak Detection,” L.U.S.T. line Bulletin #47, June 2004 (with Ken Wilcox)

 “Maine – The Way Sumps Should Be,” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #49, March 2005

 “I’ve Looked at Tanks from Both Sides Now,” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #50, August 2005

 “Did the Shear Valves Shear?” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #51, December 2005

 “Operator Training: Boon or Bust ?” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #52, May 2006

# Marcel Moreau Page 13

 “Beware the Unintended Consequences of Manifolding,” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #53,

September 2006

 “The Trouble with Truck Stops,” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #56, August 2007

 “The Gospel According to Phil,” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #57, November 2007

 “Making Sense of Sensors,” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #58, September 2008

 “UST Rules for a New Century,” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #59, November 2008

 “A Primer for the Next Generation of Tank People (Part 1 – Tank and Pipe Technology),”

L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #60, February 2009

 “A Primer for the Next Generation of Tank People (Part 2 – UST Ancillary Equipment),”

L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #61, May 2009

 “Stage I Vapor Recovery Is Coming to a Station Near You,” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #62,

August 2009

 “If I Had to Choose Just One Way of Achiev ing UST Operational Compliance,” L.U.S.T.line

Bulletin #64, March 2010.

 “Operator Training Has Left the Stati on...So Where Are State Programs Headed?”

L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #65, June 2010.

VIDEOS

Technical consultant for the following USEPA videos:

 “Doing It Right” (tank installation)

 “Doing It Right II” (storage system installation)

 “Keeping It Clean” (spill free fuel deliveries)

 “Straight Talk on Tanks” (leak detection)

 “Searching for the Honest Tank” (storage system inspection)

 “Petroleum Leaks Underground” (beh avior of petroleum in subsurface)

Produced the following videos:

 “Oil and Water Don't Mix - Or do They?” fo r the Maine Department of Environmental

Protection

 “Gas Tanks and Gargoyles - A Look at Eur opean Petroleum Storage Technology” for the

USEPA

LEGAL WORK

Provided depositions in the following cases:

MICHAEL ALLISON, et al., V. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore

County, Baltimore, MD, retained by Ms. Ma ry Koch on behalf of the plaintiffs

GINA McCARTHY, COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONM ENTAL PROTECTION (S TATE OF CT) V.

PILOT CORPORATION, PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC, AND HGC LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

State of Connecticut Superior Court, complex litigati on docket, J.D. of Hartford at Hartford, D.N. X04-

HHD-CV-07-4027800-S., retained by Ms. Sharon Sc ully on behalf of the plaintiff.

JOHN BEAZLEY, et al., V. THE CARROLL INDEPEND ENT FUEL CO., et al., in the Circuit Court

of Maryland for Baltimore County, Case No.: 03-C-07- 004668, retained by Ms. Mary Koch on behalf of

the plaintiffs.

CITY OF NEW YORK V. AMERA DA HESS CORP., ET AL., MDL No. 1358, Master File C.A. No.

1:00-1898 (SAS), 04 Civ. 3417. Retained by Mr. Sco tt Pasternack on behalf of the plaintiff.

THEODORE GARILLE, Executive Director for THE PASCOAG UTILITY DISTRICT V. EXXON

MOBIL CORPORATION f/k/a EXXON CORPORATIO N and f/k/a MOBIL CO RPORATION, State

Of Rhode Island Superior Court, County Of Providence, No. 02-2437. Retained by Mr. William

Dubanevich on behalf of the plaintiff.

# Marcel Moreau Page 14

NEUMAYER EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. V. SYNERGY OIL, LLC, d/b/a SYNERGY OIL,

d/b/a/ SYNDERGY PETROLEUM, and ADAM R. OKILEE, in the Circuit Court of the City of St.

Louis, Missouri, Case No. 062-00211, Division No. 7. Retained by Mr . David Dare on behalf of the

plaintiff.

TONNESON, ET AL. V. SUNOCO, INC., ET AL., in th e United States Distri ct Court, Southern

District of New York, MDL N o. 1358, Master File C.A. No. 1:00- 1898 (SAS), 03 Civ. 8248, retained

by Mr. Duane Miller on behalf of the plaintiffs.

IN RE: METHYL TERTIARY BUTYL ETHER (M TBE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION,

MDL 1358, in the United States Distri ct Court Southern District of Ne w York, retained by the firm of

Baron & Budd on behalf of the plaintiffs.

THIRSTY’S (ELM REST), LTD., V. BLARNE Y CASTLE OIL COMPANY, AMERICAN ZURICH

INSURANCE COMPANY AND GENERAL AGENCY CO MPANY, in the State of Michigan 28 th



# Circuit Court for the County of Wexford, Case No. 04-18377-CZ, retained by Mr. Jason Miller on

behalf of the plaintiff.

D.J. NELSON TRUST dba FRUITRIDGE VISTA WATER COMPANY V. A TLANTIC RITCHFIELD

COMPANY, et al., in the Superior C ourt of the State of California, in and for the county of Sacramento,

Case No. AS00535, retained by Mr. Victor Sher on behalf of the plaintiff.

SUSAN B. FRALICK BALL, et al., V. BAYARD PUMP & TANK CO., INC., et al., V.

CONTAINMENT TECHNOLOGIES CORP., et al., in the Court of Comm on Pleas, Montgomery

County, Pennsylvania, NO. 99-06438. Re tained by Mr. Stephen W. Miller on behalf of the defendant

Bayard Pump & Tank.

MONTANA PETROLEUM TANK RELEASE COMPENSATION BOARD V. CRUMLEY &

WALLIS SERVICES, INC., ET AL., in the Montana First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark

County, Cause No. BDV-2001-107. Retained by Mr. Allan Payne on behalf of the plaintiff.

BOBBIE ADAMS, ET AL. V. BP PRODUCTS OF NOR TH AMERICA, INC., ET AL., in the Carteret

County, North Carolina, General Court of Justice, Superior Court Divisi on, Case No. 03 CVS 912.

Retained by Mr. James Hopf on behalf of the plaintiffs.

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON V. UNION OIL COMPANY, ET

AL., in the San Mateo, California Superior Court, Case No. 410753. Retained by Mr. James Mathison

on behalf of the plaintiff.

BERNARD SALVADOR V. IRVING OIL CORPORATION, in the Supe rior Court of Belknap County,

New Hampshire, Docket No. 02-C-0137. Retained by Mr. Michael Dunn on behalf of the plaintiff.

WALKER PETROLEUM, INC. ET AL. V. LAURA C. WINGFIELD, ET AL., in the Circuit Court of

Jackson County, Mississippi, No. CI-2000-0043(3). Re tained by Mr. David Frazier on behalf of the

plaintiff.

MARY LOUISE FAIREY, ET AL. V. THE EXXO N CORPORATION, ET AL., in the Court of

Common Pleas, County of Orangeburg, State of South Carolina. Re tained by Mr. Marion Fairey on

behalf of the plaintiffs.

KVAERNER ARONSON, INC. (plaintiff) V. MA MMOTH MOUNTAIN SKI AREA (defendant),

MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN SKI AREA (cross-compla inant) V. KVAERNER ARONSON, INC.,

EMCO WHEATON RETAIL CORPORATION, ET AL. (cro ss defendants), in the Superior Court for

the County of Mono in the State of California, Case Number 12928, re tained by Mr. Jeffrey Nolan on

behalf of Mammoth Mountain Ski Area.

STATE OF VERMONT V. WESCO, INC. AND ODESSA CORPORATION, in the Vermont Superior

# Marcel Moreau Page 15

Court, Docket Nos. 3105-06-01 and 3131-6-01. Retained by Jeanne Elias, Assistant Attorney General,

State of Vermont, on behalf of the plaintiffs.

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, ET AL. V. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

COMPANY, Civil Action No. 292-CV- 00267 (JBA), in the United States Di strict Court for the District

of Connecticut. Retained by Mr. Stephe n Fennell on behalf of the defendants.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STAT ES POSTAL SERVICE V. MYSTIC BULK

CARRIER INC., XERXES CORPORATION, M ETRO-TANK, INC. AND UNIVERSAL VALVE

COMPANY, INC, Civil Action No. 98-4336 in the United St ates District Court, Di strict of New Jersey.

Retained by Ms. Laura Smith on behalf of the plaintiffs.

CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT V. UNOC AL CORPORATION, ET AL., San Francisco

Superior Court Case No. SCV 997013. Retained by Mr. Scott Summy on behalf of the plaintiffs.

SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT V. ATLANTIC RITCHFIELD CO., ET AL., San

Francisco Superior Court Case No. 999128. Retained by Mr. Duane Miller on behalf of the plaintiffs.

BUDDY LYNN, ET AL. V. AMOCO OIL CO., ET AL., C. V. #96-T-940-N in the District Court for the

Middle District of Alabama, Nort hern Division. Retained by Mr. Dennis Reich on behalf of the

plaintiffs.

CHRISTOPHER SEWARD V. SHOP-A-SNACK FOOD MART, INC., ET AL., in the Circuit Court of

Jefferson County, Alabama, CV98-4049. Retained by Ms. Glenda Cochran on behalf of the plaintiff.

RICHARD FARRELL V. MASSACHUSETTS ENGINEER ING COMPANY, INC., et al., in the

Superior Court of Massachusetts, C.A. No. 95- 617. Retained by Mr. H. Hamilton Hackney, III

on behalf of the defendant.

TOWN OF BILLERICA SCHOOL COMMITTEE V. COASTAL REFI NING & MARKETING, INC.

in the Superior Court of Massachusetts, C.A. N o. 95-7121. Retained by Ms. Theresa Kelly Banash on

behalf of the defendant.

OCEAN COUNTY VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL SCHOOL V. FUEL TANK MAINTENANCE

SERVICE, INC., WHITEMARSH CORPORAT ION AND KELLY DONAHUE CONTRACTING,

INC., in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division - Ocean County, Do cket No. OCN-L-2938-95.

Retained by Mr. Peter Loffredo on behalf of the plaintiff.

WEST VIRGINIA UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK INSURANCE FUND and R. M. ROACH &

SONS, INC. V. DARWIN D. CUPP, SAMUEL K. SPIGLER CO., INC., and CAMPO-MILLER, In the

circuit court for Berkeley County West Virginia. Retained by Mr. Richard Rowe on behalf of the

plaintiff.

INTERSTATE FACILITIES OF HILLVIEW, INC., d/b/a PRO STOP LOUISVILLE SOUTH AND

INTERSTATE FACILITIES, INC., AN D I-65, INC. V. DEWCO, INC., ET AL., In Jefferson Circuit

Court (Kentucky), Division Six (No. 92-CI-05229). Re tained by Mr. George Carter on behalf of the

defendants.

STATE OF MAINE V. CHEVRON USA, Cause No. CV-95-79, In the Superior Court, Kennebec

County, Maine. Retained by Ms. Phyllis Ga rdiner on behalf of the plaintiff.

IN RE: TUTU WELLS CONTAMI NATION LITIGATION, 1989-107, In th e United States District

Court, Division of St. Thomas and St. John. Retained by Mr. John Dema on behalf of the plaintiff.

USA V. OWNBEY ENTERPRISES, United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Rame

Division. Retained by Mr. Kenneth Riem er on behalf of the plaintiff.

ADVANTAGE BUSINESS SYSTEMS (ABS) V. XTRA-MAR T ET AL, United States District Court,

# Marcel Moreau Page 16

Southern District of Maine. Retained by a lawyer for the plaintiff.

Provided trial testimony in the following cases:

DUNNE ET AL. V. SHELL OIL COMPANY, Index #96- 13856T, Supreme Court of the State of New

York, County of Westchester.

SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT V. ATLANTIC RITCHFIELD CO., ET AL., San

Francisco Superior Court Case No. 999128

WALKER PETROLEUM, INC. ET AL. V. LAURA C. WINGFIELD, ET AL., in the Circuit Court of

Jackson County, Mississippi, No. CI-2000-0043(3). Re tained by Mr. David Frazier on behalf of the

plaintiff.

NEUMAYER EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. V. SYNERGY OIL, LLC, d/b/a SYNERGY OIL,

d/b/a/ SYNDERGY PETROLEUM, and ADAM R. OKILEE, in the Circuit Court of the City of St.

Louis, Missouri, Case No. 062-00211, Division No. 7. Retained by Mr . David Dare on behalf of the

plaintiff.

CITY OF NEW YORK V. EXXON (MDL No. 1358), in the United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York.

# Marshall Mott-Smith

Marshall T. Mott-Smith, President

Mott-Smith Consulting Group, LLC

2268-2 Wednesday Street

Tallahassee, Fl 32308

mtmott-smith@comcast.net

marshall@mott-smithconsulting.com

850-391-9835 work

850-591-1434 cell

www.mott-smithc onsulting.com

QUALIFICATIONS SUMMARY

Marshall Mott-Smith is the President of The Mott- Smith Consulting Group, LLC, a Tallahassee-based

consulting firm that provides national and internat ional consulting, engineering, and training services for

aboveground and underground storage tank system management. He provides assistance with

equipment approvals, alternative procedures, waiv ers, variances, enforcement actions, training,

compliance services, and expert witness services for private sector and government owners of

underground and aboveground storage tank systems. He provides technical and training presentations,

is widely published and quoted in trade publications, and represents several different underground and

aboveground storage tank system product lines. He is a Sales Representative fo r Atlas Fueling Systems,

a Partner and Representative for Ec o-Tank Systems, LLC, and a member of the Board of Directors for

The National Institute for Storage Tank Management. He is also on retainer for the Steel Tank Institute

as their expert on storage tank regulation.

Mr. Mott-Smith has worked with storage tank system s since 1983, and was the Administrator for the

Storage Tank Regulation Section in the Florida Depar tment of Environmental Protection from April, 1986

until April, 2008. His previous experience with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection began

in March 1977 with air pollution monitoring and enforcement, and continued until 1986 with solid waste

permitting and enforcement, air pollution management, and hazardous waste management. As

Administrator of the Storage Tank Regulation Sect ion, he was instrumental in the development of

Florida's underground and aboveground storage tank system regulatory program, and pioneered the

development and establishment of rules and standards in Florida for storage tank and piping secondary

containment. Mr. Mott-Smith was influential in bringing the problems associated with flexible piping

systems into public view, and established the ongoing Leak Autopsy Study in Florida in 2003. He has

testified before four Congressional Co mmittees about storage tank systems, given hundreds of technical

and training presentations, and has written numerous arti cles for national and international publications.

In addition, he has also worked for The National In stitute for Storage Tank Management for 20 years as

an instructor.

AREAS OF EXPERTISE

• Storage Tank System Management and Regulatory Compliance

• Sources and Causes of Leaks from Un derground and Aboveground St orage Tank Systems

• Leak Detection Technology and System Performance

• Storage Tank System Installation and Closure

• Underground Piping Systems and System Performance

• Alternative Fuels Storage and Management

# RELEVANT WORK EXPERIENCE

2008 - Present: President, Mott-Smith Consul ting Group, LLC, Tallahassee, Florida

Board of Directors, National Institute for Storage Tank Management

Partner and Sales Representative for Eco-Tank

Sales Representative for Atlas Fueling Systems

1986-2008: Administrator, Storage Tank Regulation Section, Florida Department of Environmental

Protection

1980-1986: Program Coordination Positions for Air Pollution, Solid & Hazardous Waste with the

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

1977-1980: Compliance Inspection/Enforcement/Per mitting Positions with the Florida Department of

Environmental Regulation

Emergency Response Experience

Worked at the Florida Emergency Response Center from 2006 until 2008 on ESF 12 (Fuels) and

managed missions and shift responsibilities involving Florida’s response to hurricanes and resolving fuel

availability issues for first responders, hospitals, nur sing homes, and other critical needs. This included

managing, organizing, and prioritizing activities and missions with agency senior management.

Certifications

40 hour training and 8 hour refresher training for Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response



# EDUCATION

Graduate Studies in Land Use, Florida State University, 1976

B.S., Geography, 1976, Flor ida State University

Okaloosa-Walton Junior College – Basic Studies

United States Air Force Academy – 1972-1973

MILITARY SERVICE

Honorable Discharge (Medical, left knee), USAF, 1973

Cadet Fourth Class, United States Air Force Academy 1972-1973

PUBLICATIONS:

“Florida Invests in Leak Prevention w/Aggres sive Facility Compliance Verification Program”,

L.U.S.T.Line, April, 1993.

“Florida’s Leak-War Veteran on a Mission”, Petroleum Equipment and Technology, June, 2000.

# “The State of Florida’s Experiences with Thermoplas tic Flexible Piping”, The Bulletin, Journal of the

Association for Petroleum and Explos ives Administration, June, 2003.

“New Hope for Hurricane Availability Problems... Portable Electric Pumps for UST Systems ”,

L.U.S.T.Line, September, 2006.

“Hurricanes and Storage Tank Systems – Effects, Iss ues, and Lessons Learned” The Bulletin, Journal of

the Association for Petroleum and Explosives Administration, November, 2007.

“Florida’s Leak Autopsy Study for Storage Tank Systems”, L.U.S.T.Line, August, 07.

“Parting Thoughts from a Veteran Tank Regulator”, L.U.S.T.Line, September, 08.

“What Owners Should Know ...Ethanol Storage in Underground and Aboveground Storage Systems”,

Petrogram, Fall 2008.

“What, Another Deadline?”...Selective Catalytic Reduc tion and Diesel Exhaust Fluid, Petrogram, Summer

2009.

“Florida’s Secondary Containment Deadline for Field- erected ASTs, Tank Storage Magazine, December,

2009.

“E-10 and Single-wall Fiberglass Tanks...Are There Emerging Problems with Compatibility?” Petrogram,

Spring 2010.

“E-10 and Single-wall Fiberglass Tanks...Are There Emerging Problems with Compatibility?” Journal of

the Association for Petroleum and Explosives Administration, June 2010.

CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY:

October 31, 1989:

House Small Business Sub-Committee on Anti-Trus t, Impact of Deregulation and Privatization held

hearings on financial responsibility for Underground St orage Tanks. Testimony was heard by Marshall T.

Mott-Smith, Florida Department of En vironmental Regulation, Tallahassee.

February 20, 1990:

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: Subcommittee on Environmental

Protection held oversight hearings to review the Environmental Protection

Agency's financial responsibility requirements for underground storage tank

systems containing petroleum or ot her regulated substances, Testimony was heard by Marshall T. MottSmith, Florida Department of Envi ronmental Regulation, Tallahassee.

March 21, 1991:

House Committee on Energy and Commerce: Subcommi ttee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials

held an oversight hearing on the implementation of the underground storage tank (UST) program

established under Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Testimony was heard from Don Clay,

Assistant Administrator, Solid Wa ste and Emergency Res ponse, EPA; and public witnesses. Testimony

was heard by Marshall T. Mott-Smith, Florida Depa rtment of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee.

September 14, 1994:

# House Committee on Energy and Commerce: Subcommi ttee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials

held a hearing on H.R. 1360, Safe Aboveground Stor age Tank Act of 1993. Testimony was heard from

Marshall T. Mott-Smith, Administrator, Storage Tank Regulation Section,Department of Environmental

Protection, State of Florida.

LEGAL WORK:

Current work:

Since April, 2008 – Cunningham, Bounds, LLC, - Flexible Piping Case

Since September, 2008 – Holland & Knight LLP/Ryan Law LLP, - UST Discharge

Since March, 2009, Gordon & Rees, LLP, - Flexible Piping Case

Since April, 2009, Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Co hen, P.C. – Spill Bucket & Flexible Piping issues

Completed work:

Alan Goldfarb, P.A. – Skylake Auto - Flexible Pipi ng Case initiated April 2008 – resolved favorably

Enterprise Rental Car – initiated October 2009 - UST Removal – Provided consulting services

Provided depositions in the following cases:

February 14, 1988. Florida Petroleum Marketers Association vs. Flori da Department of Environmental

Protection and Alachua County.

March 21, 1991. Florida Petroleum Marketers As sociation vs. Florida Department of Environmental

Protection, Rule Challenge on Chapter 17-761, Florida Administrative Code

April 8, 1991. Deposition on proposed tank farm and pipeline in Lloyd in Jefferson County.

July, 2006. Southeastern Liquid Analyzers vs. Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection.

Challenge on a revocation of a Department Equipment Approval.

September 22, 2004. Tropic Enterprises/Sunoco vs. Dayco, others.

January 12, 2006. Total Containment

January 25, 2006. Total Containment

February 6, 2006. Brookshire Br others vs. Total Containment

November 2, 2007. Twin Oil vs. Total Containment

November 19, 2007. Twin Oil vs. Total Containment

May 18, 2009. Troy Brown & Atta way Services, Inc. vs. John Toscano & Enviro-Steel Corporation

Provided trial testimony in the following case:

April 4-5, 1991. Florida Petroleum Marketers Asso ciation vs. Florida Department of Environmental

Protection, Rule Challenge on Chapter 17-761, Florida Administrative Code.

July, 2006. Southeastern Liquid Analyzers vs. Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection.

Challenge on a revocation of a Department Equipment Approval.

# TRAINING AND PUBLIC SPEAKING INFORMATION

Mr. Mott-Smith has given over 500 presentations during his time with the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection, Mott-Smith Consulting Group, and as a representative of the National Institute

of Storage Tank Management.

Work History



# 1987 – 2008 Administrator, Storage Tank Regulation Section , Bureau of

Petroleum Storage Systems, Division of Waste Management.

Supervises and manages a staff of twent y-one (20) people to insure that the

storage tank program is properly administ ered and coordinated with the District

offices, local governments, and other sect ions of the Department. Responsible

for all tanks program rule development activities, program guidance for rule

interpretation and review of Equipment Approval and Alternate Procedure

Requests. Participates in meetings and makes presentations about the

Department’s storage tank program. Responsible for maintaining close liaison

with the United States Environment al Protection Agency, and negotiates

agreements with EPA and other federal, stat e, and local agencies. Oversees the

preparation of state and federal program budget requests required as part of the

annual work plan and federal grants.

1989 – Present Instructor , National Institute for Storage Tank Management (Dual

Employment). Teach six one-day classes annually about AST and UST

management in Florida, and assist with the preparation and management of the

Annual International Aboveground Stora ge Tank Conference for the NISTM.



# 1986 – 1987 Administrator, Solid Waste/Tanks Section , Department of

Environmental Regulation. Responsible for the management of the

State’s solid waste and storage tank programs and supervised eighteen

professional and clerical positions. DER internal reorganization split the

Section into two separate groups.

1984 – 1986 Environmental Specialist III, Air Program Field Operations

Coordinator , Division of Permitting, Florida Department of

Environmental Regulation. Responsible for coordinating all air program

activities between the Division of Programs, the Division of

Administrative Services, and the Division of Permitting’s offices in

Tallahassee with the Department’s District field offices around the state.

1980 – 1984 Environmental Specialist III , Division of Permitting, Florida Department

of Environmental Regulation. Coordination of five programs (Air, Solid

Waste, Hazardous Waste, Underground Injection Control, and Tanks)

between the District offices and the headquarters offices in Tallahassee.

1978 – 1980 Environmental Specialist I , South Florida District Office, Fort Myers.

Responsible for managing the District’s solid waste program, and

performed compliance inspections, permit application evaluations,

# enforcement actions, and complaint investigations.

1977 – 1978 Pollution Control Specialist I, South Florida District Office, Fort Myers.

Employed as an air program enforcement specialist and performed

facility compliance inspections at major and minor sources of air

pollution.

1977 – 1977 Engineering Technician III , South Florida District Office, Fort Myers.

Operated and maintained the District’s ambient air monitoring network.

1976 – 1976 Graduate Assistant , Florida State University Environmental Analysis

Center. Computer mapping, cartography, and administrative assistance

for the Scientific Programmer.

# STEPHEN A. PURPORA

Purpora Engineering, LLC

P.O. Box 80265

Saukville, W

I . 53080

e

- mail: sap@purporaengineering.com

S UMMARY

Since 1979, Mr. Stephen Purpora has worked extensively in all areas of underground

storage tank, line, and leak detector testing as well as vapor recovery and cathodic

protection inspections. His experience includes over 2 5 years of field testing and

consulting for the petroleum testing industry. He has assisted Mr. William Purpora in the

development of testing procedures and pro tocol for product line testing equipment as

well as the Petro

- Tite tank test equipment.

Mr. Purpora currently travels extensively throughout the United States and recently

internationally

, training and certifying test technicians and regulatory personnel on the

fundamental and practical applications of testing underground storage tanks, product

piping , leak detectors and vapor recovery systems.

In early 2002, Mr. Purpora assumed the position of President of Protanic, Inc. and

Purpora Engineering, LLC

. In 2004 he was the founding member of N.T.C.A., LLC

(National Testing Contractors Association), PTTI, LLC (Petroleum Tank Training

Institute) and GEA, Inc

.

Mr. Purpora has attended Westminster College in Missouri and the University of

Wisconsin Milwaukee. Mr. Purpora is married with 3 children and currently resides in

Cedarburg, Wisconsin.



# A REAS OF EXPERTISE

Underground storage tank and product line test ing

Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery technology

Petroleum Test Equipment manufacturer and train ing consultant

Helium Leak Pin

- Pointing technology

Leak Detector Testing

Truck Stops

Leak Detection Systems



# R ELEVANT WORK EXPERIENCE

1979

– Present UST Tank and Line Test Certified Technician/ Technical Advisor

1985 Lead Test Foreman for Mobil Oil Corp. , Arco, and DeSoto Oil Test

Projects

# 1986

– 1987 Technical Advisor for LDT

- 890 Leak Detector Tester and assisted

in development of Purpora 706 protocol

1987

– 2000 Contractors Association Testing Consultant

Stephen Purpora Page 2

1989

– 1992 Nati onal Instructor for Pen

- X Devaporizer

1990 Testing Project Supervisor for Sale of Road Runner Service

Stations

1999 Testing Consultant for Exxon Mobil Miami Test Project

1999

– Present Petro

- Tite Tank and Line test equipment manufacturer, instructor

and te st consultant

2002

– Present President of Protanic, Inc. and Purpora Engineering, LLC

200 4

– Present Founding member of PTTI, LLC dba PTS

200 4

– Present Founding member of NTCA, LLC

2004

– Present Technical Advisor and member of the PEI RP

- 300

– Committee for

the “Recommended Practices for installation and testing of Stage I

and Stage II Vapor Recovery.”

2008

- Present President and Found ing member of GEA, Inc.



# L EGAL

2002 JMB Realty Corp., Seattle, WA

– Retained by Mr. John S. Hahn of Mayer,

Brown , Rowe & Maw on behalf of the defendant JMB Realty Corp. of

Seattle, WA. Subject of case was who could be held responsible for

product pipeline release.

2003 Great American Custom Insurance Services, Inc. v. Petroleum Equi p ment

Services of Wisconsin, Case # 03

- CV

- 736 . Retained by Mr. Matthew R.

McClean of Borgelt, Powell, Peterson & Frauen S.C. on behalf of the

plaintiff Great American Custom Insurance Services, Inc. Subject of case

was a pressure gauge install ed in a product pipeline for testing purposes

which resulted in a p roduct release.

2004 Samuel Coraluzzo Company, Inc. insurance claim against Sunoco, Inc.

Retained by Mr. Samuel J. Pace, Jr. of Dugan

, Brinkmann

, Maginnis &

Page on behalf of the defendant Sunoco, Inc. Subject of the case was

whether app ropriate delivery procedures were followed between the fuel

terminal and tanker.

2005 Montana Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Board v. Crumley &

Wallis Services, Inc. Case #BDV

- 2001

- 107. Retained by Doney, Crowley,

Bloomquist, Payen UD A P.C on behalf of the Montana Petroleum

Release Compensation Board. Subject of the case was proper

procedures for utilizing ATG for compliance testing, while the tank had a

release.

2008 OPW retains Purpora for review of the Leak Detect or and case review of

Jacksonville, Maryland case. Mobil Oil vs. State of Maryland. Subject was

to technically review the workings of Leak Detector that was in place at

the site that had the release.

# 2009 State of SD Petroleum Release Compensation Fund vs . O’Day

Equipment, Inc. and Hose Master, Inc. Civil No. 08

- 571. I was retained

by the defendant the installer O’Day Equipment, Inc. Subject of case was

the a Truck Stop had a release from a flex connector and the State

wanted to pull all parties related t o the equipment at the truck stop into

the liability of costs for clean ups.



# T ECHNICAL CONSULTANT FOR VIDEO PRESENTATIONS :

“ Petro

- Tite Tank and Line Tester Training ”

– Purpora Engineering, LLC

“ Pen

- X Devaporizer Training ”

– Purpora Engineering, LLC

Current courses produced through PTTI, LLC for Petroleum Equipment

Institute (PEI) On

- Line Web Based Training

“ABC’s of ATG’s”

“ABC’s of ATG’s

– Tanks and Piping ”

“Single Wall Piping”

“Double Wall Piping”

“Spill of Delivery and the Agony of Releas e”

– Spill Bucket and Overfill

protection

Stephen Purpora Page 3



# Professional Affiliations and Seminar/Presentation Experience

National Instructor and Manufacturer of UST Tank and Petro

- Tite Line Test

Technology

Guest Speaker at 1 st 

# annual NISTM Un d erground Storage Tank Conference

. Presented on “Integrity of Underground Storage Tank Testing”

Presenter at 2005 EPA UST National Conference on EMS

– Environmental

Management Systems.

New Jersey State Inspector Training for Line, Leak Detector, and Vap or

Recovery Testing.

State of New York 2005 , training testers and companies on basic operations

and testing of Stage 1 and Stage 2, in regards to the New York regulations

Guest Speaker for 2 nd 

# annual NISTM Underground Storage Tank

Conference, presented “ TSI (Test Scene Investigation) and “ Hiring Service

Providers”

Provided training for ITCA (Inter Tribal Council Association) for Tribal

Inspectors and EPA personnel.

Provided consulting on Regulations and Testing Practices for the following

State s :

o State of Illinois OSFM

– Mr. Scott Johnson and Mr. Bill Alderson

o State of New Jersey DEQ

– Mr. Le n Lipman

o State of Tennessee Dept. of Environment & Conservation UST Division

– Mr. Lamar Bradley

Petroleum Equipment Institute member in good standing

# Kentucky State Inspector Training on all aspects of UST Systems

Idaho, Oregon and Washington Training on all aspects of UST Systems

Presenter at 2007 EPA UST National Conference; Truck Stops

Wisconsin Inspector Training 2007, 2008, 2009

State of Kansas operator training

Tennessee Inspector training

- 2009

# JOHN V. CIGNATTA, Ph.D, PE

Datanet Engineering, Inc.

Principal – President

11416 Reisterstown Road

Owings Mills, Maryland 21117

Tel: 410.654.1800 Fax: 410.654.3711

E-Mail: jcignatta@datanetengineering.com



# AREAS OF QUALIFICATION:

▪ Civil-Environmental Engineering: Maryland P.E. #13556

▪ Civil-Environmental Engineering: Virginia P.E. #0402040459

▪ NACE Accredited Corrosion Specialist #3304

▪ NACE Accredited Cathodic Protection Specialist #3304

▪ API (American Petroleum Institute) 653 Accredited Aboveground Storage

Tank Inspector #21623

▪ MDE Certified Underground Storage Tank Inspector – MDIC 2007-0025

▪ STI (Steel Tank Institute) SP-001 Accredited Aboveground Storage Tank

Inspector #001-06

▪ Level II NDT Ultrasonic Thickness Evaluation under SNT-TC-1A

▪ Project Management - Systems Management

▪ MDE Instructor Cathodic Protection Testing Buried Fuel Tanks

▪ STI Instructor Aboveground Storage Tanks Installation - Shop Fabricated

▪ MDE Instructor Underground Storage Tanks Installation

▪ MDE Instructor UST Certified Tank Remover

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:

Dr. Cignatta has three post graduate degrees in Environmental Engineering and

Systems Management. He has practiced engineering on a full time basis since 1976

within the disciplines of environmental and corrosion engineering while working for the

Air Force, private engineering firms and as president of Datanet Engineering, Inc. since

1983. Dr. Cignatta was awarded his doctorate in Environmental Engineering in

September 2004 by Kennedy-Western University.*

President, Datanet Engineering, Inc., Baltimore, MD, (1983 to Present)

▪ Manages and directs corrosion and environmental engineering projects

including protective coatings for steel and concrete structures, cathodic

protection systems for buried and submerged steel structures, all aspects

of design, installation and protection of underground and aboveground

storage tanks, and water treatment for industrial and potable applications.

▪ An ever greater portion of his workload is assisting various courts with

expert testimony. Some of his clientele span from the EPA and OSHA to

insurance companies, commercial concerns and even private citizens.

His more noteworthy cases have included: Exxon gasoline release in

Jacksonville, MD, OSHA Three Rivers Stadium, EPA Euclid Oil, the

Tarentum Bridge OSHA case, the Philadelphia Flyers arena ice making

equipment failure, and the CSX Tunnel-Fire Incident in Baltimore.

# Resume of John V. Cignatta, Ph.D., PE Page 2



# ▪ Provides specialty investigations for corrosion monitoring and control of

unusual items spanning from engine sprockets to Civil War artifacts.

▪ Developed and created the complete Steel Tank Institute Level 1 and

Level 2 Aboveground Storage Tank Inspector courses. Continues to

present the certified aboveground tank inspection one week course for

the Steel Tank Institute and the five day underground storage tank (UST)

inspection course for the Maryland Department of the Environment. Dr.

Cignatta routinely conducts the STI class on shop fabricated fuel tank

inspection across the country. He has taught the fuel system training

courses at a variety of the Community Colleges in the Maryland area over

the past twenty years on UST installation, UST removal, cathodic

protection testing and other topics.

▪ Has accomplished computer simulation of abrasive blasting enclosures

and other complex ventilation systems for support of both worker and

environmental protection requirements at industrial painting projects.

▪ Manages environmental projects in cluding site assessments, hazardous

waste remediation, sick building evaluations/remediations, regulatory

compliance and expert testimony for industrial, governmental and

commercial clients.

▪ Invited speaker in "Expert-In-Industry" series at the Alice Hamilton

Laboratory of NIOSH. Provided a one-day symposium on state-of-the-art

procedures and equipment for lead paint removal on bridges and water

tanks. Similar symposia presented by invitation at OSHA Headquarters

and Maryland Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

▪ Provides expert consulting services to several branches of the military,

state governments and major national corporations on corrosion and

coatings related projects. Presented seminars and mini-symposia for

governmental and corporate clients on innovative lead paint removal

technologies.

▪ Primary author of guide specification on corrosion control of buried fuel

piping; incorporated by reference into the Maryland Underground Tank

regulations. Also, recommended to other states by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks,

as a model for guide specification.

▪ Featured conference speaker on corrosion control and protection of the

environment and workers for underground storage tanks, elevated water

tanks and bridges for NISTM, STI, NACE, SSPC, AWWA, and American

Shipyard Association.

▪ Conference chairman for 1991 Lead Paint Removal Conference of SSPC.

# Resume of John V. Cignatta, Ph.D., PE Page 3



# Project Engineer , Mueller Associates, Inc., , Baltimore, MD, (1978 to 1983)

▪ Provided systems analysis and engineering services in the fields of

pollution abatement, water treatment and analysis, energy conservation,

and wastewater management. Managed field investigations, hardware

designs, systems studies and site development projects.

▪ Project Manager for several U.S. Navy projects on water analysis,

protective coating evaluations, ultrasonic scanning assessments, cathodic

activity surveys and industrial water treatment enhancements.

Student, Pilot and Environmental Engineer, US Air Force

, (1968 to 1978)

▪ Attended US Air Force Academy through Congressional competitive

appointment

▪ Graduated from undergraduate pilot training and served as combat crew

member on a B-52G in the Strategic Air Command

▪ Served as Base Environmental Coor dinator in Civil Engineering Squadron

for several years responsible for environmental regulatory compliance

and system upgrades at large bulk fuels facilities in several states, crosscountry pipeline facilities including pumping stations, and

water/wastewater treatment plants and distribution systems. Received

US Air Force Meritorious Service Medal for work in fuel and water storage

system emergency repairs.

EDUCATION:

▪ B.S., General, U.S. Air Force Academy, 1972

▪ M.S., Systems Management, University of Southern California, 1976

▪ M.S., Environmental Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 1982

▪ Ph.D., Environmental Engineering, Kennedy Western, 2004 (Note: OnLine University Licensed and Authorized by the State of Wyoming.) *



# REGISTRATION:

▪ Professional Engineering Registration, Maryland, Civil #13556

▪ Professional Engineering Registration, Virginia, Civil #0402040459

▪ National Association of Corrosion Engineers, Corrosion Specialist #3304

▪ National Association of Corrosion Engineers, Cathodic Protection

Specialist #3304

PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES:

▪ National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE)

▪ Painting and Decorating Contractors Association (PDCA)

▪ Steel Structures Painting Council (SSPC)

# Resume of John V. Cignatta, Ph.D., PE Page 4



# RECENT PUBLICATIONS

▪ More Concerns for AST Owners/Operators , presented at NISTM 2007,

May 2007.

▪ Problems and Failures with Shop-Fabricated ASTs , presented at National

Institute for Storage Tank Management, May 23, 2006, Orlando, FL.

▪ Problems with Overfill Valves on Shop Fabricated AST Inspections,

presented at National Institute for Storage Tank Management, May 2005,

Orlando, FL.

▪ Rust Never Sleeps- Controlling Environmental Deterioration of Florida’s

Civil War Artifacts, Dissertation in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Engineering at

Kennedy- Western University, 2004. Research for this major study was

funded and supported in part by Florida Department of Parks, Florida

Department of Cultural Preservation, Florida Department of Cultural

Preservation, General Electric, and Datanet Engineering, Inc.

▪ Recent Discoveries During Routine Shop Fabricated AST Inspections,

presented at National Institute for Storage Tank Management, May 2004,

Orlando, FL.

▪ Rude Awakening to AST Owners, presented at Steel Tank Institute’s

Member’s Conference, January 2004, Bonita Springs, FL.

▪ Liner Creates “Double Wall” Fuel Tank System at Washington, D.C.

Building, Co-Author, presented at Environmental Management and

Regulation of Petroleum Storage Facilities Conference and Exhibition,

October 2002, Kingston, Jamaica.

▪ API 653 Inspections, Integral Components of AST Mechanical Integrity

Programs, Co-Author, presented at Environmental Management and

Regulation of Petroleum Storage Facilities Conference and Exhibition,

October 2002, Kingston, Jamaica.

▪ Gaining Greater Acceptance of CFD Analyses by Engineers, presented at

the 1997 PHOENICS Conference, April 20, 1997 Atlanta, GA.

▪ Computer Aided Engineering for Design of Ventilation Systems at

Industrial Painting Projects , accepted for presentation at the NACE

International Annual Convention, March 14, 1997 at New Orleans, LA.

▪ The Significance of the $2.3 Million OSHA Adjudicated Fine for Painting

at the Tarentum Bridge to Other Industrial Painting Projects , accepted for

presentation at the NACE International Annual Convention, March 14,

1997 at New Orleans, LA.

# Resume of John V. Cignatta, Ph.D., PE Page 5



# ▪ The Anne Arundel County Tank Painting Program , presented with

Mr. Ken Dinnis at the American Water Works Association, Chesapeake

Chapter Annual Convention, September 6, 1996 at Ocean City, MD.

▪ Setting up a Project Site for Abrasive Blasting Including Computer

Modeling of Worker Exposure , Best Poster Presentation with Mr. Timothy

Duffy at American Industrial Hygiene Association Annual Conference,

May 20, 1996 in Washington, DC.

▪ Visualization of CFD Data , presented at the PHOENICS Users

Conference, March 17, 1996 at Atlanta, GA.

▪ Engineering Controls Key to $5 Million OSHA Case, Painting &

Wallcovering Contractor ; August 1995 issue.

▪ Prepares monthly column entitled: "Reg Alert" , for the journal - Painting

& Wallcovering Contractor ; publication of the Painting and Decorating

Contractors Association, by Finan Publishing, Mr. Jeffery Beckner editor,

(314) 961-6644

▪ Recycling Lead Paint while Protecting Workers and the Environment at

the Ferndale Tank, presented at the North Atlantic Water Works

Symposium December 5, 1994 Atlantic City, New Jersey.

▪ Hazardous Wastes for Painters a Simple Topic? Painting &

Wallcovering Contractor ; Jan/Feb 1995 issues

▪ Gang of Four: A Review of the Lead, Cadmium, Arsenic and Hexavalent

Chromium Standards: Painting & Wallcovering Contractor ;

Sept/October, November/December 1994 issues.

▪ Why is every Painter Affected by The New OSHA Heavy Metal

Regulations?; presented at the SSPC National Conference November

1994 Atlanta, GA.

▪ How Are You Affected By the OSHA Lead Standard? ; Painting &

Wallcovering Contractor ; May/June and July/August 1994 issues.

▪ Monitoring Breathing Air at Lead Paint Removal Projects ; Journal of

Protective Coatings & Linings ; February 1994 issue; Coauthor.

▪ Use of Robotics for Replacing Blasters at Industrial Painting Projects ;

Proceedings of the 1993 Steel Structures Painting Conference in New

Orleans, LA.

▪ Review of the New OSHA Lead in Construction Standard ; Published in

the June, 1993 edition of Pb Bulletin of the Steel Structures Painting

Council.

# Resume of John V. Cignatta, Ph.D., PE Page 6



# ▪ Protecting the Environment and Workers at Industrial Lead Paint Project ;

Presented at the 1993 SSPC Lead Paint Removal Conference in

Cincinnati, OH.

▪ Removal of Lead Paint from the Legs of the Conowingo Water Tank

While Protecting the Environment and Construction Workers ; Published

In De-Leading Magazine in June, 1993.

▪ Technical and Regulatory Problems with Bridge Coating Projects in the

90's ; Presented at the 1990 SSPC Lead Paint Removal Conference

Nashville, TN

▪ Use of Mini-Enclosures for Protecting the Environment and Construction

Workers at Industrial Painting Projects ; Presented at the 1992 SSPC

National Conference, Nashville, TN

▪ Problems in Painting Water Treatment and Storage Facilities ; Presented

at the 1991 SSPC Lead Paint Removal Conference, Charlotte, NC

▪ Protecting the Environment and Construction Workers at the Old Mill

Tank Painting Project ; Presented at the 1991 SSPC Lead Paint Removal

Conference, Long Beach, CA

▪ Removing Lead Paint ; American Water Works Association Journal, Vol.

83, No. 11, November 1991; Coauthor.

▪ Mini-Enclosure Demonstration Project at the Amberly Water Tank ;

Presented at the 1990 SSPC National Conference, 1990.

* 

# Kennedy-Western University is a distance learning, on-line University begun in 1984,

and licensed by the State of Wyoming under Statutes W.S. 21-2-401 to 407. The

Wyoming State Department of Education reviews the university’s standards, programs,

policies; verifies faculty credentials, evidence of financial stability, and maintenance of a

$100,000.00 state required bond. Kennedy-Western University has declined to seek

accreditation, to avoid any limitations on the range of its well established degrees and

class offerings over two decades later.

# G-3 G.2 CHARGE AND FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS



# To ensure consistent input from each of the expert s, IEc provided written charge questions, and a blank,

formatted spreadsheet to complete as a final product. Exhibits G-2 and G-3 provide the initial materials.

In response to uncertainties in initial responses, IEc al so developed a set of standard follow-up questions

that was distributed to each expert. Exhibit G-4 provides these questions. Responses from the experts

are provided in Appendix H. 1



# Note that in addition to the standard questions, IEc had a follow-up call with eac h expert to consider any

areas of significant internal discrepancy and any ar eas where initial responses were not clear. The unique

clarifications from each of these calls are incor porated into the exhibits in Appendix H.

EXHIBIT G-2: CHARGE FOR EXPERTS



# CHARGE FOR EXPERTS FOR OUST RULEMAKING

INTRODUCTION

Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) is assisting EPA’s Of fice of Underground Storage Tanks’ (OUST) effort to

evaluate the benefits of several regulatory revisions that are currently under consideration. The revisions are being

undertaken in two parallel efforts:

1) EPA is considering implementing certain UST provisio ns outlined under Subtitle B of Title XV of the

Energy Policy Act of 2005 – specifically related to operator training requirements and additional

secondary containment requirements – in Indian Country and in states that do not have State Program

Approval (SPA); and

2) EPA is also considering targeted changes to the existing UST regulations at 40 CFR 280 to address

release prevention, release detection, deferrals, and other items.

EPA is evaluating the benefits and costs associated with each proposed regulatory requirement and with the full set

of proposed changes. The purpose of this charge is to ob tain independent professional assessments of the potential

impact of the proposed changes on the inciden ce and severity of releases from USTs.

PROFILE OF CURRENT UST RELEASES

According to the Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST)’s 2008 End of Year Activity Report, 7,364

confirmed releases were identified in 200 8 in the U.S. and U.S. territories [7,1 68 releases in FY2009]. Data from

23 states indicate that releases from UST systems range in number and potential severity depending on what part of

the system they come from. Releases from piping and dispenser pans appear to be the most frequent. 2 

# The table

below summarizes the distribution of releases by source, extent, and soil/w ater impact, according to the data

(which are based on releases discovered between September 1999 and February 2003).

1 

# IEc contacted three experts during Fall 2009. EPA instruct ed IEc to contact two more experts during Summer 2010.

2 The data include 580 reported releases from CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV, AL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN, AR, LA, NM, OK, and MO.

# G-4 DISTRIBUTION OF UST RELEASES

LOCAL EXTENT LARGE EXTENT

TOTAL SOURCE SOIL WATER SOIL WATER



# Piping 12.6% 6.8% 1.4% 10.2% 31.0%

Dispenser 22.9% 3.1% 1.7% 4.3% 32.0%

Tank 4.9% 2.8% 2.8% 5.5% 16.0%

STP Area 2.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.8% 4.0%

Delivery Problems 9.5% 2.7% 0.3% 3.6% 16.0%

Total 51.9% 16.7% 6.2% 24.3% 99.0% 1



# Note :

1. One percent of releases came from other so urces, for which data on extent and soil/water

impact were not available.



# INFORMATION REQUEST

Because the proposed regulatory cha nges address both release prevention and release detection, we are seeking

your estimates of the national-level impacts of the propo sed regulatory requirements on both the incidence and

severity of confirmed UST releases. In addition, we ar e interested in how sensitive the expected impacts of each

requirement are to the regulatory specifications and if any interaction effects might exist between any of the

proposed requirements. Specifically, we would like you to provide your best estimates of the following:

• The number (or percentage) of annual confirmed releases that would be avoided by each regulatory

change under consideration;

• The change in the severity of an average release that would result from each regulatory change (this could

be expressed as a change in the average release size, a change in the average spill duration, or a change in

the percentage of releases that reach groundwater);

• The sensitivity of your estimates to the specific comp onents of each regulatory change (i.e., how much

impacts would change if the frequency of inspection requirements changes);

• Any interactions between proposed requirements, such as whether any requirements are redundant with

each other or whether the efficacy of a requirement de pends on the presence of another requirement; and

• The change in the incidence and severity of releases resulting from the full set of proposed requirements

when considered together. This “total” estimate w ould account for any inter actions and redundancies

noted for individual regulatory changes.

Finally, for Operator Training and Secondary Containment (under the Energy Policy Act-Related Requirements

section), we would also like your estimate of the impact of the regulations specifically on the approximately 2,600

tanks on Tribal Lands.

# G-5 The table in the attached spreadsheet lists the proposed regulatory requirem ents and provides space for you to

address the questions posed above. We anticipate that the majority of the information you provide will be included

in this spreadsheet, but we invite you also to provide observ ations in other formats. For this effort, we ask that you

focus your thinking on the specific regulatory changes identified.

Note that your estimate of the impact of these regulator y changes should reflect your institutional knowledge of

current practice by industry and current state regulation. For example, if ha lf of all tanks in the U.S. already

comply with a requirement, then your estimate of the impact of that regulatory change should reflect the

assumption that minimal change would occur at these facilitie s. It is not necessary th at you explain each of these

assumptions, but please contact us to discuss any cases in which you do NOT have information about baseline

practices. We will work with you to ensure that we can correctly interpret and adjust your values as appropriate.

Note also that we expect your estimates to reflect yo ur existing institutional knowledge and information that is

readily available to you; we do not anticipate that your re sponse to this charge will require significant field or

primary research. Also, while you may contact colleague s for specific information, in general we have framed

this charge as an independent expert opinion and not a collaborative effort. Fina lly, please contact IEc staff

(Cynthia Manson, 617, 354-0074, cjm@indecon.com , or Luiz Freitas, 617-354-0074, lfreitas@indecon.com ) if

you have questions at any time during this process.G-6EXHIBIT G-3 TABLE FOR EXPERT RESPONSESIncidenceMeasureSeverity Measures(choose at least one)

Column Regulatory Feature [A] Proposed Requirement [B] Percent Reduction in Annual Releases (or number of releases avoided) [C] Reduction In The Percentage Of Releases That Reach Groundwater [D] Percent Reduction In The Average Quantity Released [E] Percent Reduction In The Average Duration Of Releases [F] Sensitivity Question: Would results differ if the following change were made? [G] Sensitivity Answer [H] Interaction - is this requirement dependent on or redundant to other requirements? [I] Comments [J]ReleasePreventionWalkthroughinspectionsMonthlyInspections with the following minimum components:• Spill buckets – open and visually check for any damage; remove anyliquid or debris; and check each fill cap to make sure it is securely on thefill pipe• Sumps – open and visually check for any damage; releases to thecontainment area or to the environment; and remove any liquid or debris• Dispenser cabinets – open and visually check for any damage; releasesto the containment area or to the environment; and remove any liquid ordebris• Monitoring/Observation Wells – check covers to make sure they aresecured• Impressed Current Rectifiers – checkto make sure system is on andoperating; and• Release Detection Systems – functional check (make sure system is onand operating)Change frequency to onceevery six months or annualOverfillfunctionalitytestingOnce everyyear:Require testingto ensure thatthe overfillequipment is inaccordance withmanufacturer’srequirementsChange frequency to twoyears? three years?Spill buckettightnesstestingOnce everyyear:Require testingsuch that spillbucketequipment is inaccordance withChange frequency to twoyears? three years?G-7IncidenceMeasureSeverity Measures(choose at least one)

Column Regulatory Feature [A] Proposed Requirement [B] Percent Reduction in Annual Releases (or number of releases avoided) [C] Reduction In The Percentage Of Releases That Reach Groundwater [D] Percent Reduction In The Average Quantity Released [E] Percent Reduction In The Average Duration Of Releases [F] Sensitivity Question: Would results differ if the following change were made? [G] Sensitivity Answer [H] Interaction - is this requirement dependent on or redundant to other requirements? [I] Comments [J]manufacturer’srequirementsIntegritytesting forinterstitialareasOnce everyyear:Requireintegrity testingof interstitialareas usingvacuum,pressure orliquid testing inaccordance withmanufacturer’srequirementsChange frequency to twoyears? three years?Repairs • Require spillbucket tightnesstesting afterrepair to spillbucketconsidernumber ofrepairsneeded• Requireoverfillfunctionalitytesting afterrepair to overfillconsidernumber ofrepairsneeded• Requireinterstitialintegrity testingafter repair toprimary orsecondarycontainmentconsidernumber ofrepairsneededOverfillProtection• Eliminateflow restrictorsG-8IncidenceMeasureSeverity Measures(choose at least one)

Column Regulatory Feature [A] Proposed Requirement [B] Percent Reduction in Annual Releases (or number of releases avoided) [C] Reduction In The Percentage Of Releases That Reach Groundwater [D] Percent Reduction In The Average Quantity Released [E] Percent Reduction In The Average Duration Of Releases [F] Sensitivity Question: Would results differ if the following change were made? [G] Sensitivity Answer [H] Interaction - is this requirement dependent on or redundant to other requirements? [I] Comments [J]as an option foroverfillprotection fornewtanks• Requirereplacement ofexisting flowrestrictors basedon newrestrictionsassociated withunsafe operatingconditions (e.g.,pressurizeddeliveries)ReleaseDetectionOperationaltestingRequireannualline leak detector operationaltest andannualtest of electronic componentsassociated with each of the following:• ATG• Interstitial Monitoring• Vapor Monitoring• Groundwater MonitoringChange frequency to twoyears? three years?Add SIR andCITLDS usageRequire SIR andCITLDS usersto submitquantitativeresults only(with leak rate)and to submitthe resultswithin 30 daysG-9IncidenceMeasureSeverity Measures(choose at least one)

Column Regulatory Feature [A] Proposed Requirement [B] Percent Reduction in Annual Releases (or number of releases avoided) [C] Reduction In The Percentage Of Releases That Reach Groundwater [D] Percent Reduction In The Average Quantity Released [E] Percent Reduction In The Average Duration Of Releases [F] Sensitivity Question: Would results differ if the following change were made? [G] Sensitivity Answer [H] Interaction - is this requirement dependent on or redundant to other requirements? [I] Comments [J]DetectionProbabilitiesAdjustprobability ofdetection/probability of falsealarm on releasedetection to99/1for thefollowingsystems:• ATGAdjustprobability to97/3• AutomaticLine LeakDetectors• SIR• CITLDSOther Deferrals Removerelease detectiondeferral for emergency generatorUSTs, assuming they would nowbe required to meet existingregulations(note: estimate of roughly20,000 tanks nationally)Remove 40 CFR 280 deferrals(all subparts) from airporthydrant refueling systems,assuming they would now berequired to meet existing regulations with modified leakdetection requirements(note: estimate of roughly 200 systems subject torequirement)Note: haveSPCCrequirementsresulted insignificant40 CFR 280compliance?Remove 40 CFR 280 deferrals(all subparts) from fieldconstructed tanks, assumingthey would now be requiredto meet existing regulations with modified leak detectionrequirementsNote: haveSPCCrequirementsresulted inG-10IncidenceMeasureSeverity Measures(choose at least one)

Column Regulatory Feature [A] Proposed Requirement [B] Percent Reduction in Annual Releases (or number of releases avoided) [C] Reduction In The Percentage Of Releases That Reach Groundwater [D] Percent Reduction In The Average Quantity Released [E] Percent Reduction In The Average Duration Of Releases [F] Sensitivity Question: Would results differ if the following change were made? [G] Sensitivity Answer [H] Interaction - is this requirement dependent on or redundant to other requirements? [I] Comments [J](note: estimate of roughly 240 systems subject torequirement)significant40 CFR 280compliance?Notification ofownershipchangeRequirenotification toimplementingagency byowner/operatorof ownershipchangeReplacementof lined tanksthat cannot berepairedaccording to acode ofpracticeRequirereplacement oflined tanks thatcannot berepairedaccording to acode of practiceResponse tointerstitialmonitoringalarmsRequireinterstitialintegrity testingin response to aninterstitialmonitoringalarmEnergy PolicyAct-RelatedRequirementsOperatorTrainingInstitute Operator Training as Follows:•One-timetraining for "Class A" operator (technical and regulatory) oropt-out test within 30 days of assuming duties•One-timetraining for "Class B" operator (technical) or opt-out testwithin 30 days of assuming duties.•One-timetraining for "Class C" operator(limited technical) prior toassuming duties.•Repeat trainingfor facilities with significant non-compliance, within30 days of documented non-compliance.If only Tribal Lands areconsidered, how much wouldreduction in percentage ofincidents differ (if at all)?Assumesaccess to online trainingas oneoption.G-11IncidenceMeasureSeverity Measures(choose at least one)

Column Regulatory Feature [A] Proposed Requirement [B] Percent Reduction in Annual Releases (or number of releases avoided) [C] Reduction In The Percentage Of Releases That Reach Groundwater [D] Percent Reduction In The Average Quantity Released [E] Percent Reduction In The Average Duration Of Releases [F] Sensitivity Question: Would results differ if the following change were made? [G] Sensitivity Answer [H] Interaction - is this requirement dependent on or redundant to other requirements? [I] Comments [J]SecondaryContainmentInstall secondary containment on piping uponreplacement.Replacement defined as:Removal of 50 percent or more ofpiping, excluding connectors,connected to a single underground tank. For underground storage tankswith multiple piping runs, the replace definition applies independently toeach piping run.Adjust replacement threshold to 25 percentAlso, if only Tribal Lands are considered, howmuch would the reduction in percentage ofincidents differ (if at all)?Requiresecondarycontainment onall new tanksand pipingRequire underdispensercontainment onall newdispensersystemsTOTAL IMPACTS OF ALL REQUIREMENTS TOGETHER (considering any overlaps/interactions you have identified in column [I]):

# G-12 EXHIBIT G-4 FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS FOR EXPERTS



# • What universe of releases do you consider when estimating benefits? Our analysis considers only the

7,168 releases confirmed by OUST in its FY 2009 annual report.

• Regarding ball floats:

a. Does your answer reflect an understanding that OUST is not requiring complete replacement

of all existing ball floats? The rulemaking under consideration w ould only replace existing

ball floats that do not meet certain restrictio ns associated with unsafe operating conditions;

for example, pressu rized deliveries.

b. Do your reduction estimates regarding ball floats apply only to equipment that has ball floats,

or will the regulation affect all re leases, regardless of equipment?

• Can you explain how functionality testing for ATG, interstitial monitoring, vapor monitoring, and

groundwater monitoring would prevent releases instead of only reducing release severity?

• Can you explain how the adjustment of detection probabilities for ATG, automatic line leak detectors,

SIR, and CITLDS would prevent releases instead of only reducing release severity?

• Did you assume an annual line leak detector operational test as part of operational testing for ATG,

automatic line leak detectors, SIR, and CITLDS ? If not, how would you revise your answer?

• When considering the effects of rel ease bucket tightness testing, do you assume that 50 percent to 75

percent of spill buckets are replaced? If not, what would you revise the ef fect of the regulation to be under

such a scenario?

• For the following regulations, please numerically estimate their effectiveness in terms of percentage

frequency reductions and reduced groundwater releases under the following scenarios. If you have already

provided these answers as part of your sensitivity res ponses, you can simply refer us to your spreadsheet.

If you would like to revise your response, please do so below.

a. Walkthrough inspections

• Quarterly:

• Every other month;

• Six months

b. Overfill functionality testing

• Two years

• Three years

c. Spill bucket tightness testing

• Two years

• Three years

d. Integrity testing for interstitial areas

• Two years

• Three years

• Five Years

e. Functionality testing

• Two years

• Three years

f. Interstitial Monitoring

• Two years

• Three years

# G-13 g. Groundwater Monitoring

• Two years

• Three years

h. Vapor Monitoring

• Two years

• Three years

• We understand that frequency should not be affected with the addition of SIR and CITLDS requirements

unless interstitial monitoring is also in pl ace. Do you assume this is the case?

• How would you revise your overall estimates if changes in Pd/Pfa were removed from the rulemaking?

• Some changes to regulations may take several years to achieve their full effects because they affect only

new units or units that are replaced. For the changes below, please estimat e (1) effectiveness at the end of

the first year and (2) ef fectiveness when the cha nge achieves full effect.

a. Eliminate flow restrictors as an option for overfill protection for new tanks

b. Require replacement of lined tanks that cannot be repaired according to a code of practice

c. Require secondary containment on all new tanks and piping on tribal lands

d. Install secondary containment on piping upon replacement. Replacement defined as removal

of 50 percent or more of piping, excluding connectors, connected to a single underground

tank. For underground storage tanks with multip le piping runs, the replace definition applies

independently to each piping run

e. Require under-dispenser containment on all new dispenser systems

G.3 EXCLUSION OF RESPONSES FROM ONE EXPERT



# While EPA obtained input from five experts in assessi ng the impacts of the proposed rulemaking, we

chose to exclude the responses of one expert, for the following reasons:

• Inconsistent internal logic: IEc requested from each respondent an estimate of the total effects of

the proposed rule in addition to estimates of the e ffects of individual parts to the proposed rule.

The analysis then compared the effects of simulta neously applying all individual regulations with

the separate estimate of the overall effect of the proposed rule. This was performed to verify the

experts’ logic and identify areas of overlap or synergy among the regulatory requirements. The

results provided by this expert, when applying his unit changes to the universe of confirmed

releases (see bullet below on universe inconsistencie s) indicated an avoided cost of roughly $132

million when considering rule elements separately. However, his cumulative estimate of impacts

led to an estimate of over $517 million; repr esenting a difference of over $350 million, and a

factor of three. Moreover, subsequent discussi ons with the expert about the source of this

discrepancy did not resolve it (the expert felt that cumulative impacts should reflect significant

overlap in individual estimates, suggesting that he believed that they should be lower). However,

he agreed with IEc’s method and example calculations for interpreting his results. 3 

# We have

identified some of the factors that may contribut e to this discrepancy. For example, the expert

3 

# Note that while his individual estimate of impacts is lower th an others provided by other ex perts, his cumulative estimate, wh ich he felt was

stronger, is mid-range when applied to the cu rrent universe of confirmed releases. Over all, if his results were incorporated a s proportionate to

confirmed releases, the impact on the estima ted cost savings of the rule would still ex ceed the estimated costs. However, he f elt strongly that it

is not valid to apply his results to the uni verse of confirmed releases, and this effort would require making a number of other adjustments that

would limit which specific regulations could be compared.

# G-14 

# believes that high-quality operator training is a n ecessary condition for effective regulations, and it

is possible that this effect is captured in his statement of total effect, but is not one of the

regulatory requirements measured, except in Indi an country. However, it is not clear how to

correct for this.

• Alternate universe of releases: The expert estimates that over half of all releases are not

included in the confirmed releases reported by states, and was unwilling to state that his estimated

reductions in releases could be scaled to the univer se of confirmed releases specified in the charge,

due to the complexity of the relationship between release and reporting. Specifically, he believes

confirmed release figures reported by OUST fail to reflect releases that are detected, but are too

small to report; and releases that go undetected. Fu rther, he believes that some releases that are

counted as single releases are, in fact, the product of multiple smaller releases. Because of this

structure of release universe, a relatively small pr oportional reduction in total releases can lead to a

relatively large number of avoided releases relativ e to the universe of confirmed releases. The

expert was not able to estimate the total number of undetected releases or translate the avoidance

of undetected or unconfirmed releases into avoidan ce of confirmed releases. Different options for

scaling the results were proposed, but he was clear that linear scaling would not be accurate, and

could not propose an alternative scaling method. As a result, OUST is unable to adjust the

percentage reductions reported by the expert to apply them to the reported universe of confirmed

releases, which is smaller than the universe the expert is basing his responses on. Without any

adjustment, his estimates are likely to significantl y understate and misrepresent the effect of the

proposed rule.

• Specificity of regulatory requirements: The expert specified a number of conditions under

which his answers would be difficult to appl y, and expressed clear recommendations about

specific requirements that should be included in the regulations. The current regulatory language

lacks the specificity he recommended on several issues, and he noted that his answers were

therefore uncertain, though he also noted that in some cases he incorporated conditions into his

responses. One example is his emphasis on the di fferential benefits between facultative versus

finite tests or checks. Facultative tests and ch ecks determine whether equipment operates within

manufacturer specifications, while finite tests and checks determine whether equipment will

operate under any circumstances. The proposed rule does not always require facultative tests or

checks; for example, owners and operators need only ensure that systems are on and operating as

part of their walkthrough inspections. The expert stated that a system can be operational but not

effective at alerting owners and about releases, a nd noted that whole-system testing—in which all

components of a system are tested at once—is re quired to ascertain that an UST system’s release

detection systems are fully operational; that is, testing individual components is not sufficient. His

argument further extends to operator training, wh ere he argued that training must be recurring,

hands-on, and performed in a classroom setting to be truly effective. His estimates included

assumptions incorporating these conditions, which diff er from the specific regulatory wording. He

was not able to give an alternative estimate eliminating these conditions.

Finally, the expert expressed input on specific regulatory changes that would be effective, and suggested

specific changes that would have a material impact on hi s estimates. While this type of input is extremely

valuable in a stakeholder process and will be provide d to OUST in that context, it complicated IEc’s

ability to ensure that his results were best estimates. Ultimately, because it was not possible to reconcile

# G-15 

# these inconsistencies without making unfounded assump tions about the universe of releases and the

definitions provided by the expert, IEc reco mmended that OUST exclude these responses from the

quantitative assessment of avoided costs. EPA does pr eserve his insights to inform qualitative analyses.

# Appendix H

Expert Consultation: Responses

# H-1 

# Purpose



# This appendix summarizes the responses EPA recei ved to questions outlined in Appendix G: the

questions and responses are presented below in Exhibits H-1 (initial responses) and H-2

(follow-up responses).

Note that not all experts responded to all of the questions comprised by the follow-up request.

The two-phase approach involved three initial ex perts, and follow-up ques tions were developed

and standardized for those responses. However, in some cases expert responses did not require

clarification and therefore only a subset of quest ions was relevant. The two additional experts

received identical lists of clarification questions that matched the questions posed to the first

three experts.

As a consequence, although we pr esent in this appendix the same template of questions for all

experts, Experts 1, 2, and 3 have “blank” responses for questions that were not relevant to their

initial response. We did, however, verify our methods and interpretation of responses with all

experts, and therefore believe th at responses to the unanswered questions would not materially

affect results.

This appendix also includes Exhibit H-3 , which provides a summary of the adjustments made to

expert responses to apply reductions in releases to relevant portions of the UST universe.

A few cells in Exhibits H-1

, H-2 , and H-3 are highlighted. This highl ighting reflects coding by

experts, and in a few cases, by IEc, for the pur pose of interpreting follow-up responses and does

not have any significance in calculations.

# Appendix H-1

Initial ResponsesA)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)WalkthroughinspectionsB)MonthlyInspectionswiththefollowingminimumcomponents:•Spillbuckets–openandvisuallycheckforanydamage;removeanyliquidordebris;andcheckeachfillcaptomakesureitissecurelyonthefillpipe•Sumps–openandvisuallycheckforanydamage;releasestothecontainmentareaortotheenvironment;andremoveanyliquidordebris•Dispensercabinets–openandvisuallycheckforanydamage;releasestothecontainmentareaortotheenvironment;andremoveanyliquidordebris•Monitoring/ObservationWells–checkcoverstomakesuretheyaresecured•ImpressedCurrentRectifiers–checktomakesuresystemisonandoperating;and•ReleaseDetectionSystems–functionalcheck(makesuresystemisonandoperating)C)15%D)Asmuchas50%forreleasescomingfromtheinspectedareasE)F)Asmuchas50%forreleasescomingfromtheinspectedareas.G)Changefrequencytosixmonthorannual?H)Opinion:SixmonthorannualoperatorinspectionswouldNOTyieldasignificantdecreaseinnumberofreleasesordurationofreleases.Operatorswillloseproficiencyoverthesixmonthoryearlyperiod...additionally,operatorturnoverwouldjeopardizecontinuityoverthattimeframe.SixmonthorannualoperatorinspectionsWOULDfindreleases.AnswersI)Interaction‐isthisrequirementdependentonorredundanttootherrequirements?The effectiveness of this requirement is dependent onoperator knowledge (training)as well as a robust statecompliance inspection program that can validate theoperator's actions and the results.J)CommentsInitally, monthly inspections will result in a spike inrelease discovery and reporting...then a commensuratereduction in releases. The largest dividends will befrom spill containment inspections and inspectionsunder dispensers and containment sumps. Reductionsin releases from these specific areas could be as high as40% with a simular reduction in severity and duration.Spill containment basin (spillbucket) failures have beenthe largest single complianceviolation as well as thelargest source of suspected releases in South Carolinafor many years. Although this will be a continuingproblem because of design flaws and limitedoperational life on this equipment; monthly inspectionsshould enhance early detection and reduced severity ofreleases from this area. Monthly under dispensercontainment and STP sump inspections should also yieldsignificant improvements in release rates and releaseseverity. Inspection results from over 25,000 inspectionsover 12 years showed 1 in 10 dispensers leaked or wereleaking during annual inspections....under dispenserswithout containment, that was a release. Normaloperating practices typically did not open the dispensercabinet unless routine maintenance (filter change) orrepairs were needed. Inspection results during thesame time frame showed STP containment sumpscontained liquids about 20% of the time. At STP areaswithout sumps and at sumps that were not monitoredregularly, releases occurred.These releases tended tobe severe and most often went to groundwater.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerAnswersA)OverfillfunctionalitytestingB)Onceeveryyear:Requiretestingtoensurethattheoverfillequipmentisinaccordancewithmanufacturer’srequirementsC)15%D)30%ofreleasesattributedtodeliveriesE)50%decreaseinimpactstogroundwaterfromoverfillreleasesF)50%ormorereductioninquantity...sincethesedevicesaresupposedtoactivateatapercentageoftankcapacity,iftheyaresetproperlyandfunction,thedeliverydrivershouldhavetimetostopthedeliverybeforealargereleaseoccursG)H)Changefrequencytotwoyears?threeyears?Interaction‐isthisrequirementdependentonorredundanttootherrequirements?Theeffectivenessofthisrequirementisdependentonoperatorknowledge(training)aswellasarobuststatecomplianceinspectionprogramthatcanvalidatetheoperator'sactionsandtheresults.Comments:Initally,monthlyinspectionswillresultinaspikeinreleasediscoveryandreporting...thenacommensuratereductioninreleases.Thelargestdividendswillbefromspillcontainmentinspectionsandinspectionsunderdispensersandcontainmentsumps.Reductionsinreleasesfromthesespecificareascouldbeashighas40%withasimularreductioninseverityandduration.Spillcontainmentbasin(spillbucket)failureshavebeenthelargestsinglecomplianceviolationaswellasthelargestsourceofsuspectedreleasesinSouthCarolinaformanyyears.Althoughthiswillbeacontinuingproblembecauseofdesignflawsandlimitedoperationallifeonthisequipment;monthlyinspectionsshouldenhanceearlydetectionandreducedseverityofreleasesfromthisarea.MonthlyunderdispensercontainmentandSTPsumpinspectionsshouldalsoyieldsignificantimprovementsinreleaseratesandreleaseseverity.Inspectionresultsfromover25,000inspectionsover12yearsshowed1in10dispensersleakedorwereleakingduringannualinspections....underdispenserswithoutcontainment,thatwasarelease.Normaloperatingpracticestypicallydidnotopenthedispensercabinetunlessroutinemaintenance(filterchange)orrepairswereneeded.InspectionresultsduringthesametimeframeshowedSTPcontainmentsumpscontainedliquidsabout20%ofthetime.AtSTPareaswithoutsumpsandatsumpsthatwerenotmonitoredregularly,releasesoccurred.Thesereleasestendedtobesevereandmostoftenwenttogroundwater.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)SpillbuckettightnesstestingB)Onceeveryyear:Requiretestingsuchthatspillbucketequipmentisinaccordancewithmanufacturer’srequirementsC)40%ofreleasesfromtestedcomponentsD)E)F)50%G)Changefrequencytotwoyears?threeyears?H)Littleornovalueintwoyearorthreeyearfunctionchecks...normalcomplianceinspectionsbyimplementingagencyshouldareadybelookingforspillprotectionfailureonathreeyearbasisasaminimumunderthe2005EPACTrules.Interaction‐isthisrequirementdependentonorredundanttootherrequirements?Comments:First,secondandtosomeextentthirdgenerationspillcontainmentbasinshavealimitedsystemlife(5to7years),designchangesonnewersystems(especiallythosethataresecondarilycontained)willhelpalleviatereleasesfromthiscomponentandextendsystemlife...routinetestingwillhelpidentifyfailedsystemsandpreventreleases.Also,manyofthesesystemsuseagrommetorskirtforcontainmentandanaccordionfoldedsidetoaccommodateheightadjustments.Thesecomponentsdefyaccuratevisualassessment.Testingistheonlywaytofullyverifyfunction.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)IntegritytestingforinterstitialareasB)Onceeveryyear:Requireintegritytestingofinterstitialareasusingvacuum,pressureorliquidtestinginaccordancewithmanufacturer’srequirementsC)50%ofreleasesfromtestedcomponents.D)50%reductioninimpactstogroundwaterfromreleasesfromthetestedcomponentsE)F)G)Changefrequencytotwoyears?threeyears?H)Decreasedvalue,buttestingonatwoyearorthreeyearbasiswouldstillhelpinsureleaksintocontainmentwerecontainedandhandledbeforetheybecamereleasestotheenvironment.ReleasereductionandGWcontaminationavoidancefromtheseareasshouldbeabout30%inthiscase.Interaction‐isthisrequirementdependentonorredundanttootherrequirements?Comments:Somesecondarycontainmentfeatures(STPsumpsanddispensercontainmentbasins)lendthemselvestovisualinspections;however,visualinspectionsarenotsufficienttoverifyintegrityofthesealsandbootsaroundpenetrations...andoften,viewoftheinteriorbottomofthestructureishinderedbyequipment.Additionally,secondarycontainmentisnotcurrentlyroutinelytestedontanksandpipinginmoststatesA)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)RepairsB)•Requirespillbuckettightnesstestingafterrepairtospillbucket•Requireoverfillfunctionalitytestingafterrepairtooverfill•RequireinterstitialintegritytestingafterrepairtoprimaryorsecondarycontainmentC)10%ofreleasesfromrepairedspillbuckets5%ofreleasesfromrepaired/replacedoverfilldevices<2%reductionbecausetestingfollowingrepairtopipingortanksisalreadypartoftherecognizedstandardpracticeD)E)F)50%reductionindurationofreleasesfromrepairedspillbuckets10%reductionindurationofreleasesfromrepaired/replaceoverfilldevices5%reductionG)H)Interaction‐isthisrequirementdependentonorredundanttootherrequirements?Somewhatredundantwithmonthlyinspectionsandwithannualtestingrequirements.Typical"repair"forthesedevicesisreplacement.Over90%ofreplacementsarecorrectlyinstalled.Somewhatredundantwithmonthlyinspectionsandannualtestingrequirements.Likespillbuckets,typical"repair"isreplacment.Over95%ofreplacementsarecorrectlyinstalled.Makingthisaregulatoryrequirementwillreinforcestandardpracticeinthisarea.Industrystandardsandrecommendedpracticecallfortheserepairstobetestedbeforesystemisreturnedtoservice.Comments:A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)RepairsB)•Requirespillbuckettightnesstestingafterrepairtospillbucket•Requireoverfillfunctionalitytestingafterrepairtooverfill•RequireinterstitialintegritytestingafterrepairtoprimaryorsecondarycontainmentC)10%ofreleasesfromrepairedspillbuckets5%ofreleasesfromrepaired/replacedoverfilldevices<2%reductionbecausetestingfollowingrepairtopipingortanksisalreadypartoftherecognizedstandardpracticeD)E)F)5%reductionG)H)Interaction‐isthisrequirementdependentonorredundanttootherrequirements?Makingthisaregulatoryrequirementwillreinforcestandardpracticeinthisarea.Industrystandardsandrecommendedpracticecallfortheserepairstobetestedbeforesystemisreturnedtoservice.Comments:A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)OverfillProtectionB)•Eliminateflowrestrictorsasanoptionforoverfillprotectionfornewtanks•Requirereplacementofexistingflowrestrictorsbasedonnewrestrictionsassociatedwithunsafeoperatingconditions(e.g.,pressurizeddeliveries)C)5%ofreleasesassociatedwithdeliveriesD)<5%E)F)G)H)Interaction‐isthisrequirementdependentonorredundanttootherrequirements?Dependentonoperatortrainingandoperatormaintenanceandoperationspractice/inspectionsComments:Numberoffacilitiesthatreceivepressurizeddeliveriesisverysmallandtypicallythetankssystemsarealsosmall(lessthan2000gallons).Othersystems(suctionorgravitypiping)thatareincompatiblewithflowrestrictingoverfilldevicesaremorelikelytohaveanoverfillresultinginareleasebelowground...orahistoryofmultipleoverfillsthatresultedingroundwatercontamination.Asinalloverfillcases,themajorculpritisnottheequipment,butoperatorerror(inoverfills,boththedeliverytruckdriverandthefacilityoperatoraretoblame).A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)OperationaltestingB)Requireannuallineleakdetectoroperationaltestandannualtestofelectroniccomponentsassociatedwitheachofthefollowing:•ATG•InterstitialMonitoring•VaporMonitoring•GroundwaterMonitoringC)<5%reductioninreleasesbutsignificantreductioninseverityofreleasebecausethedurationofthereleasewillbeshortened;reductionshouldapplyonlytointerstitialmonitoring.Othersshouldbezero.D)50%.Thisnumberisagutnumber...iftheequipmentisnotworking,thereleasewillnotbediscoveredorreporteduntilmajorimpactsshowuponsiteoronadjacentpropertyEF)50%.Thisnumberisagutnumber...iftheequipmentisnotworking,thereleasewillnotbediscoveredorreporteduntilmajorimpactsshowuponsiteoronadjacentpropertyG)Changefrequencytotwoyears?threeyears?H)Atwoyearorthreeyearfrequencyforfunctionaltestingonthisequipmenthasthepotentialtoallowanongoingreleasetocontinueundiscoveredandunabatedforanadditionalyearortwo;however,thismeasurewouldyieldsomereductioninbothgroundwaterimpactsandduration/severityoftherelease.Halfaseffectiveat2years,20%aseffectiveat3years.Interaction‐isthisrequirementdependentonorredundanttootherrequirements?Comments:Functionaltestingofoperationisagoodmeasureatanyfrequency,butthegreatestvaluecomesfromtheshortesttimebetweentesting,especiallyasregardspipingreleasedetection.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)AddSIRandCITLDSusageB)RequireSIRandCITLDSuserstosubmitquantitativeresultsonly(withleakrate)andtosubmittheresultswithin30daysC)<5%.Sincethesemethodslookatperformanceofasystemovertime,itisunlikelythatimprovementsinapplicationwillresultinasignificantreductioninthenumberofreleases;however,releasedetectionwouldbemoretimely.SeeinputinGD)EF)From30%to50"%instatesthatdonotcurrentlyrequirequantitativedata.G)H)Interaction‐isthisrequirementdependentonorredundanttootherrequirements?Overalleffectivenessofthisrequirementisdependenttoalargeextentonimplementingagencycompliancemonitoringeffortsandrecordsreviewsonaroutinebasis.Comments:Thisisalreadyarequirementinmanystates.Thepotentialimpactonreleasereductionishardtoquantify.However,requiringquantitativedataallowstheregulatingagencytomoreeffectivelydetermineifthereleasedetectionmethodisbeingconductedproperlyandcouldinfactfindareleaseshouldonebeongoing.The30dayreportrequirementisalsoinplaceinsomestates...thisgivestheowner/operatorreleasedetectionresultsinamoretimelymannerthancurrentpracticeinthemajorityofthestates.Intheory,thiswilllimitthedurationofreleasesthatarediscoveredwiththesereleasedetectionmethods.TheanticipatedimprovementalsodependsonoperatorsknowledgeableenouthtorecognizereleaseindicationsintheSIRreports,i.e.operatortraining.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)DetectionProbabilitiesB)Adjustprobabilityofdetection/probabilityoffalsealarmonreleasedetectionto99/1forthefollowingsystems:•ATG•AutomaticLineLeakDetectors•SIR•CITLDSC)5%ofreleasesfromsinglewalltanks.5%ofreleasesfrompressurizedpiping5%ofreleasesfromsinglewalltanks.ThisissignificantbecausethemajorityoffacilitiesthatusethisreleasedetectionmethodrepresenttheoldestUSTsystemsinplacetodayandthereforethosemostlikelytofailduetofatigueorotherstructuralfailure.5%ofreleasesfrommonitoredsystems...thisbecomessignificantbecausethesemonitoringsystemsaretypicallythereleasedetectionsystemofchoiceforhighthroughputfacilties.Thesefacilitieshavethepotentialforreallylargereleasesinashorttimeframeandthereleasescanbemaskedbythenoiseofroutineoperations.D)40%to50%E)F)From40%to50%Asmuchas50%40%to50%40%to50%G)Adjustprobabilityto97/3H)Notnearlysoeffectiveasthe99/1standardbecauseofthe"relaxed"threshholdnumberunderthelesserprobabilityofdetectionSameasabove.Sameasabove.Interaction‐isthisrequirementdependentonorredundanttootherrequirements?Effectivenessofthisrequirementisdependentonhowwelltheequipmentismaintained(relatestoannualfunctiontesting)andhowwelltheequipmentismonitored(operatormonthlyinspections).Dependentonoperatortrainingandoperatormaintenanceandoperationspractice/inspectionsDependentonoperatortrainingandoperatormaintenanceandoperationspractice/inspections.Comments:Increasingtheprobabilityofdetectionanddecreasingthelikelihoodoffalsealarmswilllikelyleadtoanincreaseinreportedreleases;however,thehigherprobabilityofdetectionshoulddecreasetheoverallseverityofreleases...andultimatelyleadtoadecreaseinthenumberofreleasesbecausetheleakingsystemswillbediscoveredandrepairedorreplaced.Increasingtheprobabilityofdetectionanddecreasingthelikelihoodoffalsealarmswilllikelyleadtoanincreaseinreportedreleases;however,thehigherprobabilityofdetectionshoulddecreasetheoverallseverityofreleases...andultimatelyleadtoadecreaseinthenumberofreleasesbecausetheleakingsystemswillbediscoveredandrepairedorreplaced.Increasingtheprobabilityofdetectionanddecreasingthelikelihoodoffalsealarmswilllikelyleadtoanincreaseinreportedreleases;however,thehigherprobabilityofdetectionshoulddecreasetheoverallseverityofreleases...andultimatelyleadtoadecreaseinthenumberofreleasesbecausetheleakingsystemswillbediscoveredandrepairedorreplaced.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)DeferralsNotificationofownershipchangeReplacementoflinedtanksthatcannotberepairedaccordingtoacodeofpracticeResponsetointerstitialmonitoringalarmsB)RemovereleasedetectiondeferralforemergencygeneratorUSTs,assumingtheywouldnowberequiredtomeetexistingregulations(note:estimateofroughly20,000tanksnationally)Remove40CFR280deferrals(allsubparts)fromairporthydrantrefuelingsystems,assumingtheywouldnowberequiredtomeetexistingregulationswithmodifiedleakdetectionrequirements(note:estimateofroughly200systemssubjecttorequirement)Remove40CFR280deferrals(allsubparts)fromfield‐constructedtanks,assumingtheywouldnowberequiredtomeetexistingregulationswithmodifiedleakdetectionrequirements(note:estimateofroughly240systemssubjecttorequirement)Requirenotificationtoimplementingagencybyowner/operatorofownershipchangeRequirereplacementoflinedtanksthatcannotberepairedaccordingtoacodeofpracticeRequireinterstitialintegritytestinginresponsetoaninterstitialmonitoringalarmC)5%10%NoknowledgeNone<5%<5%D)50%orbetter.<5%E)F)50%50%orbetterG)H)Interaction‐isthisrequirementdependentonorredundanttootherrequirements?Note:haveSPCCrequirementsresultedinsignificant40CFR280compliance?Noexperienceinthisarea.Note:haveSPCCrequirementsresultedinsignificant40CFR280compliance?Noexperienceinthisarea.Comments:Inmyexperience,roughly50%oftheemergencygeneratortanksystemsinoperationalreadyemployreleasedetectionvoluntarily...andalthoughimplementingagenciestypicallydonotinspectthoserecords,thesystemsareinplaceandinuse.Underthe2005EPACT,allneworreplacementsystemswillbesecondarilycontainedandwillemployinterstitialmonitoringforreleasedetection.Alsounder2005EPACT,theserecordswillbeinspectedatleastonceeverythreeyears.DataandpresentationsbeforetheNationalWorkGrouponLeakDetectionEvaluationbetween1998and2007impliedthatthesesystemshadleakedandwerecontinuingtoleakwithmajorimpactstogroundwater.Iftanksandpipingsystemsassociatedwithhydrantfuelingsystemsweremonitoredmonthly,releaseswouldbediscovered(evenundermodifiedreleasedetectionrequirements)andseverityofreleasesreducedbythataction.Initially,morereleasesarelikelytobereported,butagain,asthemonitoringeffortscontinue,releaseswilldecreaseinbothseverityandnumber.Linedtanksmakeupasmallpercentageofthetotalnumberoftanks(<10%)andlinedtanksthatcannotberepairedunderacodeofpracticeareanevensmallersubsetofthetotal.Idon'thaveanaccuratesenseoftheimpactinotherareasofthecountrysincemyexperienceislimitedtothetankpopulationinSouthCarolina.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)OperatorTrainingB)InstituteOperatorTrainingasFollows:•One‐timetrainingfor"ClassA"operator(technicalandregulatory)oropt‐outtestwithin30daysofassumingduties•One‐timetrainingfor"ClassB"operator(technical)oropt‐outtestwithin30daysofassumingduties.•One‐timetrainingfor"ClassC"operator(limitedtechnical)priortoassumingduties.•Repeattrainingforfacilitieswithsignificantnon‐compliance,within30daysofdocumentednon‐compliance.C)20%D)E)F)40%G)IfonlyTribalLandsareconsidered,howmuchwouldreductioninpercentageofincidentsdiffer(ifatall)?H)Aswithotheroperatortrainingefforts,thereductionwillnotcomeinnumberofreleasesreported(atleastnotduringthefirstseveralyearsofoperationsunderthenewrules)butratherinareductionasmuchas50%intheseverityofreleasesreported.Thiswillbetheresultofasignificantincreaseinmonitoringeffortstahtareeffectiveduetoincreasedoperatorknowledge.Interaction‐Assumesaccesstoon‐linetrainingasoneoption.**Theeffectivenessofthisrequirementwilldependtolargeextentonwhetherornottheimplementingagencyfollowsupwitharigorouscomplianceinspectionandmonitoringprogramthatencouragestrainedoperatorstoproperlymonitorandmaintainthesystems.Comments:Ihaveapotentialconflictofinterestinthisarea,becauseIhavetrainedoperatorsinthepast(asastateregulatorandintheprivatesector)andhopetocontinuetotrainoperatorsfromtheprivatesector.Thatsaid,manystateshavealreadyimplementedsimilarrequirementsinresponsetothe2005EPACT.Inthosestatestheimpactofthisrequirementwillbeminimal.Forstatesthatdidnotorhavenotyetrespondedtotheguidanceunder2005EPACT,theinitialimpactofthistrainingislikelytobeanoverallincreaseinthenumberofreportedreleases...perhapsbyasmuchas30‐50%inthefirsttwoorthreeyearsafterthetrainingiscompleted.Afterthe"break‐in"period,releasesshoulddecreasebyasmuchas20%fromthepre‐traininglevelsduetoincreasedunderstandingandbettermaintenanceandmonitoringpractices.Implementingagencyinvolvementwillcontinuetobeakeypartofthiseffort.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)SecondaryContainmentB)RequiresecondarycontainmentonallnewtanksandpipingInstallsecondarycontainmentonpipinguponreplacement.Replacementdefinedas:Removalof50percentormoreofpiping,excludingconnectors,connectedtoasingleundergroundtank.Forundergroundstoragetankswithmultiplepipingruns,thereplacedefinitionappliesindependentlytoeachpipingrun.Requireunder‐dispensercontainmentonallnewdispensersystemsC)50%ofreleasesfrompipingafterreplacement10‐20%80%ofreleasesfromdispenserareainthosestateswheretherequirementdoesnotcurrentlyexistD)25%E)F)50%20%80%G)Adjustreplacementthresholdto25percentAlso,ifonlyTribalLandsareconsidered,howmuchwouldthereductioninpercentageofincidentsdiffer(ifatall)?H)SouthCarolinaset25%asthereplacementthreshholdinregulationsimplementedinMay2008.Thisthreshholdwasderivedfromstakeholdersmeetings.Otherstateshavesaid"any"repairequalsreplacement.**IanticipatethatonTriballands,thechangewillreduceincidentsbyanother50%.Interaction–Thisrequirementisdependentonoperatortraininginthatoperatorshaveto"dotherightthing"andreplacethepipingwhenthethreshholdispassed.Comments:Redundantinstatesthathavealreadyimplementedtherequirementunderthe2005EPACT...therefore,nochangeinreleaseratesorseverityinthosestates.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)WalkthroughinspectionsB)MonthlyInspectionswiththefollowingminimumcomponents:•Spillbuckets–openandvisuallycheckforanydamage;removeanyliquidordebris;andcheckeachfillcaptomakesureitissecurelyonthefillpipe•Sumps–openandvisuallycheckforanydamage;releasestothecontainmentareaortotheenvironment;andremoveanyliquidordebris•Dispensercabinets–openandvisuallycheckforanydamage;releasestothecontainmentareaortotheenvironment;andremoveanyliquidordebris•Monitoring/ObservationWells–checkcoverstomakesuretheyaresecured•ImpressedCurrentRectifiers–checktomakesuresystemisonandoperating;and•ReleaseDetectionSystems–functionalcheck(makesuresystemisonandoperating)C)Someofthesemeasuresmightpreventreleases(e.g.,checkingrectifiers),butmostwouldonlyshortentheduration/quantityofreleases(e.g.,checkinginsidedispensers).I'destimatea1%reductioninnumberofreleases.D)E)Assuminginspectionsareconscientiouslydone(bigassumptioniftheUSToperatorisdoingthem)theninthelongtermthequantityreleasedcouldbereducedby70to80%.ThisisbasedonmybeliefthatleakstodaygoundetectedforsubstantialperiodsoftimeF)Assuminginspectionsareconscientiouslydone(thisisaBIGassumptioniftheUSToperatorisdoingthem)theninthelongtermthedurationofreleasescouldbereducedby70to80%.Thisisbasedonmybeliefthatleakstodaygoundetectedforsubstantialperiodsoftime.G)ChangefrequencytoonceeverysixmonthsorannualH)Theeffectivenessofthemeasurewoulddecreasesubstantiallyifthefrequencywerereducedto6monthsorannually.Interaction‐MostofthesemeasuresareredundanttoindustryrecommendedpracticessuchasPEIRP500andPEIRP900.Thatsaid,onlyaverysmallpercentageoffacilitiescurrentlyimplementtheseindustryrecommendedpractices.Havingthisintherulewouldencouragetheuseofindustrypractices,muchthewaythattankinstallationpracticeshaveimprovedbecausetherulesmentionindustrypracticesasguidancefortankinstallation.Intheinterestsoffulldisclosure,IwastheconsultanttothePEICommitteesthatdevelopedRP500andRP900.IdoNOTmakeANYmoneyonthesaleofthesedocuments.Comments:Overall,Ithinkthismeasurehasmerit,butifwearehavingdifficultygettingUSToperatorstopickupaphoneandrespondtoanalarmIdon'tseehowtheyareevergoingtogocleanoutspillbucketsorinspectdispensers.Iftherulesgodownthisroad,theyshouldencourageoutsourcingofthesetaskstothirdpartieswhoareprofessionaltankpeople(theCaliforniadesignatedoperatorapproach).ThePEIRP500andRP900documentsprovidemuchmoredetailonwhatshouldbedonewithregardtoinspections,howtheyshouldbedone,andwhoshoulddothem.IwouldsuggestfollowingtheestablishedpracticeinthecurrentregulationswhichistodefertoindustryrecommendedpracticesfordetailsofproperUSTinstallationandoperation.Iwouldsuggestthattherulemerelystatethatperiodicinspectionofspecificcomponents(spillbuckets,dispensers,etc.)isrequiredandthatproceduresprovidedbymanufacturersorcontainedinindustrypracticessuchthePEIdocumentscanbeusedtomeettheseinspectionrequirements.IhighlightedthesumpinspectioniteminredbecausethePEIRP900Committeedidnotthinkitwasagoodideatohavefacilitypersonnelgettingintosumpsonamonthlybasisforsafetyreasonsandbecausetheyarelikelytoleavelidsloosewhichwouldencouragewaterentryandfalsealarms.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)OverfillfunctionalitytestingB)Onceeveryyear:Requiretestingtoensurethattheoverfillequipmentisinaccordancewithmanufacturer’srequirementsC)Thismightreducespillsassociatedwithdeliveriesby5%.ThispercentageislowbecauseIdon'tbelievethatcurrentlyutilizedoverfillequipmentisveryeffectiveinpreventingoverfills.Thishasbeenreviseddownwardto2%forfrequencyandquantity.D)E)5%F)Deliveryspillsgenerallyhaveprettyshortdurationtobeginwith,soIdon'tseeanyreductionindurationG)Changefrequencytotwoyears?threeyears?H)Decreasingthetestingintervalwouldreduceeffectivenessproportionately.Agreatmanyretailstoragesystemsseeseveraldeliveriesaweek.Evenayearisalongtimeforoverfilldevicestobechecked,especiallydroptubedeviceswhicharethemostlikelytomalfunction,arewidelyused,andarelikelytobeevenmorewidelyusedifballfloatsareoutlawed.Interaction‐Redundanttoindustryrecommendedpractices.Seecommentabove.Requirementfitsnicelywiththeannualfunctionalitycheckofleakdetectiondevices.Comments:Manufacturershavebeenreluctanttostepuptotheplateandprovidemaintenanceproceduresfortheirequipment.DoNOTrelyonmanufacturersformaintenance.DefertoindustryproceduressuchasPEIRP900.Also,checkingoverfillequipmentisnotsomethingthatUSTowersoroperatorsshouldbedoing.RulesshouldspecifythatthisworkmustbedonebyqualifiedtechniciansA)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)SpillbuckettightnesstestingB)Onceeveryyear:Requiretestingsuchthatspillbucketequipmentisinaccordancewithmanufacturer’srequirementsC)25%ofdeliveryreleases.Ifyoucanreallygetspillbucketstestedeffectively,thiscouldbetheonemeasureinthislistthathasthegreatestbangforthebuck.MostrecentdatafromFlorida(beforeMarshallMott‐Smithleft)wasthatabouthalfofnewreleaseswerefromspillbuckets.Spillbucketsroutinelycontainproductandagreatmanyarecurrentlyorsoonwillbeleaking.D)E)20%.I'massumingthatalotofspillbucketswillberepairedwith"ducttape"orsimilarlyineffectivemeasuresandtheywillsoonbeleakingagain.Thisnumbercouldbemuchhigherifrulesrequiredreplacementbucketstobedoublewalled.F)20%.I'massumingthatalotofspillbucketswillberepairedwith"ducttape"orsimilarlyineffectivemeasuresandtheywillsoonbeleakingagain.Thisnumbercouldbemuchhigherifrulesrequiredreplacementbucketsratherthanallowingrepairsandtobereallyeffectivetherulesshouldrequirenewspillbucketstobedoublewalledwithleakdetection.G)Changefrequencytotwoyears?threeyears?H)Decreasingthetestingintervalwouldreduceeffectivenessproportionately.Double‐walledspillbucketsshouldnotberequiredtobetestediftheyhaveleakdetectionsensorsintheinterstitialspace.Interaction‐Testingspillbucketsisnotyetanindustryrecommendedpractice,butitshouldbe.Thiswouldbeconsistentwithannualfunctionaltestsofoverfillandleakdetectionequipment.Comments:Manufacturershavebeenreluctanttostepuptotheplateandprovidemaintenanceortestingproceduresfortheirequipment.DoNOTrelyonmanufacturersforthis.Workwiththeindustrytoencouragedevelopmentofacceptablemethodsfortesting.Also,testingspillbucketsisnotsomethingthatUSTowersoroperatorsshouldbedoing.Rulesshouldspecifythatthisworkmustbedonebyqualifiedtechnicians.Testingspillbucketsisprobablytheoneitemthatwouldhavethegreatestimpactinlesseningthequantityanddurationofreleases.Rulesshouldnotallowrepairofspillbucketsorelsewewillseeaproliferationof"ducttape"repairsthatarenotlikelytowork.Requirereplacementwithdouble‐walleddevicesthathaveleakdetection(andthereforedonotneedanannualtest)andcanbereplacedwithoutbreakingconcrete(abigplusinthefuture).Otherwise,wewilljustbesettingthesceneforarepeatofthepresentsituationwherespillbucketswillinevitablyfail(thetechnologyhasn'tchangedinthelast10years)NomanufacturerthatIknowofofferswarrantiesonsingle‐walledspillbuckets,sothatsayssomethingabouttheirconfidencelevelwithregardtolongevity.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)IntegritytestingforinterstitialareasB)Onceeveryyear:Requireintegritytestingofinterstitialareasusingvacuum,pressureorliquidtestinginaccordancewithmanufacturer’srequirementsC)80‐90%ofreleasesfromsecondarycontainmentsystems.D)E)80‐90%ofreleasesfromsecondarycontainmentsystemsF)G)Changefrequencytotwoyears?threeyearsH)Differentcomponentsshouldhavedifferenttestingfrequencies.Tankintersititialsaremuchmorestablethantanktopcontainmentsumps.Tankinterstitialscouldbetestedevery3to5years,pipinginterstitialsevery2or3years,tanktopanddispensercontainmentsumpsshouldbetestedannually.Reductionof75%fromsecondarycontainmentsystems.Interaction‐Ifsecondarycontainment(2005EnergyAct)istobesuccessful,thenthecontainmentmustbetightnotjustatinstallationbutforthelonghaul.Eitherthecontainmentshouldbecontinuouslytested(thinkthefiberglasstankhydrostaticsystemsortheCaliforniarequirements)orperiodictestingshouldberequired.Systemsthatmonitortheintegrityofbothwallswouldnotneedperiodictestingofintegrity,butthesensorsystemswouldfallundertheannualfunctionalitytest.Comments:Donotrelyonmanufacturerstoestablishtestprocedures.Defertoindustryrecommendedpractices.Manyexistingtank‐topanddispensersumpinstallationswillneedworkinordertomakethemtestable,soatestingrequirementmightmeetwithresistance,butitisaverynecessarystep.StateofMainehascompromisedonthissomewhatbyrequiringthatsumpsmustbetightuptoalevelabovewhatisrequiredtotriggerthesumpsensor.Thisleveloftightnessismucheasierforsumpstopassbecausesensorstriggeratalevelthatisbelowmanyofthesumppenetrationfittings.Problemisifsensorsareignored,releaseswouldoccur.Coulddealwiththisbyaddingrequirementthatsensorsmustshutdownthepumpingsystemiftheydetectaproblem.Bottomline:Thereareseveralwaystoskinthiscat,buttestingofsecondarycontainment,especiallyoftanktopandunderdispensersumps,iscriticaltothesuccessfulperformanceofinterstitialmonitoring.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)RepairsB)•Requirespillbuckettightnesstestingafterrepairtospillbucket•Requireoverfillfunctionalitytestingafterrepairtooverfill•RequireinterstitialintegritytestingafterrepairtoprimaryorsecondarycontainmentC)1%Thisisassumingthatrepairsareallowed.Idonotbelieverepairswillbeveryeffectiveforverylong.Icouldputducttapeonacrackinaspillbucketandpassatesttoday,butwouldlikelyfailatestnextweekornextmonth.1%Veryfewoverfilldeviceswillberepaired.Mostwillbereplaced.5%ofreleasesfromsecondarycontainmentsystems.Thisnumberwillvaryconsiderabledependingonwhetherwearetalkingdouble‐walledtanksortanktopcontainmentsumpsforpiping.Ibelievetherearefewreleasesfromdouble‐walledtankstoday.Ibelievetherearelotsofreleasesfromtank‐topsumps.Testingafterrepairisagoodqualitycontrolstep,butitisperiodictestingthatwillhavethemosteffect.D)1%0%5%E)1%0%5%F)G)H).Interaction‐Thisisconsistentwithtestingafterrepairsingeneral.Thisisconsistentwithtestingafterrepairsingeneral.Repairsofprimaryarealreadypartofthefederalrule.Comments:Inthecurrentmarket,therearenotmanyspillbucketrepairs.Mostarereplaced.Butthisisbecauseitismostlyresponsibletankownerswhoarereplacingspillbuckets.Butifrulesareeffectiveingettingspillbucketstested,thiswillgenerateanimmediate"ducttapeandsnakeoil"marketforspillbucketrepairprocedures.Myvotewouldbetonotallowrepairsandgeteveryonetoupgradetodouble‐wallspillbucketsasreplacementsforthefailedsingle‐walledones.Notmanyoverfilldevicesarerepaired.Carefulcheckingforfunctionalityshouldbeapartofeveryinstallationprocedure,whetherarepairorreplacement.Thatsaid,veryfewoverfilldevices(otherthanalarms)arecapableofbeingfunctionallytested.Allthatcanbedoneistoinspectthemtoseeifeverythingappearstobeinorder.Thatsaid,Ibelievefunctionalitytestingisdesirableandrulesshouldencouragedevelopmentofdevicesthatcanbefunctionallytested.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)OverfillProtectionB)•Eliminateflowrestrictorsasanoptionforoverfillprotectionfornewtanks•Requirereplacementofexistingflowrestrictorsbasedonnewrestrictionsassociatedwithunsafeoperatingconditions(e.g.,pressurizeddeliveries)C)1%ofdeliveryproblems.Ifthisislimitedtonewtanks,itwilltakealongtimeforthetankpopulationtoturnover,soitwillhavelittleeffect.50%ofdeliveryproblemsfromnon‐retailtankswithballfloatsD)E)90%.IbelievemostdeliveryreleasesthatinvolvesubstantialvolumesareattributabletoballfloatvalvesF)G)H).Interaction‐Restrictionsontheuseofballfloatshavebeenaroundsincebeforethefederalrulewentintoeffectin1988.Theproblemisfewpeopleknowaboutrestrictionsbecausefewpeoplereadinstructionsorwarningsandtherehasnotbeenalotofenforcementbyregulatorsofmanufacturerrequirements.Comments:Needtobecarefulherebecausethereareotherflowrestrictorsbesidesballfloatvalves.I'dsaybespecificandnotallowballfloatsratherthanthegeneric"flowrestrictor"language.Becausethiswillonlyaffectnewttanks,itsimpactwouldbesmallforagoodmanyyearsintothefuture.Also,Idonothavealotoffaithinanyofthealternativeoverfilldevices.Requiringreplacementwouldgetalotofattentiontotheissuewhichmightraiseawarenesstothepointwhereasignifcantnumberofballfloatsarereplaced.Inmyopinion,thiswouldbeagoodthing.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)OperationaltestingB)Requireannuallineleakdetectoroperationaltestandannualtestofelectroniccomponentsassociatedwitheachofthefollowing:•ATG•InterstitialMonitoring•VaporMonitoring•GroundwaterMonitoringC)We'retalkingaboutincreasingtheeffectivenessofreleasedetectionhere,sothenumberofreleaseswillnotbeaffected.WhatshouldbeaffectedisthequantityanddurationofreleasesD)E)10%F)10%G)Changefrequencytotwoyears?threeyears?H)Oneyearisbest.Sensitivitywouldbehalfasgoodattwoyears,athirdasgoodatthreeyears.Interaction‐Thisrequirementwouldfitwellwithfunctionaltestingofoverfillequipment.Comments:Keepitgeneric.Allleakdetectionequipmentshouldbecheckedannuallyforproperfunction(evenagaugestickshouldbecheckedforlegibilityandcorrectlength).Followmanufacturer'sinstructionsforfunctionalitytestorelseindustrypractice(RP900again),butdonotallowmanufacturertosaythattheirequipmentdoesn'tneedfunctionaltesting.Functionaltestingwillhelptoimproveabilityofequipmenttodetectaleakwhenitoccurs,butunlessweimprovetheresponseofpeoplewhohearorseethealarmcondition,thiswillonlyhavelimitedeffect.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)AddSIRandCITLDSusageB)RequireSIRandCITLDSuserstosubmitquantitativeresultsonly(withleakrate)andtosubmittheresultswithin30daysC)2%ofreleasesinvolvingthesemethods.D)E)2%F)2%G)H)Interaction‐Comments:Mostprovidersarealreadyquantitative,sothiswouldnothaveabigeffect.WhatreallyneedstohappenisarevisionoftheSIR/CITLDSprotocol(s)andhavingalltheseproviderspassthenewprotocol.Havingresultsreportedwithin30daysisridiculous.Thegeneralregulatoryrequirementalreadyonthebooksistofindleaksin30days.IftheSIRproviderhas30daysafterhereceivesthedatatoprovideresults,thatcouldmean60daysbetweentheonsetofaleakandwhenitisdiscovered(thinkGunnison,Utah).Sirprovidersshouldhaveamaximumof10daystoprovideresults‐andthisisbeinggenerous.AllSIRprovidersneedtodoisstaggertheircustomerssothattheydon'tallsubmitresultsattheendofthemonth(e.g.,somesubmitonthe15th,someonthe16th,someonthe17th,etc.)toavoidbeingoverwhelmedwithworkattheendofeverycalendarmonth.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)DetectionProbabilitiesB)Adjustprobabilityofdetection/probabilityoffalsealarmonreleasedetectionto99/1forthefollowingsystems:•ATG•AutomaticLineLeakDetectors•SIR•CITLDSC)0%0%0%0%D)E)0%0%0%0%F)0%0%0%0%G)Adjustprobabilityto97/3H)NoeffectInteraction‐Comments:TheproblemisNOTthePd/Pfa.Theultimateproblemisthatpeopledon'tpayattentiontoalarms.Butsettingthataside,theproblemisthatexistingLEAKRATESaretoolenient.Ifyouwanttotightenthingsup,settheperformancestandardforthedevicetoalowernumber.ATGs,SIRandCITLDScangoto0.1gphformonthlyleakdetection.LLDscangoto1.0or2.0gph.Manufacturerswillscream,butwearefrozeninto25yearoldleakdetectiontechnologybecausethatistheperformancestandardsetbytherules.Ifyouwanttoimproveperformance,CHANGETHEPERFORMANCESTANDARDintherule!Thechangefroma95to99%Pdisinsignificant!!Thechangefrom0.2gphto0.1gphis50%.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)DeferralsB)RemovereleasedetectiondeferralforemergencygeneratorUSTs,assumingtheywouldnowberequiredtomeetexistingregulations(note:estimateofroughly20,000tanksnationally)Remove40CFR280deferrals(allsubparts)fromairporthydrantrefuelingsystems,assumingtheywouldnowberequiredtomeetexistingregulationswithmodifiedleakdetectionrequirements(note:estimateofroughly200systemssubjecttorequirement)Remove40CFR280deferrals(allsubparts)fromfield‐constructedtanks,assumingtheywouldnowberequiredtomeetexistingregulationswithmodifiedleakdetectionrequirements(note:estimateofroughly240systemssubjecttorequirement)C)Maybe5%ofleaksthatareingeneratorsystemsTherearesofewhydrantsystemsinthepopulationthattheoverallchangeinnumberofreleaseswillbenegligible.Thechangeinvolumecouldbesubstantial,however,becausereleasesfromhydrantsystemscanbeverylargeTherearesofewfield‐constructedtanksinthepopulationthattheoverallchangeinnumberofreleaseswillbenegligible.IsuspectmanyofthesearemilitarytanksandlikelyalreadyhavesomeformofleakdetectionD)E)15%forthosereleasesthatareingeneratorsystems50%reductioninthequantityreleasedfromhydrantsystems(notallUSTs)F)15%forthosereleasesthatareingeneratorsystems.50%reductioninthedurationofreleasesfromhydrantsystems(notallUSTs)G)H)Interaction‐Note:haveSPCCrequirementsresultedinsignificant40CFR280compliance?Don'tknow.Note:haveSPCCrequirementsresultedinsignificant40CFR280compliance?Don'tknow.Comments:Leakdetectiononhydrantsystemsisnowpossibleandshouldbedone.Performancestandardswouldneedtobespecifictohydrantsystems,however.Leakdetectionforthesesystemsisnowpossibleandshouldbedone.Performancestandardshouldbespecifictothesesystemshowever.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)NotificationofownershipchangeB)Requirenotificationtoimplementingagencybyowner/operatorofownershipchangeC)0%D)E)0%F)0%G)H)Interaction‐Comments:Idon'tseehowthiswillaffectleakrates.ArethereanydatathatshowthatUSTsystemsregisteredtotheincorrectownerhaveahigherleakrate?ButhavingthecorrectowneronfileIScriticaltostate'sabilitytotrackUSTsystemcompliance,sothisisanimportantmeasurewithregardtoprogramimplementation.RequirementwouldbemoreeffectiveifBOTHthepurchaserandthesellerwererequiredtonotify.Woulddoubleyourchancethatonepartyortheotherwouldnotifytheimplementingagency.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)ReplacementoflinedtanksthatcannotberepairedaccordingtoacodeofpracticeB)RequirereplacementoflinedtanksthatcannotberepairedaccordingtoacodeofpracticeC)5%amongthelinedtankpopulationD)E)5%F)5%G)H)Interaction–Iftheliningisn’tuptosnuffandcan'tberepairedisn'tthistankillegalundercurrentrules?OristhisquestionaboutisitOKtoaddCPbecausetheliningisnolongeradequate?Questionisnotcleartome.Comments:A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)ResponsetointerstitialmonitoringalarmsB)RequireinterstitialintegritytestinginresponsetoaninterstitialmonitoringalarmC)0%D)E)0%F)0%G)H)Interaction‐Assumingthatonlyonewallofthedoublewalledsystemhasfailed(whichistheusualcase)thentherehasnotyetbeenareleaseandthenumberofreleaseswillnotbeaffected.Thatsaid,itisnotappropriatetoignoreinterstitialalarmsorchangetoadifferentmethodofleakdetectiononcetheinterstitialisfullofproduct.Investigatinganinterstitialalarmisdefinitelyagoodthing,buttestingisnotnecessarilythecorrectresponse.Rememberthatstandardtightnesstestingisonlygoingtoreliablyfindleaksof2gallonsaday.Secondarycontainmentcanfindleaksmuchsmallerthanthis.Justdefineliquidintheinterstitial(otherthanhydrostaticsystem)asasuspectedreleaseandgobytheexistingrulerequirementtoinvestigate.Donotspecifythemethodofinvestigation.Tightnesstestingmaynotbethebestresponse,sincesomeleaksaresmallenoughthattheintegritytestwillpasseventhoughliquidkeepsaccumulatingintheinterstitial.InonecasethatIdealtwith,agallonadayofproductkeptappearingintheintersititalspaceofafiberglasstank.Thetankpassedseveraltightnesstests.TheownerclaimedthatfuelhadaccidentallybeendeliveredintotheinterstitialandthatitwasslowlydrainingoutoftheFRPribsintotheinterstiital.Thestateclaimedtherewasaleak.Theissuewasresolvedbyplacingadyeinthefuelinthetankandthencheckingfortheappearanceofthedyeinthefuelintheinterstitial.Thedyeappearedinthefuelintheinterstitialandeveryonethenbelievedthatthetankwasleaking,buttheleakratewasbelowthedetectionlevelofthetightnesstests.Comments:A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)OperatorTrainingB)InstituteOperatorTrainingasFollows:•One‐timetrainingfor"ClassA"operator(technicalandregulatory)oropt‐outtestwithin30daysofassumingduties•One‐timetrainingfor"ClassB"operator(technical)oropt‐outtestwithin30daysofassumingduties.•One‐timetrainingfor"ClassC"operator(limitedtechnical)priortoassumingduties.•Repeattrainingforfacilitieswithsignificantnon‐compliance,within30daysofdocumentednon‐compliance.C)Noneofthisisgoingtoreducethenumberofreleases.ItmightreducethequantityreleasedD)E)5%F)5%G)IfonlyTribalLandsareconsidered,howmuchwouldreductioninpercentageofincidentsdiffer(ifatall)?H)Tribaltanksaresuchasmallpercentageofthetotalpopulationthattheywouldmakenodifferencetotheoverallpopulationstatistics.Interaction–Assumesaccesstoon‐linetrainingasoneoption.Thisrequirementinteractswithallotherrequirements.Withouttraining,agreatmanyUSToperatorswillneverlearnabouteverythingthattheyaresupposedtodo(monthlyinspections,annualfunctiontests,investigatealarms,etc.).Comments:YoucanleadanUSToperatortotrainingbutyoucan'tmakehim(orher)payattention.ThefundamentalissuewithUSToperatorsisnotignoranceofwhattheyaresupposedtodobut(inthegreatmajorityofcases)lackofmotivationtodoit.Trainingisnotgoingtofixthismotivationissue,butwearegoingtodotheexperimentandtrytotraineverybodyandhopefullyprovemewrong.Also,one‐timetrainingisnotenough.Firstofall,thereisagreatdealofinformationtolearn,andstudentswillonlyretaina1/4orlessofwhatispresented.Second,evenwhatisretainedwillfadewithtimeandbecomemarginallyuseful.Ongoingtrainingeveryyearoratmosteverycoupleofyearswouldhaveabetterchanceofsuccess.NotethatthisismoreimportantforClassA/Boperators,manyofwhomwillbeintheirjobsformultipleyears,thanClassCoperatorswhohaveasubstantialturnover.NOTE:Intheinterestsoffulldisclosure,Iprovidetrainingtoownersandoperatorsandstandtobenefitfromarequirementtohavetrainingbeanongoingratherthanaone‐timething.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)SecondaryContainmentB)RequiresecondarycontainmentonallnewtanksandpipingInstallsecondarycontainmentonpipinguponreplacement.Replacementdefinedas:Removalof50percentormoreofpiping,excludingconnectors,connectedtoasingleundergroundtank.Forundergroundstoragetankswithmultiplepipingruns,thereplacedefinitionappliesindependentlytoeachpipingrun.Requireunder‐dispensercontainmentonallnewdispensersystemsC)1%orlessinitially,butthecumulativeeffectovertimeoftransitioningtheentiretankpopulationtosecondarycontainmentwillbesignificant(assumingthesecondarycontainmentisinstalledandmaintainedproperly).We'relookingat30yearsormoreforthistohappen(unlesselevatedethanolblendscomeintocommonuseandcausemassivefailuresofexistingsystems,inwhichcasetheturnoverwouldbequicker).0%.Therewillbefewinstanceswherethisscenarioapplies.D)Answerwouldvarygreatlywithgeography(FLisverydifferentthanAZ).Toomanyvariableshereformetoofferanestimate.E)1%orlessinitially,butcouldgoto80or90%afterseveraldecades(assumingproperinstallationandmaintenance0%.1%ofreleasesinvolvingdispensersinitially,butthiswillincreaseovertime.F)1%orlessinitially,butcouldgoto80or90%afterseveraldecades(assumingproperinstallationandmaintenance).0%1%ofreleasesinvolvingdispensersinitially,butthiswillincreaseovertime.G)Adjustreplacementthresholdto25percentAlso,ifonlyTribalLandsareconsidered,howmuchwouldthereductioninpercentageofincidentsdiffer(ifatall)?H)Tribaltanksaresuchasmallpercentageofthetotalpopulationthattheywouldmakenodifferencetotheoverallpopulationstatistics.Interaction:Isn'tthisthegeneralintentoftheEnergyAct??Longtermthiscouldhaveasignificantimpactifthesecondarycontainmentisproperlyinstalledandproperlymaintainedwhichsomeoftheotherchanges(testingforintegrity,annualinspection)willhelpaccomplish.Comments:EffectofthiswillbesmallforalongtimebecausetherewillbeverylittlenewinstallationactivityunlesswegotoanewtypeoffuelthatisnotcompatiblewithexistingUSTsystemsandrequirestheinstallationofawholenewpopulationofUSTsystems.Effectofthiswillbesmallforasignificanttimebecausetherewillbelittlenewdispenserinstallationactivity.Addingcontainmentwillsubstantiallyincreasethecostofreplacingdispensersinagreatmanycases,sothismaycauseadelayindispenserreplacementactivity‐i.e.,thecurrentgenerationofdispenserswillstayinplaceforlongerthannormal.Enforcementofthisrequirementwouldbecomplicatedbecauseimplementingagenciesaretypicallynotnotifiedofdispenserreplacementactivitybecausethisactivitynormallydoesnotrequireanychangestothebelowgradepiping.Addingthedispensercontainment,however,willmostlikelyrequirerepipingactivitybelowthecrashvalve.Also,thecostofaddingdispensercontainmentasweknowittodaywillbesubstantial.Thiswillencouragedevelopmentof"retrofit"technologiessuchasFloridasawwhenitrequireddispensercontainmentonexistngfacilities.Someofthese"retrofits"consistedofsmearing"goop"inthedirtunderthedispenserto"create"an"insitu"containmentstructure.I'mnotsurehowtoavoidthis,butthereneedstobesomequalitycontrolmeasureincludedintheunderdispenserrequirementrequirementsorelsetheintentoftherulemaybeseverelycompromisedbycharlatansouttomakeafastbuckandownerslookingtosavesomedough.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)WalkthroughinspectionsB)MonthlyInspectionswiththefollowingminimumcomponents:•Spillbuckets–openandvisuallycheckforanydamage;removeanyliquidordebris;andcheckeachfillcaptomakesureitissecurelyonthefillpipe•Sumps–openandvisuallycheckforanydamage;releasestothecontainmentareaortotheenvironment;andremoveanyliquidordebris•Dispensercabinets–openandvisuallycheckforanydamage;releasestothecontainmentareaortotheenvironment;andremoveanyliquidordebris•Monitoring/ObservationWells–checkcoverstomakesuretheyaresecured•ImpressedCurrentRectifiers–checktomakesuresystemisonandoperating;and•ReleaseDetectionSystems–functionalcheck(makesuresystemisonandoperating)C)Spillbuckets1Sumps5DispenserCabinets5Monitoring/ObsWells0ImpressedCurrentRectifiers1ReleaseDetectionSystems1D)Spillbuckets‐‐0Sumps‐‐3DispenserCabinets‐‐5Monitoring/ObsWells‐‐0ImpressedCurrentRectifiers0ReleaseDetectionSystems0E)Spillbuckets0Sumps‐‐5DispenserCabinets‐10Monitoring/ObsWells‐0ImpressedCurrentRectifiers0ReleaseDetectionSystems0F)Spillbuckets0Sumps‐‐5DispenserCabinets‐10Monitoring/ObsWells‐0ImpressedCurrentRectifiers0ReleaseDetectionSystems0G)Changefrequencytoonceeverysixmonthsorannualwouldresultindropforsumpsdownto2anddispensercabinetsdownto4H)Interaction‐SEECOMMENTSHEETTOADDRESSBOTHTHISANDNEXTCOLUMNComments:.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)OverfillfunctionalitytestingB)Onceeveryyear:Requiretestingtoensurethattheoverfillequipmentisinaccordancewithmanufacturer’srequirementsC)Ifdonepermanufacturer1Ifdonepergoodengineeringpractices15D)10E)10F)5G)Changefrequencytotwoyears?threeyears?Dropto10for2yearsand5for3yrH)Interaction‐Comments:A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)SpillbuckettightnesstestingB)Onceeveryyear:Requiretestingsuchthatspillbucketequipmentisinaccordancewithmanufacturer’srequirementsC)Ifdonepermanufacturer1Ifdonepergoodengineeringpractices5D)2E)1F)1G)Changefrequencytotwoyears?threeyears?CutinhalfandthenhalfagainH)Interaction‐Comments:A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)IntegritytestingforinterstitialareasB)Onceeveryyear:Requireintegritytestingofinterstitialareasusingvacuum,pressureorliquidtestinginaccordancewithmanufacturer’srequirementsC)Ifdonepermanufacturer1Ifdonepergoodengineeringpractices15D)10E)10F)20G)Changefrequencytotwoyears?threeyears?SameasaboveH)Interaction‐Comments:A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)RepairsB)•Requirespillbuckettightnesstestingafterrepairtospillbucket•Requireoverfillfunctionalitytestingafterrepairtooverfill•RequireinterstitialintegritytestingafterrepairtoprimaryorsecondarycontainmentC)considernumberofrepairsneeded1considernumberofrepairsneeded2considernumberofrepairsneeded1D)121E)121F)121G)H)Interaction‐Comments:A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)OverfillProtectionB)•Eliminateflowrestrictorsasanoptionforoverfillprotectionfornewtanks•Requirereplacementofexistingflowrestrictorsbasedonnewrestrictionsassociatedwithunsafeoperatingconditions(e.g.,pressurizeddeliveries)C)25D)12E)12F)12G)H)Interaction‐Comments:A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)OperationaltestingB)Requireannuallineleakdetectoroperationaltestandannualtestofelectroniccomponentsassociatedwitheachofthefollowing:•ATG•InterstitialMonitoring•VaporMonitoring•GroundwaterMonitoringC)ATG10InterstitialMonitoring10VaporMonitoring10GroundwaterMonitoring0D)ATG0InterstitialMonitoring0VaporMonitoring0GroundwaterMonitoring0E)ATG0InterstitialMonitoring0VaporMonitoring0GroundwaterMonitoring0F)ATG0InterstitialMonitoring0VaporMonitoring0GroundwaterMonitoring0G)Changefrequencytotwoyears?threeyears?Dropto7fortwoyearsand3forthreeyearsH)Interaction‐Comments:A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)AddSIRandCITLDSusageB)RequireSIRandCITLDSuserstosubmitquantitativeresultsonly(withleakrate)andtosubmittheresultswithin30daysC)SIR0CITLDS2D)SIR0CITLDS0E)SIR0CITLDS0F)SIR0CITLDS0G)H)Interaction‐Comments:A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)DetectionProbabilitiesB)Adjustprobabilityofdetection/probabilityoffalsealarmonreleasedetectionto99/1forthefollowingsystems:•ATG•AutomaticLineLeakDetectors•SIR•CITLDSC)0000D)0000E)0000F)0000G)Adjustprobabilityto97/3Again,nodetectableeffectH)Interaction‐Comments:A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)DeferralsB)RemovereleasedetectiondeferralforemergencygeneratorUSTs,assumingtheywouldnowberequiredtomeetexistingregulations(note:estimateofroughly20,000tanksnationally)Remove40CFR280deferrals(allsubparts)fromairporthydrantrefuelingsystems,assumingtheywouldnowberequiredtomeetexistingregulationswithmodifiedleakdetectionrequirements(note:estimateofroughly200systemssubjecttorequirement)Remove40CFR280deferrals(allsubparts)fromfield‐constructedtanks,assumingtheywouldnowberequiredtomeetexistingregulationswithmodifiedleakdetectionrequirements(note:estimateofroughly240systemssubjecttorequirement)C)522D)222E)422F)522G)H)Interaction‐Comments:A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)NotificationofownershipchangeReplacementoflinedtanksthatcannotberepairedaccordingtoacodeofpracticeResponsetointerstitialmonitoringalarmsB)Requirenotificationtoimplementingagencybyowner/operatorofownershipchangeRequirereplacementoflinedtanksthatcannotberepairedaccordingtoacodeofpracticeRequireinterstitialintegritytestinginresponsetoaninterstitialmonitoringalarmC)025D)025E)013F)012G)H)Interaction‐Comments:A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)OperatorTrainingB)InstituteOperatorTrainingasFollows:•One‐timetrainingfor"ClassA"operator(technicalandregulatory)oropt‐outtestwithin30daysofassumingduties•One‐timetrainingfor"ClassB"operator(technical)oropt‐outtestwithin30daysofassumingduties.•One‐timetrainingfor"ClassC"operator(limitedtechnical)priortoassumingduties.•Repeattrainingforfacilitieswithsignificantnon‐compliance,within30daysofdocumentednon‐compliance.C)Ifdoneperon‐lineclasses0Ifdonepergoodmulti‐dayprogramwithpracticalfieldexamonsafetyinspections5D)Ifdoneperon‐lineclasses0Ifdonepergoodmulti‐dayprogramwithpracticalfieldexamonsafetyinspections5E)Ifdoneperon‐lineclasses0Ifdonepergoodmulti‐dayprogramwithpracticalfieldexamonsafetyinspections5F)Ifdoneperon‐lineclasses0Ifdonepergoodmulti‐dayprogramwithpracticalfieldexamonsafetyinspections5G)IfonlyTribalLandsareconsidered,howmuchwouldreductioninpercentageofincidentsdiffer(ifatall)?SameasestimateH)Interaction‐Comments:A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)SecondaryContainmentB)RequiresecondarycontainmentonallnewtanksandpipingInstallsecondarycontainmentonpipinguponreplacement.Replacementdefinedas:Removalof50percentormoreofpiping,excludingconnectors,connectedtoasingleundergroundtank.Forundergroundstoragetankswithmultiplepipingruns,thereplacedefinitionappliesindependentlytoeachpipingrun.Requireunder‐dispensercontainmentonallnewdispensersystemsC)355D)224E)225F)224G)Adjustreplacementthresholdto25percentDROPTO2%Also,ifonlyTribalLandsareconsidered,howmuchwouldthereductioninpercentageofincidentsdiffer?SAMEH)Interaction‐Comments:A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)WalkthroughinspectionsB)MonthlyInspectionswiththefollowingminimumcomponents:•Spillbuckets–openandvisuallycheckforanydamage;removeanyliquidordebris;andcheckeachfillcaptomakesureitissecurelyonthefillpipe•Sumps–openandvisuallycheckforanydamage;releasestothecontainmentareaortotheenvironment;andremoveanyliquidordebris•Dispensercabinets–openandvisuallycheckforanydamage;releasestothecontainmentareaortotheenvironment;andremoveanyliquidordebris•Monitoring/ObservationWells–checkcoverstomakesuretheyaresecured•ImpressedCurrentRectifiers–checktomakesuresystemisonandoperating;and•ReleaseDetectionSystems–functionalcheck(makesuresystemisonandoperating)C)65%D)55%E)F)G)ChangefrequencytoonceeverysixmonthsorannualH)Therewouldbea12‐15%increasetoeachpercentage,duetothequickerthingswouldbefound.Down12%for6months,down15%foroneyear,peremails8/30Interaction‐YesOperatorTraining‐ProperinspectionsComments:Thiswouldrequiretrainedpeoplenottobetakenlightly,thisregulationwillhavegreaterimpactintheinitialyears.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)OverfillfunctionalitytestingB)Onceeveryyear:Requiretestingtoensurethattheoverfillequipmentisinaccordancewithmanufacturer’srequirementsC)28%D)65%E)F)G)Changefrequencytotwoyears?threeyears?Replacespillbucketeverythreeyears?H)Youwouldchangebyabout12‐15%stoppingrealeasesInteraction‐Comments:TheserequirementpairedwiththetoprequirementwouldbethebestwaytooverallimpactthelargestportionofleakstodayA)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)SpillbuckettightnesstestingB)Onceeveryyear:Requiretestingsuchthatspillbucketequipmentisinaccordancewithmanufacturer’srequirementsC)40%D)E)F)80%G)Changefrequencytotwoyears?threeyears?Replacespillbucketeverythreeyears?H)Youwouldchangebyabout12‐15%stoppingrealeasesInteraction‐YesthisisrealtedtothewalkthruinspectionsComments:Thisareaisverysensativeso,thiswouldonlybeneccesaryiftheydon’ttestthem.ThetruthislikeflexiblepipingoncewetestandfindproblemstheindustrywillmakethecorrectionsandputthecorrectspillbucketsinthegroundA)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)IntegritytestingforinterstitialareasB)Onceeveryyear:Requireintegritytestingofinterstitialareasusingvacuum,pressureorliquidtestinginaccordancewithmanufacturer’srequirementsC)15‐18%D)60%E)F)G)Changefrequencytotwoyears?threeyears?H)Youwouldchangebyabout12‐15%stoppingrealeasesInteraction‐YesthisisrealtedtothewalkthruinspectionsComments:Thisareaisverysensativeso,thiswouldonlybeneccesaryiftheydon’ttestthem.ThetruthislikeflexiblepipingoncewetestandfindproblemstheindustrywillmakethecorrectionsandputthecorrectspillbucketsinthegroundA)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)RepairsOverfillProtectionB)•Requirespillbuckettightnesstestingafterrepairtospillbucket•Requireoverfillfunctionalitytestingafterrepairtooverfill•Requireinterstitialintegritytestingafterrepairtoprimaryorsecondarycontainment•EliminateflowrestrictorsasanoptionforoverfillprotectionfornewtanksC)23‐28%29%33%5‐7%D)65%6.8%E)F)75%70%G)Changefrequencytotwoyears?threeyears?H)Youwoouldlooseonlyabout5‐10%ofleaksnotfoundannualy5‐10%downward5‐10%downward5‐10%downwardInteraction‐YesthisisrealtedtothewalkthruinspectionsYES‐WalkthruinspectionsComments:Thisareaisverysensativeso,thiswouldonlybeneccesaryiftheydon’ttestthem.ThetruthislikeflexiblepipingoncewetestandfindproblemstheindustrywillmakethecorrectionsandputthecorrectspillbucketsinthegroundOverallthesearegoodcatastrophicmethodofleakdetectionandfarcheaperthanElectronic,newtanksshouldhavedoublewallwithFlowrestrictorsandsumpsensor.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)OperationaltestingB)Requireannuallineleakdetectoroperationaltestandannualtestofelectroniccomponentsassociatedwitheachofthefollowing:•ATG•InterstitialMonitoring•VaporMonitoring•GroundwaterMonitoringC)26%D)E)F)35%G)Changefrequencytotwoyears?threeyears?H)13‐18%lossofeaInteraction‐Comments:A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)AddSIRandCITLDSusageB)RequireSIRandCITLDSuserstosubmitquantitativeresultsonly(withleakrate)andtosubmittheresultswithin30daysC)22%D)E)F)45%G)H)noimpactInteraction‐Comments:SIRresultsarethemostdifficultbecausethereissomuchhumanerror,therearevariedstandards.Electronicdatacollectionwouldelimantealargepercentageofissuesthatarerelatedtothehumanerror.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)DetectionProbabilitiesB)Adjustprobabilityofdetection/probabilityoffalsealarmonreleasedetectionto99/1forthefollowingsystems:•ATG•AutomaticLineLeakDetectors•SIR•CITLDSC)15%8%25%8%D)10%Littleimpact2%35%3%E)F)5%60%5%G)Adjustprobabilityto97/3H)7%more2%Littleimpact35%insteadof60%2%Interaction‐Comments:SIRresultsarethemostdifficultbecausethereissomuchhumanerror,therearevariedstandards.Electronicdatacollectionwouldelimantealargepercentageofissuesthatarerelatedtothehumanerror.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)DeferralsB)RemovereleasedetectiondeferralforemergencygeneratorUSTs,assumingtheywouldnowberequiredtomeetexistingregulations(note:estimateofroughly20,000tanksnationally)Remove40CFR280deferrals(allsubparts)fromairporthydrantrefuelingsystems,assumingtheywouldnowberequiredtomeetexistingregulationswithmodifiedleakdetectionrequirements(note:estimateofroughly200systemssubjecttorequirement)Remove40CFR280deferrals(allsubparts)fromfield‐constructedtanks,assumingtheywouldnowberequiredtomeetexistingregulationswithmodifiedleakdetectionrequirements(note:estimateofroughly240systemssubjecttorequirement)C)30%20%10%D)45%E)F)30%15%G)RegulateundersamerequirementsasconventionalUSTs.RegulateundersamerequirementsasconventionalUSTs.RegulateundersamerequirementsasconventionalUSTs.H)youwouldgainabout10%15%15%Interaction‐Note:haveSPCCrequirementsresultedinsignificant40CFR280compliance?Note:haveSPCCrequirementsresultedinsignificant40CFR280compliance?Comments:Thesearea'sifyouwouldaddthemontlhyandannualinspectionswouldhelpcleanupalotofsmallrealeasesthatadduptobeinglargeimpactsA)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)NotificationofownershipchangeReplacementoflinedtanksthatcannotberepairedaccordingtoacodeofpracticeResponsetointerstitialmonitoringalarmsB)Requirenotificationtoimplementingagencybyowner/operatorofownershipchangeRequirereplacementoflinedtanksthatcannotberepairedaccordingtoacodeofpracticeRequireinterstitialintegritytestinginresponsetoaninterstitialmonitoringalarmC)littleimpact15%5‐7%D)E)Littleimpact10%F)15%G)H)Interaction‐Comments:ifTestingwastheresponsetoalarmspeoplewouldkeeptheirsystemscleanerandpreventfalsealarmsA)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)NotificationofownershipchangeReplacementoflinedtanksthatcannotberepairedaccordingtoacodeofpracticeResponsetointerstitialmonitoringalarmsB)Requirenotificationtoimplementingagencybyowner/operatorofownershipchangeRequirereplacementoflinedtanksthatcannotberepairedaccordingtoacodeofpracticeRequireinterstitialintegritytestinginresponsetoaninterstitialmonitoringalarmC)littleimpact15%5‐7%D)E)Littleimpact10%F)15%G)H)Interaction‐Comments:A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)OperatorTrainingB)InstituteOperatorTrainingasFollows:•One‐timetrainingfor"ClassA"operator(technicalandregulatory)oropt‐outtestwithin30daysofassumingduties•One‐timetrainingfor"ClassB"operator(technical)oropt‐outtestwithin30daysofassumingduties.•One‐timetrainingfor"ClassC"operator(limitedtechnical)priortoassumingduties.•Repeattrainingforfacilitieswithsignificantnon‐compliance,within30daysofdocumentednon‐compliance.C)20%D)25%E)F)G)IfonlyTribalLandsareconsidered,howmuchwouldreductioninpercentageofincidentsdiffer(ifatall)?H)Interaction‐Assumesaccesstoon‐linetrainingasoneoption.Comments:A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)SecondaryContainmentB)Installsecondarycontainmentonpipinguponreplacement.Replacementdefinedas:Removalof50percentormoreofpiping,excludingconnectors,connectedtoasingleundergroundtank.Forundergroundstoragetankswithmultiplepipingruns,thereplacedefinitionappliesindependentlytoeachpipingrun.RequiresecondarycontainmentonallnewtanksandpipingRequireunder‐dispensercontainmentonallnewdispensersystemsC)25%15%20%D)30%20%E)F)35%G)Adjustreplacementthresholdto25percentAlso,ifonlyTribalLandsareconsidered,howmuchwouldthereductioninpercentageofincidentsdiffer(ifatall)?H)wouldnotchangeverymuchInteraction‐Comments:Thesearesolidchangesthatwouldimpactonstoppingorminimizingtheleaksandimpacttoourenvironment.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)WalkthroughInspectionsB)MonthlyInspectionswiththefollowingminimumcomponents:•Spillbuckets–openandvisuallycheckforanydamage;removeanyliquidordebris;andcheckeachfillcaptomakesureitissecurelyonthefillpipe•Sumps–openandvisuallycheckforanydamage;releasestothecontainmentareaortotheenvironment;andremoveanyliquidordebris•Dispensercabinets–openandvisuallycheckforanydamage;releasestothecontainmentareaortotheenvironment;andremoveanyliquidordebris•Monitoring/ObservationWells–checkcoverstomakesuretheyaresecured•ImpressedCurrentRectifiers–checktomakesuresystemisonandoperating;and•ReleaseDetectionSystems–functionalcheck(makesuresystemisonandoperating)C)1.50%2.20%3.15%4.2%5.2%6.40%D)1.35%2.15%3.10%4.1%5.1%6.25%E)1.50%2.20%3.15%4.2%5.2%6.40%F)1.50%2.20%3.15%4.2%5.2%6.40%G)ChangefrequencytoonceeverysixmonthsorannualH)TheprojectedreductionswoulddiminishbymorethanhalfoftheirestimatedvaluesInteraction‐No.Forexample,theStateofFlorida'scurrentruleshaverequiredmostofthesenewproposedmonthlyinspectionrequirementssince1998.Therulerequiresthat"anythingthatcanbevisuallyinspected,shallbevisuallyinspected,onamonthlybasis".Florida'sdischarge(release)dataindicatesasteadyreductionofdischargessince1998,helpedinpartbythisrequirement,alongwithannualcomplianceinspectionsandtherequirementsforsecondarycontainment.Comments:ThisisanexcellentrevisiontotheEPArules.Itwillreducethenumber,duration,andseverityofreleases,aswellasthenumberofenforcementactions.ThemostfrequentlycitedviolationofFloridarulesis"waterinsumps",soanynewrequirementthatwillrequirethemonthlyremovalofliquidanddebriswillhelptominimizetheriskoflossofintegrityofUDC's,PipingSumps,andspillbuckets.Inaddition,theverificationofthefunctionalityofleakdetectionequipmentwillalsogoalongwaytowardsreducingleaks.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)OverfillfunctionalitytestingB)Onceeveryyear:Requiretestingtoensurethattheoverfillequipmentisinaccordancewithmanufacturer’srequirementsC)20%D)15%E)20%F)5%G)Changefrequencytotwoyears?threeyears?H)Theprojectedreductionswoulddiminishtheirestimatedvaluesanadditionalfivepercentperyear(twoyears,15%,threeyears,10%)Interaction‐Itisnotredundant,norisitdependentonotherrequirements.Therequirementcouldapplytoalarms,shut‐off"flapper"valves,andevenballfloats,althoughsomefacilitieswillhavetroublewithaccesstoballfloats.Comments:Addingthisnewrequirementforannualoperabilitytestingofoverfillpreventionequipmentwillsignificantlydiminishthenumberofdischargesfromoverfill.TheFloridaLeakAutopsyStudyindicatesthatoverfillscomprise28%ofalldischargesfromtanks,butthepercentageoftanksasthesourceofleaksisonly11%.Removetheoverfillcomponent,andthepercentageofleaksfromtanksdropstojustundereightpercent.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)SpillbuckettightnesstestingB)Onceeveryyear:Requiretestingsuchthatspillbucketequipmentisinaccordancewithmanufacturer’srequirementsC)50%D)35%E)50%F)50%G)Replacespillbucketeverythreeyears?H)Toointrusiveonbusiness.Requiringannualintegritytestswillensurethatspillbucketsthatneedreplacingwillbeindentifiedandreplacedasneeded.Sameeffectivenessastestingper8/30phonecallInteraction‐No,buttheproposedruleformonthlyvisualinspectionsofspillbucketshelpssupportthisrequirement.Comments:Thisisanotherchangethatwillprovidesubstantialenvironmentalprotectionwithminimalcost.Hydrostaticannualtestswillbethemostfrequentmethodofannualintegritytestingforspillcontainmentbuckets,andthetestiseasytoperformandverify.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)IntegritytestingforinterstitialareasB)Onceeveryyear:Requireintegritytestingofinterstitialareasusingvacuum,pressureorliquidtestinginaccordancewithmanufacturer’srequirementsC)3%D)3%E)3%F)5%G)Changefrequencytotwoyears?threeyears?H)Morereasonablethanannualtesting,butstillexpensiveforapartofthestoragetanksystemthatisnotthefrequentsourceofleaks.Threeyearswouldbebetterthantwo.2%whenappliedevery3yearsper8/30phonecallInteraction‐Thisrequirementisdependentontheabilityofthesystemtobevacuum,pressure,orliquidtested.Itisnotredundant.Comments:Thisprovision,ifselected,shouldonlybeusedonago‐forwardbasisfornewstoragetanks,piping,andsystemcontainment.Mostexistingdouble‐walltanksandpipingsystemsarenotdesignedtohavevacuum,pressure,orliquidinterstitialtesting.Thosethatcanbetestedcanonlybetestedatconsiderableexpense.However,thisrequirementdoeshavemeritformostexistingpipingsumps,UDCs,andspillcontainmentbucketsthatcanbeliquidtested.Withtheexceptionofspillbuckets,theleakautopsydataconfirmsthatmostleaksarenotcomingfromcontainmentsystemsordouble‐walltanksandpiping.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)RepairsB)•Requirespillbuckettightnesstestingafterrepairtospillbucket•Requireoverfillfunctionalitytestingafterrepairtooverfill•RequireinterstitialintegritytestingafterrepairtoprimaryorsecondarycontainmentC)30%10%3%D)10%5%3%E)20%10%1%F)15%5%3%G)H)Interaction‐NoNo‐shouldbeabletobeperformedinaccordancewithmanufacturer'sspecifications.Thisrequirementisdependentontheabilityofthesystemtobevacuum,pressure,orliquidtested.Itisnotredundant,norisitdependentonotherrequirements.Comments:ThisrequirementhasbeenpartoftheFloridarulesince1998andhasbeenimplementedwithgoodresults.Thisisagoodcommonsenserequirementthatshouldreducethenumberofoverfills.byasmallpercentageAgain,thisrequirementisgoodforexistingpipingsumpsanddispensersumps,butmaybeimpracticalandunachievableonexistingundergrounddouble‐walltanksandpiping.Ifanexistingdouble‐walltankorpipingsystemcannotberepairedorthesecondarycontainmenttested,thentheyshouldberequiredtoinstallanewtankorpipingsystemwithsecondarycontainmentwithinareasonabletimeperiod.Mostindustryreferencestandardsadviceagainsttheuseofball‐floatvalves,soitmakessensetorequireanothermethodofoverfillprotectionfornewandreplacementtanks.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)OverfillProtectionB)•EliminateflowrestrictorsasanoptionforoverfillprotectionfornewtanksC)8%D)5%E)3%F)3%G)H)Interaction‐Itisnotredundant,norisitdependentonotherrequirements.Comments:Mostindustryreferencestandardsadviceagainsttheuseofball‐floatvalves,soitmakessensetorequireanothermethodofoverfillprotectionfornewandreplacementtanks.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)OperationaltestingB)Requireannuallineleakdetectoroperationaltestandannualtestofelectroniccomponentsassociatedwitheachofthefollowing:•ATG•InterstitialMonitoring•VaporMonitoring•GroundwaterMonitoringC)1.20%2.5%3.6%4.7%D)1.15%2.3%3.5%4.5%E)1.20%2.5%3.6%4.7%F)1.20%2.5%3.6%4.7%G)Changefrequencytotwoyears?threeyears?H)Theprojectedreductionswoulddiminishtheirestimatedvaluesanadditionalfivepercentperyearforspillbuckets(twoyears,15%,threeyears,10%).OnepercentperyearfortheothervaluesInteraction‐MostfacilitieshaveLLDs,sothisrequirementwillnotberedundantordependantonotherfactors.Howeverthenumberoffacilitieswithelectronicsassociatedwithvapororgroundwatermonitoringislessthan5%nationally,andprobablymorethanthatinmostregions.Comments:AnnualoperabilitytestingforLLD'sandanyelectronicsensorsorprobesassociatedwithUSTleakdetectionwillgoalongwaytowardspreventingreleases.TheFloridaDEPhasrequiredthissince1998,andithashelpedtosignificantlyreducethenumberofdischarges.Becauseitisdifficulttotellanoldleakfromanewleak,itisrecommendedthatyouputa"tax"ongroundwaterandvapormonitoring.Wheneversomethingistaxed,itisdiminished.Florida's"tax"onexternalmonitoringwasrequiringthecertificationofaprofessionalgeologisttomakesurethesoilsweresufficientlytransmissivetodetermineleakswithin30daysatthemonitoringwells.Lessthan1%ofFlorida'sfacilitiesusedthistypeofmonitoringwithinafewyearsoftheruleadoption.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)AddSIRandCITLDSusageB)RequireSIRandCITLDSuserstosubmitquantitativeresultsonly(withleakrate)andtosubmittheresultswithin30daysC)25%D)20%E)25%F)25%G)H)Interaction‐Notredundant,butdependantonState'sallowanceofSIRS.Comments:AnotherFloridaDEP1998requirementthathasworked,andthathasreducedthenumberofowner/operatorsusingSIR‐particularlythosefacilitiesusingsub‐standardSIRsystems.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)DetectionProbabilitiesB)Adjustprobabilityofdetection/probabilityoffalsealarmonreleasedetectionto99/1forthefollowingsystems:•ATG•AutomaticLineLeakDetectors•SIR•CITLDSC)<1%2%<1%<1%D)<1%1%<1%<1%E)<1%2%<1%<1%F)<1%2%<1%<1%G)Adjustprobabilityto97/3H)NosignificantreductionindischargesInteraction‐Notredundant,nordependantonotherrequirementsComments:Technologywithaleakrateof.005isavailable"offtheshelf",butitismoreexpensive.TheFloridaLeakAutopsystudydoesnotgivearingingendorsementfortheeffectivenessofleakdetection,particularlyforinternaltechnologiesforsingle‐wallstoragetanksystems.InterstitialmonitoringismuchmoreeffectiveA)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)DeferralsB)RemovereleasedetectiondeferralforemergencygeneratorUSTs,assumingtheywouldnowberequiredtomeetexistingregulations(note:estimateofroughly20,000tanksnationally)Remove40CFR280deferrals(allsubparts)fromairporthydrantrefuelingsystems,assumingtheywouldnowberequiredtomeetexistingregulationswithmodifiedleakdetectionrequirements(note:estimateofroughly200systemssubjecttorequirement)Remove40CFR280deferrals(allsubparts)fromfield‐constructedtanks,assumingtheywouldnowberequiredtomeetexistingregulationswithmodifiedleakdetectionrequirements(note:estimateofroughly240systemssubjecttorequirement)C)40%50%10%D)30%45%8%E)35%50%10%F)40%50%10%G)RegulateundersamerequirementsasconventionalUSTs.RegulateundersamerequirementsasconventionalUSTs.RegulateundersamerequirementsasconventionalUSTs.H)ThisrequirementwillsignificantlyreducedischargesfromthesetypesofUSTsThisrequirementwillsignificantlyreducedischargesfromthesetypesofUSTs.Inaddition,allnewandreplacementsystemswouldhavetohavesecondarycontainment.Thisrequirementwillhaveaminoreffectonthenumberofdischarges.Interaction‐Notredundant,nordependantonotherrequirementsNotredundant,nordependantonotherrequirements.Note:haveSPCCrequirementsresultedinsignificant40CFR280compliance?Answer‐NO.SPCCrulesaregoodrules,butareusuallyonlyenforcedwhentherehasbeenadischargetosurfacewatersbecausetheprogramdoesnothavetheresourcestohaveaneffectivecomplianceverificationprogram.Notredundant,nordependantonotherrequirements.Note:haveSPCCrequirementsresultedinsignificant40CFR280compliance?(sameasanswerabove)Comments:EmergencygeneratorUSTsaretypicallysmaller,older,andmetallictanks.Themetalplatesusedtomanufacturethetanksarenotasthickasthelargertanks,andconsequently,ahigherriskforleaksfromcorrosion.ThesetanksalsoreceivelessoversightbecausetheyarenotfilledoremptiedasoftenasUSTsinretailservice.Staticfuelinventories,particularlywithalternativefuels,puttanksmoreatriskformicrobialcorrosion.Requiringthesetankstohaveleakdetectionwillgoalongwayinpreventingleaks.Florida'sLeakAutopsyStudyforASTsshowsthatthemainsourceofleaksfromfield‐erectedASTsystemsisfromlargediametersteelpipingincontactwiththesoil.Also,jetfueldischargesarethelargestbyvolume,andmanycanbeattributedtoproblemswithhydrantfuelingsystems.Operatingpressuresareoftenatorabove100psi,soanyleakcanbecomeaverylargedischarge.Mostofthetanksthatarefield‐constructedthatmeettherequirementforhavingmorethan10%ofthetankincontactwiththesoilareownedbythemilitary,arecharacterizedas"CutandCover"tanks.Themilitaryhasclosedmanyofthesesystemsaroundthecountry,butmanyarestillinoperation.Aswithmostfield‐erectedASTsandUSTs,thetanksarenotthemajorsourceofleaks.Thisrequirementwillhelppreventleaks,butwillnothaveasignificanteffectonthereductionofreleasesaroundthecountry.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)NotificationofownershipchangeReplacementoflinedtanksthatcannotberepairedaccordingtoacodeofpracticeResponsetointerstitialmonitoringalarmsB)Requirenotificationtoimplementingagencybyowner/operatorofownershipchangeRequirereplacementoflinedtanksthatcannotberepairedaccordingtoacodeofpracticeRequireinterstitialintegritytestinginresponsetoaninterstitialmonitoringalarmC)1%50%<1%D)1%40%<1%E)1%50%<1%F)1%50%<1%G)H)Interaction‐Notredundant,nordependantonotherrequirements.Notredundant,nordependantonotherrequirements.Notredundant,nordependantonotherrequirements.Comments:ThisisagoodrevisionthatwilleaseproblemsregulatoryagencieshavewithmaintainingaccuratedataforUSTownership.Itwillhavelittleeffectonthepreventionofleaks.Thisproposedamendmentshouldberewordedtorequirethatinternallylinedtanksthatcannotberepairedmustbeclosed,replaced,ORupgradedwithinternalsecondarycontainment.Theonlydifferencewithfield‐fabricatedinternalsecondarycontainmentandfactory‐builttanksisthelocationoftheirfabrication.Thisproposedrevisionover‐reachesanddoesnotrecognizerealworldconditions.Interstitialalarmshappen,butitdoesn'tmeanthattheintegrityoftheintersticehasbeencompromised.Florida'srulesspecifythissituationasan"incident",andallowowner/operatorstoinvestigatetheeventaccordinglytodetermineiftheproblemisadischargeorsomeotherproblem.Thisismuchmorereasonableandlesscostlythanassumingeveryalarmisaleakandrequiringintegritytestingforeveryalarm.A)RegulatoryFeatureB)ProposedRequirementC)%ReductioninAnnualReleasesD)ReductionInThePercentageOfReleasesThatReachGroundwaterE)%ReductionInTheAverageQuantityReleasedF)%ReductionInTheAverageDurationOfReleasesG)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdifferifthefollowingchangeweremade?H)SensitivityAnswerA)OperatorTraining__________SecondaryContainmentB)InstituteOperatorTrainingasFollows:•One‐timetrainingfor"ClassA"operator(technicalandregulatory)oropt‐outtestwithin30daysofassumingduties•One‐timetrainingfor"ClassB"operator(technical)oropt‐outtestwithin30daysofassumingduties.•One‐timetrainingfor"ClassC"operator(limitedtechnical)priortoassumingduties.•Repeattrainingforfacilitieswithsignificantnon‐compliance,within30daysofdocumentednon‐compliance._____________________________________________________________________Installsecondarycontainmentonpipinguponreplacement.Replacementdefinedas:Removalof50percentormoreofpiping,excludingconnectors,connectedtoasingleundergroundtank.Forundergroundstoragetankswithmultiplepipingruns,thereplacedefinitionappliesindependentlytoeachpipingrun.RequiresecondarycontainmentonallnewtanksandpipingRequireunder‐dispensercontainmentonallnewdispensersystemsC)10%_________50%50%10%D)5%__40%40%5%E)10%_______50%50%10%F)10%___________50%50%10%G)IfonlyTribalLandsareconsidered,howmuchwouldreductioninpercentageofincidentsdiffer(ifatall)?Adjustreplacementthresholdto25percentAlso,ifonlyTribalLandsareconsidered,howmuchwouldthereductioninpercentageofincidentsdiffer(ifatall)?H)AninsignificantreductionThe25%requirementisbetterthanthe50%,becausesomepeoplewilltrytomakeincrementalrepairstoavoidreplacingpipingwithsecondarycontainment.Justrequiringthisfortriballandswouldnotbeeffective.Interaction‐Notredundant,nordependantonotherrequirements.Assumesaccesstoon‐linetrainingasoneoption.Notredundant,nordependantonotherrequirements.Notredundant,nordependantonotherrequirements.Notredundant,nordependantonotherrequirements.Comments:Operatortrainingwillhelpreduceviolations,aswellassomereleases.Repeattrainingispunitiveandasineffectiveas"driver‐schools"forpeoplegettingrepeatticketsformovingviolationsinmotorvehicles.Themostsignificantimprovementinreducingreleasesandviolationswillbewiththenewtankowners.Again,theFloridaLeakAutopsystudyindicatesthatpipingisthesourceofleaksin25%ofalldischargesinthestudy.Pipingleaksareusuallyhighvolumeleaksaswell.Addtheproblemsassociatedwithflexiblepipingsystems,andyouhaveseveralgoodreasonsforrequiringtheinstallationofsecondarycontainmentforUSTpipingsystems.Samereasonsasaboveforpiping,butaspreviouslymentioned,tanksarenotthemajorsourcesofleaks.Nevertheless,theproposalwillhavesubstantialbenefits,providedthattheoptionisgiventoinstallfield‐installedinternalsecondarycontainmentinsteadofanewdouble‐walltank.A

# Appendix H-2

Follow-Up Responses

# Expert 1 1

Item

1

2

3

4

5

6 What universe of releases do you consider when estimating benefits? Our analysis considers only

the 7,168 releases confirmed by OUST in its FY 2009 annual report.

Reductions address only releases that are processed through agency reporting processes. No

additional leaks are assumed or otherwise included as part of the estimated reduction.

Regarding ball floats:

a. Does your answer reflect an understanding that OUST is not requiring complete

replacement of all existing ball floats? The rulemaking under consideration would only

replace existing ball floats that do not meet certain restrictions associated with unsafe

operating conditions; for example, pressurized deliveries.

b. Do your reduction estimates regarding ball floats apply only to equipment that has ball

floats, or will the regulation affect all releases, regardless of equipment?

Can you explain how functionality testing for ATG, interstitial monitoring, vapor monitoring, and

groundwater monitoring would prevent releases instead of only reducing release severity?

Operational testing reductions should only apply to interstitial monitoring and should be zero

otherwise.

Can you explain how the adjustment of detection probabilities for ATG, automatic line leak

detectors, SIR, and CITLDS would prevent releases instead of only reducing release severity?

Higher detection probabilities would result in fewer releases by catching small releases that can be

stopped and left to attenuate in the soil without further action from the operator. Probabilities should

b i d 5% f ll h l i Did you assume an annual line leak detector operational test as part of operational testing for ATG,

automatic line leak detectors, SIR, and CITLDS? If not, how would you revise your answer?

Operational testing of automatic line leak detector was considered as part of his response.

When considering the effects of release bucket tightness testing, do you assume that 50 percent to

75 percent of spill buckets are replaced? If not, what would you revise the effect of the regulation to

be under such a scenario?

Assumed replacement ratio of spill buckets falls in the 50 percent to 75 percent range.

# Expert 1 2

7 For the following regulations, please numerically estimate their effectiveness in terms of percentage

frequency reductions and reduced groundwater releases under the following scenarios. If you have

already provided these answers as part of your sensitivity responses, you can simply refer us to your

spreadsheet. If you would like to revise your response, please do so below.

a. Walkthrough inspections

i. Quarterly;



# See expert responses

ii. Every other month;



# See expert responses

iii. Six months;



# See expert responses

b. Overfill functionality testing

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

c. Spill bucket tightness testing

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

d. Integrity testing for interstitial areas

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

iii. Five years:



# See expert responses

e. Functionality testing

ATG

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

Interstitial monitoring

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

Groundwater monitoring

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

Vapor monitoring

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

# Expert 1 3

8

9

10

11 If detection probabilities were changed to 97/3 instead of 99/1 for ATG, automatic line leak

detectors, SIR, and CITLDS, how would this change your response?

There would be no change in his responses if Pd/Pfa were revised downward from 99/1 to 97/3.

We understand that frequency should not be affected with the addition of SIR and CITLDS

re q uirements unless interstitial monitorin g is also in p lace. Do y ou assume this is the case ?

How would you revise your overall estimates if changes in Pd/Pfa were removed from the

rulemaking?

Overall reductions would not change if changes in Pd/Pfa were removed from the potential

regulatory change.

Some changes to regulations may take several years to achieve their full effects because they affect

only new units or units that are replaced. For the changes below, please estimate (1) effectiveness at

the end of the first year and (2) effectiveness when the change achieves full effect.

a. Eliminate flow restrictors as an option for overfill protection for new tanks

b. Require replacement of lined tanks that cannot be repaired according to a code of

practice

e. Require under-dispenser containment on all new dispenser systems c. Require secondary containment on all new tanks and piping on tribal lands

d. Install secondary containment on piping upon replacement. Replacement defined as

removal of 50 percent or more of piping, excluding connectors, connected to a single

underground tank. For underground storage tanks with multiple piping runs, the replace

definition applies independently to each piping run.

# Expert 2 1

Item

1

2

3

4

5

6 What universe of releases do you consider when estimating benefits? Our analysis considers only

the 7,168 releases confirmed by OUST in its FY 2009 annual report.

Reductions in spills are not relative to any specific number of reported releases, but apply

proportionately. These proportions would not change if applied to unreported releases.

Regarding ball floats:

a. Does your answer reflect an understanding that OUST is not requiring complete

replacement of all existing ball floats? The rulemaking under consideration would only

replace existing ball floats that do not meet certain restrictions associated with unsafe

operating conditions; for example, pressurized deliveries.

Reductions estimated regarding existing ball floats should apply only to non-retail facilities that use

ball floats.

b. Do your reduction estimates regarding ball floats apply only to equipment that has ball

floats, or will the regulation affect all releases, regardless of equipment?

Reductions estimated regarding existing ball floats should apply only to non-retail facilities that use

ball floats.

Can you explain how functionality testing for ATG, interstitial monitoring, vapor monitoring, and

groundwater monitoring would prevent releases instead of only reducing release severity?

Reductions that relate to operational testing should prevent releases only in the case of interstitial

monitoring. Exhibit A1 for testing effectiveness at various intervals for regulation 7 (functionality

testing).

Can you explain how the adjustment of detection probabilities for ATG, automatic line leak

detectors, SIR, and CITLDS would prevent releases instead of only reducing release severity?

Did you assume an annual line leak detector operational test as part of operational testing for ATG,

automatic line leak detectors, SIR, and CITLDS? If not, how would you revise your answer?

Annual line leak detector testing is assumed to be part of the reductions estimated for operational

testing.

When considering the effects of release bucket tightness testing, do you assume that 50 percent to

75 percent of spill buckets are replaced? If not, what would you revise the effect of the regulation to

be under such a scenario?

Replacement rates of 75% are a reasonable assumption, so the previous answer need not be

reconsidered. However, this will only be true if the rule specifies replacement with secondarily

contained spill buckets. If existing buckets are allowed to be repaired, this will be the dominant

compliance strategy.

# Expert 2 2

7 For the following regulations, please numerically estimate their effectiveness in terms of percentage

frequency reductions and reduced groundwater releases under the following scenarios. If you have

already provided these answers as part of your sensitivity responses, you can simply refer us to your

spreadsheet. If you would like to revise your response, please do so below.

a. Walkthrough inspections

i. Quarterly;



# See expert responses

ii. Every other month;



# See expert responses

iii. Six months;



# See expert responses

b. Overfill functionality testing

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

c. Spill bucket tightness testing

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

d. Integrity testing for interstitial areas

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

iii. Five years:



# See expert responses

e. Functionality testing

ATG

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

Interstitial monitoring

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

Groundwater monitoring

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

Vapor monitoring

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

# Expert 2 3

8

9

10

11 If detection probabilities were changed to 97/3 instead of 99/1 for ATG, automatic line leak

detectors, SIR, and CITLDS, how would this change your response?

We understand that frequency should not be affected with the addition of SIR and CITLDS

requirements unless interstitial monitoring is also in place. Do you assume this is the case?

Interstitial monitoring is assumed for SIR and CITLDS. It is not clear why an operator would do

SIR or CITLDS if they have secondary containment. Expert 2 considers interstitial monitoring to be

independent of SIR and CITLDS.

How would you revise your overall estimates if changes in Pd/Pfa were removed from the

rulemaking?

Changes in Pd/Pfa will not alter overall estimates. If OUST wants to improve leak detection, the

performance standard should be changes from 0.2 gph monthly to 0.1 gph monthly. Pd/Pfa are

already better than 95/5 in most cases, but there is no equipment marketed for monthly monitoring

today that does 0.1 gph.

Some changes to regulations may take several years to achieve their full effects because they affect

only new units or units that are replaced. For the changes below, please estimate (1) effectiveness at

the end of the first year and (2) effectiveness when the change achieves full effect.

a. Eliminate flow restrictors as an option for overfill protection for new tanks

b. Require replacement of lined tanks that cannot be repaired according to a code of

practice

e. Require under-dispenser containment on all new dispenser systems c. Require secondary containment on all new tanks and piping on tribal lands

d. Install secondary containment on piping upon replacement. Replacement defined as

removal of 50 percent or more of piping, excluding connectors, connected to a single

underground tank. For underground storage tanks with multiple piping runs, the replace

definition applies independently to each piping run.

# Expert 3 1

Item

1

2

3

4

5

6 What universe of releases do you consider when estimating benefits? Our analysis considers only

the 7,168 releases confirmed by OUST in its FY 2009 annual report.

I consider far more releases than the 7168 in the OUST 2009 annual report. For example, Florida

has over 20,000 releases waiting their turn for funding under the Department's remediation

assistance program. Even with secondary containment for all USTs, Florida will continue to have

between 20 and 40 new discharges every month (overfills, accidents, and problems with equipment,

to name a few). Calculating these averages and considering all 50 states exceeds the 7168 number

by a wide margin. All of the other states will have similar issues, and as new double-wall UST

systems are installed to replace the existing single-wall systems, it is inevitable that existing releases

that were undiscovered will be discovered during the closure process. The 7168 number is

unrealisticall y low.

Regarding ball floats:

a. Does your answer reflect an understanding that OUST is not requiring complete

replacement of all existing ball floats? The rulemaking under consideration would only

replace existing ball floats that do not meet certain restrictions associated with unsafe

operating conditions; for example, pressurized deliveries.

Yes. I agree with EPA that ball floats should not be unilaterally removed on existing facilities. It

makes sense to allow their elimination through attrition and time.

b. Do your reduction estimates regarding ball floats apply only to equipment that has ball

floats, or will the regulation affect all releases, regardless of equipment?

Yes.

Can you explain how functionality testing for ATG, interstitial monitoring, vapor monitoring, and

groundwater monitoring would prevent releases instead of only reducing release severity?

Functionality testing eliminates situations where owners believe their systems are functioning

instead of knowing their systems are functioning. Owners with good intentions may install a new

release detection system, test it, and then go on with their business. If the system fails a month after

installation (for example, a bad sensor), then the owner has a false sense of security, and could miss

a discharge from his systems for months and even years. Conversely, annual functionality testing

ensures that release detection systems are performing as they were installed.

Can you explain how the adjustment of detection probabilities for ATG, automatic line leak

detectors, SIR, and CITLDS would prevent releases instead of only reducing release severity?

With the exception of SIR, there is only a minor improvement in the reduction of releases with this

provision. ATGs, automatic line leak detectors, and CITLDS usually work well if properly

maintained. Adjusting the detection probabilities will improve new systems and will improve leak

prevention, but not significantly. Also, this requirement cannot be retroactively applied to existing

equipment in operational service. However, adjusting detection probabilities will minimize the use

of SIR, which is the most inexpensive and ineffective method of leak detection.

Did you assume an annual line leak detector operational test as part of operational testing for ATG,

automatic line leak detectors, SIR, and CITLDS? If not, how would you revise your answer?

Yes.

When considering the effects of release bucket tightness testing, do you assume that 50 percent to

75 percent of spill buckets are replaced? If not, what would you revise the effect of the regulation to

be under such a scenario?

Yes - 50% is a good assumption for spill bucket replacement. The expected life-span of a spill

b ucket is about six years, so the 50% replacement number is realistic.

# Expert 3 2

7 For the following regulations, please numerically estimate their effectiveness in terms of percentage

frequency reductions and reduced groundwater releases under the following scenarios. If you have

already provided these answers as part of your sensitivity responses, you can simply refer us to your

spreadsheet. If you would like to revise your response, please do so below.

a. Walkthrough inspections

i. Quarterly;



# 25% & 20%

ii. Every other month;



# 35% & 30%

iii. Six months;



# 20% & 15%

b. Overfill functionality testing

i. Two years:



# 15%

ii. Three years:



# 10%

c. Spill bucket tightness testing

i. Two years:



# 25%

ii. Three years:



# 20%

d. Integrity testing for interstitial areas

i. Two years:



# 3%

ii. Three years:



# 2%

iii. Five years:



# 2%

e. Functionality testing

ATG

i. Two years:



# 15%

ii. Three years:



# 10%

Interstitial monitoring

i. Two years:



# 4%

ii. Three years:



# 3%

Groundwater monitoring

i. Two years:



# 6%

ii. Three years:



# 5%

Vapor monitoring

i. Two years:



# 5%

ii. Three years:



# 4%

# Expert 3 3

8

9

10

11 If detection probabilities were changed to 97/3 instead of 99/1 for ATG, automatic line leak

detectors, SIR, and CITLDS, how would this change your response?

Less than 2% reduction in discovered leaks

We understand that frequency should not be affected with the addition of SIR and CITLDS

requirements unless interstitial monitoring is also in place. Do you assume this is the case?

Yes, but in my opinion, the real world performance of SIR is poor, and it is a completely inadequate

method of leak detection compared to other methods, in spite of the claims of its meeting the current

.2 gph leak detection standard. The use of interstitial monitoring will decrease the number of

dischar g es

, and the use of SIR will increase the number.

How would you revise your overall estimates if changes in Pd/Pfa were removed from the

rulemaking?

Pd/Pfa improves the standard, and eliminating these requirements would adversely affect the rules.

My estimates on detection would decrease.

Some changes to regulations may take several years to achieve their full effects because they affect

only new units or units that are replaced. For the changes below, please estimate (1) effectiveness at

the end of the first year and (2) effectiveness when the change achieves full effect.

a. Eliminate flow restrictors as an option for overfill protection for new tanks

(1) 7% (2) 10%

b. Require replacement of lined tanks that cannot be repaired according to a code of

practice

(1) 10% (2) 50%

e. Require under-dispenser containment on all new dispenser systems

(1) 5% (2) 10% c. Require secondary containment on all new tanks and piping on tribal lands

(1) 30% (2) 60%

d. Install secondary containment on piping upon replacement. Replacement defined as

removal of 50 percent or more of piping, excluding connectors, connected to a single

underground tank. For underground storage tanks with multiple piping runs, the replace

definition applies independently to each piping run.

(1) 30% (2) 60%

# Expert 4 1

Item

1

2

3

4

5

6 What universe of releases do you consider when estimating benefits? Our analysis considers only

the 7,168 releases confirmed by OUST in its FY 2009 annual report.

Some state specific results; IE- Florida tank leak study. Some projects I have personally done. The

California study on leak detection. The releases our company as found, the types and amount of

releases I found over the years and what are the key issues. EPA published study's helped to come

up with the percentages. There are many releases that are not reported.

Regarding ball floats:

a. Does your answer reflect an understanding that OUST is not requiring complete

replacement of all existing ball floats? The rulemaking under consideration would only

replace existing ball floats that do not meet certain restrictions associated with unsafe

operating conditions; for example, pressurized deliveries.

YES

b. Do your reduction estimates regarding ball floats apply only to equipment that has ball

floats, or will the regulation affect all releases, regardless of equipment?

No releases because of ball floats are overfill in nautre, a tank has to be filled for a Ball Float to be

an issue.

Can you explain how functionality testing for ATG, interstitial monitoring, vapor monitoring, and

groundwater monitoring would prevent releases instead of only reducing release severity?

Checking the functionality of those systems, will give a trained eye on the settings and applicabilty

of the equipment in place. We have found sites with improper line length, those sites then found to

have leaks going unreported since at a proper length it would have found the leak. If you are looking

at the systems then you have a 60% chance of catching a probelm before or while its small and has

not impcated the environment. Many times alarms are tunred off and system is not talking to the

sensors which the owner has no idea. This is so important to have working correct to allow the

system to do what it's supposed to we need proof its working correctly. We can also check for

overfills at that time and let the owner know if he has to work with his hauler company to stop, it is

the "Site Physical"

Can you explain how the adjustment of detection probabilities for ATG, automatic line leak

detectors, SIR, and CITLDS would prevent releases instead of only reducing release severity?

I do not think probabilties are the issue to find smaller leaks, as I said before it's tolerance. Currently

4.8 gallons a day are allowed to leak from each tank system, it adds up quick. I think if you brought

the tolerance down to .05 leaks would be found much sooner. That threashold has been in since the

begining, like the drunk drving example I gave. In the begining the tolerance was .1 now it's .08,

because of 2 reasons they found its a smaller amount that can affect a driver (samll leaks under .1)

and then the testing equipment got better (ATG's , Electroninc leak detectors, etc) therefore we

should brin g the tolerance down.

Did you assume an annual line leak detector operational test as part of operational testing for ATG,

automatic line leak detectors, SIR, and CITLDS? If not, how would you revise your answer?

YES I did it seems that would be a logical step for maintaining the system.

When considering the effects of release bucket tightness testing, do you assume that 50 percent to

75 percent of spill buckets are replaced? If not, what would you revise the effect of the regulation to

be under such a scenario?

Yes over time they will be replaced, there are 3 things that are a problem with spill buckets,

1=Installer (if they are not tested after placement how does he know he has a LIQUID TIGHT spill

bucket). 2= Incompatability we have many buckets made out of material that jsut does not stand up

to the gas and diesel that is left in them. 3= Onwers/Operators they do not know that fuel was not to

be left in these buckets and there fore create a long term problem.

# Expert 4 2

7 For the following regulations, please numerically estimate their effectiveness in terms of percentage

frequency reductions and reduced groundwater releases under the following scenarios. If you have

already provided these answers as part of your sensitivity responses, you can simply refer us to your

spreadsheet. If you would like to revise your response, please do so below.

a. Walkthrough inspections

i. Quarterly;



# 10% and 20%

ii. Every other month;



# 15% and 30%

iii. Six months;



# 5% and 10%

b. Overfill functionality testing

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

c. Spill bucket tightness testing

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

d. Integrity testing for interstitial areas

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

iii. Five years:



# See expert responses

e. Functionality testing

ATG

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

Interstitial monitoring

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

Groundwater monitoring

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

Vapor monitoring

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

# Expert 4 3

8

9

10

11 If detection probabilities were changed to 97/3 instead of 99/1 for ATG, automatic line leak

detectors, SIR, and CITLDS, how would this change your response?

Again I think wrogn direction this is coming from someone who has tested over 10,000 systems

personally and have trianed inpsectors and have done legal work in these areas I find the probabilty

to be mute it's threshold that will make the weaker equipment not pass that standard. There is a huge

difference to the 95-5 and threashold, if the thresholdl was lowered the probility of dedection would

increase.

We understand that frequency should not be affected with the addition of SIR and CITLDS

requirements unless interstitial monitoring is also in place. Do you assume this is the case?

YES

How would you revise your overall estimates if changes in Pd/Pfa were removed from the

rulemaking?

Explanied above

Some changes to regulations may take several years to achieve their full effects because they affect

only new units or units that are replaced. For the changes below, please estimate (1) effectiveness at

the end of the first year and (2) effectiveness when the change achieves full effect.

a. Eliminate flow restrictors as an option for overfill protection for new tanks

small inpact

b. Require replacement of lined tanks that cannot be repaired according to a code of

practice

medium impact

e. Require under-dispenser containment on all new dispenser systems

BIG IMPACT c. Require secondary containment on all new tanks and piping on tribal lands

immediate impact-medium

d. Install secondary containment on piping upon replacement. Replacement defined as

removal of 50 percent or more of piping, excluding connectors, connected to a single

underground tank. For underground storage tanks with multiple piping runs, the replace

definition applies independently to each piping run.

BIG IMPACT-These are large steps forward

# Expert 5 1

Item

1

2

3

4

5

6 What universe of releases do you consider when estimating benefits? Our analysis considers only

the 7,168 releases confirmed by OUST in its FY 2009 annual report.

Responses consider only the population of releases observed by Datanet in its work and does not

consider OUST’s specific universe of releases. Consequently, the reductions estimated conform to a

release population that is different from – and larger than - the population OUST measures.

Regarding ball floats:

a. Does your answer reflect an understanding that OUST is not requiring complete

replacement of all existing ball floats? The rulemaking under consideration would only

replace existing ball floats that do not meet certain restrictions associated with unsafe

operating conditions; for example, pressurized deliveries.

b. Do your reduction estimates regarding ball floats apply only to equipment that has ball

floats, or will the regulation affect all releases, regardless of equipment?

Can you explain how functionality testing for ATG, interstitial monitoring, vapor monitoring, and

groundwater monitoring would prevent releases instead of only reducing release severity?

Leaks are truly avoided. Facultative testing detects loss of pressure in pipes before product is lost,

thus creating an opportunity to fully avoid leaks. Avoiding leaks also generates reductions in

groundwater releases. Shutting down systems before product is released also prevents releases from

reaching groundwater.

Can you explain how the adjustment of detection probabilities for ATG, automatic line leak

detectors, SIR, and CITLDS would prevent releases instead of only reducing release severity?

Did you assume an annual line leak detector operational test as part of operational testing for ATG,

automatic line leak detectors, SIR, and CITLDS? If not, how would you revise your answer?

Line leak detector operational (facultative) test was considered as part of operational (facultative)

testing for ATG, ALLD, SIR, and CITLDS. The test must be for the entire system, else it will not be

effective.

When considering the effects of release bucket tightness testing, do you assume that 50 percent to

75 percent of spill buckets are replaced? If not, what would you revise the effect of the regulation to

be under such a scenario?

Replacement levels of 75 percent are probably low. Rates are closer to 98 percent not only for spill

buckets, but also for overfill and secondary containment.

# Expert 5 2

7 For the following regulations, please numerically estimate their effectiveness in terms of percentage

frequency reductions and reduced groundwater releases under the following scenarios. If you have

already provided these answers as part of your sensitivity responses, you can simply refer us to your

spreadsheet. If you would like to revise your response, please do so below.

a. Walkthrough inspections

i. Quarterly;



# See expert responses

ii. Every other month;



# See expert responses

iii. Six months;



# See expert responses

b. Overfill functionality testing

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

c. Spill bucket tightness testing

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

d. Integrity testing for interstitial areas

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

iii. Five years:



# See expert responses

e. Functionality testing

ATG

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

Interstitial monitoring

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

Groundwater monitoring

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

Vapor monitoring

i. Two years:



# See expert responses

ii. Three years:



# See expert responses

# Expert 5 3

8

9

10

11 If detection probabilities were changed to 97/3 instead of 99/1 for ATG, automatic line leak

detectors, SIR, and CITLDS, how would this change your response?

We understand that frequency should not be affected with the addition of SIR and CITLDS

requirements unless interstitial monitoring is also in place. Do you assume this is the case?

Interstitial monitoring was not assumed. There is little reason to implement SIR if secondary

containment in already in place.

How would you revise your overall estimates if changes in Pd/Pfa were removed from the

rulemaking?

There is no value in revising Pd/Pfa. The importance lies in regular facultative testing of the

equipment so that it can continue to perform at the level at which the manufacturer rates it years

after it is in service.

Some changes to regulations may take several years to achieve their full effects because they affect

only new units or units that are replaced. For the changes below, please estimate (1) effectiveness at

the end of the first year and (2) effectiveness when the change achieves full effect.

a. Eliminate flow restrictors as an option for overfill protection for new tanks

b. Require replacement of lined tanks that cannot be repaired according to a code of

practice

e. Require under-dispenser containment on all new dispenser systems c. Require secondary containment on all new tanks and piping on tribal lands

d. Install secondary containment on piping upon replacement. Replacement defined as

removal of 50 percent or more of piping, excluding connectors, connected to a single

underground tank. For underground storage tanks with multiple piping runs, the replace

definition applies independently to each piping run.

# Appendix H-3Expert 1CommentsRegulatoryfeature Source affected FrequencyGroundwaterreleaseavoidanceProportionof unitsaffected FrequencyGroundwaterrelease avoidanceIn general, this column we assume a constant relationship between tanks and releases, i.e. 7,168 releases uniformly distributedacross 611,449 tanks. Regulations for interstitial integrity testing, operator training, and secondary containment are exceptions.. In those cases, theproportion of releases enters directly into our calculations.Walkthroughinspectionsall sources 15% 50% 0.72 10.81% 36.05%Overfillfunctionalitytestingdelivery problems 0% 0% 0.62 0.00% 0.00% Expert believes that this will have little or no effect if done every three years.Spill buckettightnesstestingdelivery problems 40% 0% 0.75 30.14% 0.00%Integritytesting forinterstitialareastank, piping, dispensers, STP 20% 20% 0.1359 2.72% 2.72%Notethatexperts wereinitially askedto provide reductionsbasedon an annualtest, ratherthantesting once everythree years.Values were computedby considering experts'answersto sensitivity questions relatedtothis regulation.This value usesthe odds ratios ofwalled to doulble-walled releases calculated in the Florida study to arrive at a weighted average of releases that can be attributed to tanks, piping, and dispensers in double-walled tanks; the average is adjusted to include STP.The odds ratios areTanks: 10.50:1Piping: 1.97:1Dispensers: 8.83:1We use these to calculate that, among releases of each type, the proportion of double-walled releases is:Tanks: 8.69%Piping: 33.67%Dispensers: 10.07%These are weighted by the proportions of releases from each source using the 23-state study (see "Releases before regulations"below). The weighted average of releases from double-walled tanks, piping, and dispensers is 15.05%, which we divide by the proportion of releasesfrom piping, tanks, and dispensers to increase the proportion and adjust for the omission of STP and delivery problems (this isequivalent to multiplying by [100%/79% - 100%]= 26.58%. The end result is 15.05%* (1 + 26.58%) = 19.05% of releases associated with doublewalled equipment across all sources.delivery problems 10% 0% 0.06 0.62% 0.00%delivery problems 5% 0% 0.05 0.24% 0.00%tank, piping 2% 0% 0.02 0.05% 0.00%delivery problems 5% 50% 0.05 0.27% 2.65%delivery problems 5% 5% 0.00 0.00% 0.00%Operationaltesting - ATGtank 0% 0% 0.33 0.00% 0.00%Operationaltesting -Stickingtank0.22 0.00%0.00%Operationaltesting - Int.int.monitoringtank, piping 5% 50% 0.18 0.92% 9.21%Operationaltesting -vapor#N/A 0% 0% #N/A #N/A #N/AOperationaltesting - GW#N/A 0% 0% #N/A #N/A #N/AOperationaltesting - LLDtank, piping0.270.00%0.00%Add SIR andCITLDS usagetank, piping 5% 0% 0.00 0.02% 0.00%#N/A 5%0%#N/A#N/A#N/A#N/A 5%0%#N/A#N/A#N/A#N/A 5%0%#N/A#N/A#N/A#N/A 5%40%#N/A#N/A#N/Atank, piping 5% 0% 0.02 0.10% 0.00%TBD10%50%0.000.00%0.01%TBD0%0%0.000.00%0.00%Notificationof ownershipchangeNone 0% 0% 0.15 0.00% 0.00%Replacementof lined tanksthat cannotbe repairedaccording toa code ofpracticetank 5% 0% 0.00 0.00% 0.00%Response tointerstitialmonitoringalarmstank, piping 5% 5% 0.02 0.09% 0.09%OperatorTrainingall sources 20% 50% 0.00 0.05% 0.13% Expert believes this will take up to 3 years to achieve. He believes the reduction in quantity released will be the more near-term benefit. Affects only releases in tribal lands.tank, piping, dispensers, STP 2% 1% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 1770 of 2446 tanks (72.36%) in tribal lands are single-walled. Assuming this proportion remains the same for FY2009, there are 2626*72.36% = 1900 single-walled tanks in tribal lands.piping 60% 0% 0.00 0.15% 0.00% We interpreted the expert's comment on sensitivity with respect to tribal lands to mean that the decrease would range from 60-70% rather than the usual 10-20%. This affects only releases in tribal lands.dispenser 80% 0% 0.00 0.20% 0.00% Affects only releases in tribal lands, which number 18/7168.Reductionfrom allregulationsall sources 30% 50%SecondaryContainmentIEc interpretation of Expert 1 comments Reduction weighted by universe affectedDeferralsOverfillProtectionDetectionProbabilitiesRepairsExpert 2CommentsRegulatoryfeature Source affected FrequencyVolumereductionProportion ofunits affected FrequencySoil releaseavoidanceIn general, this column we assume a constant relationship between tanks and releases, i.e. 7,168 releases uniformly distributedacross 611,449 tanks. Regulations for interstitial integrity testing, operator training, and secondary containment are exceptions.. Incases, the proportion of releases enters directly into our calculations.Walkthroughinspectionsall sources 1% 70% 1.00 1.00% 70.00% Expert does not provide additional guidance in feedback. These are his original values.Overfillfunctionalitytestingdelivery problems 1% 1% 1.00 1.00% 1.00% Note that experts were initially asked to provide reductions based on an annual test, ratherthan testing once every three years. Values were computed by considering experts' answers to sensitivity questions related tothis regulation.Spill buckettightnesstestingdelivery problems 25% 20% 1.00 25.00% 20.00% Implicit assumption is that repairs are effectiveIntegritytesting forinterstitialareastank, piping, dispensers, STP 75% 75% 0.19 14.29% 14.29%Expert soriginalresponseconsideredalltanksintheuniverseinhisestimatesoftheregulation seffect,butwewereapplyingthereductiononlytotankwithIM.Thesereductionsarehigherbutfocusonlyontankswithinterstitialmonitoring,sobenefitsincreased.Eaddressed 36-month intervals directly.Note that experts were initially asked to provide reductions based on an annual test, rather than testing once every three years. Values were computed by considering experts' answers to sensitivity questions related to this regulation. This value uses the odds ratios ofsingle-walled to doulble-walled releases calculated in the Florida study to arrive at a weighted average of releases that can be attributed to tanks, piping, and dispensers in double-walled tanks; the average is adjusted to include STP.The odds ratios areTanks: 10.50:1Piping: 1.97:1Dispensers: 8.83:1We use these to calculate that, among releases of each type, the proportion of double-walled releases is:Tanks: 8.69%Piping: 33.67%Dispensers: 10.07%delivery problems 1% 1% 1.00 1.00% 1.00%delivery problems 1% 0% 1.00 1.00% 0.00%tank, piping 5% 5% 0.28 1.38% 1.38% Calculation reflects the 27.6% of tanks that have secondary containment.delivery problems 1% 0% 1.00 1.00% 0.00%delivery problems 50% 90% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% Universe is zero since no units are affected.Operationaltesting - ATGtank 10% 25% 0.34 3.37% 8.42% Follow up clarifications from this expert yielded the estimates shown to the left. Initially, the expert stated that this requirement would not affect release frequency.Operationaltesting -Stickingtank1.000.00%0.00%Operationaltesting - Int.int.monitoringtank, piping 10% 50% 0.20 1.98% 9.88% Follow up clarifications from this expert yielded the estimates shown to the left. Initially, the expert stated that this requirement would not affect release frequency.Operationaltesting -vapor#N/A 0% 0% 0.05 0.00% 0.00%Operationaltesting - GW#N/A 0% 0% 0.06 0.00% 0.00%Operationaltesting - LLDtank, piping1.000.00%0.00%Add SIR andCITLDS usagetank, piping 2% 2% 0.13 0.26% 0.26%#N/A0%25%0.340.00%8.42%#N/A0%50%0.280.00%13.78%#N/A0%0%0.130.00%0.00%#N/A0%0%0.040.00%0.00%tank, piping 5% 15% 0.02 0.10% 0.29%TBD0%50%0.000.00%0.01%TBD0%5%0.000.00%0.00%Notification ofownershipchangeNone 0% 0% 1.00 0.00% 0.00%Replacementof lined tanksthat cannotbe repairedaccording to acode ofpracticetank 5% 5% 0.05 0.25% 0.25%Response tointerstitialmonitoringalarmstank, piping 0% 0% 1.00 0.00% 0.00%OperatorTrainingall sources 0% 5% 0.00251 0.00% 0.01% Affects only releases in tribal lands, which number 18/7168.tank, piping, dispensers, STP 1% 1% 0.00251 0.00% 0.00% Benefits are calculated so that the year 20 benefits reflect nominal annual benefits obtained from starting from freq. = 1% and vol. reduc. = 1% at year 1 and ending at freq. = 20% (from linear extrapolation of freq. reduction) and vol. reduc. = 80% (given by expert)apiping 0% 0% 0.00251 0.00% 0.00% Affects only releases in tribal lands, which number 18/7168.dispenser 20% 20% 0.00251 0.05% 0.05% Affects only releases in tribal lands, which number 18/7168.Reductionfrom allregulationsall sources 25% 25%SecondaryContainmentIEc interpretation of Expert 2 comments Reduction weighted by universe affectedRepairsDeferralsOverfillProtectionDetectionProbabilitiesExpert 3CommentsRegulatoryfeature Source affected FrequencyGroundwaterreleaseavoidanceProportionof unitsaffected FrequencyGroundwaterreleaseIn general, this column we assume a constant relationship between tanks and releases, i.e. 7,168 releases uniformly distributedacross 611,449 tanks. Regulations for interstitial integrity testing, operator training, and secondary containment are exceptions.. In those cases,the proportion of releases enters directly into our calculations.Walkthroughinspectionsall sources 21% 14% 0.72 14.83% 9.99% Assumes that tanks have one of each component aside from dispenser pans, for which they have two. Averages percentages provided by expert, counting each dispenser separately.Overfillfunctionalitytestingdelivery problems 10% 5% 0.62 6.19% 3.10% Note that experts were initially asked to provide reductions based on an annual test, rather than testing once every three years. Values were computed by considering experts' answers to sensitivity questions related tothis regulation.Spill buckettightnesstestingdelivery problems 50% 35% 0.75 37.67% 26.37%Integritytesting forinterstitialareastank, piping, dispen2% 2% 0.1359 0.27% 0.27%Note that experts were initially asked to provide reductions based on an annual test, rather than testing once every three years. Values were computed by considering experts' answers to sensitivity questions related to this regulation. This value uses the odds ratios of singlewalled to doulble-walled releases calculated in the Florida study to arrive at a weighted average of releases that can be attributed to tanks, piping, and dispensers in double-walled tanks; the average is adjusted to include STP.The odds ratios areTanks: 10.50:1Piping: 1.97:1Dispensers: 8.83:1We use these to calculate that, among releases of each type, the proportion of double-walled releases is:Tanks: 8.69%Piping: 33.67%Dispensers: 10.07%These are weighted by the proportions of releases from each source using the 23-state study (see "Releases before regulations"below). The weighted average of releases from double-walled tanks, piping, and dispensers is 15.05%, which we divide by the proportion ofreleases from piping, tanks, and dispensers to increase the proportion and adjust for the omission of STP and delivery problems(this is equivalent to multiplying by [100%/79% - 100%]= 26.58%. The end result is 15.05%* (1 + 26.58%) = 19.05% of releasesassociated withdouble-walled equipment across all sources.delivery problems 30% 10% 0.06 1.86% 0.62%delivery problems 10% 5% 0.05 0.49% 0.24%tank, piping 3% 3% 0.02 0.07% 0.07%delivery problems 8% 5% 0.05 0.42% 0.27%delivery problems 0.00 0.00% 0.00%Operationaltesting - ATGtank 20% 15% 0.33 6.60% 4.95%Operationaltesting -Stickingtank0.22 0.00%0.00%Operationaltesting - Int.int.monitoringtank, piping 5% 3% 0.18 0.92% 0.55%Operationaltesting -vapor#N/A 6% 5% #N/A #N/A #N/AOperationaltesting - GW#N/A 7% 5% #N/A #N/A #N/AOperationaltesting - LLDtank, piping0.270.00%0.00%Add SIR andCITLDS usagetank, piping 25% 20% 0.00 0.12% 0.10%#N/A 1%1%#N/A#N/A#N/A#N/A 2%1%#N/A#N/A#N/A#N/A 1%1%#N/A#N/A#N/A#N/A 1%1%#N/A#N/A#N/Atank, piping 40% 30% 0.02 0.77% 0.57%TBD50%45%0.000.01%0.01%TBD10%8%0.000.00%0.00%Notificationof ownershipchangeNone 1% 1% 0.15 0.15% 0.15%Replacementof lined tanksthat cannotbe repairedaccording toa code ofpracticetank 50% 40% 0.00 0.00% 0.00%Response tointerstitialmonitoringalarmstank, piping 1% 1% 0.02 0.02% 0.02%OperatorTrainingall sources 10% 5% 0.00 0.03% 0.01%tank, piping, dispen50% 40% 0.00 0.13% 0.10%piping 50% 40% 0.00 0.13% 0.10%dispenser 10% 5% 0.00 0.03% 0.01% Affects only releases in tribal lands, which number 18/7168.Reductionfrom allregulationsall sources 60% 50% 0 0SecondaryContainmentIEc interpretation of Expert 3 commentsduction weighted by universe affecDeferralsOverfillProtectionDetectionProbabilitiesRepairsExpert 4CommentsRegulatoryfeature Source affected FrequencyGroundwaterreleaseavoidanceProportionof unitsaffected FrequencyGroundwaterrelease avoidanceIngeneral, this column we assume a constant relationship between tanks and releases, i.e. 7,168 releases uniformlydistributed across 611,449 tanks. Regulations for interstitial integritytesting, operator training, and secondarycontainment are exceptions.. In those cases, the prof releases enters directly into our calculations.Walkthroughinspectionsall sources 65% 55% 0.72 46.86% 39.65%Overfillfunctionalitytestingdelivery problems 17% 39% 0.62 10.40% 24.15% Note that experts were initially asked to provide reductions based on an annual test, rather than testing once every three years. Values were computed by considering experts' answers to sensitivity questions relatedto this regulation.Spill buckettightnesstestingdelivery problems 40% 0% 0.75 30.14% 0.00%Integritytesting forinterstitialareastank, piping, dispensers, STP 12% 48% 0.1359 1.63% 6.52%Note that experts were initially asked to provide reductions based on an annual test, rather than testing once every three years. Values were computed by considering experts' answers to sensitivity questions related to this regulation. This value uses the odds ratios of single-walled todoulble-walled releases calculated in the Florida study to arrive at a weighted average of releases that can be attributed to tanks, piping, and dispensers in double-walled tanks; the average is adjusted to include STP.The odds ratios areTanks: 10.50:1Piping: 1.97:1Dispensers: 8.83:1We use these to calculate that, among releases of each type, the proportion of double-walled releases is:Tanks: 8.69%Piping: 33.67%Dispensers: 10.07%These are weighted by the proportions of releases from each source using the 23-state study (see "Releases before regulations"below). The weighted average of releases from double-walled tanks, piping, and dispensers is 15.05%, which we divide by the proportion of releases frompiping, tanks, and dispensers to increase the proportion and adjust for the omission of STP and delivery problems (this is equivalent to multiplying by [100%/79% - 100%]= 26.58%. The end result is 15.05%* (1 + 26.58%) = 19.05% of releases associated with double-walled equipmentacross all sources.delivery problems 23% 0% 0.06 1.42% 0.00%delivery problems 29% 65% 0.05 1.42% 3.17%tank, piping 33% 0% 0.02 0.79% 0.00%delivery problems 5% 6% 0.05 0.27% 0.32%delivery problems 0%0%0.000.00%0.00%Operationaltesting - ATGtank 26% 0% 0.33 8.58% 0.00%Operationaltesting -Stickingtank0.22 0.00%0.00%Operationaltesting - Int.int. monitoringtank, piping 26% 0% 0.18 4.79% 0.00%Operationaltesting - vapor#N/A 26% 0% #N/A #N/A #N/AOperationaltesting - GW#N/A 26% 0% #N/A #N/A #N/AOperationaltesting - LLDtank, piping0.270.00%0.00%Add SIR andCITLDS usagetank, piping 22% 0% 0.00 0.10% 0.00%#N/A 15%10%#N/A#N/A#N/A#N/A 8%2%#N/A#N/A#N/A#N/A 25%35%#N/A#N/A#N/A#N/A 8%3%#N/A#N/A#N/Atank, piping 30% 45% 0.02 0.57% 0.86%TBD20%0%0.000.00%0.00%TBD10%0%0.000.00%0.00%Notification ofownershipchangeNone 0% 0% 0.15 0.00% 0.00%Replacement oflined tanks thatcannot berepairedaccording to acode ofpracticetank 15% 0% 0.00 0.00% 0.00%Response tointerstitialmonitoringalarmstank, piping 5% 0% 0.02 0.09% 0.00%OperatorTrainingall sources 20% 25% 0.00 0.05% 0.06%tank, piping, dispensers, STP 15% 20% 0.00 0.04% 0.05%piping 25% 30% 0.00 0.06% 0.08%dispenser 20% 0% 0.00 0.05% 0.00% Affects only releases in tribal lands, which number 18/7168.#N/A0%0%0.00%0.00%Reduction fromall regulationsall sources 30% 20%SecondaryContainmentIEc interpretation of Expert 4 comments Reduction weighted by universe affectedDeferralsOverfillProtectionDetectionProbabilitiesRepairsExpert 5CommentsRegulatoryfeature Source affected FrequencyGroundwaterreleaseavoidanceProportion ofunits affected FrequencyGroundwaterreleaseavoidanceIn general, this column we assume a constant relationship between tanks and releases, i.e. 7,168 releases uniformly distributedacross 611,449 tanks. Regulations for interstitial integrity testing, operator training, and secondary containment are exceptions.. In those cases, the proportion of releases enters directly into ourcalculations.Walkthroughinspectionsall sources 5% 4% 0.72 3.60% 2.88%Overfillfunctionalitytestingdelivery problems 5% 10% 0.62 9.29% 6.19% Note that experts were initially asked to provide reductions based on an annual test, rather than testing once every three years. Values were computed by considering experts' answers to sensitivity questions related tothis regulation.Spill buckettightnesstestingdelivery problems 5% 2% 0.75 3.77% 1.51%Integritytesting forinterstitialareastank, piping, dispe5% 10% 0.1359 2.04% 1.36%Note that experts were initially asked to provide reductions based on an annual test, rather than testing once every three years. Values were computed by considering experts' answers to sensitivity questions related to this regulation. This value uses the odds ratios of single-walled to doulble-walled releases calculated in the Floridastudy to arrive at a weighted average of releases that can be attributed to tanks, piping, and dispensers in double-walled tanks; the average is adjusted to include STP.The odds ratios areTanks: 10.50:1Piping: 1.97:1Dispensers: 8.83:1We use these to calculate that, among releases of each type, the proportion of double-walled releases is:Tanks: 8.69%Piping: 33.67%Dispensers: 10.07%These are weighted by the proportions of releases from each source using the 23-state study (see "Releases before regulations"below). The weighted average of releases from double-walled tanks, piping, and dispensers is 15.05%, which we divide by the proportion of releases from piping, tanks, and dispensers to increase theproportion and adjust for the omission of STP and delivery problems (this is equivalent to multiplying by [100%/79% - 100%]= 26.58%. The end result is 15.05%* (1 + 26.58%) = 19.05% of releases associated with double-walled equipment across all sources.delivery problems 1% 1% 0.06 0.06% 0.06%delivery problems 2% 2% 0.05 0.10% 0.10%tank, piping 1% 1% 0.02 0.02% 0.02%delivery problems 2% 1% 0.05 0.11% 0.05%delivery problems 5% 2% 0.00 0.00% 0.00%Operationaltesting - ATGtank 10% 0% 0.33 3.30% 0.00%Operationaltesting -Stickingtank0.22 0.00%0.00%Operationaltesting - Int.int.monitoringtank, piping 10% 0% 0.18 1.84% 0.00%Operationaltesting - vapor#N/A 10% 0% #N/A #N/A #N/AOperationaltesting - GW#N/A 0% 0% #N/A #N/A #N/AOperationaltesting - LLDtank, piping0.270.00%0.00%Add SIR andCITLDS usagetank, piping 1% 0% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% Response was 0 for SIR and 2 for CITLD--averaged to yield 1 percent reduction.#N/A 0%0%#N/A#N/A#N/A#N/A 0%0%#N/A#N/A#N/A#N/A 0%0%#N/A#N/A#N/A#N/A 0%0%#N/A#N/A#N/Atank, piping 5% 2% 0.02 0.10% 0.04%TBD2%2%0.000.00%0.00%TBD2%2%0.000.00%0.00%Notification ofownershipchangeNone 0% 0% 0.15 0.00% 0.00%Replacementof lined tanksthat cannot berepairedaccording to acode ofpracticetank 2% 2% 0.00 0.00% 0.00%Response tointerstitialmonitoringalarmstank, piping 5% 2% 0.02 0.09% 0.03%OperatorTrainingall sources 0% 0% 0.00 0.00% 0.00%tank, piping, dispe3% 2% 0.00 0.01% 0.01% 1770 of 2446 tanks (72.36%) in tribal lands are single-walled. Assuming this proportion remains the same forFY2009, there are 2626*72.36% = 1900 single-walled tanks in tribal lands.piping 5% 2% 0.00 0.01% 0.01% Affects only releases in tribal lands, which number 18/7168.dispenser 5% 4% 0.00 0.01% 0.01% Affects only releases in tribal lands, which number 18/7168.Reductionfrom allregulationsall sources 40% 25%SecondaryContainmentIEc interpretation of Expert 5 comments Reduction weighted by universe affectedDeferralsOverfillProtectionDetectionProbabilitiesRepairs

# Appendix I

Methodology for Calculating Avoided Cleanup Costs

# I-1 

# This appendix presents EPA’s detailed methodol ogy for the calculation of avoided costs. The

steps that EPA took to calculate avoided costs are as follows:

• Tabulation of release reductions per requi rement as provided by expert responses

• Weighting of reductions according to th e universe affected by each regulation

• Calculation of avoided releases

• Economic valuation of avoided re leases to yield avoided costs

The sections below describe each of these steps in detail.

I.1 Tabulation of Release Reductions per Requirement

EPA sent each expert a set of questions, as de scribed in Appendices G and H. The purpose of

these questions was to obtain measures of two aspects of the proposed requirements:

1. Reductions in release frequency, i.e., what portion of releases might be avoided

due to the proposed rule.

2. Reduction in release severity, i.e., how might releases become smaller in size as a

consequence of the proposed rule.

Each expert responded to a number of questions, including the effects of each proposed

requirement on both the incidence of releases and th e severity of releases. For the incidence of

releases, each expert was asked to provide a percent reduction in annual releases. For the severity

of releases, each expert was asked to provide at least one of: percent reduction in the number of

releases that reach groundwater; percent reduction in the average quantity released; or percent

reduction in the average duration of releases.

All experts responded regarding the incidence of releases. The methods we used to calculate

avoided costs best captured re ductions in release severity through expert estimates of

groundwater avoidance, and four of the five experts directly es timated the percent reduction in

the number of releases that reach groundwater . EPA translated the reductions in volume

estimated by the fifth expert into reductions in groundwater contamination; the methods for that

calculation are explained later in th is appendix. In the sect ions below, the calc ulations of avoided

releases for Expert 2 corres pondingly utilize a different me thodology than those for other

experts.

Several of the experts also provided estimates of reductions in release volume or duration,

though we do not incorporate these into our measures of reduced severity. The data available for

this analysis were not sufficient to parameterize a model that could conv ert these estimates other

# I-2 

# than reductions in volume or explicit reduction s in groundwater contamination into avoided

groundwater contamination incidents. 1



# In a few cases, experts provided responses that had to be averag ed in order to yield a usable

value. For example, one expert did not provide an aggregate figure for the effects of the

walkthrough inspection requirements on release inci dence and release severi ty, instead providing

disaggregated reduction values for each com ponent that would be treated by a walkthrough

inspection. In this case, we calculated a weight ed average of the reduc tions provided based on

the number of units of each component in an aver age UST system as described in Exhibit 2-1.

I.2 Adjustment of Reductions According to the Universe Affected by Requirement

As each distinct requirement of the proposed rule making affects only a certain percentage of the

universe of UST systems, we weighted the reduc tions provided by the experts according to two

elements:

1. The percentage of UST systems affe cted by a given requirement; and

2. The area of an UST system that the requirement would affect.

For example, walkthrough inspections will aff ect 72.1 percent of the universe of UST systems

and are expected to affect all ar eas of a typical UST system. A ccording to Expert 1’s responses,

walkthrough inspections will reduce the frequency of releases by 15 percent, and the percentage

of releases reaching groundwater by 50 percent. We weight these figures by 72.1 percent and

calculate that according to Expert 1, total rel ease frequency will reduce by 10.81 percent and the

percentage of releases reaching groundwater will reduce by 36.05 percent as a result of the

walkthrough inspection requirement. The full list of percentages of the UST universe affected

by each requirement of the proposed rule making is available in Exhibit 2-4.

Expert 2 considered reductions such that his estimates apply to the entire universe of UST

systems, rather than only those systems in stat es that do not have particular requirements in

place. We adjust for this difference by assuming that the reduction in releases affects all systems;

for example, using the examples for walkthro ugh inspections, we redu ced the frequency of

releases by 15 percent and the percentage of releases reaching groundwater by 50 percent

without making any adjustment for the 27.9 percent of unaffected systems.

We present the universe values us ed in both scenarios and the area of the UST system affected

by each proposed requirement in Exhibit I-1

.

1 

# Some experts did not provide per cent reductions in the number of releases reaching groundwater for

certain requirements. In these cases, we treated their responses as indicating that there would be no reduction in the

number of releases reaching groundwater.

# I-3 Exhibit I-1

UST System Area and Proportion of Univ erse Affected by Proposed Requirements

Description Area of UST Affected Proportion of Universe affected

Experts 1, 3, 4 Expert 2

Release Prevention

Walkthrough inspections a 

# all sources 72.09% 100.00%

Overfill prevention equipment tests b 

# delivery problems 61.93% 100.00%

Spill prevention equipment tests c 

# delivery problems 75.34% 100.00%

Interstitial integrity tests d 

# tank, piping, dispensers, STP 13.59% 19.05%

Spill prevention equipment test after repair delivery problems 6.19% 100.00%

Overfill prevention equipment test af ter repair delivery problems 4.88% 100.00%

Interstitial integrity test after repair tank, piping 2.39% 27.60%

Eliminate flow restrictors for all new tanks and when overfill

devices are replaced delivery problems 5.31% 100.00%

Release Detection

Operability test - ATG tank 33.02% 33.66%

Operability test - interstitial m onitoring tank, piping 18.41% 19.76%

Operability test – LLD tank, piping 27.02% 100.00%

Add SIR/CITLDS to regulations with perfo rmance criteria tank, piping 0.48% 12.96%

Change release detection leak rate probabilities – ATG tank 23.25% 33.66%

Change release detection leak rate probabilities – LLD piping 21.94% 27.55%

Change release detection leak rate probabilities – SIR tank 1.34% 12.96%

Change release detection leak rate probabilities – CITLD tank 24.76% 4.00%

Response to interstitial m onitoring alarms tank, piping 1.73% 100.00%

Remove deferral for emergency genera tor tanks tank, piping 1.91% 1.91%

Other

Remove deferral for airport hydrant fu el distribution systems TBD 0.02% 0.02%

Remove deferral for UST systems with field-constructed tanks TBD 0.02% 0.02%

Require notification of owners hip change None 14.51% 100.00%

Closure of lined tanks that cannot be repaired according to a

code of practice tank 0.01% 5.00%

Energy Policy Act-related Provisions

Operator training all sources 0.25% 0.25%

Secondary containment - new an d replaced tanks tank, piping , dispensers, STP 0.25% 0.25%

Threshold for pipe replacement rath er than repair piping 0.25% 0.25%

Under-dispenser containm ent for all new dispensers dispenser 0.25% 0.25%

Notes:

a 

# Decreases to 63.41 percent under Alternative 2.

b 

# Increases to 68.88 percent under Alternative 1.

c 

# Increases to 90 percent under Alternative 1.

d 

# Increases to 16.69 percent under Alternative 1 and decreases to zero under Alternative 2.

# I-4 

# I.3 Calculation of Avoided Releases

The methodology calculates avoide d releases in two parts:

• Total releases avoided due to a re duction in release frequency; and

• Groundwater releases averted due to a reduc tion in the percentage of releases

reaching groundwater.

I.3.1 Total releases avoided due to a reduction in release frequency

To assess how the requirements of the proposed rule making affect reductions in releases, we rely

on an evaluation of releases performed by EPA (“Autopsy Study”). 2 

# This study considered over

500 releases in 23 states and classified them by whether they reached groundwater, as well as

which part of the UST system (i .e., piping, dispenser, tank, etc.) wa s responsible for the release.

Exhibit I-2 summarizes the data we use in our calculations.

Exhibit I-2

Release Incidence, Extent, and Media Contamination Type by Source

Source of

Release % of All

Releases Local

Extent Large

Extent Soil

Affected Water

Affected Soil Only Water Only

Local

Extent Large

Extent Local

Extent Large

Extent

Piping 31% 65% 35% 45% 55% 90% 10% 40% 60%

Dispenser 32% 83% 18% 77% 23% 93% 7% 42% 58%

Tank 16% 54% 46% 48% 52% 64% 36% 34% 66%

STP Area 4% 83% 17% 50% 50% 100% 0% 62% 38%

Delivery

Problems 16% 72% 28% 61% 39% 97% 3% 43% 57%

Others 1% No

data No

data No data No data No

data No

data No

data No

data

Source: Office of Underground Storage Tanks, “Evaluation of Re leases from New and Upgraded Underground Storage

Tank Systems – Peer Review Dr aft,” U.S. EPA, August 2004.



# We apply the reductions estimated by th e experts to these sources as mapped by Exhibit I-1 ; for

example, walkthrough inspections would affect releases from all sources, whereas overfill

prevention equipment tests would affect only those releases arising from delivery problems. We

similarly consider how each requi rement of the proposed rule affects releases reaching

groundwater from each source.

2 

# Office of Underground Storage Tank s, “Evaluation of Releases fro m New and Upgraded Underground

Storage Tank Systems – Peer Review Draft,” U.S. EPA, August 2004.

# I-5 

# To calculate the proportion of releases avoided:

• We consider the percentage of all rel eases coming from each source in an UST

system, as well as the pe rcentage of all releases reaching groundwater coming

from each source as described in the autopsy study data.

• We sum the reductions, weighted by the universe affected by each requirement,

across each source for reductions in overall release frequency and reductions in

the percentage of groundwater releases.

• We reduce the proportion of releases fr om each source by the total estimated

reductions. 3



# To determine the number of actual releases avoided:

• We obtain the difference between the percentage of releases from each source

prior to the implementation of the proposed rulemaking and the percentage of

releases from each source after the imple mentation of the proposed rulemaking.

• We then multiply this difference by the total number of confirmed releases

according to the OUST 2009 End-of-Year Annual Report to obtain a numerical

value for releases avoided.

• We sum these figures across all release sour ces to obtain a figure for total releases

avoided.

I.3.2 Groundwater releases averted due to a reduc tion in the percentage of releases reaching

groundwater

To assess the reduction in severity of releases, we obtain the difference between the proportion

of releases affecting groundwater for each area of an UST system prior to and following the

implementation of the proposed rulemaking. To obt ain a distribution of releases before the

proposed changes, we allocate confirmed releases from the Office of Underground Storage

Tanks’ 2009 End-of-Year Reports according to the distribution in the Florida study. We obtain

the total reduction in groundwater incidents due to the proposed rule and reduce the proportion

of groundwater releases while increasing the propor tion of soil releases. To calculate the number

of groundwater releases averted, we compare th e number of groundwater releases before and

after the proposed requirements.

Due to a lack of data from experts on changes in severity and cost of releases, EPA does not

assess changes in costs for releases that involve th e same medium in both scenarios. That is, we

do not measure the cost savings associated with small groundwater contamination releases that

3 

# These new percentages do not sum to 100 percent acr oss sources; rather, these percentages present the

ratio of remaining releases after the reductions stemming from the requirements of the proposed rulemaking go into

affect from a given source to the overall ratio of releases prior to the implementation of the proposed rulemaking.

# I-6 

# would have been larger and more expensive in the baseline, or with small soil contamination

events that would have been larg er in the baseline, but would st ill not have reached groundwater.

The analysis therefore provides a conservative estimate of the avoided cleanup costs associated

with reduced release severity. If release extent is associat ed with volume—as the 23-state

autopsy report data suggest—then reductions in release volume should result in both smaller

extent releases regardless of media contam inated and fewer incidents of groundwater

involvement, not just the latter. This implies th at the analysis underestimates the reduction in

severity of releases under the potential regula tory changes.

I.3.3 Calculations for groundwater releases averted for Expert 2

Because Expert 2’s responses address changes in volume rather than groundwater involvement,

we use a groundwater contamination index from the risk assessment developed for EPA to

translate reductions in average release volume to reductions in the proportion of releases

reaching groundwater. 4 

# In particular:

• We use average release volume per rele ase source from the Florida study data 5 

# to

estimate the baseline proportion of releases that reach groundwater, based on the

groundwater contamination model.

• We reduce baseline volumes by the weighted volume re ductions in the same way

as reductions in percentage of releases reaching groundwater to obtain postregulation average release volumes and rates of groundwater contamination for

each release source.

• We calculate the difference between th e rates of groundwater contamination

between the baseline and pos t-regulation scenarios.

Exhibit I-3 reports the volumes used to calculate a voided groundwater releases for Expert 2.

4 

# RTI International, “Risk Analysis to Support Revisions to Underground Storage Tank (UST)

Regulations,” December 22, 2009.

5 

# Office of Underground Storage Tanks, U.S. EPA, “Petroleum Releases at Underground Storage Tank

Facilities in Florida,” U.S. EPA, March 2005.

# I-7 Exhibit I-3

Average Volume by Release Source

Source of Release Average release (gal)

Piping 1,152

Tank 696

Other 408

Dispenser 260

Fuel Delivery 126

Pump (Turbine) 33

Fill Pipe 93

Office of Underground Storage Tanks, U.S. EPA, “Petroleum Releases at

Underground Storage Tank Facilities in Florida,” U.S. EPA, draft, March

2005.



# Once these values are derived, our methodology fo r calculating avoided costs using Expert 2’s

responses proceeds similarly to our methodology fo r calculating avoided costs via the responses

of all other experts.

The risk assessment simulation of groundwater invol vement may also overstate the probability of

groundwater contamination, especi ally at relatively low releas e volumes (approximately 50

gallons or less). The simulation assumes that m odeled volumes are released at a single time,

which increases the probability of rapid soil transport and groundwater contamination. Experts

with whom we spoke indicated that some releases involve lo w throughput over an extended

period of time; these releases are more likely to be affected by attenuation and less likely to

reach groundwater rapidly. The impact of this assumption means that the reduction in

groundwater events is likely unders tated (e.g., because small releases still reach groundwater in

large numbers). This produces a relatively conser vative (i.e., low) estimate of the number of

groundwater releases avoided.

I.4 Economic Valuation of Avoided Releases to Obtain Avoided Costs

Our valuation of avoided releases assigns values to two kinds of avoided costs:

• Costs avoided due to avoided releases; and

• Costs avoided due to the avoidance of a groundwater contamination incident,

which effectively replaces a groundwater rele ase with a less co stly soil release.

I.4.1 Economic valuation of costs avoided due to avoided releases

To assign an economic value to avoided releas es, we consider the Autopsy Study data, which

breaks down releases by release source, by extent (local or large), and by whether or not the

release reached groundwater (media affected).

# I-8 

# We use average release remediation costs that cons ist of a weighted average of cost data across

release types from both New Hampshire and Utah. 6 

# These costs vary by extent of the release

(local or large), as well as by the media affected by that rele ase (soil or groundwater). We

calculate an average cost per release from each source by calculating a weighted average cost

based on the type of release (large or small exte nt, soil or groundwater contamination) generated

by that source. We multiply the number of avoided releases from each release source by the

average cost of releases from that source to ob tain a avoided costs by release source. We sum

these to obtain total avoided costs across all avoided releases.

I.4.2 Economic valuation of costs avoided due to the aversion of groundwater releases

Because groundwater releases tend to be more cos tly to remediate than re leases that affect only

soil, the conversion of groundwater releases and into soil releases entails an avoidance of costs.

The magnitude of cost avoidanc e depends on the number of groundwat er releases averted: every

groundwater release averted means lower groundw ater remediation cost s and additional soil

remediation costs. To calculate the costs avoi ded due to the aversion of groundwater releases,

we calculate the difference in the total cost of remediation prior to and after the implementation

of the proposed rulemaking.

Under both scenarios, we use the same number of releases; that is, we alter only the distribution

of releases, not their total number. In both cases , we use the total number of releases remaining

after we exclude those releases that are completely avoided. We distribute releases according to

the release source, media affected, and extent shown in Exhibit I-2 and calculate the total cost to

remediate those releases. After accounting for changes in rates of groundwater contamination,

we repeat the process and calculate the cost to remediate all releases after the proposed rule.

While the distribution across media affected an d release source does not change, the reductions

in the percentage of groundwater releases alter the number of gr oundwater and soil releases from

each release source. The difference in the total cost of remediation in the pre-implementation

and post-implementation scenarios represents our measure of redu ced severity of releases.

Total avoided costs can be calculated by summing the avoided costs from avoided releases and

the avoided costs from aver ted groundwater releases.

6 

# We also calculate these costs using data from New Hampshire to evaluate the sensitivity of our results.

# Appendix I

[continued]

# MEMORANDUM | 5 May 2009

TO 

# Cho Yi Kwan and Timothy Roberts, EPA

FROM 

# Katie Glodzik, Aaron Kamholtz, Robert Pate rson, Neal Etre, and Cynthia Manson, IEc

SUBJECT 

# Status Update on the Development of Estimates of Avoided Costs Per Leak

WA 2-25, Task 2 (revision of WA 1-25, Task 5, 3 rd 

# Deliverable)

Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a comprehensive regulatory program

for the management of petroleum and othe r hazardous substances in underground storage

tanks (USTs). In 1988, EPA issued UST regulations addressing technical requirements

for tank operators, financial responsibility requirements, and state program approval

objectives (see 40 CFR Parts 280 and 281 for detail about the requirements). EPA is

currently considering the possibility of revi sions to the existing UST regulations. The

Agency is considering amending the requirements to address four issues: (1)

technical/administrative fixes, (2) deferred UST systems, (3) existing regulatory gaps,

and (4) potential deregulatory options.

As part of this effort, Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) is assisting EPA’s Office of

Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) in de veloping a methodology to estimate the

average avoided costs resulting from preven ting one UST leak (LUST) from a baseline

associated with the existing UST regulations. Th is avoided cost estimate may be used in

potential regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) to support possible revisions to the existing

UST regulations.

In a November 4, 2008 memorandum, IEc proposed several potential categories from

which to evaluate the avoided costs of preventing a typical UST leak. 1 

# The purpose of

this memorandum is to provide OUST with a status update on the development of the

costs associated with each of these categories. We first provide a summary table

detailing the priority and status for each cost category presented in the previous

memorandum. We then provide preliminary cost estimates associated with LUST

cleanups, vapor damages, fire/e xplosions, and lost product. Finally, we briefly discuss

existing approaches to groundwater valuation a nd feasibility of their use for this effort. 2



# This memorandum updates a previous version submitted to EPA on February 11, 2009.

1 

# See Prioritization of Avoided Cost Categories Associated with a Typical UST Leak , IEc Memorandum to EPA, prepared by

Neal Etre and Cynthia Manson, November 4, 2008.

2 

# IEc also performed preliminary research on the existing 1988 UST RIA cancer risk mo del to understand the extent to which

EPA could alter its risk assumptions to es timate human health costs a ssociated with existing leak s. Since the development

of the initial memorandum, OUST is con sidering the development of a separate risk assessm ent framework to support

potential RIAs. For this reason, discus sions of IEc’s preliminary effort have been removed from this memorandum. 

# INTRODUCTION

AND PURPOSE

# 2 

# Exhibit 1 provides a summary of the avoided cost s categories presented in the November

4 memorandum by priority ranking. Ultimately, this status table will include an estimate

of total avoided costs. The cleanup and product loss costs currently reflect information

provided by New Hampshire, New Mexico and Utah. IEc has also received information

from Virginia and South Carolina; however, neither state could provide the detailed

information required for this analysis. Give n disparity in the types of information the

states were able to provide, IEc contacted an additional five states in effort to identify

states that track cleanup costs in a manner that can be used with the current methodology.

Based on their responses, which indicated that they may not collect and track data in a

manner amenable to our current approach, we did not attempt to collect additional data.

In addition, our investigation into ground water valuation reveals that the existing

literature does not provide a general value app licable in the LUST context. In previous

versions of this memorandum, IEc has suggest ed several research avenues that EPA may

wish to consider to further investigate th e development of groundwater use valuation

methods. At this time, EPA has indicated this effort is beyond the scope of the

rulemaking.

For the lower priority cost categories, prev iously labeled as “To Be Determined (TBD),”

IEc has contemplated methods to estimate costs, which we briefly detail below. In some

cases, we recommend that EPA wait until a risk assessment of health impacts associated

with changes to the regulations has been comp leted, as it may inform whether developing

cost estimates is warranted.

• Public and Private Well Damage: A risk analysis may determine that too few

wells will be affected by the regulatory op tions to warrant inclusion in the overall

cost estimate. If the risk assessment indicates heightened risk for public and

private wells, we suggest revisiting potentia l costs associated with these damages.

• Lost Profits from Downtime: To estimate these costs, we suggest researching

publicly available information on prof its associated with the retail gasoline

industry, along with information on the typical duration of facility closure to

implement LUST remediation.

• Long-Term Costs from Residual Contamination: IEc anticipates that the

avoided costs associated with residual contamination (i.e., contamination that

remains at a site post-cleanup) will not be significant. Again, we recommend

revisiting these costs if the risk assessm ent indicates significant risk exists.

Assessing these costs without the risk assessment results would likely be a

substantial effort, because it would re quire location and geology-specific

information.

• Impacts on Employment and Economic Growth: We believe that some of the

employment impacts may be equated to, or discovered in, the analysis of

downtime and lost profits, and we recommend identifying data that would support

an analysis of employment as part of th e assessment of lost profit. However, we

also anticipate that potential impacts on employment may be offset, at least in part,

by the creation of jobs associated with re mediation. We therefore suggest using

employment data and the analysis of do wntime to conduct a screening analysis of

whether lost time at a facility is likely to be significant. If the screening STATUS

SUMMARY

# 3 

# assessment indicates potential for significant cost savings from avoided downtime,

we recommend a full analysis of employment impacts, including employment

gains associated with cleanups.

• Impacts on Insurance: IEc is currently contacting an insurance representative to

collect additional information. We antici pate the actuarial process will account for

changes in risk associated with avoiding leaks.

# 4 EXHIBIT 1 STATUS SUMMARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF AVOIDED COST CATEGORIES

PRIORITY

RANKING COST CATEGORY LUST SITE SIZE AND CONTAMINAT ION TYPE (2008$ PER LUST SITE)

SMALL

EXTENT,

SOIL ONLY LARGE

EXTENT,

SOIL ONLY SMALL EXTENT,

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION LARGE EXTENT,

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION



# Priority 1 Cleanup Costs: a



# Administrative Costs $0 $0 $500 $3,700

Response Costs $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000

Remediation Costs $10,000 to

$20,000 $56,000 to

$150,000 $97,000 to

$350,000 $219,000 to

$2,500,000

Oversight Costs $500 $1,000 $1,500 $5,000

Weighted Average Cleanup Cost using leak

source and site type information from the LUST

Autopsy reports (see Appendix B) Lower-bound (NH data only): $96,200

Upper-bound (NH, NM, UT): $326,600 b



# Groundwater Value EPA has elected to not pursue this effort, as data are not likely

available to conduct analysis

Priority 2 Product Loss $60 to $2,900

Human Health (Cancer Risk) EPA is considering conducting an independent risk assessment

Public and Private Well Damage A risk assessment would provide insight into the magnitude of

potential damages to wells

Priority 3 Lost profits from Downtime May be estimated using publicly available information on industry

profits, employment, and research on typical cleanup durations

Vapor Damages $270 to $5,200

Fire and Explosions Incident rate appears to be extremely low

Priority 4 Long Term Costs from Residual Contamination Dela y assessment pending results of risk assessment

Impacts on Employment and Economic Growth Requires screening analysis prior to assessment; data collected as

part of lost profits analysis would support screening

Priority 5 Impacts on Insurance Currently collecting information

Ecological Risk

EPA has elected to not pursue th ese efforts, as data are not

likely available to conduct analysis Decline in Nearby Property Values

Distribution Impacts and Intergenerational Equity

Notes:

a. Administrative, response, and oversight costs provided by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services,

Underground Storage Tank Program. Remedi ation costs provided by pr ovided by New Hampshire De partment of Environmental

Services, Underground Storage Tank Progra m; New Mexico Environment Department, Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau; and the

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Underground Storage Ta nk Program. IEc received info rmation from Virginia and South

Carolina, but the data were not provided in a format amenable to these calculations. Appendix A provides the responses from

the states.

b. The upper-bound value shown here uses the average remediat ion costs across the three states . Using only the highest and

lowest remediation costs of the three states, the weighted averag e cleanup costs associated with an UST release range between

$91,200 and $698,600. (See Appendix C)

# 5 PRELIMINARY CLEANUP COSTS



# Using the approach illustrated in the Oct ober 27, 2008 memorandum, IEc has developed

preliminary estimate of avoided costs associated with LUST cleanups. 3 

# This approach

calls for developing average cleanup cost s based on four general leak types:

• Local site extent with soil contamination;

• Local site extent with water contamination;

• Large site extent with soil contamination; and

• Large site extent with water contamination. 4



# Our approach then weights cleanup costs for each type by leak source probability, as

derived from the two EPA reports entitled “Evaluation of Releases from New and

Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks” a nd “Petroleum Releases at Underground

Storage Tanks in Florida” (referred hereaf ter as the 23-state LUST Autopsy report and

the Florida LUST Autopsy report, respectively). 5 

# The leak sources include piping, the

dispenser, the tank, the submersible turbin e pump (STP) area, and fuel delivery.

To develop the preliminary avoided cleanup co st estimate, IEc initially contacted six

states that use State Funds to pay for LUST remediation, including Montana, New

Hampshire, New Mexico, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia. Via email, IEc sent each

state UST program office a questionnaire requesting data on typical cleanup costs broken

out by the four general leak types listed above. IEc received responses from New

Hampshire, New Mexico, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia. Of these, New Hampshire

provided the most comprehensive and detailed set of information. Specifically, New

Hampshire was able to provide cleanup costs by category (i.e., administrative, response,

remediation, and oversight), while New Mexico and Utah could only provide estimates of

remediation costs. Virginia and South Caro lina were unable to provide the detail required

for this analysis. 6 

# Appendix A provides the individual responses provided by the states.

Appendix B uses the leak data from both Autopsy reports to estimate the avoided

cleanup costs associated with preventing a typical LUST using the methodology

described in the October 27, 2008 memorandum. Appendix B presents two scenarios: 1)

an estimate that uses remediation cost da ta from New Hampshire, New Mexico, and

Utah; and 2) an estimate that employs only New Hampshire data to determine cleanup

costs. The multi-state scenario resulted in a weighted average avoided cleanup cost of

approximately $326,600 per leak, while the New Hampshire-only estimate yielded a

lower estimate of roughly $96,200 per leak. Using the same methods applied in

Appendix B and data from the three states, Appendix C employs the upper and lower

bound remediation costs to estimate a range in the weighted average costs associated with

3 

# See Methodology to Estimate Avoided Cost s Associated with a Typical UST Leak , IEc Memorandum to EPA, prepared by

Aaron Kamholtz, Neal Etre, and Cynthia Manson, October 27, 2008.

4 

# While no specific definition exists for a large site, the 23 -state LUST Autopsy survey in struments used by the states

generally define large sites as those with contamination that extend beyond the extent of construction excavation. In

addition, EPA classified sites with o ff-site contamination as large sites.

5 

# U.S. EPA, Evaluation of Releases from New and Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks (Draft), 2004; U.S. EPA, Petroleum

Releases at Underground Storage Tanks in Florida (Draft ), 2005.

6 

# Virginia was unable to break out costs by the extent of the le ak (i.e., large or small). In general, the re mediation costs

provided by Virginia are consistent with New Hampshire’s estima tes of the costs to remediate sm all leaks (for both soil and

groundwater). 

# AVOIDED COSTS

ASSOCIATED

WITH LUST

CLEANUPS AND

PRODUCT LOSS

# 6 

# an UST cleanup. Based on the data from New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Utah, the

weighted average avoided cost ranges from $91,200 to $698,600 per LUST site.

In an effort to bolster the sample size and determine whether states can provide

information consistent with this preliminar y approach, EPA requested that IEc contact

additional states. IEc contacted five a dditional states, including Alaska, Minnesota,

Missouri, Vermont, and Wyoming, to determine whether they collect and track data in a

manner amenable to our current approach. 7 

# During this effort, IEc did not attempt to

collect additional information; our purpose was to determine whether additional states

had readily available information that could be combined with the data collected from the

first group of states we contacted.

Representatives from each state suggested that these states do not maintain cost

information in a manner amenable to our outlined methodology. Several also mentioned

they would check with colleagues and follow-up with IEc. As of April 16, 2009,

however, none has done so. In general, the states indicated that they do not track costs by

site-type or leak severity, and are not able to pull cost information in that manner.

Wyoming appears to keep the most descriptiv e cost information of any state in the second

group. Rather than store costs according to administrative, response, remediation, and

oversight, Wyoming maintains cost data according the following categories:

investigation, design, operations and maintenance, construction and equipment

management, and site close-out costs. While descriptive, such categories are not easily

transferable into our methodology.

Of the states contacted in both phases of this effort, only New Hampshire was able to

provide information broken out by type (i.e ., administrative, response, etc) and leak

severity (i.e., groundwater versus soil-contamin ated sites). This suggests that improving

the estimate presented in the February 11 th 

# memorandum may require significant data

collection and analysis. As a result, EPA ma y wish to consider using the New Hampshire

data to develop an initial avoided cost estima te. The total remediation cost data provided

by states initially contacted suggests that New Hampshire’s costs are generally consistent

with those provided by other states (see A ppendix A). In fact, New Hampshire’s cleanup cost estimates tend to be lower than othe r states, which may provide a robust (and

conservative) starting point for the initial asse ssment of benefits. In contrast, New

Mexico’s cost estimates appear to be very hi gh; an initial estimate of regulatory benefits

based on these costs could potentially overstate the value of the rule (see Appendix A).

In addition, New Hampshire’s weighted average costs are roughly consistent with, though

lower than, costs reported in ASTSWMO’s “Sta te Fund Survey.” The Survey estimates

the average cost per site to be $128,023, co mpared to the New Hampshire average cost of

roughly $96,200 per site. 8 

# IEc recommends follow-up conversations with both New

Hampshire and Survey administrators to be tter understand the cost components (e.g., do

they include legacy sites?) asso ciated with each estimate to determine their comparability.

As a preliminary cost estimate, however, New Hampshire appears to be a reasonable

starting point.

IEc suggests that EPA consider developi ng the regulatory cost model and running

screening analyses using both the New Hampsh ire costs estimate, and the preliminary

7 

# IEc was not able to make contact with Vermont.

8 

# Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Manage ment Officials, Summary of State Fund Survey Results 2009

. Available at: http://www.astswmo.org/files/publications/t anks/2008StateFundSurvey/StateF undSurvey2008_Complete.pdf.

# 7 

# cost estimate developed using the three states. The two existing estimates (New

Hampshire and our multi-state average) can be used to test the model’s sensitivity to

avoided cleanup costs, in comparison with other factors (e.g., human health impacts

avoided) and regulatory costs. The results of this exercise will help determine whether

any additional effort is needed to improve these preliminary avoided costs estimates with

collection of additional data. If the model proves to be relatively insensitive to cleanup

costs, EPA may be able to rely on these preliminary cost estimates.

PRELIMINARY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEANUPS FROM SITES WITH VAPOR, FIRE,

AND EXPLOSION PROBLEMS



# In addition to cleanup costs, we asked states to provide estimates of costs associated with

damages from vapor intrusion, fires, and e xplosions. Responses from New Hampshire,

New Mexico, Utah, and South Carolina suggest th e incidence rate of fires and explosions

is very low, and they were therefore unabl e to provide average damage estimates for

these incidents. These states indicated that the incidence of vapor intrusion, while not

common, is higher than that of fire and e xplosions. The data provided by those four

states indicate that a conservative estimate of the percent of LUST sites resulting in

vapor-related problems is between 1 and 10 percent. Based on these probabilities and

New Hampshire’s estimated vapor intrusion cleanup costs ($27,000 to $52,000 per vapor

site), we estimate that vapor intrusio n cleanup costs range from $270 to $5,200 for a

typical LUST site.

COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCT LOSS



# To estimate the costs associated with lost product from LUST sites, we multiply the

typical volume of fuel lost per leak by the retail price of fuel. Exhibit 2 presents the

preliminary range of costs associated with product loss, assuming a December 8, 2008

retail price of gasoline of $1.70 per gallon a nd retail price of diesel fuel of $2.52 per

gallon. 9,10 

# Based on the Florida LUST Autopsy report, the average spill size ranges from

33 gallons (spills originating at the turbine area) to 1,152 gallons (spills originating from

piping). 11 

# Since a portion of retail fuel prices from gas stations are dedicated to pay gas

taxes, the cost of product loss is typically bor ne by industry and, in part, by the federal

government and potentially the states (i.e., lost tax revenue). 12 

# For those operating

facilities that do not sell fuel, these costs would likely be borne solely by industry,

assuming they pay less than full retail costs for fuel. 13

9 

# Energy Information Administration (EIA), “Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update.” Acce ssed on December 9, 2008. Available at:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp.

10



# The average U.S. prices for regular-grade gasoline and dies el fuel, at $1.70 and $2.52 per ga llon respectively on December

8, 2008, were both more than $2.00 per gallon below their highs in mid-Ju ly. With the assumption of a fragile economy

throughout 2009, along with lower projecte d crude oil prices, EIA proj ects annual average retail gasoline and diesel fuel

prices in 2009 to be $2.03 and $2. 47 per gallon, respectively. EIA, “Short-Ter m Energy Outlook.” Accessed on December 9,

2008. Available at: http://www.eia.d oe.gov/emeu/steo/p ub/contents.html.

11 

# New Hampshire indicated that the volume of UST leaks typica lly range from 100 gallons to 1,000 gallons, which fits within

the range provided in the Florida LUST Autopsy report. The ot her states were not able to provide information on product

loss.

12



# EIA reports that federal and state taxe s represented approximately 15 percent of retail gasoline prices (in 2007) and

approximately 10 percent of retail diesel pr ices (in 2008). EIA, “A Primer on Gaso line Prices.” Accessed on December 9,

2008. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochur es/gasolinepricesprimer/inde x.html; EIA, “Diesel Fuel

Prices: What Consumers Should Know.” A ccessed on December 9, 2008. Available at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshe lf/brochures/diesel/index.html

13



# Product loss estimates do not account for tw o uncertainties: 1) facilities that purcha se at wholesale, bu t do not sell motor

fuel (e.g., government installations); and 2) facilities that use fuels different fr om motor fuel (e.g., heating oil). These

facilities likely purchase fuel at prices th at differ from current retail prices.

# 8 EXHIBIT 2 PRELIMINARY RANGE OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCT LOST (2008$ PER

LUST SITE)

FUEL TYPE AVERAGE

FUEL COSTS

PER GALLON

[A] QUANTITY OF FUEL

LOSS PER LUST SITE

(GALLONS)

[B] AVOIDED COST OF

PRODUCT LOSS

[C] = [A] * [B]



# Product Loss Costs

(Lower Bound) $1.70 a 

# 33 b 

# $56

Product Loss Costs

(Upper Bound) $2.52 a 

# 1,152 b 

# $2,903

Average:

$2.11 486 c 

# 1,025

Notes:

a. The average U.S. prices for regular-grade ga soline and diesel fuel, at $1.70 and $2.52 per

gallon respectively on December 8, 2008. (Sou rce: Energy Information Administration (EIA),

“Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update.” Accessed on December 9, 2008. Available at:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/i nfo/gdu/gasdiesel.asp.)

b. Based on the Florida LUST Autopsy report, the average spill size ranges from 33 gallons

(spills originating at the turbine area) to 1,152 gallons (spills originating from piping).

(Source: U.S. EPA, Petroleum Releases at Underground Storage Tanks in Florida (Draft).

2005.)

c. Calculated as the average spill size weight ed by fuel release point (e.g., piping, turbine

area, etc) using data from th e Florida LUST Autopsy report.



# IEc conducted preliminary research to determine the feasibility of using existing

groundwater valuation methods in the devel opment of avoided cost estimates associated

with preventing UST leaks. As part of this effort, IEc evaluated existing approaches to

valuation developed through Natural Resour ce Damage Assessment (NRDA) and in the

general resource economics literature. IEc also discussed the potential applicability of

these existing valuation methods with a res ource valuation expert and IEc experts who

have considerable experience in NRDA.

Approaches to Valuation from NRDA



# NRDA is the process of estimating the monetary cost of restoring natural resources

injured by discharges of oil or releases of hazardous substances. Monetary costs, or

damages, are estimated by identifying th e services provided by the injured natural

resources, determining the baseline level of the services provided by the resources, and

quantifying the reduction in services that result from the natural resource injury. 14

14



# U.S. EPA. Natural Resource Da mage Assessment. www.epa.gov/su perfund/programs/nrd/nrda2.htm. 

# VALUATION OF

GROUNDWATER

# 9 

# Based on the NRDA framework, Ando et al. 2004, conducted a review of potential

economic valuation methods that could be applied in cont ext of groundwater protection. 15



# Of those methods reviewed, two approaches, contingent valuation (CV) and benefits

transfer, are likely the most applicable for valuing groundwater protection from UST

leaks:

• Contingent Valuation. CV, also known as a stated -preference model, uses a

survey instrument to obtain the value of a resource by assessing an individual’s

willingness-to-pay for that resource (in this case, clean groundwater). Typically,

the survey lays out a hypothetical cont amination scenario and respondents indicate

what they would be willing to pay for remediation or avoidance of the

contamination. Unlike valuation methods that rely on price data for the purchase

of replacement of water, CV can re veal both use and nonuse (e.g., existence

values) values that capture the value pe ople place on having a resource even when

they do not expect to use it in the near term. CV is often criticized for its

hypothetical nature, the difficulty and expense required to develop an unbiased

survey instrument, and the lack of connection between willingness-to-pay and

actual costs for supplying water. 16



# • Benefits transfer. Benefits transfer applies information from existing valuation

studies to develop values for a new study area. This can be accomplished using

information from one or more valuation st udies (i.e., a meta-analysis). Benefits

transfer assumes that the characteristi cs of the previously studied area and

population are similar to that of the new subject area and population. The

usefulness and validity of benefits tr ansfer methods depend on the quality and

applicability of the original data and error associated with these assumptions. 17



# Beyond the development of site-specific st udies, some attempts have been made to

develop standardized “values” for groundw ater, often for purposes of NRDA. For

example, the State of New Jersey currently employs a replacement cost approach to

determine interim economic losses associated w ith injuries to groundwater. First, the

total present value of the potential yield of groundwater from a contaminated area is

determined over the relevant period of impair ment, typically based on a site-specific or

regional recharge rate for the area in ques tion. Second, again considering regional

recharge rates, the amount of land required to protect an equivalent present value total

volume of groundwater is estimated. Fina lly, candidate parcels are identified and

appraised. The cost of acquiring such a parcel for purposes of protecting a volume of

groundwater equivalent to what was lost represents the measure of damages. 18

15



# For a thorough review of the various a pproaches to the valuation of groundwater, including a discussion of their strengths

and weaknesses, see Chapter 3 in Ando, A., M. Khanna, A. Wildermuth, and S. Vig. Natural Resource Damage Assessment:

Methods and Cases . Waste Management and Research Center, Illinois Depart ment of Natural Resources. July 2004.

16



# Ando et al. Natural Resource Damage A ssessment: Methods and Cases . Waste Management and Research Center, Illinois

Department of Natural Resources. July 2004.

17



# Ando et al. Natural Resource Damage A ssessment: Methods and Cases . Waste Management and Research Center, Illinois

Department of Natural Resources. July 2004.

18



# Prior to the development of this appr oach in the mid-2000s, New Jersey employed methods that estimated groundwater

value at a site to be the total volume of groundwater damaged over time multiplied by the current water rate. Unsworth,

Robert, and Robert Paterson, Industrial Economics, Inc., Person al Communication, December 4, 2008. As discussed in Ando

et al. 2004, New Jersey’s previous approa ch has several weaknesses, in cluding: 1) It only values the consumptive use of

groundwater. Non-consumptive (e.g., ec osystem services) and nonuse (e.g., exist ence) values are excluded using this

approach. 2) Water rates are regulated and do not reflect true market prices. 3) This approach does not account for

# 10 

# As noted, this is a replacement cost, and not a valuation approach. The cost to replace

natural resources and their services represents a value only when three specific criteria

are met: 1) That the replacement provides e quivalent quality and qu antity of services; 2)

that the public would actually be willing to pay for the replacement; and 3) that the

replacement is the most cost-effectiv e means of restoring the lost services. 19 

# Even if

these conditions are true, this approach ma y overestimate groundwater values in urban

areas, as land is typically more expensive, and underestimate groundwater values in areas

where land is less expensive.

Approaches to Valuation from the Resource Economics Literature



# Groundwater is a natural resource that provides flows of services to society. 20 

# The

resource economics literature contains numerous examples of studies that value these

services, as demonstrated by the public’s willingness-to-pay for groundwater protection

programs (e.g., see Poe et al. 2001). 21 

# However, these values are largely context-specific

in terms of location, scale, and the specific threat to groundwater considered. In this

manner, they do not provide generic informa tion on the value of groundwater on a gallon

by gallon basis. 22



# IEc conducted discussions with Dr. Gregory Poe from Cornell University, an expert in

resource valuation. Dr. Poe indicated that wo rk done in this field has been concentrated

on valuing groundwater in the context of nitrite pollution at Concentrated Animal

Feeding Operations (CAFOs). He felt that differences in context between CAFOs and

LUST sites, along with differences in human h ealth concerns between nitrite and benzene

pollution, limited the usefulness of his work for developing groundwater values in the

LUST context. 23



# NEXT STEPS AND CONSIDERATIONS



# Based on discussions with Dr. Poe and IE c experts on natural resource damage

assessment, developing a generic groundwater va lue for use in the LUST context may be

difficult using existing resources. 24 

# The site-specific nature of existing literature likely

prevents the development of general values. In prior versions of this memorandum, IEc

substitute sources of water or the possibility of decontaminating the ground water for eventual use. Ando et al. Natural

Resource Damage Assessm ent: Methods and Cases . Waste Management and Research Cent er, Illinois Department of Natural

Resources. July 2004.

19



# Freeman, A.M. III.. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Resources for the

Future: Washington, DC. 2003. p. 460.

20



# U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Framework for Measuring the Economic Benefits of Groundwater. EPA 230-B-95-

003. October, 1995; Nati onal Research Council. Valuing Ground Water. Econom ic Concepts and Approaches. Washington,

DC: National Academy Press. 1997.

21 

# Poe, Gregory L., K.J. Boyle, and J.C. Bergstrom. “A Preliminary Meta Analysis of Contingent Values for Ground Water

Revisited.” Chapter 8 in The Economic Value of Water Qu ality. Bergstrom, J.C., K.J. Boyle and G.L. Poe (eds.),

Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edwa rd Elgar Publishing Limited. 2001.

22



# For example, Powell et al. 1994 used CV methods to determ ine household’s willingness-to-p ay for increased groundwater

protection from trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination for th eir municipal water supply. The y found that households in

Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania were willing to pay $61.55 per year for the i ncrease in protection. Powell J.R.,

D. Allee, and J. McClintock. “Groundwater Protection Bene fits and Local Community Pla nning: Impact of Contingent

Valuation Information.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76(5):1076-1978. 1994. as de scribed in Ando et al.

Natural Resource Damage A ssessment: Methods and Cases . Waste Management and Research Center, Illinois Department of

Natural Resources. July 2004.

23



# Poe, Gregory, Personal Communication, Cornell Univer sity, November 24, 2008.

24



# Poe, Gregory, Cornell University, Pe rsonal Communication, November 24, 2008; Unsworth, Robert, an d Robert Paterson,

Industrial Economics, Inc., Person al Communication, December 4, 2008.

# 11 

# has suggested several research ave nues to develop groundwater values. 25 

# At this time,

EPA, has decided that an effort of this magn itude is not within the scope of the present

rulemaking effort.

25



# IEc suggested three potential research ave nues to develop groundwater use values: 1) applying benefits transfer methods;

2) developing a state-preference survey; an d 3) initiate discussions with staff at EP A’s Office of Water to determine if the

Office has recently developed valuation techniques that can be adapted to th e UST context. For more information, see

Status Update on the Development of Estimates of Avoided Costs Per Leak , IEc Memorandum to EPA, prepared by Katie

Glodzik, Aaron Kamholtz, Robert Paterson, Neal Etre and Cynthia Manson, February 11, 2009.

# 12 

# APPENDIX A13EXHIBIT A-1 STATE RESPONSESCOST CATEGORYLUST SITE TYPENEW HAMPSHIRENEW MEXICOSOUTH CAROLINAUTAHVIRGINIAaAdministrative CostsSmall extent, soil only$0Information not availableLarge extent, soil only$0Small extent, groundwatercontamination$500Large extent, groundwatercontamination$3,700Response CostsSmall extent, soil only$10,000Information not availableLarge extent, soil only$10,000Small extent, groundwatercontamination$10,000Large extent, groundwatercontamination$10,000Remediation CostsbSmall extent, soil only$19,500$20,000Information notavailable$10,000$19,313Large extent, soil only$56,000$75,000$150,000Small extent, groundwatercontamination$97,000$350,000$100,000$96,897Large extent, groundwatercontamination$219,000$2,500,000$600,000Oversight CostsSmall extent, soil only$500Information not availableLarge extent, soil only$1,000Small extent, groundwatercontamination$1,500Large extent, groundwatercontamination$5,00014COST CATEGORYLUST SITE TYPENEW HAMPSHIRENEW MEXICOSOUTH CAROLINAUTAHVIRGINIAaProduct Loss(gallons)Small extent, soil only100Information not availableLarge extent, soil only500Small extent, groundwatercontamination100Large extent, groundwatercontamination1,000Vapor DamagesAll LUST site typesBetween 2 and 8percent of activeLUST sites result invapor intrusionCost estimateranges from$27,000 to $52,000per siteLess than 1 percentof active LUST sitesresult in vaporintrusionVery few vaporrelated damagesBetween 1 and 10percent of sitesresult in vaporintrusionInformation notavailableFires and ExplosionsAll LUST site typesNegligible Negligible Negligible NegligibleInformation notavailableNotes:a. Virginia provided remediation cost estimates for soil-only and groundwater contaminated sites of $19,313 and $96,897, respectively.b. Where comparable estimates were providedby multiple states, the upper bound estimate is in bold typeface, and the lower bound estimate is shaded grey.These estimates are used in Appendix C.

# 15 

# APPENDIX B

# 16 

# This appendix presents, as described in the October 27, 2008 memorandum, the

preliminary methodology used to estimate cleanup costs associated with typical LUST

sites. Exhibits B-1 through B-4 demonstrate this approach using remediation cost data

from three states: New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Utah. Exhibits B-5 through B-7

employ the same methods, but only use data from New Hampshire. 26



# PRELIMINARY CLEANUP COST METHODS USING DATA FROM THREE STATES



# Exhibit B-1 presents preliminary costs associated with LUST cleanups, as provide by

three states. The administrative, response, and oversight costs shown were provided by

New Hampshire. Remediation costs reflect an average of the costs provided by New

Mexico, New Hampshire, and Utah. As expected, cleanup costs associated with

groundwater cleanups are more expensive than soil cleanups. 27



# EXHIBIT B-1 PRELIMINARY CLEANUP COSTS BY LEAK CATEGORY – THREE STATES (2008$ PER

LUST SITE)

CLEANUP COST CATEGORY LUST SITE SIZE AND CONTAMINATION TYPE a



# SMALL EXTENT,

SOIL ONLY LARGE

EXTENT, SOIL

ONLY SMALL EXTENT,

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION LARGE EXTENT,

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION



# Typical administrative co st (public notification,

fines, fees, etc) b 

# $0 $0 $500 $3,700

Typical response cost (e.g., alerting and sending

personnel, assessments and planning, immediate

actions to stop the leak) b 

# $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000

Typical remediation cost c 

# $16,500 $93,700 $182,300 $1,106,300

Typical oversight cost (e.g., monitoring) b 

# $500 $1,000 $1,500 $5,000

Total typical cost per LUST category $27,000 $104,700 $194,300 $1,125,000

Notes:

a. Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars.

b. The costs presented for administrative, response, and oversight costs are based on New Hampshire data only.

c. The remediation costs shown represent th e average costs from data provided by New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Utah. For

the range of preliminary cost s, refer to Appendix C.

Sources:

1. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services , Underground Storage Tank Pr ogram, November 18, 2008.

2. New Mexico Environment Department, Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau, December 16, 2008.

3. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Un derground Storage Tank Pro gram, November 18, 2008.



# Exhibit B-2 presents the relative probability of re leases resulting from the five release

sources identified in the 23-state Autopsy Report. Using the cost data from Exhibit B-1,

we estimate a weighted average cost contribu tion per leak size by multiplying the cost per

site by the probability of each leak type. We then sum across the categories to obtain the

26



# See Methodology to Estimate Avoided Cost s Associated with a Typical UST Leak , IEc Memorandum to EPA, prepared by

Aaron Kamholtz, Neal Etre, and Cynthia Manson, October 27, 2008.

27



# New Hampshire indicated that in most ca ses, the State Fund incurs these costs with the exception that the owner/operator

typically bears the cost of i mmediately stopping the leak. In addition, New Hampshire indicated the owner/operator

typically pays a $5,000 deductible towards the final remediat ion cost, and in New Mexico, the owner/operator typically

pays a deductible between $0 and $10,000. Owner/operator cost s are included in the estimates presented in Exhibit B-1.

# 17 

# weighted average “composite leak” cost by release source. 28 

# Based on these preliminary

data, releases from piping and tanks result in the highest weighted average response and

remediation costs, averaging over $400,000 per leak.

EXHIBIT B-2 PROBABILITY AND WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF AVOIDED COSTS PER RELEASE SOURCE

& SITE TYPE USING PRELIMINARY COST INFORMATION – THREE STATES (2008$ PER

LUST SITE)

RELEASE SOURCE SMALL

EXTENT, SOIL

ONLY LARGE

EXTENT,

SOIL ONLY SMALL EXTENT,

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION LARGE EXTENT,

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION TOTAL/

WEIGHTED

AVERAGE



# Piping Probability 40.5% 4.5% 22.0% 33.0% 100.0%

Cost $10,900 $4,700 $42,800 $371,300 $429,700

Dispenser Probability 71.6% 5.4% 9.7% 13.3% 100.0%

Cost $19,300 $5,600 $18,800 $150,100 $193,800

Tank Probability 30.7% 17.3% 17.7% 34.3% 100.0%

Cost $8,300 $18,100 $34,400 $386,100 $446,900

STP Area Probability 50.0% 0.0% 31.0% 19.0% 100.0%

Cost $13,500 $0 $60,200 $213,800 $287,500

Delivery

Problems Probability 59.2% 1.8% 16.8% 22.2% 100.0%

Cost $16,000 $1,900 $32,600 $250,100 $300,600

Note:

Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars. Tota l may not sum due to rounding.

Probability Source:

U.S. EPA, Evaluation of Releases from New and Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks (Draft). 2004.

Cost Sources:

1. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services , Underground Storage Tank Pr ogram, November 18, 2008.

2. New Mexico Environment Department, Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau, December 16, 2008.

3. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Un derground Storage Tank Pro gram, November 18, 2008.



# As illustrated in the October 27, 2008 memora ndum, we further multiply the leak source

probabilities derived from the two Autopsy repo rts by the weighted average costs shown

in Exhibit B-2 to estimate a weighted averag e avoided cost across all leak sources (i.e.,

avoided cost of an “average” leak). Exhibit B-3 presents the leak source probabilities

derived from the two Autopsy reports. Exhibit B-4 presents the weighted average cost

across all leak sources, which yields an overall weighted average avoided cost estimate of

$326,600 per LUST site. The inclusion of re mediation costs from New Mexico and Utah

resulted in an increase in the weighted aver age avoided costs compared to information

from just New Hampshire (see Exhibits B-5 through B-7 below). 29

28



# For more information on this approach and the 23-state Autopsy report, see Methodology to Estimate Avoided Costs

Associated with a Typical UST Leak , IEc Memorandum to EPA, prepared by Aaro n Kamholtz, Neal Etre, and Cynthia Manson,

October 27, 2008.

29



# The Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) State Fund Survey reports that the

average cost per LUST remediat ion was $128,023 in 2008. While within the over all range, the State F und Survey’s estimate

is lower than the weighted average avoided cost estimate pres ented in Exhibit B-4. This d iscrepancy may result from one

or both of the following issues: 1) The State Fund Survey do es not attempt to weight cost s by leak severity, which may

understate the costs associated with large cl ean ups. 2) Our avoided cost estimate is derived from a small sample of states,

which may overestimate costs. In parti cular, New Mexico reported high costs ($2. 5 million) to clean up large groundwater

# 18 EXHIBIT B-3 PROBABILITY OF A LEAK BY SOURCE

LEAK SOURCE NUMBER OF RELEASES

(23-STATE AUTOPSY

REPORT) 1 

# NUMBER OF RELEASES

(FLORIDA LUST

AUTOPSY REPORT) 2 

# TOTAL

RELEASES PERCENT OF ALL

RELEASES



# Piping 189 122 311 29.1%

Dispenser 195 130 325 30.4%

Tank 97 63 160 15.0%

STP Area 25 52 77 7.2%

Delivery Problems 95 101 196 18.3%

Total: 601 468 1069 100%

Sources:

1. U.S. EPA, Evaluation of Releases from New and Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks (Draft), 2004, p. C-1. 7

releases identified as “Other” were removed fr om the total sample reported in the report.

2. U.S. EPA, Petroleum Releases at Underground Storage Tanks in Florida (Draft), 2005, p. C-2. 56 releases

identified as “Other” were removed from th e total sample reported in the report.

EXHIBIT B-4 WEIGHTED AVERAGE AVOIDED CLEANUP COST USING PRELIMINARY COST

INFORMATION – THREE STATES (2008$ PER LUST SITE)

LEAK SOURCE PROBABILITY OF A

LEAK ORIGINATING

AT SOURCE 1 

# WEIGHT AVERAGE

AVOIDED COST OF A LEAK 2 

# AVOIDED COST



# Piping 29.1% $429,700 $125,000

Dispenser 30.4% $193,800 $58,900

Tank 15.0% $446,900 $66,900

STP Area 7.2% $287,500 $20,700

Delivery Problems 18.3% $300,600 $55,100

Total 100.0% N/A $326,600

Notes:

1. See Exhibit B-3 for calculatio n of probabilities shown here.

2. See Exhibit B-2 for calculation of weighted average costs by release source shown here.

3. Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars.

PRELIMINARY CLEANUP COST RESULTS USING DATA FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE



# Using the same methodology described above , we developed estimates using only the

data provided by New Hampshire. Exhibits B-5 through B-7 present these results below.

contaminated sites. Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, Summary of State Fund Survey

Results 2008 . Available at: http://www.astsw mo.org/publications_tanks.htm.

# 19 EXHIBIT B-5 PRELIMINARY CLEANUP COSTS BY LEAK CATEGORY – NH ONLY (2008$ PER LUST

SITE)

CLEANUP COST CATEGORY LUST SITE SIZE AND CONTAMINATION TYPE a



# SMALL

EXTENT, SOIL

ONLY LARGE

EXTENT,

SOIL ONLY SMALL EXTENT,

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION LARGE EXTENT,

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION



# Typical administrative co st (public notification,

fines, fees, etc) b 

# $0 $0 $500 $3,700

Typical response cost (e.g., alerting and sending

personnel, assessments and planning, immediate

actions to stop the leak) b 

# $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000

Typical remediation cost c 

# $19,500 $56,000 $97,000 $219,000

Typical oversight cost (e.g., monitoring) b 

# $500 $1,000 $1,500 $5,000

Total typical cost per LUST category $30,000 $67,000 $109,000 $237,700

Note:

Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars.

Source:

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Underground Storage Tank Program, November 18, 2008.

EXHIBIT B-6 PROBABILITY AND WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF AVOIDED COSTS PER RELEASE SOURCE

& SITE TYPE USING PRELIMINARY COST INFORMATION – NH ONLY (2008$ PER LUST

SITE)

RELEASE SOURCE SMALL

EXTENT, SOIL

ONLY LARGE

EXTENT,

SOIL ONLY SMALL EXTENT,

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION LARGE EXTENT,

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION TOTAL/

WEIGHTED

AVERAGE



# Piping Probability 40.5% 22.0% 4.5% 33.0% 100.0%

Cost $12,200 $24,000 $3,000 $78,400 $117,600

Dispenser Probability 71.6% 9.7% 5.4% 13.3% 100.0%

Cost $21,500 $10,500 $3,600 $31,700 $67,300

Tank Probability 30.7% 17.7% 17.3% 34.3% 100.0%

Cost $9,200 $19,300 $11,600 $81,600 $121,600

STP Area Probability 50.0% 31.0% 0.0% 19.0% 100.0%

Cost $15,000 $33,800 $0 $45,000 $94,000

Delivery

Problems Probability 59.2% 16.8% 1.8% 22.2% 100.0%

Cost $17,800 $18,300 $1,200 $52,800 $90,100

Note:

Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars. Tota l may not sum due to rounding.

Probability Source:

U.S. EPA, Evaluation of Releases from New and Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks (Draft). 2004.

Cost Source:

New Hampshire Department of Enviro nmental Services, Underground Storage Tank Program, November 18, 2008.

# 20 EXHIBIT B-7 WEIGHTED AVERAGE AVOIDED CLEANUP COST USING PRELIMINARY COST

INFORMATION – NH ONLY (2008$ PER LUST SITE)

LEAK SOURCE PROBABILITY OF A

LEAK ORIGINATING

AT SOURCE WEIGHT AVERAGE

AVOIDED COST OF A LEAK AVOIDED COST



# Piping 29.1% $117,600 $34,200

Dispenser 30.4% $67,300 $20,500

Tank 15.0% $121,600 $18,200

STP Area 7.2% $94,000 $6,800

Delivery Problems 18.3% $90,100 $16,500

Total 100.0% N/A $96,200

Notes:

1. See Exhibit B-3 for calculatio n of probabilities shown here.

2. See Exhibit B-6 for calculation of weighted average costs by release source shown here.

3. Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars.

# 21 

# APPENDIX C

# 22 

# Using the same methods presented in Exhibits B-1 through B-4, Appendix C employs

the upper and lower bound remediation costs to estimate a range in the weighted average

costs associated with an UST cleanup. Based on the data from the New Mexico, New

Hampshire, and Utah, the weighted aver age avoided cost ranges from $91,200 to

$698,600 per LUST site.

EXHIBIT C-1 LOWER BOUND ESTIMATE OF PRELIMINARY CLEANUP COSTS BY LEAK CATEGORY

(2008$ PER LUST SITE)

CLEANUP COST CATEGORY LUST SITE SIZE AND CONTAMINATION TYPE a



# SMALL EXTENT,

SOIL ONLY LARGE

EXTENT, SOIL

ONLY SMALL EXTENT,

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION LARGE EXTENT,

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION



# Typical administrative co st (public notification,

fines, fees, etc) b 

# $0 $0 $500 $3,700

Typical response cost (e.g., alerting and sending

personnel, assessments and planning, immediate

actions to stop the leak) b 

# $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000

Typical remediation cost c 

# $10,000 $56,000 $97,000 $219,000

Typical oversight cost (e.g., monitoring) b 

# $500 $1,000 $1,500 $5,000

Total typical cost per LUST category $20,500 $67,000 $109,000 $237,700

Notes:

a. Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars.

b. The costs presented for administrative, response, and oversight costs are based on New Hampshire data only.

c. The remediation costs shown represent the lowest costs from data provided by New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Utah. For

the range of preliminary costs.

Sources:

1. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services , Underground Storage Tank Pr ogram, November 18, 2008.

2. New Mexico Environment Department, Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau, December 16, 2008.

3. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Un derground Storage Tank Pro gram, November 18, 2008.

# 23 EXHIBIT C-2 PROBABILITY OF A LEAK RESULTING FROM A SPECIFIC SOURCE AND WEIGHTED

AVERAGE OF AVOIDED COSTS PER RELEASE SOURCE & SITE TYPE USING LOWER

BOUND ESTIMATE OF PRELIMINARY COST INFORMATION (2008$ PER LUST SITE)

RELEASE SOURCE SMALL

EXTENT, SOIL

ONLY LARGE

EXTENT,

SOIL ONLY SMALL EXTENT,

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION LARGE EXTENT,

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION TOTAL/

WEIGHTED

AVERAGE



# Piping Probability 40.5% 4.5% 22.0% 33.0% 100.0%

Cost $8,300 $3,000 $24,000 $78,400 $113,700

Dispenser Probability 71.6% 5.4% 9.7% 13.3% 100.0%

Cost $14,700 $3,600 $10,500 $31,700 $60,500

Tank Probability 30.7% 17.3% 17.7% 34.3% 100.0%

Cost $6,300 $11,600 $19,300 $81,600 $118,700

STP Area Probability 50.0% 0.0% 31.0% 19.0% 100.0%

Cost $10,300 $0 $33,800 $45,200 $89,200

Delivery

Problems Probability 59.2% 1.8% 16.8% 22.2% 100.0%

Cost $12,100 $1,200 $18,300 $52,800 $84,500

Note:

Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars. Tota l may not sum due to rounding.

Probability Source:

U.S. EPA, Evaluation of Releases from New and Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks (Draft) . 2004.

Cost Sources:

1. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services , Underground Storage Tank Pr ogram, November 18, 2008.

2. New Mexico Environment Department, Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau, December 16, 2008.

3. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Un derground Storage Tank Pro gram, November 18, 2008.

# 24 EXHIBIT C-3 LOWER BOUND WEIGHTED AVERAGE AVOIDED CLEANUP COST USING PRELIMINARY

COST INFORMATION (2008$ PER LUST SITE)

LEAK SOURCE PROBABILITY OF A

LEAK ORIGINATING AT

SOURCE WEIGHT AVERAGE AVOIDED

COST OF A LEAK AVOIDED COST



# Piping 29.1% $113,700 $33,100

Dispenser 30.4% $60,500 $18,400

Tank 15.0% $118,700 $17,800

STP Area 7.2% $89,200 $6,400

Delivery Problems 18.3% $84,500 $15,500

Total 100.0% N/A $91,200

Notes:

1. See Exhibit B-3 for calculatio n of probabilities shown here.

2. See Exhibit C-2 for calculation of weighted average costs by release source shown here.

3. Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars.

# 25 EXHIBIT C-4 UPPER BOUND ESTIMATE OF PRELIMINARY CLEANUP COSTS BY LEAK CATEGORY

(2008$ PER LUST SITE)

CLEANUP COST CATEGORY LUST SITE SIZE AND CONTAMINATION TYPE a



# SMALL EXTENT,

SOIL ONLY LARGE

EXTENT, SOIL

ONLY SMALL EXTENT,

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION LARGE EXTENT,

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION



# Typical administrative co st (public notification,

fines, fees, etc) b 

# $0 $0 $500 $3,700

Typical response cost (e.g., alerting and sending

personnel, assessments and planning, immediate

actions to stop the leak) b 

# $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000

Typical remediation cost c 

# $20,000 $150,000 $350,000 $2,500,000

Typical oversight cost (e.g., monitoring) b 

# $500 $1,000 $1,500 $5,000

Total typical cost per LUST category $30,500 $161,000 $362,000 $2,518,700

Notes:

a. Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars.

b. The costs presented for administrative, response, and oversight costs are based on New Hampshire data only.

c. The remediation costs shown represent the highest costs from data provided by New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Utah. For

the range of preliminary costs.

Sources:

1. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services , Underground Storage Tank Pr ogram, November 18, 2008.

2. New Mexico Environment Department, Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau, December 16, 2008.

3. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Un derground Storage Tank Pro gram, November 18, 2008.

# 26 EXHIBIT C-5 PROBABILITY OF A LEAK RESULTING FROM A SPECIFIC SOURCE AND WEIGHTED

AVERAGE OF AVOIDED COSTS PER RELEASE SOURCE & SITE TYPE USING UPPER

BOUND ESTIMATE OF PRELIMINARY COST INFORMATION (2008$ PER LUST SITE)

RELEASE SOURCE SMALL

EXTENT, SOIL

ONLY LARGE

EXTENT,

SOIL ONLY SMALL EXTENT,

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION LARGE EXTENT,

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION TOTAL/

WEIGHTED

AVERAGE



# Piping Probability 40.5% 4.5% 22.0% 33.0% 100.0%

Cost $12,400 $7,200 $79,600 $831,200 $930,400

Dispenser Probability 71.6% 5.4% 9.7% 13.3% 100.0%

Cost $21,800 $8,700 $35,000 $336,000 $401,500

Tank Probability 30.7% 17.3% 17.7% 34.3% 100.0%

Cost $9,400 $27,800 $64,000 $864,400 $965,600

STP Area Probability 50.0% 0.0% 31.0% 19.0% 100.0%

Cost $15,300 $0 $112,200 $478,600 $606,000

Delivery

Problems Probability 59.2% 1.8% 16.8% 22.2% 100.0%

Cost $18,000 $2,900 $60,700 $559,900 $641,600

Note:

Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars. Total may not sum due to rounding.

Probability Source:

U.S. EPA, Evaluation of Releases from New and Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks (Draft). 2004.

Cost Sources:

1. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services , Underground Storage Tank Pr ogram, November 18, 2008.

2. New Mexico Environment Department, Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau, December 16, 2008.

3. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Un derground Storage Tank Pro gram, November 18, 2008.

# 27 EXHIBIT C-6 UPPER BOUND WEIGHTED AVERAGE AVOIDED CLEANUP COST USING PRELIMINARY

COST INFORMATION (2008$ PER LUST SITE)

LEAK SOURCE PROBABILITY OF A

LEAK ORIGINATING

AT SOURCE WEIGHT AVERAGE AVOIDED

COST OF A LEAK AVOIDED COST



# Piping 29.1% $930,400 $270,700

Dispenser 30.4% $401,500 $122,100

Tank 15.0% $965,600 $144,500

STP Area 7.2% $606,000 $43,700

Delivery Problems 18.3% $641,600 $117,600

Total 100.0% N/A $698,600

Notes:

1. See Exhibit B-3 for calculatio n of probabilities shown here.

2. See Exhibit C-5 for calculation of weighted average costs by release source shown here.

3. Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars.

# Appendix I

[continued]

Subsequent to the May 5, 2009 memo, we also estimated remediation costs based on

average cost data from New Hampshire and Utah.

# APPENDIX B: CONSTRUCTION OF NH/UT AVOIDED COST SCHEDULE

# B-1 

# The purpose of this appendix is to describe the deve lopment of the costs associated with each of the UST

release cleanup categories. We first provide a summary table detailing the priority and status for each cost

category. We then provide preliminary cost est imates associated with LUST cleanups, vapor damages,

fire/explosions, and lost product.

STATUS SUMMARY



# Exhibit B1 provides a summary of the avoided cost categories by priority ranking. The cleanup costs

currently reflect information provid ed by New Hampshire, New Mexico and Utah. IEc has also received

information from Virginia and Sout h Carolina, but neither of these states could provide the detailed

information required for this analysis.

EXHIBIT B1: STATUS SUMMARY OF THE DE VELOPMENT OF AVOIDED COST CATEGORIES a



# COST CATEGORY LUST SITE SIZE AND CONTAMINAT ION TYPE (2008$ PER LUST SITE)

SMALL

EXTENT,

SOIL ONLY LARGE

EXTENT,

SOIL ONLY SMALL EXTENT,

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION LARGE EXTENT,

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION



# Cleanup Costs:

Administrative Costs $0 $0 $500 $3,700

Response Costs $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000

Remediation Costs $10,000 to

$20,000 $56,000 to

$150,000 $97,000 to

$350,000 $219,000 to

$2,500,000

Oversight Costs $500 $1,000 $1,500 $5,000

Weighted Average Cleanup Cost Using

information from the LUST Autopsy $326,600

Range: $91,200 to $698,600

NH/UT Weighted Average Cleanup

Cost $142,865

NH Weighted Average Cleanup Cost $96,173

Notes:

a. Data included in this table are from resp onses provided by New Hampshire Department of

Environmental Services, Underground Storage Tank Program; New Mexico Environment Department,

Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau; and the Utah Depart ment of Environmental Quality, Underground Storage

Tank Program. IEc received information from Virgini a and South Carolina, but the data were not provided

in a format amenable to these calculations. A ppendix A provides the responses from the states.

AVOIDED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH LUST CLEANUPS AND PRODUCT LOSS

PRELIMINARY CLEANUP COSTS



# Our approach calls for developing average clea nup costs based on four general leak types:

• Local site extent with soil contamination;

• Local site extent with water contamination;

• Large site extent with soil contamination; and

# B-2 

# • Large site extent with water contamination. 43



# Our approach then weights cleanup costs for each type by leak source probability, as identified in the 23-state

LUST Autopsy report. The leak sources include piping, the dispenser, the tank, the submersible turbine pump

(STP) area, and fuel delivery. 44



# To develop the preliminary avoided cleanup cost estimate, IEc contacted six states that use State Funds to pay

for LUST remediation, including Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Carolina, Utah, and

Virginia. Via email, IEc sent each state UST progr am office a questionnaire requesting data on typical

cleanup costs broken out by the four general leak types listed above.

We received responses from New Hampshire, New Mexi co, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia. New

Hampshire provided the most comprehensive set of in formation., including cleanup costs by category (i.e.,

administrative, response, remediation, and oversight ), while New Mexico and Utah could only provide

estimates of remediation costs. Virginia and South Carolina were unable to provide the detail required for

this analysis. 45



# Exhibit B2 (below) presents preliminary cleanup costs associated with LUST cleanups, as provided by the

states. As expected, cleanup costs associated with groundwater cleanups are more expensive than soil

cleanups. 46 

# The administrative, response, and oversight costs shown were provided by New Hampshire.

Remediation costs reflect an average of the costs provi ded by New Hampshire and Utah. In consultation with

OUST, we excluded New Mexico from the calculation b ecause of its groundwater cleanup costs are likely to

be much higher than in other states.

43



# While no specific definition exists for a large site, the LUST Autopsy survey instrume nts used by the states generally define large sites as those with

contamination that extend beyond the exte nt of construction excavation. In additi on, EPA classified sites with off-site contam ination as large sites.

44



# U.S. EPA, Evaluation of Releases from New and Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks (Draft) 2004.

45



# Virginia was unable to break out costs by the extent of the le ak (i.e., large or small). In general, the reme diation costs pr ovided by Virginia are

consistent with New Hampshire’s estimate s of the costs to remediate small leak s (for both soil and groundwater).

46



# New Hampshire indicated that in most case s, the State Fund incurs these costs with th e exception that the owner/operator typic ally bears the cost of

immediately stopping the leak. In addition, New Hampshire indi cated the owner/operator typicall y pays a $5,000 deductible towa rds the final

remediation cost, and in New Mexico, the ow ner/operator typically pays a deductible between $0 and $10,000. Owner/operator cos ts are included in

the estimates presented in Exhibit 2.

# B-3 EXHIBIT B2: PRELIMINARY CLEANUP COSTS BY LEAK CATEGORY (2008$ PER LUST SITE)

CLEANUP COST CATEGORY LUST SITE SIZE AND CONTAMINATION TYPE

SMALL EXTENT,

SOIL ONLY LARGE

EXTENT, SOIL

ONLY SMALL EXTENT,

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION LARGE EXTENT,

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION



# Typical administrative cost (public

notification, fines, fees, etc) a 

# $0 $0 $500 $3,700

Typical response cost (e.g., alerting and

sending personnel, assessments and

planning, immediate actions to stop the

leak) a 

# $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000

Typical remediation cost b 

# $14,800 $103,000 $98,500 $409,500

Typical oversight cost (e.g.,

monitoring) a 

# $500 $1,000 $1,500 $5,000

Total typical cost per LUST category $25,300 $114,000 $110,500 $428,200

Notes:

a. The costs presented for administrative, response, and oversight costs are based on New Hampshire data only.

b. The remediation costs shown repres ent the average costs from data prov ided by New Hampshire and Utah. In

consultation with OUST, we excluded Ne w Mexico because its values are likely not representative of typical cleanup

costs.

c. Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars.

Sources:

1. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services , Underground Storage Tank Pr ogram, November 18, 2008.

2. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Un derground Storage Tank Pro gram, November 18, 2008.



# Exhibit B3 presents, for each of the release sources identified in the 23-state Autopsy Report, the probability

of a leak by LUST category. Using the cost data from Exhibit 2, we estimate a weighted average cost

contribution per leak size by multiplying the cost per s ite by the probability of each leak type. We then sum

across the categories to obtain the weighted av erage “composite leak” cost by release source. 47 

# Based on

these preliminary data, releases from piping and tanks r esult in the highest weighted average response and

remediation costs, averaging over $187,000 per leak.

47



# For more information on this approach and the 23-state Autopsy report , see Methodology to Estimate Avoided Co sts Associated with a Typical UST

Leak , IEc Memorandum to EPA, prepared by Aaron Kamhol tz, Neal Etre, and Cynthia Manson, October 27, 2008.

# B-4 EXHIBIT B3: PROBABILITY AND WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF AVOIDED COSTS PER RELEASE SOURCE &

SITE TYPE USING PRELIMINARY COST INFORMATION (2008$ PER LUST SITE)

RELEASE SOURCE SMALL

EXTENT, SOIL

ONLY LARGE

EXTENT,

SOIL ONLY SMALL EXTENT,

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION LARGE EXTENT,

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION TOTAL/

WEIGHTED

AVERAGE



# Piping Probability 40.5% 22.0% 4.5% 33.0% 100.0%

Cost $10,200 $24,300 $5,100 $141,300 $181,000

Dispenser Probability 71.6% 9.7% 5.4% 13.3% 100.0%

Cost $18,100 $10,700 $6,100 $57,100 $92,000

Tank Probability 30.7% 17.7% 17.3% 34.3% 100.0%

Cost $7,800 $19,500 $19,700 $147,000 $194,000

STP Area Probability 50.0% 31.0% 0.0% 19.0% 100.0%

Cost $12,600 $34,300 $0 $81,400 $128,200

Delivery

Problems Probability 59.2% 16.8% 1.8% 22.2% 100.0%

Cost $14,900 $18,500 $2,100 $95,200 $130,700

Note:

Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundredth dollar.

Sources:

1. U.S. EPA, Evaluation of Releases from New and Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks (Draft). 2004.

2. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services , Underground Storage Tank Pr ogram, November 18, 2008.

3. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Un derground Storage Tank Pro gram, November 18, 2008.



# We further multiply the leak source probabilities from the 23-state LUST Autopsy by the weighted averages

derived in Exhibit B3 to estimate the weighted average across a ll leak sources (i.e., avoided cost of an

“average” leak). Exhibit B4 presents the results of this approach, which yields an overall weighted average

avoided cost estimate of $142,900 per LUST site. The in clusion of remediation costs from Utah resulted in

an increase in the weighted average avoided costs co mpared to information from just New Hampshire.

# B-5 EXHIBIT B4: WEIGHTED AVERAGE AVOIDED CLEANUP COST USING PRELIMINARY COST INFORMATION

(2008$ PER LUST SITE)

LEAK SOURCE PROBABILITY OF

LEAK WEIGHT AVERAGE

AVOIDED COST OF A LEAK AVOIDED COST



# Piping 29.1% $181,000 $52,700

Dispenser 30.4% $92,000 $28,000

Tank 15.0% $194,000 $29,000

STP Area 7.2% $128,000 $9,200

Delivery Problems 18.3% $130,700 $24,000

Total 100.0% N/A $142,900

Note:

Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundredth dollar.

Sources:

1. U.S. EPA, Evaluation of Releases from New and Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks (Draft). 2004.

2. New Hampshire Department of Environmenta l Services, Underground Storage Tank Program,

November 18, 2008.

3. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Un derground Storage Tank Program, November 18, 2008.

4. U.S. EPA, Petroleum Releases at Underground Storage Tanks in Florida (Draft). 2005.



# The total presented in Exhibit B4 provides a measure of the cleanup cost s associated with th e average release

characterized in the 23-state autopsy report. This valu e does not account for the source of the release as shown

in Exhibit B3. In our analysis of avoided release s, we use the values presented in Exhibit B3 to leverage all

available information in our valuation. When we valu e averted groundwater contamination incidents, we use

the values presented in Exhibit B2 to calculate cleanup costs before and after OUST implements the potential

regulatory changes.

# Appendix J

Estimation of Future UST Syst em and Release Universes

for the Alternative Baseline Scenario

# J-1 

# Estimation of Future UST System Universes

To estimate future UST system universes, data on the number of UST systems dating back to

1991 were used in conjunction with a single ex ponential decay functi on. An exponential decay

function is one where a quantity declines in propor tion to its value; that is, the lower the value,

the smaller the decline in the following period. Given the trend in UST system universes dating

back to 1991 as seen in Exhibit J-1 , a singular exponential decay function appropriately

represents this trend.

Singular exponential decay functions take the form Y = (Yo – P) * e (-k*X) 

# + P, where P is the

“plateau,” or limit that the function eventually ap proaches asymptotically, and k is the function’s

half-life. The specific paramete rs yielding the equation used to project future UST system

universes are as follows:

• Yo: 2,055,000

• P (“plateau”): 585,553

• k (half-life): 0.2119

The specific equation used to project UST system universes is Y = (2,055,000 – 585,553) * e (-

0.2119*X) 

# + 585,553. Exhibit J-2 shows the UST universe data from 1991 through 2010 used to

estimate future UST system universes, as well as the projections of the universes themselves.

# J-2 

# In EPA’s primary analysis, the annual number of affected systems is unchanged in future years,

meaning that over a 20-year period, annual co sts accrue to 12,228,980 UST systems, or (611,449

* 20). In the alternative baseline scenario, the annual number of affected systems declines in

each year to 586,021 systems in year 20, as in Exhibit J-2. Correspondingly, over a 20-year

period in the alternative baseline scenario, annual costs accrue to 11,836,632 UST systems (the

sum of the annual estimate of US T universes in the years 2009 through 2028). The ratio between

these two cumulative figures is appr oximately 97 percent, or 11,836,632/12,228,980.

Estimation of Future Release Universes

The estimation of future release universes invol ves future projection of two components: UST

system universes and “release rates,” or the ratio of confirmed releases to existing UST systems.

UST system universes were pr ojected as described above.

We use release rates to project fu ture number of releases (rather th an past trends in the number of

releases) for two reasons: First, as the UST universe and release ra te both appear to decline in a

way approximating a single-decay exponential function, and these are both "inputs" into

calculating the universe of releases, these projecti ons can be used to calculate future release

universes without the added uncertainty of whet her the release trend is truly a single-decay

exponential function. In addition, us ing the release rate projections to estimate future releases

yields a more conservative (lower) total numbe r of releases, which leads to lower avoided

costs/benefits estimates in the alternative baseline. This is consistent with the intent of using the Exhibit J-2

Actual and Projected UST System Universes, 1991 - 2030

Year UST System Universe (Actual) a 

# Year UST System Universe (Projected) b



# 1991 1,788,505 2011 602,716

1992 1,565,613 2012 599,438

1993 1,307,563 2013 596,787

1994 1,177,198 2014 594,642

1995 1,093,105 2015 592,906

1996 1,064,478 2016 591,502

1997 969,652 2017 590,366

1998 891,686 2018 589,447

1999 760,504 2019 588,703

2000 713,666 2020 588,102

2001 704,717 2021 587,615

2002 697,966 2022 587,221

2003 682,870 2023 586,903

2004 672,297 2024 586,645

2005 653,621 2025 586,437

2006 641,881 2026 586,268

2007 629,866 2027 586,131

2008 623,319 2028 586,021

2009 611,449

2010 597,333

a 

# Data regarding actual UST system universes obtained from reports from the Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, UST Performance Measures End-of-Year Reports.

b 

# Projected UST system universe values estimated using a singl e exponential decay function.

# J-3 

# alternative baseline as a way of testing conser vative assumptions rega rding the avoided costs

associated with the proposed rule.

As seen in Exhibit J-3 , the trend in release rates is similar to the trend in UST systems in that it

has generally declined at a decreasing rate over the last decade, albeit with sharp upticks and

falls in certain years.

A single exponential decay function was also used to project future values of release rates. The

specific function is Y = (0.0412 – 0.0042) * e (-0.09665*X) 

# + 0.0042.

Release rates are calculated by dividing releases by the univers e of UST systems; conversely,

releases can be calculated by multiplying the to tal number of UST systems by the release rate.

By projecting both UST universes and release rate s using exponential decay functions, we then

use each year’s values to calcu late releases for that year. Exhibit J-4 plots actual and projected

releases over time, while Exhibit J-5 displays UST systems, release rates, and releases in a

tabular format.

# J-4 Exhibit J-5

Actual and Projected Releases and Release Rates, 1992 - 2030

Year UST

Systems a 

# Releases

(Actual) Release Rate

(Calculated) b 

# Release Rate

(Projected) c 

# Releases

(Calculated) d



# 1992 1,565,613 57,641 3.68%

1993 1,307,563 52,565 4.02%

1994 1,177,198 33,545 2.85%

1995 1,093,105 33,068 3.03%

1996 1,064,478 13,853 1.30%

1997 969,652 24,285 2.50%

1998 891,686 29,614 3.32%

1999 760,504 26,434 3.48%

2000 713,666 14,571 2.04%

2001 704,717 6,526 0.93%

2002 697,966 8,389 1.20%

2003 682,870 12,078 1.77%

2004 672,297 7,848 1.17%

2005 653,621 9,061 1.39%

2006 641,881 8,361 1.30%

2007 629,866 7,570 1.20%

2008 623,319 7,364 1.18%

2009 611,449 7,168 1.17%

2010 597,333 6,328 1.06%

2011 602,716 0.95% 5,741

2012 599,438 0.90% 5,414

2013 596,787 0.86% 5,122

2014 594,642 0.82% 4,862

2015 592,906 0.78% 4,629

2016 591,502 0.75% 4,419

2017 590,366 0.72% 4,231

2018 589,447 0.69% 4,062

2019 588,703 0.66% 3,909

2020 588,102 0.64% 3,771

# J-5 Exhibit J-5

Actual and Projected Releases and Release Rates, 1992 - 2030

2021 587,615 0.62% 3,646

2022 587,221 0.60% 3,533

2023 586,903 0.58% 3,431

2024 586,645 0.57% 3,339

2025 586,437 0.56% 3,255

2026 586,268 0.54% 3,180

2027 586,131 0.53% 3,111

2028 586,021 0.52% 3,049

2029 585,932 0.51% 2,992

2030 585,859 0.50% 2,941

a 

# Values obtained from Exhibit J-2

. b 

# Calculated by dividing releases by UST systems.

c 

# Projected release rates estimated usin g a single exponential decay function.

d 

# Calculated by multiplying release rate by UST systems.



# In EPA’s primary analysis, the cumulative unive rse of releases is 143,360, or (7,168 * 20). In the

alternative baseline scenario, the cumulative universe of rele ases is 86,200, or the sum of

releases in the years 2009 through 2028. The ratio between these two cumulative universes is

approximately 60 percent, or 86,200/143,360.

# Appendix K

Methodology for Estimating Upper Bound Market Exit Scenario

# K-1 

# To evaluate the implications of a highly unlikel y worst-case outcome, EPA evaluates a scenario

in which the lowest revenue facilities incur th e highest possible compliance costs. To obtain a

measure of the number of lowest-revenue faci lities and their revenues, we rely on the 2002

Census data used in the analysis of small busin ess impacts (see chapter 5). These are reproduced

in Exhibit K-1

.

Exhibit K-1

Summary of Census Data Used for Analysis

Census Revenue Range Number of firms

Assumed equivalent to establishments Lower Upper Average

$150,000 $250,000 $200,000 3,857

$50,000 $150,000 $100,000 3,118

$35,750 $50,000 $42,875 546

Total 7,520



# As discussed in Chapter 5, holding all other things equal, an annual cost greater than 1.5 percent

of gross sales would exceed aver age reported profits, causing a motor fuel retailer to operate at a

loss. If the facility cannot adjust its prices or lower costs, it will even tually exit the market.

Given the profit margins of 1.5 perc ent identified in Chapter 5, f acilities that earn more than

approximately $240,000 per year will likely not exit the market. 1 

# As a result, we only evaluate

the implications for the approximately 7,500 faci lities that earn less than $250,000 in revenues

per year. Exhibit K-2 reproduces the distribution of fac ilities we obtain under the worst-case

annual compliance cost scenario. EPA identified approximately 7,500 facilit ies that would incur

annual compliance costs between $2,000 a nd $3,300 in the worst-case scenario.

1 

# Another way to articulate this is as follows: a compliance cost of approximately $3,600 per year does not constitute

more than 1.5 percent of the revenues of a facility that earns at least $240,000 per year.

# K-2 Exhibit K-2

Distribution of Facilities by WorstCase Annual Compliance Cost

Cost range ($) UST systems

3,400 - 3,500 1,199

3,300 - 3,400 1

3,200 - 3,300 96

3,100 - 3,200 641

3,000 - 3,100 191

2,900 - 3,000 440

2,800 - 2,900 819

2,700 - 2,800 950

2,600 - 2,700 291

2,500 - 2,600 66

2,400 - 2,500 127

2,300 - 2,400 334

2,200 - 2,300 891

2,100 - 2,200 841

2,000 - 2,100 640

Above 2,000 7,527

Below 2,000 154,242

Total 161,768



# To obtain an estimate of the upper range of facilities that may be most impacted, we allocated the

highest revenue facilities to the highest compliance cost ranges as shown in Exhibit K-3 . We

allocated facilities to a compliance cost range from the highest Census revenue range until that

compliance range was fully assigned, i.e., until all facilities in that compliance cost range were

assigned to a Census revenue range. Similarly, if all of the facilities in a revenue range were fully

assigned across cost ranges and a cost range was not exhausted, we assigned it facilities from the

next-highest revenue range.

We considered average revenues within each Ce nsus revenue range when assessing whether

facilities would hit 1.5 percent: if the lower end of the cost range exceeded 1.5 percent of the

average revenue for a fac ilities in that range, we concluded th at those facilities may potentially

exit the market. In the worst case, the threshol d revenue exceeds the assumed average revenue

for all but 1,450 of the 7,520 facili ties that earn between $35,750 and $250,000. 2 

# We thus

conclude that 6,077 facilities may exit the market if a highly-adverse distribution of costs was

concentrated on the smallest facilities. As we di scussed in Chapter 5, such an outcome is highly

unlikely.

2 

# Because only 7,520 facilities are in the revenue range between $0 and $250,000, an d 7,527 facilities have costs

above $2,000, we assume seven facilities would not have costs that exceed 1.5 percent of their revenues.

# K-3 Exhibit K-3

Allocation of Facilities Across Compliance Cost Ranges

Cost Range ($) Number of

Facilities in

Range Allocation from Census Revenue Range a 

# Revenue Req’d.

to be Below 1.5%

Profit Margin Assumed

Average

Revenue



# 3,400 - 3,500 1,199 1199 facilities with revenue range of $150,000 - $250,000 

# $226,667 $200,000

3,300 - 3,400 1 1 facilities with revenue range of $150,000 - $250,000 

# $220,000 $200,000

3,200 - 3,300 96 96 facilities with revenue range of $150,000 - $250,000 

# $213,333 $200,000

3,100 - 3,200 641 641 facilities with revenue range of $150,000 - $250,000 

# $206,667 $200,000

3,000 - 3,100 191 191 facilities with revenue range of $150,000 - $250,000 

# $200,000 $200,000

2,900 - 3,000 440 440 facilities with revenue range of $150,000 - $250,000 

# $193,333 $200,000

2,800 - 2,900 819 819 facilities with revenue range of $150,000 - $250,000 

# $186,667 $200,000

2,700 - 2,800 950 470 facilities with revenue range of $150,000 - $250,000;

479 facilities with revenue range of $50,000 - $150,000 

# $180,000 $200,000 /

$100,000

2,600 - 2,700 291 291 facilities with revenue range of $50,000 - $150,000 

# $173,333 $100,000

2,500 - 2,600 66 66 facilities with revenue range of $50,000 - $150,000 

# $166,667 $100,000

2,400 - 2,500 127 127 facilities with revenue range of $50,000 - $150,000 

# $160,000 $100,000

2,300 - 2,400 334 334 facilities with revenue range of $50,000 - $150,000 

# $153,333 $100,000

2,200 - 2,300 891 891 facilities with revenue range of $50,000 - $150,000 

# $146,667 $100,000

2,100 - 2,200 841 841 facilities with revenue range of $50,000 - $150,000 

# $140,000 $100,000

2,000 - 2,100 640 b 

# 89 facilities with revenue range of $50,000 - $150,000; 546

facilities with revenue ra nge of $35,750 - $50,000 

# $133,333 $100, 000

/ $42,875

N/A 6,077 Facilities exceeding 1.5% profit margin 

# N/A N/A

N/A 1,450 Facilities not exceeding 1.5% profit margin 

# N/A N/A

Notes:

a 

# Values may not equal total in "Number of facilities in Range" due to rounding.

b 

# The total number of facilities with revenues of $250,000 or le ss is 7,520, while 7, 527 facilities have co sts exceeding $2,000. This

analysis therefore assumes that seven facilities with costs above $2,000 report re venues greater than $250,000.

# Appendix L:

Screening Analysis of Impa cts on Small Entities

This Appendix contains two memor anda that were prepared in February and March 2010, and

document the methodology used to a ssess small entity impacts under the rule. While the methods presented

in these memoranda are accurate, the ac tual cost estimates associated wi th the proposed rulemaking have

been refined, and the specific results presented in th ese memoranda are therefore superceded by the results in

Chapter 4.

# L-1 

# MEMORANDUM | 4 February 2010

TO 

# Cho-Yi Kwan, EPA

FROM 

# Monisha Khurana and Cynthia Manson, Industrial Economics, Inc.

SUBJECT 

# Small Entities Screening Analysis of UST Universe by Industry Sector

(WA 3-25, Task 4)

In promulgating regulations, the Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) must

consider the effects of those regulations on small entities, as required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, amended by the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act

(RFA/SBREFA). Under RFA/SBREFA, the regulating agency must certify whether a

regulation has a “significant impact on a substantial number of small entities”

(SISNOSE). Within reason, the definitions of “significant” and “substantial” are a matter

of Agency discretion. To inform the development of regulatory revisions, however,

Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc) has developed a spreadsheet that calculates the

impacts of proposed rules on small entities (i ncluding businesses and governments). The

calculator also evaluates Federalism impact s and total impacts on Tribal governments.

The calculator uses data from the Small Busi ness Administration (SBA) and U.S. Census

to identify governments and businesses by sector and size. We use data from E 2



# , Incorporated (E 2 

# ) and from a 1992 EPA study of small governments with USTs to

estimate the number of small entities in each sector likely to have USTs. 1,2 

# Based on a

user-entered per-tank cost of compliance, the spreadsheet estimates the number of small

entities that incur costs exceeding one and th ree percent of gross annual revenues.

The spreadsheet also evaluat es total costs to tanks on Tribal lands, and provides specific

results for state and local government costs, including both impacts on small entities and

a total estimate of costs addressed under Executive Order 13132, addressing potential

federalism impacts. This memo describes an analysis using the spreadsheet, summarizes

the data sources and outputs of the spreadsheet, and summarizes the methodology and

results. 3



# IEc’s small entity impact screening approach is intended to identify an initial estimate of

the number of small entities that may experi ence significant impacts associated with the

regulations currently under consideration. To ensure that the analysis does not overlook

potential impacts, we incorporate several conservative (i.e., high-cost or low-revenue)

1 

# See TO 1010, TDD# 11, Appendix B, Draft Industry and Faci lity Profiles, 12.18.06, and Amendment 1, December 18, 2006

2 

# "Economic Impact Analysis of Additional Mechanisms for Local Government Entities to Demons trate Financial Responsibility

for Underground Storage Tanks," December 1992

3 

# The spreadsheet contains an initial “Not es” sheet with detailed information abou t assumptions, inputs, and calculations.

The model also includes a summary table of key outputs (Out put Summary) and more detailed analysis summaries (“Inputs

and Outputs” and “Calculations by Major Sector” pages; the model also contains specific sheets to support analysis of

government and Tribal impacts. 

# INTRODUCTION AND

BACKGROUND

OVERVIEW AND

RESULTS

# L-2

K 

# assumptions that are documented in our methodology. This memorandum describes a

spreadsheet tool that can be used to assess a range of different regulatory scenarios. The

key features of the spreadsheet are as follows:

• The spreadsheet calculates the number of small entities (firms and governments)

with estimated costs associated with the regulation that exceed either one percent

or three percent to total revenues. The per-tank compliance cost currently

programmed in the model is based on estim ates from the January 26, 2010 version

of IEc’s cost model. The parameters used to run the cost model are included in the

spreadsheet and in Appendix 1 of this memo. The cost model output number is

currently adjusted to 2002 dollars, to be c onsistent with revenue data in this model

from SBA and U.S. Census is from 2002. Based on the January 26, 2010 version

of the cost model, this value is $309 in 2008 dollars, or $262 in 2002 dollars. 4



# • The spreadsheet also evalua tes cost results for tanks on Tribal lands, based on

model calculations specific to Tribal tanks.

• The spreadsheet calculates the number of small entities with USTs that will

experience compliance costs equal to or greater than one percent and three percent

of annual revenue. The spreadsheet also cal culates the percentage of small entities

with USTs represented by the en tities meeting the thresholds.

• Using these figures, the Agency can make an initial determination of whether a

regulation significantly affects a substantial number of small businesses or

governments.

The remainder of this memorandum describes in more detail the specific methods, data,

and assumptions used in calculating costs associated with small businesses, small

government entities, and tanks on Tribal lands.

For the analysis of impacts on small business entities, we adopt a hybrid approach for

estimating the distribution of USTs among facilities and firms. For the NAICS 447

(Retail Motor Fuels) sector, we distribute ta nks proportionately by facility across all

facilities in the sector. For all other sectors, we distribute tanks proportionally by revenue

among a subset of facilities in the sector. We describe this approach in more detail

below, outlining data sources and methodolog y. We also present the results of two

sensitivity analyses (one that distributes tanks in all sectors proportionately by facility and

one that distributes all tanks proporti onately by revenue) in Appendix 2. 5



# DATA SOURCES



# IEc used E 2 

# data developed in 2006 to estimate th e number of tanks and facilities in each

of several key sectors that use USTs. 6 

# With the exception of hospitals (NAICS 622),

retail motor fuel establishments (NAICS 447) and communications and utilities (NAICS

4 

# Because the key output of the model is number of small entities affected, the results are not a ffected by year dollars used,

as long as data are internally consistent However, we note that we expect to update the model to incorporate 2007 Census

of Manufacturers data when this data set and the accompanying SB A data set become available.

5 

# The user can manually toggle the scen ario by using the drop-down menu on the “Calculations by Major Sector” worksheet,

cell B2, which provides three options: orig inal (hybrid), facility, and revenue.

6 

# See TO 1010, TDD# 11, Appendix B, Draft Industry and Faci lity Profiles, 12.18.06, and Amendment 1, December 18, 2006 

# SMALL BUSINESS

ANALYSIS

# L-3 

# 5171 and 2211), E 2 

# data on use of USTs specified only high level (e.g., 2-digit) NAICS

sectors, such as “commercial” and “manufacturing” sectors.

SBA provides data on the number of firms, est ablishments and receipts by size of firm,

categorized by 2-digit NAICS sectors. 7 

# SBA data allocate firms in each sector into the

following annual revenue ranges, or “bins:”

• $0 to $99,999,

• $100,000 to $499,999,

• $500,000 to $999,999,

• $1,000,000 to $4,999,999,

• $5,000,000 to $9,999,999,

• $10,000,000 to $49,999,999,

• $50,000,000 to $99,999,999 and

• $100,000,000 and above.

For 3-digit sector information (e.g., Hospitals and Retail Motor Fuel sales), IEc used U.S.

Census data to determine the number of fi rms, number of establishments, and average

revenues by firm, because SBA does not provide data for the relevant 3-digit NAICS

codes.

The U.S. Census publishes slightly different revenue bins for reporting data. The lowestincome revenue bin includes all firms that report annual revenues under $250,000. All

intermediate revenue bins are the same be tween U.S. Census and SBA. SBA’s highestincome revenue bin is over $100 million, but U.S. Census breaks the largest categories

down into $100 to $250 million, an d then over $250 million.

SBA provides employment and revenue threshol ds to define small entities in each sector

of the economy. We summarize the size standards for the industries identified by E 2 

# in

Exhibit 1. 8

7 

# Small Business Administration, “Employer Firms, Establishments, Employment, Annua l Payroll, and Receipts by Receipts

Size of Firm and Major Industry, 2002,” as viewed at http://www.sba.gov/adv o/research/data.html#us

8 

# The complete list of size thresholds can be found on the SBA website at

http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/docum ents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf.

# L-4 EXHIBIT 1. SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARDS FOR INDUSTRIES WITH UST S



# INDUSTRY OR SECTOR NAICS THRESHOLD



# Gasoline stations with convenience

stores 447110 $27 million (M)

Traditional service stations 447190 $9M

Wholesale trade 42 100 employees

Retail trade, accommodation and food

services 44-45, 72

(excluding 447) Varies: $7M to $29M or 50

employees

Wired telecommunications carriers 5171 1,500 employees

Hospitals 622 $34.5M

Manufacturing 31-33 Varies: 500 to 1,500 employees

Transportation and Warehousing 48 Varies: $7M to $34.5M or 500 to

1,500 employees

Source: U.S. Small Business Association, “Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to

North American Industry Classification System Codes,” August 22, 2008, as viewed at

http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf

METHODOLOGY : SMALL BUSINESSES (FIRMS)

Identification of Number of Small Firms and Average Revenues



# The first step in our analysis identifies the number of small firms, average revenues, and

establishments in each sector. E 2 

# data from 2006 estimates the number of tanks in the

following sectors: Commercial (NAICS 42, 44 -45, 72, excluding 447), Institutional

(Hospitals only, NAICS 622), Manufactur ing (NAICS 31-33), Transportation and

Warehousing (NAICS 481, 483-486, and 48811), and Communication and Utilities

(NAICS 5171 and 2211). To fit E 2 

# ’s sector information to SBA data, we group

communications and utilities into the Inform ation sector (NAICS 51). We also use the

entire Transportation and Warehousing sector (NAICS 48), while E 2 

# breaks down the

sector into NAICS codes 481, 483-486, and 48811 for their analysis. We use EPA’s

Semi-Annual Report of UST Performance Measures, End of Fiscal Year 2009 Report to

estimate the total number of tanks, and E 2 

# ’s distribution of tanks across sectors to identify

the percentage and total number of tanks in each sector. 9



# IEc uses SBA employment and revenue thresholds as outlined in Exhibit 1 to define small

entities in each sector of the economy. To ensure that we are not underestimating the

number of small entities, we assume that all bus inesses within a revenue bin that contains

a specific SBA revenue threshold value are small. In other words, if the SBA small

business size threshold for a sector is $7 million, the model assumes that all firms in the

revenue range of $5 to $10 million are small. When SBA provides an employment

threshold, we use total employment numbers for each revenue bin to calculate the average

number of employees per firm, and assume th at all businesses within a revenue bin that

9 

# Semi-Annual Report of UST Performance Measures, End of Fiscal Year 2009—As Of September 30, 2009. Accessed December

17, 2009 at <http://www.epa.gov/oust/cat/ca_09_34.pdf>

# L-5 

# contain the threshold value are small, simila r to the sectors whose thresholds are defined

by revenue. The number of small firms in each sector is displayed in Exhibit 2.

To estimate the number of retail motor fuel facilities, we consulted National Petroleum

News’ annual survey and U.S. Census of Manufacturers data. To reconcile differing

estimates of the number of retail fuel fac ilities (roughly 162,000 estimated by NPN, and

110,600 estimated by the Census), and to acc ount for roughly 37,000 tanks estimated to

be owned by governments that were not included in the E 2 

# data but are reflected in the

total population of 611,449 tanks (FY 2009), we developed a 1.46 adjustment factor to

Census data to inflate the number of reta il motor fuel facilities to 162,000, distributed

proportionately across revenue ranges. 10,11 

# To ensure that the total number tanks and

total number of facilities are consistent, we also revise E 2 

# 's estimate of tanks per facility

from 3.13 to 2.97. This approach preserves th e distribution of firms by size according to

Census data. As a result of this approach, we estimate that there are a total of

approximately 83,900 firms and 481,000 tanks in the retail motor fuel sector.

EXHIBIT 2. NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF SMALL FIRMS BY NAICS CODE

INDUSTRY OR SECTOR NAICS NUMBER OF

SMALL FIRMS TOTAL

NUMBER OF

FIRMS PERCENTAGE

OF FIRMS

THAT ARE

SMALL SMALL FIRMS

WITH USTs



# Retail Motor Fuel Sales 447 82,462 83,869 98% 82,462

Commercial

(wholesale trade,

retail trade,

accommodation, and

food services) 42, 44-45, 72

(excluding 447) 1,434,363 1,451,645 99% 14,128

Institutional (hospitals

only) 622 2,278 3,800 60% 2,105

Manufacturing 31-33 293,325 297,873 98% 6,725

Transportation (air,

water, truck, transit,

pipeline, and airport

operations) 48 157,904 159,373 99% 5,848

Information 51 76,582 77,605 99% 3,880

Sources: Small Business Administration, “Employer Firms, Establishments, Em ployment, Annual Payroll,

and Receipts by Receipts Size of Firm and Major Industry, 2002,” as viewed at

http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/data.html#us

U.S. Census “Table 4: Receipts/R evenue Size of Firms for the Unit ed States: 2002, as viewed at:

http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0262sssz.pdf

.

10 

# NPN Market Facts 2008. See: <http://www.npnweb.com/ME 2/dirmod.asp?sid=A79131211D8846B1A33169AF72F78511&type=

gen&mod=Core+Pages&gid=CD6098BB12AF47B7AF6FFC9DF4DAE988>

11 

# According to the Census, the term “estab lishment” is defined as “a single physic al location where business transactions

take place and for which payroll and em ployment records are kept.” We ther efore assume that an establishment is

equivalent to one facility. The terms facility and establishment are used interchangeably in this memorandum.

# L-6 Tank Distribution Across Revenue Bins (Except Retail Motor Fuel, NAICS 447)



# The second step in our analysis is to distribute tanks among firms within each revenue bin

for each sector. With the exception of the reta il motor fuels sector, where we assume that

all facilities have tanks, available data do not identify specific distributions of tanks

across facilities in key sectors or sub-sectors. In the absence of empirical data about the

use of tanks at specific facilities, we assign tanks to facilities within broad sectors

assuming that tanks are distributed proportiona tely by revenue across all facilities in the

sector. That is, we assume that larger comp anies with more facilities are likely to have

more tanks (e.g., car rental companies with multiple locations).

To ensure that the number of small firms potentially affected is not undercounted, the

model currently assumes that all tanks in these sectors are located at small firms, and

distributes tanks proportionately by revenue among small firm size categories. For

example, in a hypothetical sector in which ten firms report total revenues of $10 million,

and 20 more firms report revenues totaling $5 m illion, the model assumes that two-thirds

of the tanks in that sector are distributed among the ten firms with revenues totaling $10

million and the remaining one-third of tanks are distributed among firms with revenues

totaling $5 million. 12 

# The average number of tanks per facility is estimated using E 2 

# data,

and is held constant for each sector; the numbe r of tanks per firm therefore increases with

the average number of facilities per firm as firm size increases. Exhibit 3 provides an

example calculation to illu strate this approach.

To calculate the cost of compliance for each firm with USTs, we multiply the average

number of tanks per firm by the average cost per tank, as defined by user-inputs to the

model (in this case, cost model inputs). 13 

# We compare this number with the average

receipts per firm in each revenue bin, a nd determine how many firms would face

compliance costs greater than one and three percent of their total revenue.

12 

# This approach reflects some unc ertainty; to the extent that tanks are not d istributed proportionatel y across firms within a

sector by revenue, it is possible that this approach could underesti mate or over estimate impacts on small entities.

However, we do not have enough information about the actual distribution of ta nks within sub-sectors of these industries to

develop a more refined distribution process.

13 

# Cost per tank is calculated by running the cost model with the default paramete rs, and dividing the total cost across the

total universe of tanks to obtain a per ta nk cost. This calculator can be run with a user-specifi ed number by changing the

input in cell C2 on the “Input s and Outputs” worksheet.

# L-7 EXHIBIT 3. TANK DISTRIBUTION IN TRANSPORTATION & WAREHOUSING (NAICS 48)

[A]

SMALL

FIRMS [B]

REVENUE RANGE [C]

FIRMS [D]

FACILITIES [E]

RECEIPTS

($000) [F]

PERCENT

OF

TOTAL

SECTOR

RECEIPTS [G]

FACILITIES

PER FIRM [H]

NUMBER

OF USTS [I]

TANKS

PER

FIRM [J]

NUMBER

OF

FIRMS

WITH

USTS

Yes $0 to $99,999 41,605 41,623 2,081,438 0.42% 1.00 190 1.77 107

Yes $100,000 to $499,999 65,261 65,383 15,545,929 3.11% 1.00 1,420 1.77 801

Yes $500,000 to $999,999 20,143 20,380 14,176,545 2.84% 1.01 1,295 1.79 724

Yes $1,000,000 to $4,999,999 24,091 26,174 50,211,290 10.06% 1.09 4,587 1.92 2,387

Yes $5,000,000 to $9,999,999 3,696 5,290 24,352,963 4.88% 1.43 2,225 2.53 879

Yes $10,000,000 to $49,999,999 3,108 8,707 51,486,660 10.31% 2.80 4,704 4.96 949

No $50,000,000 to $99,999,999 440 2,813 18,101,927 3.63% 6.39

No $100,000,000 to + 1,029 24,773 323,265,371 64.75% 24.07

TOTALS 159,373 195,143 $499,222,123 100% 14,422 5,848

Notes and Sources:

[A]: Based on threshold from SBA.

[B], [C], [D], [E],: Based on 2002 Census Data. Note that the term s “establishments” and “facilit ies” are assumed to be equiv alent and are used

interchangeably within this analysis.

[F]: Calculated as each row in [E]/ ∑ [E].

[G]: Calculated as [D]/[C].

[H]: Calculated as [F]* total number of US Ts per sector (e.g., 14,422 in NAICS 48).

[I]: Calculated as [G] * E2’s estimate of tanks per facility for each sector.

[J]: Calculated as [H]/[I].



# Tank Distribution for Motor Fuel Retailers (NAICS 447)



# For Retail Motor Fuel Sales (NAICS 447), we assume that all establishments (facilities)

have USTs. Moreover, we assume that th e number of USTs is constant across all

facilities in the sector, and therefore varies directly with the number of facilities per

firm. 14 

# This approach differs from the revenue-b ased distribution used in other sectors in

that we assume that even very small faciliti es have the same number of tanks (2.97) as

larger facilities. 15 

# In reality, it is probable that so me small facilities have fewer tanks and

some larger facilities have more tanks, but our simplified distribution ensures that every

facility has at least one tank and that costs to small facilities are not underestimated.

14 

# According to the Census, the term “estab lishment” is defined as “a single physic al location where business transactions

take place and for which payroll and em ployment records are kept.” We ther efore assume that an establishment is

equivalent to one facility. The terms facility and establishment are used interchangeably in this memorandum.

15 

# Appendix 2 provides an alternative meth od of distributing tanks in NAICS 447 pr oportional to revenue as opposed to the

number of facilities per firm.

# L-8 RESULTS



# At a 2002 cost of $262 ($309 in 2008 dollars) per tank, the analysis concludes that no

small entities in any sector will incur complian ce costs that exceed either one or three

percent of annual revenues (Exhibit 4).

LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES



# By assuming that tanks are owned by small firms, (with the exception of retail motor fuel

establishments (NAICS 447)), we may be ove rstating the number of small firms owning

tanks. Available data do not provide informa tion on how the number or existence of tanks

relates to the size of the business in a given in dustry. In certain indu stries such as fuel

retailers, it is likely that all facilities have one or more USTs. In other industries such as

hospitals, most facilities do not have any tanks , and it may be that larger hospitals are

more likely to have tanks than smaller hospita ls (rather than small hospitals, as assumed).

In addition, while Census a nd SBA revenue data are presented in ranges (or bins), the

SBA size threshold, as well as the one or thr ee percent of revenue thresholds, typically

fall in the middle of ranges. Because we assume that all firms in a bin earn “average”

revenues, the relationship between this av erage and the revenue impact thresholds

determines whether all the facilities in that bin are “affected” by the regulation. This

approach is likely to under- or over-estimat e the number of businesses affected. Finally,

we assume that when the small business thres hold occurs in the middle of a revenue bin,

all firms in that category are small; this might over-estimate the number of businesses

affected.

# L-9 EXHIBIT 4. SUMMARY RESULTS OF CURRENT SMALL ENTITY SCREENING ANALYSIS

INDUSTRY OR

SECTOR SECTOR

(NAICS) SMALL

ENTITIES

(FIRMS)

WITH USTS SMALL

ENTITIES

WITH USTSCOSTS

EXCEED 1%

OF REVENUES PERCENT OF

SMALL ENTITIES

WITH USTS

WITH COSTS

EXCEEDING 1%

OF REVENUES ENTITIES

WITH USTSCOSTS

EXCEED 3%

OF

REVENUES PERCENT OF

SMALL

ENTITIES WITH

USTS WITH

COSTS

EXCEEDING 3%

OF REVENUES



# Retail Motor Fuel

Sales 447 82,462 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Commercial

(wholesale trade,

retail trade,

accommodation,

and food services) 42, 44-45, 72

(excluding

447) 14,128 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Institutional

(hospitals only) 622 2,105 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Manufacturing 31-33 6,725 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Transportation (air,

water, truck,

transit, pipeline,

and airport

operations) 48 5,848 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Information 51 3,880 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTALS 115,148 0 0.0% 0 0.0%



# To map SBA revenue data to E 2 

# tank estimates, we group co mmunications and utilities

into the Information sector (NAICS 51). We also use the entire Transportation and

Warehousing sector (NAICS 48), while E 2 

# breaks down the sector into NAICS codes 481,

483-486, and 48811 for their analysis. Using la rger sectors could potentially be skewing

the revenues and size of the firms in the smaller NAICS sub-divisions.

A large number of governmental organiza tions use USTs. These governments include

school districts, public utilities, local a nd county governments, and others. RFA/SBREFA

requires agencies to consider the impacts on small governmental jurisdictions as well as

small businesses; small governmental jurisdic tions are defined as governments of cities,

counties, towns, townships, villages, school di stricts, or special districts with a population

of less than 50,000 people. 16 

# In 2002, there were 87,525 local governments, including

special districts, in the United States. 17 

# To assess impacts to small governmental

jurisdictions, we evaluate compliance costs fo r all small governmental jurisdictions with

16 

# For the purposes of the RFA, states and tribal entities are not considered small.

<http://www.epa.gov/sbr efa/government.htm>

17 

# 2002 Census of Governments 

# SMALL

GOVERNMENT AND

FEDERALISM

ASSESSMENT

# L-10 

# tanks to determine what percentage would ha ve expenses exceeding one or three percent

of total revenues.

We evaluate total costs to all non-federal gove rnments (including both direct compliance

costs and program implementation costs) to determine whether the regulations under

consideration would be likely to trigger requirements under E.O. 13132 (Federalism).

Total annual state and local expenditures associ ated with the regulation of $25 million or

more, and/or compliance costs that are equa l to or exceed one percent of their annual

revenues, would trigger EPA’s federalism re quirements. This would require EPA to

investigate approaches for ensuring that stat es have adequate discretion in implementing

the relevant regulations.

DATA SOURCES



# The data sources we use for our small govern ments analysis include the following:

• Economic Impact Analysis of Additiona l Mechanisms for Local Government

Entities to Demonstrate Financial Respons ibility for Underground Storage Tanks,

December 1992 ( 1992 Local Government Economic Impact Analysis ), and

• 2002 U.S. Census of Governments Data.

METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS: SMALL GOVERNMENT ANALYSIS



# The 1992 Local Government Economic Impact Analysis data provide information on the

size and revenue of both general purpose (i.e . counties, municipalities, and townships)

and special district governments (i.e. school districts and other special districts), dividing

these governments into four size categories: ve ry large, large, medium and small. The

analysis also provides data on the number of governments owning USTs, the number of

total USTs owned by governments, aver age USTs per government, USTs per owning

government and the annual average budget expenditures, all broken out by size

categories. The 1992 analysis defines a “very large” government as one that serves over

50,000 people; therefore, we consider a ll other entities to be small governmental

jurisdictions, according to the RFA/SBREFA definition.

We assume that local governments collectivel y own four percent of active tanks. This

equates to 24,458 tanks, based on the FY 2009 universe of 611,449 tanks. We distribute

the 24,458 tanks among all local governments, based upon the percent of tanks owned in

1992 by local governments in each size category.

We then determine how many small governme nts own tanks, using the 1992 data for

USTs per owning government. We determ ine the average co mpliance cost per

government, calculated by the per tank cost multiplied by the number of USTs per

owning government in each size category.

The average annual revenues for each size of general purpose governments are calculated

using 2002 Census Data. We add the total numbe r of very large, large, medium and small

governments across town/townships, municipaliti es and counties, and weight their total

revenues accordingly to reflect the total number of each type of government (town,

municipality, county) in each size category. In the United States, there are 16,504

townships but revenue data are available only for 4,128 townships, so we extrapolate to

# L-11 

# get revenue data for all townships. We th en combine these weighted averages to get a

figure for annual revenues in 2002 dollars for general purpose governments. Detailed

information at the special district level is not available for 2002, so we inflate the budget

expenditures from the 1992 document into 2002 dollars. 18



# To calculate how many small governments face significant compliance costs exceeding

one or three percent of their revenues, we compare the average compliance cost per

government with the average annual revenu es to determine how many exceed either

threshold. At a cost of $309 ($2008) per tank, no small governments are affected under

either the one percent or three percen t revenue threshold (see Exhibit 5).

METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS: FEDERALISM ASSESSMENT



# In addition to determining the impact on sma ll governments, we calculate state and local

costs to determine whether the proposed regulations would trigger an impact under

Executive Order 13132, which addresses potentia l federalism impacts. We assume that

states collectively own one percent of total ta nks (6,114). This number is then multiplied

by the per tank cost, as defined by the cost model/user-inputs to the model. Under the

proposed regulations, each state will incur la bor costs for reading the regulations and

applying for State Program Approval (SPA). In addition, under the proposed regulations,

facilities will be required to notify states of each tank ownership change. Processing and

reviewing these notifications represent costs to the states, and are included in total state

costs.

The model calculates local government costs by summing the number of tanks in local

governments for both general purpose and special districts in all four size categories: very

large, large, medium and small. We then a pply the per tank cost to the number of tanks

across all local governments

. Local and state costs are added together to determine if

there will be a federalism impact.

In this scenario, we determine that tota l costs to both state and local governments

(including direct compliance costs, notification costs, and state program costs) are

approximately $10 million in 2008 dollars; this is not considered to be a substantial

compliance cost under federalism requirements.

LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTY



# The data used for this analysis ( 1992 Local Government Economic Impact Analysis data)

use 1987 U.S. Census data. We are unable to find more recent data relating to the number

of governments owning USTs, the average U STs per government, and USTs per owning

governments. These numbers are likely outdated, and the current pattern of government

ownership of USTs may be significantly di fferent. Note, however, that because even

very small governments earn over $1.5 million, it is not likely that any updates to the

distribution of tanks would affect the results of the analysis.

18 

# Typically, in a RFA/SBREFA screening asse ssment, revenues are used as the metric to assess economic impact measures for

small governments. Withou t detailed 2002 data available, we use the budget expenditures in the 19 92 document as a proxy

for revenues.

# L-12 EXHIBIT 5. SMALL GOVERNMENT ANALYSIS

[A]

TYPE OF

GOVERNMENT [B]

SIZE OF

GOVERNMENT C 

# [C]

USTS PER

OWNING

GOV’T [D]

NUMBER OF

GOV’TS

OWNING

TANKS [E]

2002 EST.

NUMBER OF

GOV’TS [F]

AVERAGE

ANNUAL

REVENUE

(2002 $) [G]

AVERAGE

COST PER

GOV’T

($) [H]

NUMBER OF

GOV’TS

EXCEEDING

1% OF

REVENUE [I]

NUMBER OF

GOV’TS

EXCEEDING

3% OF

REVENUE



# General

Purpose Very Large 10.2 534 1,461 $316,129,836 $2,676 0 0

Large 2.5 1,512 4,040 $35,687,794 $656 0 0

Medium 1.4 1,444 7,822 $8,712,804 $367 0 0

Small 1.1 1,048 25,644 $1,779,216 $289 0 0

Subtotal 2.7 4,538 38,967

Special

Purpose Very Large 3.7 336 934 $431,319,166 $971 0 0

Large 3.6 1,902 5,340 $52,806,696 $945 0 0

Medium 1.4 2,648 13,602 $2,533,231 $367 0 0

Small 1.0 258 28,682 $128,013 $262 0 0

Subtotal 2.4 5,144 48,558

Overall Total 2.5 9,682 87,525

Notes:

[A]: General Purpose governments include co unties, municipalities and townships. Sp ecial Purpose governments include public

school systems and special districts.

[B]: Very large governments are considered to serve more than 50,000 people. We consider large governments as those that serve

between 10,000 and 50,000 people, medium governments as those that serve between 2,500 and 10,000 people, and small

governments as those that serve 2,500 or fewer people. According to RFA/SBREFA, small governmental jurisdictions have

populations under 50,000. Therefore, we consider all si zes of governments except for “very large” as small.

[C]: From 1992 Local Government Impact Analysis data

[D]: Calcuated as number of tanks (adjusted 1992 distribution in each size category to reflect FY 2009 tank numbers) / [C]

[E]: General purpose numbers from 2002 Census of Governments; Special Purpose total number of entities from 2002 Census of

Governments, size distribution extrapolated from 1992 Local Government Impact Analysis data.

[F]: General purpose estimates from 2002 Census of Governments; Special Purpose estimates inflated from 1992 Local Government

Impact Analysis data.

[G]: Calculated as [C] * model estimated cost per tank ($262 in 2002$).

# L-13 DATA SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY



# The data sources for the tribal lands analysis are the same as those used in the small

business analysis. Based on a review of info rmation available about the types of business

entities on Tribal Lands, we assume that tanks on Tribal lands represent a subset of the

rest of the universe and are distributed similarly across the same sectors. 19 

# We distribute

the total number of tribal tanks proportionally among the NAICS sectors. Using the E 2



# data for tanks per facility and facilities per firm, we determine the total firms in each

sector in tribal lands.

RESULTS



# We run the cost model with the same parameters as the rest of the universe. The per cost

tank is higher in tribal country, as the unive rse is smaller, and there are no regulations

currently in place, so all tanks incur all costs. At a 2008 cost of $524 ($445 in 2002

dollars) per tank, the total cost for all tank s on tribal lands is about $1.4 million.

LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTY



# In order to determine the impacts on tribal entities, we assume the tank distribution across

sectors in tribal country mirrors that of th e rest of the United States. While we can

estimate the total number of firms in tribal lands with tanks, we do not have data about

the total number of firms.

19 

# For more detail, see Detailed Assessment of UST Universe by Tank Purpose and De sign (WA 1-25, Task 6), 24 March 2009.

Note that because Tribal ownership and op eration is defined differently than other types of government ownership, we do

not attempt to isolate or identify “government” tanks on Tribal lands. 

# TRIBAL LANDS COST

# L-14 

# APPENDIX 1

EXHIBIT A-1. PARAMETERS USED TO RUN COST MODEL

RESULTS_USER_INPUTS

REGULATION

ID OPTION

ID CHOICE

ID OPTION_NAME SELECTIONS SELECTION TYPE



# 1 1 1 Walkthrough inspections by

owner or operator 1 months between

inspections

2 1 1 Overfill functionality

testing 12 months between tests

3 1 1 Spill bucket tightness

testing 12 months between tests

4 1 1 Integrity testing for

interstitial areas 12 months between tests

5 1 1 Spill bucket tightness test

after repair 1 1 for yes; 0 for no

5 2 1 Overfill functionality test

after repair 1 1 for yes; 0 for no

5 3 1 Interstitial integrity test

after repair 1 1 for yes; 0 for no

6 1 1 Eliminate flow restrictors

for all new tanks 1 1 for yes; 0 for no

6 2 1 Replacement of existing

ball floats 0 1 for yes; 0 for no

7 1 1 Functionality test - ATG 12 months between tests

7 2 1 Functionality test -

Sticking 12 months between tests

7 3 1 Functionality test -

interstitial monitoring 12 months between tests

7 4 1 Functionality test - vapor

monitoring 12 months between tests

7 5 1 Functionality test -

groundwater monitoring 12 months between tests

7 6 1 Functionality test - line

leak detection 12 months between tests

9 1 1 Add SIR/CITLDS to

regulations with

restrictions 1 1 for yes; 0 for no

11 1 1 Deferrals removed for

emergency generator tanks 1 1 for yes; 0 for no

11 2 1 Deferrals removed for

airport hydrants 0 1 for yes; 0 for no

11 3 1 Deferrals removed for

field-constructed USTs 0 1 for yes; 0 for no

11 4 1 Deferrals removed for

wastewater treatment

tanks 0 1 for yes; 0 for no

# L-15 RESULTS_USER_INPUTS

REGULATION

ID OPTION

ID CHOICE

ID OPTION_NAME SELECTIONS SELECTION TYPE



# 12 1 2 Notification of ownership

changes 1 1 for yes; 0 for no

13 1 1 Replacement of

irrepairable lined tanks 1 1 for yes; 0 for no

14 1 1 Response to interstitial

monitoring alarms on tanks

and pipes 1 1 for yes; 0 for no

16 1 1 Operator training 1 1 for yes; 0 for no

17 1 1 Secondary containment -

new & replaced tanks 1 1 for yes; 0 for no

17 2 1 Threshold for pipe

replacement rather than

repair 0.5 piping replacement

threshold

17 3 1 Under-dispenser containers

for all new dispensers 1 1 if applies to all underdispenser containers; 0

otherwise

17 3 2 Under-dispenser containers

for all new motor fuel

dispensers only 0 1 if only applies to motor

fuel under-dispenser

containers; 0 otherwise

# L-16 

# APPENDIX 2

SENSITIVITY ANALYSES

Our primary analysis assesses impacts to small businesses in non-NAICS 447 sectors by

distributing all USTs in each sector across small businesses, proportional to revenue. For

NAICS 447, however, we assume all facilities own USTs, and therefore distribute tanks

by the number of facilities per firm. In this Appendix, we present two alternative

scenarios: distribution of tanks in all sectors by firm revenue, and distribution of tanks in

all sectors by number of facilities.

DISTRIBUTION BY REVENUE



# This sensitivity analysis presents the results of distributing tanks by revenue across all

sectors, including NAICS 447. Using this methodology, this analysis concludes that no

firms in any sector face compliance costs exceeding one or three percent of annual

revenues.

INDUSTRY OR

SECTOR NAICS SMALL

FIRMS WITH

USTS ENTITIES WITH

USTS- COSTS

EXCEED 1% OF

REVENUES PERCENT OF

SMALL

ENTITIES

WITH USTS

WITH COSTS

EXCEEDING

1% OF

REVENUES ENTITIES

WITH USTSCOSTS

EXCEED 3%

OF

REVENUES PERCENT OF

SMALL

ENTITIES

WITH USTS

WITH COSTS

EXCEEDING

3% OF

REVENUES



# Retail Motor Fuel

Sales 447 82,462 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Commercial

(wholesale trade,

retail trade,

accommodation,

and food services) 42, 44-45,

72

(excluding

447) 14,128 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Institutional

(hospitals only) 622 2,105 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Manufacturing 31-33 6,725 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Transportation (air,

water, truck,

transit, pipeline,

and airport

operations) 48 5,848 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Information 51 3,880 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTALS 115,148 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

# L-17 DISTRIBUTION BY FACILITY



# This sensitivity analysis presents the results of distributing tanks by number of facilities

across all sectors. Using this methodology, th is analysis concludes that no firms in any

sector face compliance costs exceeding one or three percent of annual revenues.

INDUSTRY OR

SECTOR NAICS SMALL

FIRMS WITH

USTS ENTITIES

WITH USTSCOSTS

EXCEED 1%

OF REVENUES PERCENT OF

SMALL

ENTITIES

WITH USTS

WITH COSTS

EXCEEDING

1% OF

REVENUES S ENTITIES

WITH USTSCOSTS

EXCEED 3%

OF REVENUES PERCENT OF

SMALL

ENTITIES

WITH USTS

WITH COSTS

EXCEEDING

3% OF

REVENUES



# Retail Motor Fuel

Sales 447 82,462 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Commercial

(wholesale trade,

retail trade,

accommodation,

and food services) 42, 44-45, 72

(excluding

447)

14,128 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Institutional

(hospitals only) 622 2,105 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Manufacturing 31-33 6,725 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Transportation (air,

water, truck,

transit, pipeline,

and airport

operations) 48

5,848 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Information 51 3,880 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTALS 115,148 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

# L-18 

# EPA SUPPLEMENTAL SMALL ENTITY ASSESSMENT BY OUST

MARCH 2010

# EPA internal deliberative draft – do not cite or quote L-19 

# Supplemental Small Entity Assessment by EPA/OUST

March 23, 2010

The initial screening assessment performed by Indus trial Economics, Inc. (IEc) indicated that

there would not be a substantial number of small entiti es significantly impacted at the 1% or 3% revenue

threshold based on the estimated per tank compliance cost as of March 22, 2010 (i.e., $378 per tank in

2008 dollars). 20 

# However, due to the large number of sma ll firms with underground storage tanks (USTs)

that are in the retail motor fuel sales sector (NAICS 447) and beca use the initial screening assessment

uses the average revenue within a particular revenue range to determine whether the entire number of

firms in that range would be included or exclude d in the threshold determination, OUST undertook a

closer examination of the small firms in this sect or. This paper first summarizes the results from the

initial screening assessment, and then details the s upplemental analysis conducted to refine the

conclusions from the initial screening assessme nt for the retail motor fuel sales sector.

Initial Screening Assessment

According to our analysis, it is estimated that there are approximately 83,900 firms in the retail

motor fuel sales sector. 21 

# All of these firms are assumed to own USTs at all their facilities. Based on the

distribution of firms across revenue bins published by the 2002 Census and SBA’ s revenue thresholds for

NAICS 447110 and 447190, it is estimated that 82,500 of these firms, or 98 percent of total firms, are

considered “small” under SBA’s definition of a small entity. 22 

# Approximately 7,500 of these small firms

are estimated to be in the smallest revenue ra nge published by the 2002 Census (i.e., reporting sales

receipts between $0 and $250,000), with aver age sales of approximately $149,000.

As mentioned above, the initial screening compared the total compliance cost per firm with the

average revenue reported by the firms of a given re venue range to determine whether those firms would

be significantly impacted by the proposed rulemaking (i.e., exceed the 1% or 3% revenue threshold).

Based on a per tank compliance cost of $321 (in 2002 dollars), 23 

# and assuming that the firms in the

smallest revenue range would own only one facility with three USTs, we estimate that the 7,500 small

20 

# See IEc, “Small Entities Screening Analysis of UST Universe by Industry Sector,” Febr uary 4, 2010 (WA 3-25, Task 4) for detail s.

21 

# NAICS code 447 is comprised of 447110 (Gasoline stations with convenience stores) and 447190 (Other gasoline stations). To re concile

differing estimates of the number of retail fuel facilities (roughly 162,000 estimated by NPN, and 110,600 estimated by the Cen sus), a 1.46

adjustment factor was applied to the Cens us data to inflate the number of retail motor fuel facilities to 162,000, distributed proportionately across

revenue ranges. This approach preserves the distribution of firms by size according to Census data. As a result of this approa ch, we estimate that

there are a total of approximately 83,900 firms a nd 481,000 tanks in the retail motor fuel sector.

22 

# For 447110, the SBA revenue threshold is $27 million; for 447190, th e SBA revenue threshold is $9 million. To ensure that we are not

underestimating the number of small entities, we assume that all businesses within a revenue bin that contains a specific SBA r evenue threshold

value are small. In other words, if the SBA small business size threshold for a sector is $7 million, we have assumed that all firms in the revenue

range of $5 to $10 million are small.

23 

# To be consistent with 2002 revenue data from SBA and the U.S. Census Bureau, compliance costs have been adjusted from 2008 dol lars to

2002 dollars using the GDP implicit deflator. Based on the January 26, 2010 version of the cost model, the estimated complianc e cost is $309 per

tank in 2008 dollars, or $262 per tank in 2002 dollars. (Total a nnualized compliance costs are estimated to be $190 million in 2008 dollars.

These costs exclude compliance costs associat ed with the removal of deferrals for air port hydrant systems and field-constructed tanks. These

systems are assumed to be primarily owned by the Department of Defense; therefore, potential compliance costs for these systems are not

required to be included for the small business assessment.)

# EPA internal deliberative draft – do not cite or quote L-20 

# firms in the $0-$250,000 revenue range would face tota l compliance costs of $963 per firm ($2002). As a

result, any firm earning less than $96,300 (i.e., th e revenue threshold at which compliance costs would

exceed 1% of the firm’s revenue) would not be sign ificantly impacted. Because the average revenue for

the 7,500 firms in the $0-$250,000 revenue bin (i.e., $14 9,000) is more than $96,300, the initial screening

assessment concluded that no firms would be signifi cantly impacted from the estimated compliance cost

(based on an all-in or all-out assessment).

However, given that the lowest revenue bin re ported by the U.S. Census ranges from between $0

and $250,000, it is obvious that some of the 7,500 firm s make less than the average, and therefore, may be

significantly impacted. At the same time, it is also ap parent that a number of the 7,500 firms make more

than the average, and therefore would not be signi ficantly impacted. Therefore, a more accurate

conclusion from the initial screening assessment may be that, at best, we can conclude that between zero

and 7,500 firms may be significantly impacted ba sed on a 1- or 3-percent revenue threshold.

EPA guidance used to determine whether a program can certify that a rulemaking will not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of sma ll entities (SISNOSE) provides an example cutoff of

1,000 small firms or 20 percent of small firms affect ed as a measure of “substantial number.” While the

7,500 small firms in the lowest revenue range represe nts nine percent of all potentially affected small

firms, this number exceeds the example 1,000 threshol d. As a result, OUST attempted to further refine

the number of small firms potentially affected by c onducting a supplemental analysis that focuses on the

7,500 small firms that earn between $0 and $250,000 in revenues.

Supplemental Analysis

The main goal of the supplemental analysis is to determine whether we could estimate the

distribution of the 7,500 within the $0-$250,000 reve nue range so that we could better identify the

number of firms that may be significantly impacted. As a first step, we contacted the U.S. Census Bureau

to see if they would be able to provide a further br eakdown of the number of firms in the lowest revenue

bins for NAICS 447110 (Gasoline stations with convenie nce stores) and 447190 (Other gasoline stations).

The Census Bureau was able to give us a percen tage breakdown of the firms between three smaller

revenue ranges: (1) $0-$50,000; (2) $50,000-$150,000; and (3) $150,000-$250,000. 24 

# Based on this

information, we estimate that the number of firms in the retail motor fuel sales sector (i.e., NAICS 447)

for these three revenue groups is approximately 550 , 3,120, and 3,860, respectively (see Exhibit 1).

Using these three additional data points, we plo tted a curve that depicts the cumulative number of

firms at each revenue threshold (see Exhibit 2). (For example, Exhibit 2 shows that approximately 76,200

firms earn under $5 million in revenues) . By fitting a straight-line trend line at the lower end of this curve

(see Exhibit 3), Excel generated the following fo rmula for the curve: y = 0.0359x – 1283.6 (R 2 

# =0.9985).

We then use this formula to estimate the number of fi rms that would be impacted at the 1 percent and 3

percent revenue threshold.

24 

# The information provided by the U.S. Census Bureau is considered an “unpublished data request.” As such, while the Census Bur eau provided

the additional data we requested, they also included a letter noting that “these are not ‘official data’ from the Census Bureau , since they do not

meet the Census Bureau’s quality standards. These data should be used with extreme caution, realizing the severe quality limit ations that may

exist.” However, given that we do not have another source of information, we use this as the best data available.

# EPA internal deliberative draft – do not cite or quote L-21 

# Given compliance costs of $963 per firm (in 20 02 dollars), any firm making less than $96,300

and $32,100 would be considered significantly im pacted at the 1% and 3% revenue threshold,

respectively. By solving for y where x is $96,300 in the formula generated above, we estimate that

approximately 2,175 firms would be significantly imp acted at the 1% threshold. Based on the formula,

there are no firms that make under $35,750 in revenue. As a result, we estimate that there would be no

firms significantly impacted at the 3% revenue threshold.

Our estimate of 2,175 firms that would be signi ficantly impacted at the 1% revenue threshold

does exceed the 1,000 example cutoff provided in EPA gui dance. However, we believe that we are able

to certify that this proposed rulemaking will likely have no SISNOSE for the following three reasons.

First, 2,175 firms represent less than three percent of all potentially affected small firms in this sector,

which is much less than the 20 percent cutoff that is the other parameter typically used to determine

“substantial number.” Second, assuming a minimum annual throughput of 120, 000 gallons of gasoline

sold at a gas station, compliance costs of $1,134 per firm would be equivalent to less than one cent per

gallon. This relatively low cost could theoretica lly be passed-through to the consumer given the price

inelasticity of gasoline demand. 25 

# Finally, as described in the next paragraph, while we use data reported

by the U.S. Census Bureau to support our analysis, we find it difficult to imagine that a retail gas station

would be a viable business if it earned l ess than $100,000 in annual revenues.

Assuming the firm sells only gasoline at $2 per gallon, if the firm only generates $100,000 in

annual revenues, then this would mean the firm is sel ling less than 4,200 gallons of gas per month, which

appears extremely low compared to the monthly indu stry average throughput of approximately 130,000

gallons. In addition, given that the gross profit ma rgin for gas stations with convenience stores averages

14 percent, 26 

# a quick back-calculation of the amount of reve nues that would be needed to generate enough

gross profit to cover just the direct cost of the wages of one full-time employee at minimum wage ($7.25

* 2080 hours = $15,080) results in an estimate of $108 ,000. This means a gas station with a convenience

store would need to make at least $108,000 in revenues in order to pay one person to work full-time at

minimum wage, exclusive of all other direct and indir ect costs that a gas stati on may need to pay (e.g.,

electricity, property taxes, franchise fees). As a r esult, while our supplemental analysis indicates that

2,175 firms may be significantly impacted at the 1% reve nue threshold, we find it hard to believe that any

firm would be able to remain in continuing op eration with annual revenu es of less than $100,000.

25 

# A 2005 Federal Trade Commission report indicates that in the s hort run, a gasoline price increase of 10 percent would reduce c onsumer

demand by just 2 percent. (See Federal Trade Commission, “Gaso line Price Changes: The Dynamic of Supply, Demand, and Competitio n,” 2005,

p. ii.) While we acknowledge that the competitive nature of the gasoline market on an individual gas station basis may deter o wners from passing

through the cost to consumers, we believe that a compliance cost equivalent to less than one ce nt per gallon is relatively mino r compared to the

other costs and fees that are associated with the cost of gas to an owner.

26 

# See National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), 2009 Fact Book, Table III-38, Benchmark Store Profit and Loss by Size C ategory –

2008.EPA internal deliberative draft – do not cite or quoteL-22Exhibit 1. Number of Firms in NAICS 447 (Gas Stations) by Revenue Size*5473,1233,86210,00716,70828,57413,4024,5062,01861726813610105,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,000 0-0.05 0 . 05 - 0. 15 0 . 15 - 0 .25 0. 25 - 0 .50 0.5-1 1-2. 5 2.5- 5 5-10 1 0- 2 5 2 5- 5 0 5 0- 1 0 0 10 0 - 25 0 25 0 +Revenue bin ($ million)

Number of firms* Notes: 1. NAICS 447 is comprised of 447110 (Gas Stations with Convenience Stores) and 447190 (Other Gasoline Stations)2. Revenues ranges are based on 2002 Census data. We assume the distribution of firms estimated in 2008 is proportional to the distribution of firms in 2002.EPA internal deliberative draft – do not cite or quoteL-23Exhibit 2. Cumulative Number of Firms in NAICS 447 by Revenue Size*$150,000; 3,670$25,000,000; 82,747$10,000,000; 80,729$2,500,000; 62,821$1,000,000; 34,247$500,000; 17,539$250,000; 7,532$50,000; 547$5,000,000; 76,223010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,00090,000$0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000Revenue

Number of Firms* Notes: 1. NAICS 447 is comprised of 447110 (Gas Stations with Convenience Stores) and 447190 (Other Gasoline Stations)2. Revenues ranges are based on 2002 Census data. We assume the distribution of firms estimated in 2008 is proportional to the distribution of firms in 2002.3. For scaling reasons, we only show the number of firms earning up to $25 million in this chart.EPA internal deliberative draft – do not cite or quoteL-24Exhibit 3. Estimated Curve$50,000; 547$150,000; 3,670$250,000; 7,532$500,000; 17,539$1,000,000; 34,247y = 0.0359x - 1283.6R2= 0.998505,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,000$0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000Revenue

Number of Firms

# Appendix M:

Screening Analysis to Inform Impacts on Minority and Low-Income Populations

# Date:

To:

From:

Copy:

Subject:

This me m

vicinity o

primary o

racial mi n

UST faci l

justice c o

environ m

risks. Fa c

outside o f

Method o

This anal y

of potent i

“potentia l

and “refe r

potential l

facilities.

Potentia l



# The pote n

within a r

and othe r

UST rele a

UST syst e

occurrin g

The refer e

populatio

The coun

of data at

larger ar e

provide a July 22, 2

ChoYi K w

Michael L

(RTI), Ja m

Cynthia M

Analysis o

m orandum d o

o f undergrou n

o bjective wa

n ority and l o

l ities. This a

o ncerns rega r

m ental justic e

c ility-specifi c

f the scope f

o logy

y sis is base d

i ally disadv a

l ly affected c

r ence com m

l y disadvant a

The variou s

l ly Affecte d



# n tially affec t

r adial buffer

r sources (B e

a ses typical l

e ms is gene r

g microbial c

e nce comm u

ns. We utili z

ty-level Ce n

the Census

e a than the 1 0

a useful com p 010

w an (EPA)

L owry (RTI)

m ie Cajka ( R

M anson (IEc )

o f Statistics

o cuments R T

n d storage t a

s to determi n

o w-income c

a nalysis is in

r ding the lo c

e analysis a n

c health ris k

f

or the analy

d on populat i

a ntaged pop u

c ommunitie s

m unities” (co u

a ged popula t

s data sourc e

d

and Refer e



# t ed commu n

distance of

e dient et al, 1

l y does not e

r ally limited

c ommunitie s

u nities were

z ed county- l

n sus parame t

b lock grou p

0 00 ft buffe r

p arative me a

1 , Gordon B r

R TI), and Ja m

)

for Populati

T I’s assess m

a nk (UST) fa

n e whether s

c ommunities

tended to p r

c ation of US

n d does not c

k s were una v

sis.

i on statistic s

u lations (e.g

s ” in the vic

u nty-level p

t ions are lo c

e s and analy s

e nce Com m



# n ities in the v

1000 ft. Th i

1 994; Dooh e

e xceed this e

through bi o

s (Wilson et

used in this

l evel popula t

t er values w e

p level. Cou n

r s around U S

a sure of pop

1 r own (RTI),

m es Rineer (

ons Residin g

m ent of popu l

fa cilities (i.e

.

s ocioecono m

) are locate d

r ovide infor m

T facilities.

c ouple popu l

v ailable to s u

s from the 2 0

., minorities

inity of US T

opulations).

c ated prefer e

s is methods

m unities



# v icinity of U

i s distance i s

e r, 1999), w h

xtent. The t r

o degradatio n

al, 1986).

analysis to c

t ion statisti c

e re produce d

n ty-level dat a

S T facilities

ulations at a Brandon B e

( RTI)

g Near UST

l ation data f

. , retail mot o

m ically disa d

d preferentia

m ation relat e

However, t h

l ation infor m

u pport such a

0 00 Census t

). A compa r

T facilities ( p

This comp a

e ntially with i

are describ e

U ST facilitie s

s based on t h

h ich indicat e

r ansport of p

n of the cont a

c ompare wi t

c s to define t

d through p o

a represent a

. As such, t h

a larger scal e e rgenroth

Facilities

f

or commun i

o r fuel estab l

d vantaged p o

lly within t h

e d to potenti a

h e analysis i s

m ation with p

a n evaluatio n

t hat indicat e

r ison is mad e

p opulations w

a rison indic a

i n the vicini t

e d below.

s were defin e

h e draft US T

e that conta m

p etroleum h y

a minants by

t h the poten t

he referenc e

o pulation w e

a ggregate c o

h e county-le v

e than at the i ties in the

l ishments). T

o pulations ( e

h e vicinity o f

a l environm e

s not a full

p otential he a

n , and it wa s

e the prevale n

e between

w ithin 1000

a tes whether

t y of UST

e d as people

T risk assess m

m ination fro m

y drocarbons

naturallyt ially affecte

e communiti e

e ighted aver a

o nditions wi t

v el statistics

local facilit y T he

e .g.,

f

e ntal

a lth

s

n ce

ft)

m ent

m

from

d

e s.

a ging

t hin a

y

.

# The com p

significa n

evaluate d

scale cha n

communi

useful sc a

Socioec o



# The follo w

potential l

• P e

• P e

a n

• P e

• P e

• P e

These pa r

(Environ m

are avail a

communi

of block g

based on

resolutio n

Syntheti c



# The sam e

undergoi n

communi

“syntheti c

Modelin g

Health (s e

househol d

dasymetr i

LandSca n

estimates

populatio

distributi o

precision

statistics (

group da t

b ased on

(defining

socioeco n

However

, p arison indi c

n tly from co u

d . However,

n ges in the p

ties is small

a le for com p

o nomic Ce n



# w ing socioe

l y affected a n

e rcent mino r

e rcent white

n d did not s p

e rcent in po v

e rcent unde r

e rcent unde r

r ameters are

m ental Justi c

a ble is the C e

ties) were d e

g roup data w

a synthetic p

n than raw C

c

Populati o



# e population

n g EPA revi

ties in the v i

c populatio n

g of Infectio u

e e http://w w

d (and indiv i

i c algorith m

n populatio n

at a much fi

n dataset, h o

o n of house h

population d

( e.g., perce n

t a (the small e

the syntheti c

a potentiall y

n omic result

, if a buffer e c ates wheth e

u nty popula t

larger regio n

p opulation. G

(1000 ft bu f

p arison.

n sus Data



# conomic pa r

n d the refer e

r ity

alone (the p

p ecify “hisp a

v erty (the pe

5 years ol d

18 years ol d

selected to

c e) and EO 1

e nsus block

e rived direc t

w ithin each c

p opulation d

C ensus data.

o n Data



# data source

ew) was uti l

i cinity of U S

n ” dataset or i

u s Disease A

w w.midasmo d

i dual) withi n

m

based on d e

n estimates ( B

fi ner resoluti

o useholds a r

h olds repres e

d istribution

n t minority) a

e st Census u

c populatio n

y affected c o

s for that co m

e xtended ac r

2 e r local-scal e

t ions. Large r

n s aggregat e

G iven that t h

f fer distanc e

r ameters fro m

e nce comm u

p ercentage o f

a nic”)

rcentage of

d

address the f

1 3045 (Chil d

group. Cou n

t ly from the

c ounty. Res u

d ataset, whic

utilized for

l ized for est i

S T facilities

. i ginally dev e

A gents Stud y

d els.org). T h

n the contig u

e mographic i

B haduri et a l

on (90 m gr i

r e placed ra n

e nted in the

available n a

a ssociated w

u nit at whic h

n dataset. A c

o mmunity) w

m munity w o

r oss multipl e

2 e , potentiall y

r -scale pop u

e more peop l

h e area of in t

e from UST f

m

the 2000 C

u nities:

f the popula t

individuals b

f

ollowing e x

d ren’s Heal t

n ty-level po p

Census dat a

u lts for the p o

h is describ e

the recent U

i mating con d

. Specificall y

e loped to su p

y (MIDAS),

h e synthetic

u ous United

i nformation

l . 2007). Th e

i d) than typi

n domly with i

synthetic p o

a tionwide. F o

w ith each ho u

h the data ar e

c cordingly, i f

w ere entirel y

o uld match t

e block gro u y affected c o

u lations (e.g.

,

l e and thus w

t erest for po t

f

acilities), t h

C ensus wer e

t ion that sp e

b elow the f e

x ecutive ord e

t h). The sma

p ulation stat

a through po p

o tentially a f

e d below an d

U ST risk ass e

d itions for t h

y , the popul a

p port infect i

funded by t h

population d

States. Hou s

from the 2 0

e LandScan

cal Census b

i n each Lan d

o pulation da t

o r the curre n

u sehold wer e

e available).

f a 1000 ft b u

y within a si n

he associat e

u ps, the soci o o mmunities d

, at the state

w ould not re f

t entially aff e

h e county le v

e evaluated f

e cified their r

e deral pover t

e rs: EO 128 9

llest unit at w

istics (for t h

p ulation we i

f fected popu l

d provides g

e ssment (cu r

h e potentiall y

a tion data s o

i ous disease

h e National

d ata represe n

s eholds are l

0 00 U.S. Ce n

dataset pro v

b locks. In t h

d Scan grid c

t a reflect th e

n t analysis, t h

e based on C

Household

u ffer aroun d

n gle block g

e d block gro u

o economic r d iffer

level) coul d

f lect smalle r

e cted

v el provides

f

or the

r ace as “wh i

t y line in 19 9

9 8

w hich these

h e reference

i ghted aver a

l ations were

g reater spati a

r rently

y affected

o urce was a

models for t

Institutes o f

n t each

l ocated usin g

n sus and

v ides popula t

h e synthetic

c ell. The

e best, highe s

h e demogra p

C ensus bloc k

locations w e

d a UST faci

roup, the

u p data.

r esults for th a d be

r

a

i te”

9 9)

data

a ging

a l

t he

f

g a

t ion

s t

p hic

k

e re

lity

a t

# 1



# facility 

# potential l

the respe c

UST Fac i



# The UST

utilized f o

an ESRI B

database.

( http://w w

• S p

fi n

• H

i n

• N

S e

• 5 0

re

• E v

( N

a c

This data

These lo c

on Tribal

count of f

UST faci l

These tw o

containe d

facilities r

why the s

No know n

reasonab l

The 220,00 0

. 

# l y affected c o

c tive popula t

i lity Data



# facility-loc a

o r the recen t

B usiness A n

The approa c

w w.infousa. c

p lit apart an d

n d informat i

an d -key eac

n formation a v

ext, add pu b

e cretary of S

0 ,000 new b u

gistrations a

v ery month,

N COA), ZIP

c curate.

set include s

c ations were

lands (note

f

acilities is s

l ities across

o data sourc e

d 59,945 US T

r epresents a b

s ample incl u

n biases exi s

l y good spat i

0 facilities is E P 

# o mmunity w

t ions fallin g

a tion data s u

t UST risk a s

n alyst datab a

c h for comp

c o m ) as foll o

d catalog 5, 2

i on on nearl y

h record an d

v ailable.

b lic record d a

S tate data.

u sinesses ar e

a nd utility h o

match and c

+ 4 and Deli v

s nearly 60, 0

supplemen t

that many f a

s maller than

the country

.

e s were ana l

T facilities i n

b out 25% o f

u des approxi m

s t in the dat a

i al coverage

P A’s 2009 est i



# 3 w ould be bas

g within the b

u pporting th e

s sessment. T

a se (ESRI, 2 0

iling busine s

o ws:

2 00 phone b o

y every busi n

d call every b

a ta from co u

e added eve r

o okups so y o

c lean the da t

v ery Seque n

0 00 mapped

t ed with an E

a cilities hav e

the count o f

.

l yzed for du p

n cluding 72 7

f EPA’s esti m

m ately only

a set. As sho w

across the c

i mate based o n



# 3

ed on an av e

b uffer.

e analysis w e

T he primary

0 09). The E S

s s data is d o

o oks, annua l

n ess in the n

b usiness to m

u nty courtho

r y week fro m

o u can be th e

t a with the U

n ce File to s t

gas station f

E PA databa s

e several U S

f USTs). Fi g

p licate reco r

7 of these l o

m ated 220,0

25% of EP A

w n in Figur e

c ountry.

n 611,449 kno w 

# e rage of blo c

e re derived f

data source

S RI data ar e

o cumented o n

l reports an d

n ation.

m ake sure y o

use filings, S

m sources s u

e first to rea c

U SPS Natio n

t andardize a n

f

acility locat

s e containin g

S Ts listed in

g ure 1 show s

r ds, and the r

o cations on T

00 active U S

A ’s estimate d

e 1, the data

w n active tank s 

# c k group da t

f rom the sa m

was gas sta t

e derived fro m

n the infoU S

d other busi n

o u have the m

S EC and 10 k

u ch as new b

c h a hot ne w

n al Change o

n d keep the a

ions throug h

g approxima t

the EPA da t

s the locatio n

r esulting co m

T ribal lands.

S T facilities

d number o f

set appears t

s and an avera g 

# t a weighted b

m e source

t ion locatio n

m

an infoU S

S A website

n ess director i

m ost reliabl e

k

filings, an d

usiness

w property.

o f Address

a ddresses

h out the cou n

t ely 1,600 U

t a source, s o

n s of all of t h

m

bined data

This numb e

. 1 

# It is unkn o

f active facil i

t o provide

g e of 2.74 tank s 

# b y

n s in

S A

i es to

e

d

n try.

U STs

o the

h ese

set

e r of

o wn

i ties.

s per

# Statistic a



# In additi o

evaluate w

communi

unweight

each faci l

analysis. F

increase d

analysis f

associate d

communi

differenc e

Results

Table 1 p

each Cen s

reference Figure 1. U S

a n



# a l Analysis



# o n to basic s u

w hether me a

ties differ w

ed results a s

l ity. The po p

F or unweig h

d emphasis o n

f rom facility

d hypothesi s

ty). The tes t

e in the mea n

p rovides res u

s us socioec o

communiti e S T location d

n d EPA’s Tri



# u mmary sta t

a n Census-p a

w ith statistic a

s well as res u

p ulations ar o

h ted results,

n facilities s

to person. T

s test of the e

t statistic is t

n s. Two-tail

u lts from th e

o nomic r esu l

e s) as well a s

4 d ata from E S

bal Lands U



# t istics (mea n

a rameter va l

a l significan c

u lts weighte d

o und faciliti e

the focus o f

s urroun d ed b

T he T statist i

e quality of m

t he differen c

ed tests wer

e unweighte d

l t and for ea c

s the mean a

4 S RI Busines s

ST databas e



# n , median), w

l ues for the p

c e. These st a

d by the po p

e s were trea t

f the analysi s

b y lots of pe o

i c and the p

m eans (refer e

c e in the me a

e used in all

d analysis, i n

c h commun i

a nd median d s Analyst (gr e

e (red points )



# w e performe d

p otentially a

a tistics were

p ulation wit h

t ed as surve y

s is on facili t

o ple, thereb y

- value are th

e nce versus p

a ns divided b

situations.

n cluding the

i ty (i.e., pot e

d ifference i n e en points)

)

.



# d a statistic a

a ffected and r

calculated b

h in the 1000

y weights in

t ies. The w e

y changing t h

e results of t

p otentially a

b y the stand a

mean and m

e ntially affe c

n percentage s a l test (T tes t

r eference

b oth fo r

ft buffer ar o

the weighte d

e ights put

h e focus of t

t he T test a n

a ffected

a rd error of t

m edian valu e

c ted and

s between t ) to

o und

d

t he

n d the

t he

e s for

# communi

the poten t

in the po t

generatin

95% con f

conclude

b ounds li s

The resul

small (le s

(with the

present a t

values fo r

percenta g

The perc e

(white) o c

communi

negative,

of childr e

Table 2 p

errors of t

the mean

of the di ff

are statis t

in the me

potential l

observin g

hypothes i

conclude

of faciliti e

significa n

Tables 3

the result s

magnitu d

The perc e

differenc e

weighted

more pro n

reference

Conclu s

In summ a

communi

(county-l e

b etween t ties. The di f

t ially affect e

t entially aff e

g a distribut

f idence inte r

with 95% c o

s ted in the t a

ts in Table 1

s s than 2 % i

exception o f

t slightly gr e

r each of th e

g e within th e

e nt white al o

c curs with m

ties. The pe r

indicating t h

e n.

p rovides ad d

t he mean (S E

of the refer e

ff

erence in m

t ically signi f

ans. The T t

l y affected c o

g difference s

i s is true. B e

that the dif f

e s greatly i n

n t difference

and 4 prov i

s are simila r

d es of the po p

e nt white al o

e ; however,

and unwei g

n ounced dif f

, county lev e

s ion

a ry, this ana l

ties in the v i

e vel popula t

t he potentia l f ference val u

e d communi t

e cted comm u

ion of nearl y

r vals for the

o nfidence t h

a ble.

1 show that t

i n all cases).

f the percen t

e ater percen t

e following s

e potentially

o ne differen c

m ore predo m

r cent under a

h at smaller p

d itional stati s

E ), a relativ e

e nce comm u

m eans (i.e., w

f icant), as w e

est evaluate s

o mmunities

s large r than

e cause all of

f

erences in t h

n creases the s

s in the me a

i de results fr

r to the unw e

p ulation dif f

o ne was the o

the magnitu

g hted results

f

erences b et w

e l communi t

l ysis compa r

i cinity of U S

t ions). The d

l ly affected a

5 u es result fr o

t y values (s o

u nity). A di ff

y 60,000 di ff

mean differ e

h at the diffe r

t he mean di f

However, t h

t under age 5

t ages in the v

s tatistics are

affected co m

c e result is n

m inance in th

a ge 5 and th

p ercentages

s tical results

e risk ratio ( m

u nities), res u

w hether the d

e ll as the es t

s the null h y

are equal. T

the observe

the p-value s

h e means ar e

s tatistical p o

a ns even if t h

o m the pop u

e ighted resu l

f

erences are

o nly measu r

de of the di f

suggests th a

w een the lo c

t ies. .

r ed socioec o

S T facilities

d ifferences i n

a nd the refe r

5 o m subtracti n

o that a posi t

ff

erence res u

ff

erence val u

e nces. Base d

r ences in me a

f

ferences fo r

h e differenc e

5 ) that the p o

v icinity of U

positive (al b

m munities: p

n egative, ind i

e reference v

e percent u n

of the pote n

for the un w

m ean of pot e

u lts of a T te s

d ifferences i n

t imated 95 %

y pothesis th a

T he resultin g

d difference

s are very lo w

e statisticall y

o wer of the t

h e magnitud e

u lation weig h

l ts (Tables 1

generally g r

r e that chan g

f ference re m

a t facilities i n

c al, potentia l

o nomic Cen s

(within 100

n the mean p

r ence comm u n g the refer e

t ive result i n

u lt was prod u

u es. Table 1 a

d on the stat i

a ns are bet w

r the unweig h

e s in the me

o tentially di s

U ST facilitie s

b eit small) v

p ercent in p o

i cating that t

v ersus the p o

n der age 18 d

n tially affect e

w eighted ana l

e ntially affe

s t evaluatin g

n the estima t

% confidence

a t the means

g p-values in d

s under the t

w , we can r e

y significant

ests, allowi n

e s of the dif f

h ted statisti c

and 2). Ho w

r eater for th e

g ed from a n e

m ains quite s m

n higher po p

l ly affected c

s us data for p

0 ft) versus r

p ercentage s o

u nities are r e e nce comm u

n dicates a gr e

u ced for eac h

a lso provid e

i stical evalu a

w een the upp

h ted analysi

ans do cons i

s advantage d

s . Specifical

v alues, indic a

o verty an d p e

t he majority

o tentially a ff

d ifference r e

e d populatio

l ysis, includ i

cted comm u

g the statisti c

t ed socioec o

intervals fo r

b etween th e

d icate the p r

t est assump t

e

ject the nul l

. Note that t h

n g detection

f

erences are

c al analysis.

w ever, the r e

e weighted a

e gative to a

m all. Comp

p ulation are a

c ommunitie s

p otentially a

r eference c o

o cioecono m

e latively sm a u nity values f

e ater percen t

h facility, th u

e s the estim a

a tion, we ca n

er and lowe r

s are relativ e

i stently sug g

d population s

ly, the diffe r

a ting a grea t

e rcent mino r

population

ff

ected

e sults are sli g

ns are mad e

i ng standar d

u nities divid e

c al significa n

o nomic stati s

r the differe n

e reference a

r obability o f

t ion that the

l hypothesis

h e large nu m

of statistica l

small.

The pattern s

e lative

a nalysis resu l

positive

arison of th e

a s tend to ha v

s and the

a ffected

o mmunities

m ic results

a ll (<2% f rom

t age

u s

a ted

n

r

e ly

g est

s are

r ence

t er

r ity.

g htly

e up

d

e d by

n ce

s tics

n ces

a nd

f

null

and

m

ber

l ly

s in

l ts.

e

v e

# differenc e

analysis).

potential l

with resp e

and perc e

18) was i n

Referen

Bedient, P

Re

Bhaduri, B

g e

G e

Dooher, B

A s

C a

ESRI. 20 0

S u

h t

Wilson, J

w a

e in all case s

However, t h

l y disadvant a

e ct to the fo l

e nt minority.

n most case s

ces

P .B., H.S. R

e mediation

.

B ., E. Brigh

e ospatial an d

e oJournal 6

B .P. 1999. P

s sessment o f

a nnon. Law r

0 9. 2009 M e

u mmary . ES R

t tp://www.e s

J .T., L.E. Le a

a ter remedi a s for the un w

h e differenc

a ged popula t

l lowing Ce n

The perce n

s smaller in t

ifai, and C. J

Englewood

t, P. Colem a

d temporal m

6 9 :103–117.

otential gro u

f

the Use of E

r ence Liver m

e thodology S

R I, Redland

s ri.com/libr a

a ch, M. He n

a tion techni q

6 w eighted an a

es are statis t

t ions are lo c

n sus- b ased m

n tage of the p

t he vicinity o

J . Newell. 1 9

Cliffs, NJ: P

a n, and M. U

m odeling ap p

u nd and sur f

E thanol as a

m ore Nation a

S tatement: E

s, CA. avail a

a ry/whitepa p

n son, and J. N

q ue. Ground

6 a lysis; <5% i

t ically signi f

c ated prefer e

m easures: pe r

p opulation m

o f UST faci l

9 94. Groun d

P TR Prentic e

U rban. 2007.

p roach for p o

f

ace water i m

a Fuel Oxyg e

a l Laborato r

E

SRI Data— B

a ble at

p ers/pdfs/inf o

N . Jones. 19 8

Water Mon i i n all cases f

f icant, and t h

e ntially in th e

r cent white a

m ade up of c h

l ities.

d

Water Con t

e -Hall, Inc.

LandScan U

o pulation di s

m pacts. In H

e nate . Edite d

r y, Livermo r

B usiness Lo c

o usa- b usine s

8 6. In situ bi

i toring Revi e f

or the popu l

h e results d o

e vicinity o f

a lone, perce n

h ildren (un d

t amination:

U SA: a high

s tribution a n

H

ealth and E n

d by D.W. R

r e, CA.

c ations and B

s s-database. p

orestoration

e w 6 :56–64. l ation weig h

o suggest th a

f UST facilit i

n t in povert y

d er 5 and un d

Transport a

- resolution

n d dynamics

n vironment a

R ice and G.

B usiness

p df.

as a groun d h ted

a t

i es

y

, d er

nd

.

a l

dNMsvrNaCePercent WhPercent UnPercent UnPercent inPPercent MinNote: Difference summMean values reflect thsimply by subtractingvalues do not necessaresults of the analysisPePePePePeNote: There are >56,0afraction of facilitieshensus Paramethite Aloneder Age 5der Age 18Povertynoritymary statistics (meanhe entire distribution,the reference commuarily match values desare based on meanercent White Aloercent UnderAgercent Under Agercent in Povertercent Minority033 degrees of freedohave no people livingTable 1. SuteraMnand median) were cawhereas the medianunity mean from theprived by subtractingtvalues, median resultTable 2. Standonege 5ge 18tyom for this test (i.e. nuwithin the 1000 footummary Result1000 ft Bufferaround FacilityMean Median70.3 81.36.7 6.524.7 24.913.3 10.324.0 14.6alculated from the disvalues are based onlpotentially affected cothe median values frots are provided for codard Error, TT1000 ftBufferaroundFacilityCwFaLSE ofMean0.1200.0100.1040.0450.104umber of facilities). Nbuffer.7ts for CensusPCounty whFacility isLocatednMean Med70.8 746.7 625.6 2512.2 1123.8 20stribution of differencey on the 50thpercentiommunitymean (e.g.,om the underlying distompleteness and asaTest, and RiskRCountywhereacility isLocatedSE ofMeanSEM0.088 0.0.004 0.0.071 0.0.023 0.0.071 0.ote that the total numParameters –Ueresddian MeanM4.8 -0.44.7 -0.055.5 -0.841.5 1.10.9 0.21evalues (i.e., one resile result. For this reafor mean percent povtributions (e.g., for mean alternative indicatoRatio Results–EofeanTStatist085 -5.23009 -5.18079 -10.5038 27.66079 2.71mber of facilities in theUnweightedDiffeMedian95%Lowe1.29--0.12 -0-0.54--0.640-1.480ult per facility, yieldinson, the mean differeverty 13.3 – 12.2 = 1.edian percent povertyr of the distributions’–UnweightedDifferenceticpvalueR3<0.0018<0.0019 <0.0016<0.0010.0067dataset (59,945) diffeerence%Confidenceof Mean Differer Bound Upp-0.610.068-0.990.990.06g a distribution of aboence results could also1). In contrast, the my10.3 – 11.5≠-.64).Acentral tendency.RatioSE ofRatio0.99 0.0010.99 0.0010.97 0.0011.09 0.0031.01 0.003ers from the degreesIntervalrenceper Bound-0.27-0.032-0.681.130.36out 60,000 results).obe calculatededian differenceAlthough the primaryfo33of freedom, becauseNMsvpNaCenPercent WhPercent UndPercent UndPercent inPPercent MinNote: Difference summMean values reflect thsimply by subtractingvalues do not necessaprimary results of thePePePePePeNote: There are >56,0afraction of facilitieshTabnsus Parameterite Aloneder Age 5der Age 18Povertynoritymary statistics (meanhe entire distribution,the reference commuarily match values deanalysis are basedoTableercent White Aloercent UnderAgercent Under Agercent in Povertercent Minority033 degrees of freedohave no people livingble 3. Summarr100aroMea53.86.924.716.236.6nand median) were cawhereas the medianunity mean from theprived by subtractington mean values, medie4. StandardEonege 5ge 18tyom for this test (i.e. nuwithin the 1000 footry Results forC00 ft Bufferund Facilityan Median88 59.631 6.7874 24.9122 13.3461 29.54alculated from the disvalues are based onlpotentially affected cothe median values froan results are provideError, T Test, an1000 ftBufferaroundFacilityCwFaLSE ofMean0.2880.0200.0650.1080.255umber of facilities). Nbuffer.8Census ParameCounty wherFacility isLocatedMean Media58.79 57.76.80 6.8525.36 25.513.33 12.833.16 31.9stribution of differencey on the 50thpercentiommunitymean (e.g.,om the underlying disted for completenessand Risk RatioRCountywhereacility isLocatedSE ofMeanSEM0.193 0.0.008 0.0.033 0.0.063 0.0.165 0.ote that the total numeters – Weighterean MeanM0 -4.6150.113 -0.623 2.892 3.45evalues (i.e., one resile result. For this reafor mean percent povtributions (e.g., for meand as an alternativeResults – WeigEofeanTStatist205 -22.4017 6.24058 -10.6085 34.02191 18.05mber of facilities in theed by PopulatiDiffeMedian95Lowe-2.55-0.040-1.57 -0.960.58ult per facility, yieldinson, the mean differeverty 16.2 – 13.3 = 2.edian percent povertyindicator of the distribghted by PopulDifferenceticpvalueR8 <0.0014<0.0012 <0.0012<0.0015<0.001dataset (59,945) diffeonrence% Confidenceof Mean Differer Bound Upp-5.00.0730.732.73.1g a distribution of aboence results could also9). In contrast, the my13.3 – 12.8≠-0.96).butions’ central tendeationRatioSE ofRatio0.92 0.00351.02 0.00260.98 0.00231.22 0.00641.10 0.0058ers from the degreesIntervalrenceper Bound-4.20.14-0.503.13.8out 60,000 results).obe calculatededian differenceAlthough theency.fo56348of freedom, because

# Appendix N

Cost Savings to State Financial Assurance Funds

This Appendix was prepared in December 2010, and documen t the methodology used to assess cost savings to

state financial assurance funds under the rule. While th e methodology presented in this appendix is accurate,

the actual cost estimates associated with the proposed rulemaking have been revised, and the specific results

presented in this appendix are therefore superceded by the results in Chapter 5.

# N -1 

# The proposed rule is expected to result in fewer releases from UST systems and is also

expected to reduce the size of releases. This shoul d result in cost savings due to reduced demand

for remediation. To the extent that states us e financial assurance funds to remediate these

releases, the rule should result in cost savings to these states. Moreover, if financial assurance

funds reflect broad-based taxpa yer contributions (e.g., through ga soline taxes), the rule could

represent reduced burden on taxpayers. To asse ss the potential magnitude of a reduction in

releases on distributions made by state financial assurance funds, we employ the following

screening-level analytic approach:

1. Identify states with active financial assurance funds: Classify each state or

territory with an active financial assurance fund as Tier 1 (state s that charge both a

broad-based gasoline tax and a tank fee) or Ti er 2 (generally, states that charge a tank

fee and a limited gasoline tax).

2. Develop rough estimates of per-stat e avoided releases due to proposed

regulation: Count the number of instances in which UST systems in a state are

affected by each requirement in the proposed rule and assign avoided releases or

avoided groundwater incidents acr oss states based on this count.

3. Estimate avoided remediation costs per state: Multiply the number of releases

avoided by the avoided cost per release or groundwater incident to obtain the gross

avoided cost.

4. Adjust for average deductible: Subtract the deductible paid by owners and

operators from the gross avoided cost to obt ain the net avoided cost to state funds.

5. Calculate state cost savings: Sum net gains to state funds from avoided releases and

avoided groundwater incidents.

Below, we explain each step in greater detail. While we perform the steps below on all 56 states and

territories, as well as Indian Country, only the results for states with active fi nancial assurance programs

are presented as candidates for potential cost savings in Chapter 5 of this RIA.



# Step 1: Assign Each State to a Tier

Among the 56 U.S. states and territories and Indian country, the st atus of financial

assurance funds is as follows: 36 have activ e funds; seven have funds but no longer accept

claims; and 13 do not have funds. In general, stat es with active financial assurance funds charge

a combination of gasoline taxes and recurring tank fees to generate revenues for their funds. We

classify active funds into two tiers. 1

1 

# This classification is based on the status of state fund programs on November 5, 2010 as reported by EPA

at http://www.epa.gov/OUST/states/fndstatus.htm and the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste

Management Officials’ 2008 survey of state funds at

http://www.astswmo.org/files/publications/tanks/2008Stat eFundSurvey/Table2FundingforStateFinancialAssuranceF

unds2008.pdf

.

# N-2 

# • Tier 1 funds charge a broad-based gasolin e fee, which means that consumers in

those states or territorie s fund remediation via these fees. In many cases, these

funds also charge a tank fee. Among the active funds, we classify 26 in this tier. 2



# • Tier 2 funds also levy gasoline fees, but these are narrower in scope. As a

consequence, fewer consumers pay into the funds for these states. All Tier 2 states

also charge tank fees.

Exhibit N-1 summarizes the classification status for all states, territories, a nd Indian country. For

this analysis, we consider only states with active funds.

Exhibit N-1

Status of Financial Assurance Funds in the U.S.

Active funds

Tier 2 if highlighted; otherwise, Tier 1 Fund exists, but no

longer accepts claims No funds

Alabama Nebraska Arizona Alaska

Arkansas Nevada Florida Delaware

California New Hampshire Iowa District of Columbia

Colorado New Mexico Michigan Hawaii

Connecticut New York New Jersey Maryland

Georgia North Carolina Texas Oregon

Idaho North Dakota Wisconsin Washington

Illinois Ohio West Virginia

Indiana Oklahoma American Samoa

Kansas Pennsylvania Commonwealth of No. Mariana

Islands

Kentucky Rhode Island Guam

Louisiana South Carolina Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

Maine South Dakota Virgin Islands

Massachusetts Tennessee Indian country

Minnesota Utah

Mississippi Vermont

Missouri Virginia

Montana Wyoming



# Step 2: Count Instances in Which Syst ems are Affected and Assign Releases

Because the data to determine the number of requirements that affect each system in each

state are not available, we use a simple alloca tion approach to approximate impacts for this

screening analysis. First, we developed a count of the number of times each requirement affects

an UST system in each state system. 3 

# For example, if spill prevention equipment testing affects

2 

# We could not obtain clear information regarding funding mechanisms for Connecticut. We classify this

state under Tier 1.

3 

# This includes all requirements except for rem oval of deferrals for FCTs and AHFDSs. We convert

requirements tabulated on the basis of f acilities to systems using a factor of 2.74.

# N-3 

# 10,000 systems per year, and interstitial inte grity testing affects 5,000 systems, these

requirements together affect systems 15,000 times . The total instances in which systems are

affected across all requirements is 2, 792,567 instances across 611,449 systems, or 4.6

requirements per system.

We assign avoided releases by state by first dividing the estimated total number of 2,212

avoided releases and 609 avoided groundwater incidents by the total num ber of instances in

which systems are affected. From these, we obtain the following slope factors:

• For each additional instance in which a requirement affects an UST system,

0.00079 releases are avoided.

• For each additional instance in which a requirement affects an UST system,

0.00022 groundwater incide nts are avoided.

We multiply these factors by the number of times sy stems are affected per state to obtain a statelevel distribution of avoided releases and avoided groundwater contamination incidents. Exhibit

N-2 shows the distribution of avoided rele ases, ranked from lowest to highest.

# N-4 Exhibit N-2

Distribution of Avoided Releases, by State



# We note that this distribution can be misleading, as it does not normalize the data with respect to

the number of systems located in each state or te rritory. Doing so results in the distribution of

systems per release avoided as a consequence of the proposed rule, shown in Exhibit N-3 . States

that already have a relatively large number of requirements have fewer releases avoided per

system (i.e., a greater number of systems pe r release avoided). For instance, compare the

outcome in California, where many of the propos ed requirements already exist, with Indian

country, where few of the proposed require ments are in effect in the baseline. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180ASMPVIGUDCAKDERIWYHINDMEVTNHMTSDIDNMUTIndi...NVPRCOMSWVORMANEKSMDAZIASCCTARWIMOWAOKMNKYLANJTNINCAALNYOHPAVAMIFLILNCGATXNumber of Avoided Releases 

# Mean: 38.8

Median: 29.5

Std. dev.: 36.6

# N-5 Exhibit N-3

Distribution of Systems per Release Avoided, by State



# The slope factors calculated in th is step substantially drive the re sults of our analysis. They are

subject to two significant sources of uncertainty:

1. We do not know how many systems in each st ate will actually be affected by the

proposed rule. For example, suppose that two requirements each affect 10,000 and

20,000 systems, respectively. It is possible that they could together affect as little as

20,000 or as many as 30,000 total systems. For all states, we assume the upper end of

this range as the basis for our analysis. Ou r results are biased to the extent that

requirements in any state systematically overlap.

2. As a simplifying assumption, we treat all requirements as equally effective in

preventing releases or groundwater contamina tion. It is likely that requirements vary

in their particular effectiveness.

This distribution is too simplistic to refine specific estimates of avoided costs due to the

rule. However, for the purpose of identifying th e magnitude and distribution of cost impacts

associated with state financial assurance funds, we believe this simple distribution is valid. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600CAMSMACONYWISCRIMNOHDEFLPATXMENJTNUTWYVTNHMTAKNMMDALIDILIAWVORNEGUDCCTMIARINKYOKLASDKSMOVAPRWAMPHIASNCGANVAZNDVIIndian...Systems per Avoided Release 

# Mean: 271.8

Median: 244.7

Std. dev.: 60.7

# N-6 

# Step 3: Obtain Gross Avoided Cost

We define gross avoided costs as the sum of average costs to remediate the releases that

would be avoided under the proposed rule (i ncluding averted groundwater contamination

incidents), before adjustments for deductibles pa id by owners and operators. Gross avoided cost

is calculated as total releases avoided (sl ope factor x number of times systems affected)

multiplied by the average cost of an avoided re lease; that is, the avoided costs presented in

Exhibit 4-11 before discounting. We obtai n an undiscounted average cost per avoided release of

$145,077 by summing the avoided cost across all expe rts and dividing it by the sum of their

avoided releases. This average avoided cost per release is multiplied by the number of releases

by state to obtain gross avoided costs. A similar procedure for gr oundwater incidents produces

an undiscounted cost of $262,837. 4



# We note that, because we proceed with undiscoun ted avoided costs in this analysis, these

values will not reconcile to the discounted avoi ded costs presented as th e central estimates of

positive impacts in Chapter 4. Supplementary analys is indicates that discounting avoided costs

decreases them by approximately 10 percent compar ed to other undiscounted costs; however; our

general findings of possible substantia l savings to funds does not change.

Steps 4: Adjust Gross Avoi ded Cost for Deductibles

To obtain the net avoided cost to state fina ncial assurance funds, we reduce the gross

avoided cost for each state as reported in ASTSWMO by the minimum and maximum of the

range of deductibles (i.e., contributions to clean up by owner/operator) possibl e for that state. In

states with active trust funds, deductibles generally range from zero to $100,000. Lower-end

deductibles average $8,114, while up per-end deductible average $20,212. 5 

# Note that we do not

make any adjustment to deductible s to reflect time value of money.

Two states significantly exceed this range: Minnesota, with deductibles that can reach

$2,000,000; and Virginia, where deductibles can reach $1,000,000. These levels of deductibles

lead to negative estimates of savings for these particular states’ funds, an outcome that likely

follows from our approach in Step 2. To cons ervatively correct for this anomaly, we remove

these states and their avoided releases from our calculation of net avoided costs. For all other

states, we reduce gross avoided costs by the pr oduct of the lower- or upper-end deductible and

the number of releases avoided.

Steps 5: Sum Net Gains to State Funds from Avoided Contamination

Exhibit N-4 summarizes the net cost savings to st ate financial assurance funds under the

Preferred Option of the proposed rule. We rep eat this process for Alternatives 1 and 2.

4 

# Before discounting, avoided cost per release ranges from approximately $142,000 to $148,000 when

considered by expert. Similarly, avoided groundwater remediation costs range from approximately $261,000 to

$266,000.

5 

# These averages exclude Virginia and Minnesota for reasons subsequently discussed. For comparison, the

median and mode deductibles for the lower-end deductibles are $5,000 and $10,000, while upper-end deductible

median and mode are both $10,000.N-7Exhibit N-4Net Avoided Release and Avoided Groundwater Incident Remediation CostsStateAvoided Release Costs1Releases avoided x (Costper release - deductible)Avoided GroundwaterIncident CostsIncidents avoided x Cost perincidentTotalAvoided release costs + AvoidedGW incidents costsStatusAvoidedReleasesLowDeductibleHighDeductibleUpper-end Lower-endAvoidedIncidentsAvoidedGW CostUpper-end Lower-endAK 4.1 $0 $0 $0 $0 1.1 $0 $0 $0 No longer existsAL 66.2 $5,000 $5,000 $9,273,942 $9,273,942 18.2 $4,792,203$14,066,145 $14,066,145 Tier 1AR 39.5 $7,500 $7,500 $5,435,944 $5,435,94410.9 $2,860,005 $8,295,949 $8,295,949 Tier 1AS 0.1 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 $0 No longer existsAZ 32.2 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $0 8.9 $0 $0 $0Not acceptingclaimsCA 66.1 $0 $20,000 $9,586,841 $8,265,224 18.2 $4,783,157 $14,369,998 $13,048,381 Tier 1CO 21.2 $10,000 $10,000 $2,864,815 $2,864,8155.8 $1,535,157 $4,399,972 $4,399,972 Tier 1CT 36.6 $0 $0 $5,313,998 $5,313,998 10.1$2,651,310 $7,965,307 $7,965,307 Tier 1DC 2.8 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.8 $0 $0 $0 No longer existsDE 4.7 $2,500 $2,500 $0 $0 1.3 $0 $0 $0 No longer existsFL 86.5 $500 $30,000 $0 $0 23.8 $0 $0 $0Not acceptingclaimsGA 136.0 $10,000 $10,000 $18,369,937 $18,369,937 37.5 $9,843,824$28,213,761 $28,213,761 Tier 1GU 1.1 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.3 $0 $0 $0 No longer existsHI 7.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1.9 $0 $0 $0 No longer existsIA 32.2 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $0 8.9 $0 $0 $0Not acceptingclaimsID 13.2 $10,000 $10,000 $1,777,571 $1,777,5713.6 $952,540 $2,730,111 $2,730,111 Tier 2IL 88.6 $10,000 $100,000 $11,970,454 $3,994,725 24.4 $6,414,559$18,385,013 $10,409,284 Tier 1IN 58.1 $20,000 $35,000 $7,272,936 $6,400,72416.0 $4,208,911 $11,481,848 $10,609,636 Tier 1KS 29.5 $3,000 $3,000 $4,186,327 $4,186,327 8.1 $2,132,784$6,319,111 $6,319,111 Tier 1KY 50.3 $500 $12,500 $7,278,098$6,674,012 13.9 $3,643,815 $10,921,913 $10,317,827 Tier 1LA 52.3 $5,000 $5,000 $7,325,127 $7,325,12714.4 $3,785,175 $11,110,302 $11,110,302 Tier 1MA 28.0 $5,000 $10,000 $3,918,140 $3,778,283 7.7 $2,024,653$5,942,793 $5,802,937 Tier 1MD 29.7 $500 $1,000 $0 $0 8.2 $0 $0 $0 No longer existsME 10.5 $500 $97,000 $1,511,284 $502,559 2.9 $756,632 $2,267,916 $1,259,191 Tier 1MI 83.4 $0 $0 $0 $0 23.0 $0 $0 $0Not acceptingclaimsMN 48.4 $900,000 $2,000,000 -$36,551,182 -$89,810,021 13.3 $3,504,596-$33,046,586 -$86,305,425 DroppedMO 41.5 $10,000 $10,000 $5,607,147 $5,607,147 11.4 $3,004,679$8,611,826 $8,611,826 Tier 1MP 0.3 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.1 $0 $0 $0 No longer existsMS 22.1 $0 $0 $3,202,100 $3,202,100 6.1$1,597,622 $4,799,722 $4,799,722 Tier 1N-8Exhibit N-4Net Avoided Release and Avoided Groundwater Incident Remediation CostsStateAvoided Release Costs1Releases avoided x (Costper release - deductible)Avoided GroundwaterIncident CostsIncidents avoided x Cost perincidentTotalAvoided release costs + AvoidedGW incidents costsStatusAvoidedReleasesLowDeductibleHighDeductibleUpper-end Lower-endAvoidedIncidentsAvoidedGW CostUpper-end Lower-endMT 11.3 $5,000 $17,000 $1,582,790 $1,447,197 3.1 $817,888 $2,400,678 $2,265,086 Tier 1NC 121.7 $20,000 $75,000 $15,221,577 $8,528,22933.5 $8,808,859 $24,030,436 $17,337,088 Tier 1ND 9.7 $5,000 $5,000 $1,364,931 $1,364,931 2.7 $705,312 $2,070,244 $2,070,244 Tier 2NE 28.8 $25,000 $25,000 $3,458,366 $3,458,366 7.9 $2,084,724$5,543,090 $5,543,090 Tier 1NH 10.9 $5,000 $30,000 $1,531,984 $1,258,567 3.0 $791,635 $2,323,620 $2,050,202 Tier 1NJ 54.8 $0 $0 $0 $0 15.1 $0 $0 $0Not acceptingclaimsNM 13.8 $0 $10,000 $1,999,168 $1,861,368 3.8 $997,444 $2,996,612 $2,858,811 Tier 2NV 17.2 $10,000 $10,000 $2,329,436 $2,329,436 4.7 $1,248,265$3,577,701 $3,577,701 Tier 2NY 73.5 $0 $0 $10,663,690 $10,663,690 20.2 $5,320,428 $15,984,118 $15,984,118 Tier 2OH 76.0 $11,000 $55,000 $10,191,384 $6,846,892 20.9 $5,501,948$15,693,332 $12,348,839 Tier 2OK 45.9 $0 $5,000 $6,656,425$6,427,016 12.6 $3,321,086 $9,977,512 $9,748,102 Tier 1OR 24.7 $0 $0 $0 $0 6.8 $0 $0 $0 No longer existsPA 82.7 $5,000 $5,000 $11,582,737 $11,582,737 22.8 $5,985,246$17,567,982 $17,567,982 Tier 2PR 19.2 $0 $0 $0 $0 5.3 $0 $0 $0 No longer existsRI 5.2 $20,000 $20,000 $654,057 $654,057 1.4 $378,508 $1,032,565 $1,032,565 Tier 1SC 35.3 $25,000 $25,000 $4,239,282 $4,239,2829.7 $2,555,465 $6,794,746 $6,794,746 Tier 1SD 13.0 $20,000 $20,000 $1,621,466 $1,621,466 3.6 $938,357 $2,559,823 $2,559,823 Tier 1TN 57.9 $10,000 $10,000 $7,818,177 $7,818,17715.9 $4,189,495 $12,007,673 $12,007,673 Tier 1Indiancountry 15.8 $0 $0 $0 $0 4.4 $0 $0 $0 No longer existsTX 182.0 $1,000 $80,000 $0 $0 50.1 $0 $0 $0Not acceptingclaimsUT 13.8 $10,000 $10,000 $1,866,756 $1,866,756 3.8 $1,000,331$2,867,086 $2,867,086 Tier 1VA 83.1 $500 $1,000,000 $12,016,472-$71,056,418 22.9 $6,016,105$18,032,578 -$65,040,313 DroppedVI 0.7 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.2 $0 $0 $0 No longer existsVT 10.9 $250 $10,000 $1,578,894 $1,472,601 3.0 $789,117 $2,368,011 $2,261,717 Tier 2WA 42.3 $0 $0 $0 $0 11.7 $0 $0 $0 No longer existsWI 40.1 $2,500 $0 $0 $0 11.0 $0 $0 $0Not acceptingclaimsWV 22.8 $0 $0 $0 $0 6.3 $0 $0 $0 No longer existsWY 6.6 $30,000 $30,000 $756,341 $756,341 1.8 $475,737 $1,232,078 $1,232,078 Tier 1Total, Tier 1 1,097N/AN/A$148,524,313 $129,270,319 302 $79,396,571 $227,920,885 $208,666,891N/AN-9Exhibit N-4Net Avoided Release and Avoided Groundwater Incident Remediation CostsStateAvoided Release Costs1Releases avoided x (Costper release - deductible)Avoided GroundwaterIncident CostsIncidents avoided x Cost perincidentTotalAvoided release costs + AvoidedGW incidents costsStatusAvoidedReleasesLowDeductibleHighDeductibleUpper-end Lower-endAvoidedIncidentsAvoidedGW CostUpper-end Lower-endTotal, Tier 2 297N/AN/A$41,487,811 $37,899,225 82 $21,500,299 $62,988,110 $59,399,524N/ATotal, Nolonger exists 175N/AN/A$0 $0 48 $0 $0 $0N/ATotal,Dropped 132N/AN/A-$24,534,710 -$160,866,439 36 $9,520,701 -$15,014,009 -$151,345,738N/ATotal, Notacceptingclaims 511N/AN/A$0 $0 141 $0 $0 $0N/ANotes:1. Average cost of remediation for an avoided release is $145,077 before discounting and $130,986 after discounting each requirement by the appropriate number of periods. Similarly,average cost for an avoided groundwater incident is$262,837 before discounting and $239,014 after discounting.

# Appendix O:

UMRA Written Statement

# 1. Introduction

Title II of the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA; 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), requires

Federal agencies, unless otherwis e prohibited by law, to assess th e effects of their regulatory

actions on State, local, and trib al governments and the private sector. Specifically, Section 202

of UMRA generally requires Federal agencies to prepare a written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for each proposed and final rule with “Federal mandates” that may result in

expenditures by State, local, and trib al governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any one year. Section 202 requires that “Written Statements” contain

five elements of information:

1. An identification of the provision of Fe deral law under which the rule is being

promulgated;

2. A qualitative and quantitative assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits of the

Federal mandate, including the costs and benefits to State, local, and tribal governments or the

private sector, as well as the effect of the Fe deral mandate on health, safety, and the natural

environment, including: (A) an analysis of the ex tent to which such costs to State, local, and

tribal governments may be paid with Federal financial assistan ce (or otherwise paid for by the

Federal Government; and (B) the extent to which there are available Federal resources to carry

out the intergovernmental mandate;

3. Estimates by the agency, if and to the extent that the agency determines that accurate

estimates are reasonably feasible, of: (A) the future compliance costs of the Federal mandate;

and (B) any disproportionate budge tary effects of the Federal mandate upon any particular

regions of the nation or particular State, local, or tribal government s, urban or rural or other types

of communities, or particular se gments of the private sector;

4. Estimates by the agency of the effect on th e national economy, such as the effect on

productivity, economic growth, full employment, cr eation of productive jobs, and international

competitiveness of United States goods and services, if and to the extent that the agency in its

sole discretion determines that accurate estimates ar e reasonably feasible a nd that such effect is

relevant and material; and

5. Description of the extent of the agency’s prior consultation with elected representatives

(under section 204) of the affected State, local, and tribal governments, including a summary of

the comments and concerns that were presented by State, local, or tr ibal governments either

orally or in writing to the agency; and a summar y of the agency’s evaluation of those comments

and concerns.

This document constitutes the “Written Statement” to meet this requirement for the revisions to

the UST Regulations. The Environmental Prot ection Agency (EPA) has conducted a regulatory

impact assessment (RIA) for this action, wh ich has been submitted in the docket entitled

“Assessment of the Potential Cost s, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Proposed Revisions to

EPA’s Underground Storage Tank Regulations.”

2. Summary of the Proposed Rule

As stated in the Federal Register notice for the proposed rule, EP A is proposing to revise the

1988 underground storage tank (UST) technical, fi nancial responsibility, and state program

# approval regulations. These changes impose federal requirements that are similar to certain 

# key

portions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and make important targeted changes to the 1988 UST

regulations. Proposed changes include: adding secondary containment requirements for new and

replaced USTs and piping; adding operator tr aining requirements for UST system owners and

operators; adding periodic opera tion and maintenance requirements for UST systems; removing

certain deferrals; adding new re lease prevention and detection technologies; updating codes of

practice; closing gaps in the 1988 UST regulatio ns; making editorial and technical corrections;

and updating state program approval requirements to incorporate these new changes. The

proposed rule presents three regulatory opti ons, as summarized in the table below:

3. Legal Authority of Proposed Rule

As stated in the Federal Register notice for this rule, EPA is proposing these regulations under

the authority of sections 2002, 9001, 9002, 9003, 9004, 9005, 9006, 9007, and 9009 of the Solid

Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of

REQUIREMENT DESCRIPTION PREFERRED

OPTION OPTION 1 OPTION 2

Release Prevention

Walkthrough inspections Monthly Monthly Quarterly

Overfill prevention equipment tests 3 year 1 year 3 year

Spill prevention equipment tests 1 year Require replacement

every 3 years, no testing. 1 year

Interstitial integrity tests 3 year 1 year Not required

Testing after repairs to spill and overfill

prevention equipment, and interstices Required Required Required

Eliminate flow restrictors in vent lines for all

new tanks and when overfill devices are

replaced Required Required Not required

Release Detection

Operability tests for release detection

methods 1 year 1 year 3 year

Change leak rate probabilities from 95/5 to

99/1 (Pd/Pfa) Not required Required Not required

Add SIR/CITLD to regulations with

performance criteria Required Required Required

Response to interstitial monitoring alarms Required Required Required

Eliminate groundwater and vapor monitoring

as release detection methods 5 year Immediately Not required

Remove deferral for emergency generator

tanks Required Required Required

Other

Require notification of ownership change Required Required Required

Closure of lined tanks that cannot be repaired

according to a code of practice Required Required Required

Requirements for determining compa tibility Required Required Required

Remove deferrals for airport hydrant fuel

distribution systems and UST systems with

field-constructed tanks Regulate under

alternative release

detection

requirements Regulate under release

detection requirements for

conventional UST

systems Maintain deferrals

Energy Policy Act-related Provisions

Operator training Required Required Required

Secondary containment Required Required Required

# 1976, as amended [42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991, 6991(a) , 6991(b), 6991(c),6991( d), 6991(e), 6991(f),

6991(h), 6991(i), and 6991(k)].

4. Summary of the Costs and Benefits

4A. Cost to State, Local, and Tribal Governments and the Private Sector

As estimated in the RIA, on an annualized basis, the total estimated regulatory compliance costs

for the three options in today’s proposed action are $210 million (Preferred Option), $520

million (Option 1), and $130 million (Option 2). Of this amount, annualized costs to State/local

governments total $9 million under the Prefe rred Option, $19 million under Option 1, and $6

million under Option 2. These costs consist of estimated regulatory compliance costs for

State/local governments that cu rrently own or operate UST systems and annualized costs of

$120,000 for states to implement the proposed rule. EPA estimates that total annualized costs to

owners and operators of tribally-owned US T systems are $0.7 million under the Preferred

Option, $1 million under Option 1, and $0.6 million under Option 2. The estimated annualized

cost to the private sector range is approxi mately $180 million under the Preferred Option, $350

million under Option 1, and $120 million under Option 2.

4B. Extent to Which Costs to State, Local, and Tribal Governments May Be Paid by EPA

or Other Federal Agencies, or to Which Th ere Are Available Federal/EPA Resources to

Carry Out a Federal Intergovernmental Mandate

EPA has historically provided substantial support to states, territories and tribes to support

implementation of the UST program. In 2010, EPA provided $34.9 million in funding for UST

release prevention program implementation in 50 states and 6 territories, and over $2 million in

funding for tribal assistance. EPA does not anticipate providing a dditional UST release

prevention funding for state/ local/tribal governments.

4C. Estimates of Future Compliance Costs and Budgetary Effects on Particular Regions of

the Country, or Particular State, Local, or Tribal Governments or Communities, or

Particular Segments of the Private Sector

The RIA assessed a number of potential distributi onal effects of the proposed rule cost impacts

on:

(a) Retail motor fuels market sector: potential exits and employment impacts (Chapter 5)

(b) Energy supply, distributi on, and use (Chapter 5)

(c) Public sector cost savings related to avoided releases (Chapter 5)

(d) Small entities (Chapter 5)

(e) Minority and low-income populations liv ing near UST systems (Chapter 5)

(f) State/local government costs (Chapter 6)

(g) Tribal government costs (Chapter 6)

# 4D. Estimates of the Potential E ffect on the National Economy

OMB’s 1995 guidance states: “...macro-economic effect s tend to be measurable in nation-wide

econometric models, only if the economic impact of the regulation reaches 0.25 percent to 0.5

percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). A re gulation with a smaller aggregate effect is

highly unlikely to have any meas urable impact in macro-econo mic terms unless it is highly

focused on a particular geogra phic region or economic sector.” 1 

# Based on the 2009 US GDP of

$14 trillion, the 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent threshol d is equal to $35 billion to $70 billion. The

estimated annualized cost for this proposed rule at $210 million does not exceed either threshold.

5. Extent of EPA’s Prior Consultation with Elected Representatives of Affected State,

Local, and Tribal Governments

Today’s proposed rule is not expected to re sult in expenditu res by State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, of $100 million or more in any one year. As a result, EPA does

not believe Section 204 of UMRA applies, and did not consult w ith elected representatives of

affected state, local, and tribal governments.

1 

# Source: Office of Management Budget, “Guidance for Im plementing Title II of S. 1. [the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act],” March 31, 1995 memo.