15A NCAC 2N Public Hearing Record Underground Storage Tanks

HEARING RECORD FOR 1 SA NCAC 2N
UNDERGROUND S'IORAGE TANKS
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENI'AL MANAGEMENI' -GR<XJNCmATER SECI'ION
February 19, 1991
Report
Section I
Section II
Addendum I
TABLE OF <XNI'ENI'S
Hearing Officer's report to the
Envirornnental Management
Ccmnission.
Sumnary of Public Crnment and Staff
Responses.
The Proceedings of the Hearings.
The Final Underground Storage TanJ.c
Regulations.
Addendum II •....•.......... Copies of all written ccmrents
received concerning the
underground storage tank
regulations.
Introduction
SlJMVIARY AND ~ATICN
OF THE~ OFFICERS
Underground storage tanks are oonsidered to be the forenost cause
of gramdwater contamination in North Carolina. Currently, the
Groundwater Section receives an average of 100 groundwater
contamination reports each nonth. Of these, approximately 80 are
attributable to the failure of an underground storage tank.
Contamination of grrnmdwater by petroleum products is very difficult
to cleanup and the resource is seldan restored to its original state.
In addition, because of the difficulties encountered in groundwater
cleanup, the process is usually very expensive. state Underground
Storage Tank Rules have been developed to protect the groundwater
resources that are threatened by the high rate of tank failures, the
difficulty and expense of cleanup efforts, and the threat to the
public health and environment.
RULE DEVEWPMENI'
Federal regulations affecting underground storage tanks became
effective December 22, 1988.
These rules establish performance standards for new and existing
tanks, requirements for spill and overfill control, corrosion
protection, leak detection, release reporting and res:p:mse, and tank
closure.
These rules are the minimum requirements applicable throughout
the United states. The EPA wisely left it to the individual states to
tailor the rules to meet the conditions 1.IDique to them, particularly
those of geology and hydrology.
RULE SUMVIARY
The proposed rules adopt the existing Federal rules, with sane
significant nod.if ications. The principle nod.if ications proposed in
the rules include the following:
-Tank owners are required to maintain a diagram sha-ring the
location and contents of tanks.
-'Ihe rules define several tenns not defined in the Federal
regulations such as, "de minimis", and "in use".
-Areas of environmental sensitivity are established within which
USTs are banned or are required to have secondary containment.
Revised. 2/12/1991
SECI'ICN I
(.sur,'MARY OF PUBLIC CXNCERNS AND srAFF RESPCNSE)
Revised 9/12/1991
-OWners are required to notify the agency of installation of
tanks, leak detection devices, and pennanent closure or
change-in-service 30 days prior to the action.
-OWners are required to sul:mi.t results of investigations made at
closure or to ensure canpliance with rroni.toring requirements.
-OWners are also required to sul:mi.t descriptions of upgrade
actions and certification of proper operation of corrosion
protection devices.
-The rules elaborate on the design, location and construction of
site rronitoring wells.
-'Ihe rules establish a time limit of 14 days for investigating
the presence of free product when a confirmed release has
occurred.
-The rules require corrective action plans to be prepared in
accordance with the requirements of the N.C. Groundwater
Classifications and Standards ( 1 SA NCAC 2L) .
-The rules require site assessments to be conducted by a
"qualified person".
The above nodifications are believed to be a necessary addition
to the Federal Rules. They address viable concerns and are necessary
for a canprehensive groundwater program in North Carolina.
MAJOR PUfil.IC CXNCERNS
Several of the issues raised by the proposal proved to be
controversial. Numerous ccmnents were received regarding these
topics.
1) Rule .0101 (d) -The paragraph required that the presence and
location of underground storage tanks be recorded on real estate
deeds. This paragraph received a great deal of public carment because
it appeared to present a number of difficulties fran a legal
standpoint. '!his paragraph has been deleted fran the proposed Rules.
However, the concept behind the original rule .0101(d) is
supported by the Hearing Officers and the staff, and deletion of the
proposed rule is only supp:>rted because State rule implementation
would have to be delayed substantially to make appropriate Statutory
revisions. The Hearing Officers therefore request that the carmission
direct the staff to work with the Real Property Section and the
Environmental Law Section of the North Carolina State Bar to develop
draft Legislation to achieve the purpose intended by the original
draft of the rules regarding recording the existence of underground
storage tanks on property deeds.
2) Rule .0301 and .0301 Alternative. The rules specify perfo:rmance
standards for new underground storage tank systems. The rules would
prohibit the placement of an UST within a certain distance of public
water supplies, wells, high quality water, and outstanding resource
water. The rules would also require tanks to conform to hazardous
waste tank specifications under certain circumstances. 'Ihese rules
Revised 2/12/1991
generated a great deal of public carment, especially with regard to
the specification for secondary containment. After due consideration,
Rule .0301 Alternative was deleted and Rule .0301 was rrodified to
restrict the area in which underground tanks would be prohibited or
required to use secondary containment.
3) Rule .0504(e) and .0803(a)(2). 'Ihese rules state that site
assessments, remediation, and closure shall be conducted by a licensed
geologist or professional engineer. A great deal of public carment
was received with regard to these two rules. 'Ihe teJ'.IIl "licensed
geologist or professional engineer" was replaced by the teJ'.IIl "Person
qualified to assess site conditions" which means a person who, through
a canbination of training and experience, is canpetent to evaluate the
conditions existing at an usr system site, including the physical and
chemical conditions of the subsurface.
HEARING OFFICERS REXXlJfllENDATIOO'
'Ihe Hearing Officers recc:mnend that the proposed changes as they
appear in Addendum I of this report be adopted by the Environmental
Management Comri.ssion.
Revised 2/12/1991
SUMVJARY OF a:MVIENI'S 00 PROPOSED
UNDERGROOND S'IORAGE TANK RULES ( 15A NCAC 2N}
HEARING DA'IES: ASHEVILLE----------MAY 2, 1990
RALEIGH------------MAY 7, 1990
~BERN-----------MAY 10, 1990
~BERN-----------MAY 14, 1990
Individuals making ccmnent at the Asheville May 2, 1990 Hearing:
1 } Mr. Ben Pace, President, County Food Stores
2) Mr. Chip Gould, Executive Vice-President, cason Conpanies, Inc.
3} Mr. Hall Wad.dell, Vice-President, Reaben Oil Conpany
4} Mr. Dan Wad.dell, President, Reaben Oil Conpany
5} Mr. Mike Royster, Vice-President, Royster Oil Conpany
6) Mr. Paul Meli, Vice-President, Bridgep::>rt Chemical Corporation
7} Mr. Robert Arey, President, Arey Conpanies
8) Ms. Anne Coan, Natural Resources Division Director,
N.C. Fann Bureau Federation
9} Mr. Joel W. Wright, Jr. , Crnmi.ssioner, City of Hendersonville,
Wright Oil Conpany
10) Mr. John Hardin, President, Hardin's Pump & canpressor, Inc.
11) Mr. Larry Ba,rlen, Sales, Jones & Frank Corporation
12} Mr. James Joe White, E. P. Nisbet Conpany
13) Mr. Steve Propst, Treasurer, Propst Brothers Distributors, Inc.
14) Mr. Jim Gouge, Jr., President, J.J. Gouge and Son
Oil canpany, Inc.
15) Mr. F. Daniel Martin, Division Maintenance Engineer,
N.C. Deparbnent of Transp::>rtation, Division of Highways.
Individuals making ccmnent at the Raleigh May 7, 1990 Hearing:
1 } Mr. F.d Turlington, Attorney, Tharrington, Smith & Hargrove
representing the Convenience Store Association
2) Mr. F.dwin E. Andrews III, Geologist,
Russnow, Kane & Andrews, Inc.
3} Ms. Jeanne Hankerson, Environmental Coordinator,
Federated Mutual Insurance Conpany
4} Mr. F.dward S. Holms, Jr. , Operations Managers,
Kenan Oil canpany
5} Mr. M. J. Johnson, Owner, Johnson Oil Conpany
6) Mr. Roger w. Warren, President, OSI' Management Inc.
7} Mr. Gerald lVIatthews, Technical Director,
N.C. Petroleum Marketers Association.
8} Mr. Steven I.evi tas, Director, N. C. Environmental Defense Fund
9} Mr. Ronald W. Sanders, President,
carmercial Laboratories Association of North carolina
10) Mr. Al:nold Jones, President, Anlold Jones Oil and Heating
11 ) Mr. Don carter, Consulting Engineers Council
12} Ms. Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center
13) Mr. Frank M:Neill, Jr., Vice-President, McNeil! Oil Conpany
Revised 9/12/1991
14) Mr. Bill Holman, Conservatioo Colmcil of North Carolina
15) Mr. William B. Pitbnan, General Council,
North Carolina Land Title Associatioo
16) Mr. Toney Rieck, Executive Director,
Natioo Leak Prevention Association
17) Mr. Robert E. Gresham, Vice-President,
Service Distributing canpany, Inc.
18) Mr. W. C. Collins, Vice-President, Stallings Oil Canpany
19) Mr. Rob Cohen, Attorney, Maupin, Taylor, Ellis, and Adams
20) Mr. Bill Johns, Corporate Secretary, Nisbet Oil Conpany
21) Mr. Charles Akin, Director of Construction and Maintenance,
Service Distributing canpany
22) Mr. Chris Reinhardt, Consulting Geologist, RKH, Inc.
23) Mr. Larry Hunter, Vice-President, SPA'IOJ
24) Mr. Bill carro11, Norfolk Oil
Individuals making cx:mnen.t at the New Bern May 10, 1990 Hearing:
1 ) Mr. Phil Walker
2) Mr. William Bunlett, Environmental Planner,
Ven Oesen and Associates
3) Mr. Bobby L. Tripp, General Manager, Daughtridge Oil
4) Mr. Tyler B. Warren, Attorney,
Real Property Section of the N.C. Bar Association
5) Mr. Peter J. Obenauer, M:>bil Oil (Retired)
6) Mr. Lin~ Fillingame
Individuals making cx:mnen.t at the New Bern May 14, 1990 Hearing:
1 ) Mr. Raynond E. I:owning
2) Mr. A. J. Ballard, President, Ballard Tire and Oil Ccmpany
3) Mr. Tan Potter, Sr, President, Tan Potter Oil Conpany
4) Mr. M. J. Johnson, Owner, Johnson Oil Q:mpany
5) Mr. A. Frank Massey, General Manager, Hall's Petroleum
Written Ccmnents were received fran the follooing:
1 ) MJore and Van Allen, Attorneys at Law, representing
Federated Mutual Insurance Q:mpany
2) Newson Oil Conpany, Inc.
3) Eden Oil Conpany
4) Reaben Oil Conpany, Triangle Food Stop Stores
5) Henry Von Oesen and Associates
6) Duke Power
7) North Carolina Office of General Council
8) The Sierra Club and the Conservation Council of North Carolina
9) Ccrmlercial Laboratories Association of North Carolina
1 O) The C.onsulting Engineers Camcil of North Carolina
11 ) North carolina Petroleum Marketers Association
12) North carolina Association Calvenience Stores
13) North Carolina Land Title Association
14) Federated Mutual Insurance Q:mpany
15) Soil and Environmental Consultants
Revised 9/12/1991
16) Several newspaper articles on Industrial Bacteria received
fran the public
17) North Carolina state University, College of Agriculture and
Life Sciences
18) AT&T
19) SPA'ICO (Southern Pump and Tank Conpany)
20) Wake County Real Property Lawyers Association
21) Southeastern Geological
22) carolina Power and Light Conpany
23) Bridgeport Chemical Corporation
24) Anlold Jones Oil and Heating Co. , Inc.
25) Ouida C. Kent
26) Crown Central Petroleum Corporation
27) Law and Ccrnpany, Consulting and Analytical Chemists
28) Robert Alan Cohen, F.sg.
29) Seagroves Supply Co., Inc.
30) North Carolina Petroleum Council
31) Southern Environmental Law Center\North carolina Environmental
Defense Fund.
32) 3T Corporation
33) Holt Oil Co., Inc.
34) Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
35) 'Iharrington, Smith and Hargrove, Attorneys at Law, representing
the North carolina Association of Convenience stores.
36) Everett, Everett, Warren, and Harper, Attorneys at Law
37) Steven B. Lucas, Geologist
38) DMOO, Inc. , Pump and Tank Contractors
39) J.M. Davis Industries, Inc.
40) Friendly Mart Inc.
41 ) Tri-County Petroleum
42) A.T. Williams Oil Conpany
43) Neighlx>rs Stores, Inc.
44) Colonel's Pantry
45) Sessans Properties, Inc.
46) LI 'L 'llrrift Food Marts, Inc.
47) McCracken Oil Conpany
48) Quik Shop Gas Stop
49) Sav-Way, Best Hot Dogs in Town
50) Open Pantry Food Marts of the Carolinas, Inc.
51) Majik Market
52) Quick Stop Food Mart, Inc.
53) Fast Track Foods, Inc.
54) North Carolina Fann Bureau Federation
55) Asheville Oil Conpany, Inc
56) The Pantry
57) 134 letters received fran the general public in favor of
stronger regulation.
Revised 9/12/1991
PUBLIC CXlVMENI' AND STAFF RESPCNSE BY RULE CITATIOO'
1) Rule .0101 (d} (Presence and Location of USTs rec:x:>rded on Title
Deeds) received a ntnnber of ccmnents:
-a) '!he rule as written will cloud all deed transfers because there
is no prescribed methodology. '!here is a need for sane fonn of
registration to notify p:,tential property owners of the presence of
USTs. It is felt that the agency or the catmission should consult
with the North carolina Registers of Deeds Association and with the
North carolina Bar Association (Real Property Section) for further
guidance before the rule is finalized.
-b) It is suggested that the rule not require sw:vey maps to specify
the location of USTs. Sw:vey mapping would greatly increase the cost
of closing or deed transfer.
-c) Because the presence and location of USTs will be an the Title,
Lenders will want title insurance crnq;,ani.es to insure them against
loss or damage due to USTs. Lenders may also want insurance that
there are no USTs are present on the property at all. Title
insurance canpanies are not able to p:rovide this kind of insurance.
However, Lenders may not lend :rroney without it. '!he purpose of a
deed is to transfer title, not to say what is on, or in, the
property.
-d) The rule would require additional searching by attorneys and
sw:veyors who may be unwilling to assume this liability.
-e) Suggest a written description of UST locations by the individual
making the transfer.
-f) Approve recording tanks on property deeds.
-g) Question with regard to .0101(D): Is a landowner absolutely liable
to detenni.ne the location of tanks on his land whether or not he is
aware of them? Given that he fails to detenni.ne the location of
tanks on his property, what sort of penalties might occur?
-h) The North carolina Bar Association, and its Real Property Section,
are both in opp:,sition to .0101 (D).
-i) If subsection Dis adopted as proposed, it will create uncertainty
in the transfer of titles and it will impose additional
representation and warranty up:,n sellers which they do not currently
have in deeds. It will raise new legal issues with regards to the
effect of those warranties and representations. No one knows what
the construction for that liability would be as the courts look at
these new issues.
-j) There is a State agency which is required to keep a record of the
underground storage tanks and their respective locations. It is
suggested that the burden of disclosure fall on the State agency to
notify the county in which the tank is located. The disclosure
notice would give the name of the property owner and the approximate
location of the tank. There could be a small diagram included at the
bottan of the notice. 'Ihe registrar of deeds could record the notice
and then place it in the Granter index. 'Ihis would allCM a citizen
or an attorney to discover the existence of the UST during a routine
title search.
Revised 9/12/1991
) -k) '!he purpose of a deed is not to serve as a notice of disclosure or
a instrument for canplying with regulations of various agencies. The
purpose of a deed is to merely transfer the ownership of property.
-1) Disclosure of the presence and location of USTs on title deeds is
repetitive and unnecessary. There is a state agency which is already
required to keep such infonnation (Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, 42 USC Section 6991).
-m) 'lhe North Carolina Land Title Association is opposed to .0101 (d).
-n) Strongly support the concept of a notice alerting prospective
purchasers of real property of the existence of underground storage
tanks.
-o) Support option (d) al:x:>ve, but believe that legislation will be
required to implement it. We would like to see such legislation
drafted and endorsed by the Real Property Section before .0101(d)
is deleted fran the proposed 1 SA NCAC 2N rules.
-p) It is not clear how landowners should record the presence and
location of UST systems. Should metes and bounds fran property
bounds be utilized or could diagrams be attached?
-q) A unifonn procedure or fonn should be developed.
-r) 'Ihe rule should provide a procedure whereby the presence of tanks
can be renoved fran a title.
-s) With regard to placing the presence of tanks on deeds, how are
previously abandoned tanks to be treated? 'lhe rule should be limited
to those UST systems that were required to be registered beginning in
1986. Information regarding previously abandoned USTs may be
difficult or impossible to obtain.
-t) 'Ihe UST regulations, both federal and state, appear to regulate
only "owners and operators" of USTs and UST systems. It is not
uncarm::n for the landowner to be neither the "owner" nor the
"operator" of a UST an his or her land. At the very least, the tenn
"land owners" in Regulation .0101(d) should be revised to read
"owners and operators as defined in these regulations". A better
solution is to delete Subsection .0101(d) altogether, substituting a
request that the Groundwater Section of the Division of Environmental
Management make available to the County Registers of Deeds its lists
or registered USTs.
-u) '!he proposed regulation is overboard and the open-endedness of this
proposed regulation renders it susceptible to charges of vagueness as
well.
-v) The proposed regulation apparently imposes the follCMing
obligations an "land owners":
1) 'lb visually survey property and detennine, with sane unspecified
degree of precision, the "presence and location" of USTs an the
property;
2) 'lb "ensure", again by unspecified means, that "all" UST systems
an the property have been ascertained and located;
3) In order to canply with the second requirement al:x:>ve, perform a
magnetaneter survey or other procedure which will "ensure" that no
undisa::>vered tanks are an the property; and
4) Record this information an a deed, which is a pennanent document
of title; and
5) Bear the risk of sane unspecified penalty or liability for
failure to canply.
Revised 9/12/1991
'Ihe appropriate method for iirq;x>sing such responsibility is
legislative enactment, not administrative rulemaking. 'Ihis is
clearly in excess of the authority delegated by the General Assembly.
-w) Suggest that survey maps are not required.
-x) Section will cloud all deed transfers because the requirement is
general with no prescribed methodology or form.
-y) Suggest the deletion of this rule.
Carments made in Asheville, May 2, 1990 by:
A) Ms. Anne Coan, Natural Resources Division Director,
North Carolina Fann Bureau Federation. (Carment: a,b,e)
Carments made in Raleigh, May 7, 1990 by:
A) Mr. Bill Holman, Conservation Council of North carolina and
the Sierra Club. (cannent: f)
B) Mr. William B. Pitbrian, General Council, North Carolina Land
Title Association. (Connent: c,d,m)
C) Mr. Rob Cohen, Attorney, Maupin, Taylor, Ellis, and Adams.
(Ccmnent: g)
D) Mr. Tyler B. Warren, Attorney, Real Property Section of the
North Carolina Bar Association. (Connent: h,i,j,k)
Written cannent:
A) Mr. James M. Day, President, Wake Ccmlty Real Property
Lawyers Association, (Ccmnent: k,1,m)
B) Everett, Everett, Warren, and Harper, Attorneys at Law.
(Ccmnents: c,h,j,k,y)
C) Southern Environmental Law Center\North Carolina Environmental
Defense Fund. (Ccrrrnents: q,o)
D) North Carolina Petroleum Council. (Ccmnent: g,p,q,r,s)
E) Robert Alan Cohen, Esq. , Environmental Lawyer.
(Ccmnent: g,j,r,t,u,v,y)
F) North Carolina Fann Bureau Federation. (Carment: r,w,x)
Staff Resprnse:
It is recxmnended that this requirement be deleted fran the
pn::pJSed rules. Althalqh a:n:::eptually desirable, the rule is fraught
with tectmica1 probl.€115 of l egal and administrative nature. Until a
nore acceptable option is defined , the Section's tank registry may be
used as a source of information on the location of USl's.
2) Rule .0104 (Identification of Tanks )
-a) Rule .0104 is not necessary. Tanks have been identified on EPA
Fo:rm 7530-1. This fonn is filed with the State and must be updated
when changes are made. Would the State require notification when
buildings are added? How does the State intend to handle lots which
are carrronly owned? EPA Fann 7530-1 is sufficient for tank
identification.
-b) Have no objection to this rule unless the diagrams described must
be drafted by a licensed engineer.
-c) Have no objection if adequate time for carpliance is allowed.
Revised 9/12/1991
-d) 'Ihe Division should consider developing a standard form for the
identification of tanks and should mail it to all tank owners without
their having to request it.
-e) It appears burdensane and redundant to require the regulated
camrunity to obtain and keep a diagram of the facility onsite since
all the information except location is or has been sul:mitted to the
deparbnent as part of the UST notification process.
Carments made in Asheville, May 2, 1990 by:
A) Mr. Dan Waddell, President, Reaben Oil Co. (Carment: a)
B) Mr. Mike Royster, President, Royster Oil Co. (Camtent: a)
Carments made in New Bern, May 14, 1990 by:
A) Mr. Tan Potter, SR. , President, Tan Potter Oil Conpany.
(Camlent: b)
Written Camtents:
A) Gerald P. Matthews, P.E., Petroleum Marketers Association.
(Ccmnent: c)
B) Mr. Fd Turlington, Attorney, Tharrington, Smith, and Hargrove,
representing the Convenience Store Association. (Ccmnent: d)
C) North carolina Petroleum Council. (Carment: e)
Staff Respcnse:
It is recarnended that this rule be retained but anended bv
inserting the word "current" between "a" arrl "diagram" at .0104 (a }.
'lhi.s requirerent is neither exJX>SS:ive nor hmlensc:me and would
provide a link between the registered infcmnaticn and acbJal site
cooditioos.
3) Rule .0203 (Definitions )
-a) '!he definition of "De Minimis Concentration" is unclear because the
tenn "significant degree" is not defined. Who, using what
methodology, will determine what is a "significant degree"?
Written Comlents:
A) North carolina Petroleum Council. (Carment: a)
Staff Respcnse:
Staff reo 1111er-:Js that the definiticn of "De Minimis" be aoEllded to
describe cnly the quantity of a regulated substance ccnsidered to be
de minim.is.
4) Suggest the creation of .0204 (Extension of Cgnp liance Deadlines ).
-a) Any deadline UJ?Oil an owner or operator set within any Section of
this subchapter may be extended by the Division's appropriate
regional office. such an extension must be requested fran the
Di vision in writing before the deadline expires. such extensions
shall be granted only up:>n request of the tank owner or operator to
Revised 9/12/1991
the regional office with jurisdiction over the area in which the tank
is located and only upon a showing of gcx:::rl cause.
Written Ccmnents:
A) M:x:>re and Van Allen, Attorneys at Law representing Federated
Mutual Insurance Conpany. (Ccmnent: a)
Staff RespcDSe:
'1he suggested new rule would provide far extensims to all
deadlines which is n::>t the staff's intent.
5) Suggest the creation of .0205 (Administrative Agency Deadlines).
-a} The Division shall be under a duty to provide any review or
approval of reports, plans or other sul:mittals by tank owners or
operators, in cx:mpliance with this subchapter, within fifteen (15)
days of receiving such sul:mittal fran the tank owner or operator. If
such a deadline cannot be met, the Division must notify the tank
owner or operator, in writing, prior to the expiration of this
deadline, of the approximate time in which a response can be
expected.
Written Ccmnents:
A) M:x:>re and Van Allen, Attorneys at Law representing Federated
Mutual Insurance Conpany. (Carment: a}
Staff Respcnse:
'1he Divisicn' s caJ?:3city to renew and arorove docmelts within a
given tinefrane is a functi01 of the availability of qualified staff.
As the Divisi01's staff is exb:elely limited, the inp::)siti01 of an
additiaial aan:i.nistrative burden as Pfg..g,>trl, liOJld serve mly to
weaken the Divisicn' s prooocti vity further. Staff <DeS n::>t recamend
the adcpti01 of this suggested rule.
3) The public expressed concern over Rule .0301 and to its progosed
alternative. 'Ihe regulations specify the minimum separation between a
new UST and surface waters, pµblic water supplies, and well systems. It
also specifies the requirements for secondary containment. There were
several objections to these rules as follows:
-a} Many individuals do not have property large enough to accamodate
the regulation. As a result, those individuals are subjected to
unnecessary hardship.
-b} Objection to the requirement to install double wall or equivalent
secondary containment systems. Requiring operators to upgrade
current UST systems in accordance with this regulation is unfair and
beyond the financial means of nost operators. Many operators have
already upgraded their systems in accordance with Federal regulations
at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars. 'lb require the
renoval of the upgraded system, which meets Federal requirements, in
order to install additional equipnent is unwarranted.
Revised 9/12/1991
-c) Suggest nonitoring the interior of the tank as an alternative to
secondary containment.
-d) Rule .0301 and .0503 could both be interpreted to say that all
tanks nrust have double walls or equivalent secondary containment.
During the Hearing, it was understood that this is not the case.
'Ihe \'Ording of these rules needs to be clarified.
-e) Make sure double wall tanks and secondary ccntainment are necessary
before requiring that they be installed (ie: perform a study).
-f) '!he rules prohibiting the installation of USI's within certain
distances of surface waters, wells, and public water supply's should
be abolished.
-g) Secondary containment is not needed. '!he other stringent
requirements within the rule will provide adequate protection.
-h) Object to alternative .0301 B & C because it is believed to be
unnecessary arrl/or a disaster financially.
-i) Suggest the establishment of a variance procedure based on specific
site conditions in lieu of blanket limitations on UST installations
near surface waters, public water supplies, and wells.
-j) It is unclear in the proposed rules, whether tanks (new or
existing) may be within 50 feet of any private water well.
-k) Suggest that a reasonable mininn.nn distance (such as 50 feet) be
established to allow for corrective action regardless of a tanks
secondary containment systems.
-1) Approves of the rule .0301 alternative as it currently is.
-m) Suggest using leak detection equipnent as an alternative to
secondary containment.
-n) A double walled tank can be very dangerous if the outer containment
area is filled with fumes. Suggest these tanks be required only if
the installation is near wells or other water supplies.
-o) Underground Storage Tanks should be banned in WS-I watersheds
and in the critical area WS-II watersheds. Secondary containment
should be required for USTs in the critical areas of WS-III, proposed
ws-v, watersheds.
-p) E.P.A. technical standards of the Underground Storage Tank
Regulations are totally adequate for storage tanks and piping because
they are based up:m several years of investigation which included
experience surveys, input fran corrosion engineers and other national
institutions for safety and construction standards. It is suggested
that the Division use the E.P.A. technical standards as their
standard for tanks and piping.
-g) .0301(b) and (c) should be adopted instead of the proposed
alternative.
-r) 'Ib avoid confusion, the tenn "source of public water" fOlIDd in
.0301 should be defined or replaced with the tenn "public surface
water intake".
-s) Secondary containment or double walled tanks should be required
only for new petroleum USTs that are within certain distances
of water supplies.
-t) Require double walled tanks only in those locations where the
soil conditions are corrosive to the point they warrant double walls.
-u) Support the requirement of secondary containment for all new UST
systems.
Revised 9/12/1991
-v) Existing tanks in environmentally sensitive areas should be
required to install secondary containment. '!his should be
implemented on a reasonable aggressive phase-in schedule.
-w) If all tanks are required to have secondary containment and
existing tanks in sensitive areas are subject to seccndary
containment requirements on a reasonable schedule, significant
regulatory control could be achieved without the need for requiring
all UST systems to meet the requirements of Rule .0503 (which
requires secondary containment for all tanks by December 22, 1998).
-x) 'Ihe distances fran wells and surface water systems for which UST
system bans have been proposed are arbitrary and do not take into
aCOOlll'lt site specific criteria.
-y) If Rule .0301(c) nrust be adopted, then the ban on tanks within
certain distances of surface waters, public water supply's etc,
should not apply to the existing systems or the replacement of those
systems.
-z) API Recarmended Practice 1615 recarmends that secondary containment
be installed within 300 feet of a public drinking water supply or
100 feet of a private drinking water supply.
-aa) 'Ihe federal regulations governing this issue should be adopted.
-ab) Section .0301(c)(3) provides the department with arbitrary
discretion for requiring secondary containment in any situation. If
this subsection is maintained, it should be revised to include
clearly defined criteria for requiring secondary containment in order
to provide a technical basis for a decision.
-ac) Rules .0301(b) Alternative, .0301(c) Alternative, and .0301(c)(3)
should be rejected.
-ad) Believes that properly installed single-walled fiberglass tanks
offer reasonable and sufficient leak protection.
-ae) Give the authority to perfonn site assessments, remediation, and
closure to the local fire marshal and or health departments.
-af) Alternate to proposed .0301 contains the same contradiction as is
found in .0301(b)(1) and .0301(c)(1). See carrnent (j).
-ag) Page 14, paragraph .0301, Alternate to proposed .0301
subparagraph (c) calls for leak detection requirements of Rule .0503
page (31). Rule .0503 is described on page 31 as the "Requirements
for Hazardous Substance UST Systems", and paragraph .0503 is follaved
by paragraph .0503 Alternative which states "that the requirements
shall also apply to petrolelllil UST systems as designated at Rule
.0301(c). 'Ihese references are not clear. '!his indicates that
adoption of the Alternative mandates the same requirements for
petrolelllil UST systems.
-ah) Believe the originally proposed 100 foot exclusion zone is rrore
appropriate.
-ai) Support the proposed ban in .301 Alternate on the installation of
an UST within 500 feet of a public water system, 50 feet of other
supply wells and within 500 feet of certain surface waters. Suggest
that the ban include state designated High Quality waters. The
implementation of the ban should be ccordinated with the EM::'s
recently proposed regulations on watershed protection to the extent
feasible.
-aj) Opposed to these particular new tank perfonnance standards
applying to existing tanks after December 22, 1998.
Revised 9/12/1991
-ak) If an adjoining property CM11.er decides to install a well after the
UST system is installed, is the Owner/Operator required to dig the
usr system up and replace it with tanks that are secondarily
contained?
-al) Suggests that Alternative Rule .0301(c) be rejected.
Carmen.ts made in Asheville, May 2, 1990, by:
A) Mr. Ben Pace, President, Country Fo:xl Stores. (Carment: a,b,c,h)
B) Mr. Chip Gould, Vice-President, cason Co., Inc. (Ccmnent: a)
C) Mr. Hall Waddell, Vice-President, Reaben Oil Co. (Crnment: b,h)
D) Mr. Mike Royster, President, Royster Oil Co. (Ccmnent: a,b,h)
E) Mr. Paul Meli, Vice-President,
Bridgep:,rt Chemical Corp. (Ccmnent: d)
F) Mr. Robert Arey, President, Arey Conpanies. ( Carment: b, e, h)
G) Ms. Anne Coan, Natural Resources Division Director,
North carolina Fann Bureau Federation. (Carment: a,b,f,g,h)
H) Mr. James Jo White, E.P. Nisbet Co. (Carment: b,h)
I) Mr. Steve Propst, Treasurer,
Propst Bros. Dists., Inc. (Ccmnents: b,h)
Carmen.ts made in Raleigh, May 7, 1990, by:
A) Mr. Ed Turlington, Attorney, 'Iharrington, Smith, and Hargrove,
representing the Convenience Store Association. (Carment: b,g,h,q)
B) Mr. Edwin E. Andrews III, Geologist, Russnow, Kane, and Andrews,
representing the N.C. Licensing Board of Geologists and the
carolina Section of the America Institute of Professional
Geologists. ( Ccmnent: i)
C) Mr. Rodger w. Warren, President, usr Management Inc.
(Carment: g,i)
D) Mr. Don Carter, Consulting Engineers Council. (Carment: j,k,1)
E) Ms. Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center.
(Carment: 1)
F) Mr. Frank McNeill, Jr., Vice-President, McNeill Oil Conpany.
(Carment: g)
G) Mr. Bill Holman, Conservation Council of North carolina and the
Sierra Club. (Ccmnent: l,o)
H) Mr. 'lbny Rieck, Executive Director, National Leak Prevention
Association. (Ccmnent: b,h)
I) Mr. W.C. Collins, Vice-President, Stallings Oil Canpany.
(Carment: b,h)
J) Mr. Bill Johns, Corporate Secretary, Nisbet Oil Canpany.
(Carment: b,h)
K) Mr. Charles Akin, Director, Construction and Maintenance
Service Distribution Conpany. (Ccmnent: b,h)
L) Mr. Larry Hunter, Vice-President, SPA'IO). (Carment: e,m)
M) Mr. Bill Carroll, Norfolk Oil. (Ccmnent: b,h)
Carmen.ts made in New Bern, May 10, 1990, by:
A) Mr. Bobby L. Tripp, General Manager, Daughtridge Oil.
(Carment: n)
Revised 9/12/1991
Ccmnents made in New Bern, May 14, 1990 by:
A) Mr. Tan Potter, SR. , President, Tan Potter Oil canpany.
(Ccmnent: b,h)
Written Ccmnents:
A) Newsan Oil canpany. (Ccmnent: b,h)
B) F.den Oil Conpany. (Ccmnent: b,h)
C) Duke Power canpany. (Ccmnent: g,h)
D) Mr. Gerald Matthews, Technical Director,
N.C. Petroleum Marketers Association. (Ccmnent: a,b,j,p)
E) J.R. Durante, CoJ:lX)rate Environmental Engineering Manager,
AT&T. (Carment: q,r)
F) J. D. Whisnant, Branch Manager, SPA'ICO. ( Ccmnent: b)
G) J.M. Davis Industries, Inc. (Ccmnent: b,h,p,s)
H) Holt Oil Conpany, Inc. (Ccmnent: t)
I) Southern Environmental Law Center\North carolina Environmental
Defense Fund. (Ccmnent: u,v,w,ai)
J) A.T. Williams Oil canpany. (Ccmnent: b,g,h,s)
K) Crown Central Petroleum Corporation. (CCJrrnent: b,g,h,p,s,aa,ad)
L) Friendly Mart Inc. (Connent: b,g,h,s)
M) Tri-County Petroleum. (Ccmnent: b,g,h,s)
N) A.T. Williams Oil canpany. (Ccmnent: b,g,h,s)
0) Neighbors Stores, Inc. (Ccmnent: b,g,h,s)
P) Colonel's Pantry. (Ccmnent: b,g,h,s)
Q) Sessans Properties, Inc. (Ccmnent: b,g,h,s)
R) LI'L Thrift Fcxxl Marts, Inc. (Ccmnent: b,g,h,s)
S) McCracken Oil Conpany. (Ccmnent: b,g,h,s)
T) Quik Shop Gas Stop. (Connent: b,g,h,s)
U) Sav-Way, Best Hot Dogs in Town. (CCJrrnent: b,g,h,s)
V) Open Pantry Fcxxl Marts of the carolinas, Inc. (CCJrrnent: b,g,h,s)
W) Majik Market. (Ccmnent: b,g,h,s)
X) Quick Stop Fcxxl Mart, Inc. (Connent: b,g,h,s)
Y) Fast Track Fcxxls, Inc. (Connent: b,g,h,s)
Z) North Carolina Petroleum Council.
(Carrnent: a,b,g,d,x,y,z,aa,ab,ac)
AA) Seagroves Supply Co., Inc. (Connent: b,y,aa)
AB) Am.old Jones Oil and Heating Co. , Inc. ( Connent: ae)
AC) Bridgeport Chemical Corporation. (Connent: a,j,p,af,ag)
AD) Ca:rolina Power and Light. (Ccmnent: a,h,ah)
AE) North Carolina Fann Bureau Federation. (Connent: aj)
AF) Asheville Oil Conpany. (Ccmnent: b,ak)
AG) Tharrington, Smith, and Hargrove, Attorneys at Law representing
the North Carolina Association of Convenience Stores.
(Ccrrrnent: h,aa,y,al)
AH) The Pantry. (Ccmnent: b,aa)
Staff Respcnse:
Staff ?UQ-PLl.::. the adopticn of Rule .0301 with sooe nroificaticn.
It is the g:rlnicn of the staff that hmnig;J the installaticn of new
tanks in proximity to wells as proposed in .0301 (b ) is caisistent
with, and crnplimentary to existim rules cpvemin;J the locatim of
plblic and private water suppl y wells. lbwever, it is the cpi.nicn of
staff that the ban en the installaticn of new tanks within 100 feet
Revised 9/12/1991
of surface san:ces of drinking water supply is excessively stringent
and a:d>itrazy and sooul.d be deleted. 'lbe :requireuelt far sea::n:Jary
cxnta:innent for USl's located within 500 feet of a rob.lie water supply
sairce should be retained as a precautien against the ccnseguences of
a tank failure to a nearby water supply.
'Ihe provisioos of the Alternative to Pre•• 66.l .0301 are not
recxmrended.. It is believed that it is not necessary to require
secxrrlary cxntainrent at all tank sites, regardless of locatic:n, as
to do so ignores the mitigatin:J cxnlitioos afforded by local
site hydcweql.ogy.
Existim usr' s. within the area in which new tanks are to be
banned. may be upgraded in accx:m'Jance with the regu::irBIB1ts for
existing USl's and by the additien of secxrrlary ccntainrent.
Existing tanks which neet the au:rent Federal :requireuelts are
ccnsidered to be in ccnpliance with these rules.
4) Rule .0302 (Upgrading of Existing UST Systems).
-a) The upgrading schedule is inadequate to address the threat of the
older tanks that are currently in the ground (ie: ten years is too
long).
-b) The alternative rule .0503, dealing with the related proble:n of
release detection, would provide rrore protection fran the older
tanks.
-c) Ten years is too long for the upgrade of existing USTs. Suggest
five years instead of ten.
-d) The regulations should require that the oldest tanks (20 years or
older) undertake upgrading at the earliest date detennined
feasible by the EM:!. The tanks in the next lower age classes,
e.g. 16-20 years and 11-15 years, should also be placed on an
accelerated upgrade schedule follCMing the oldest tanks.
-e) 'Ihe alternative rule .0503, dealing with the related proble:n of
release detection, would provide rrore protection fran the older
tanks.
Ccmnents made in Raleigh, May 7, 1990, by:
A) Ms. Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental I.aw Center.
(Ccmnent: a,b)
B) Mr. Bill Holman, Conservation Council of North Carolina and
the Sierra Chili. (Corment: a,c)
Written Ccmnents:
A) Southern Environmental I.aw Center\North Carolina Environmental
Defense Fund. (Corment: a,d,e)
Staff Carments:
l\cceleratinq the existing schedule for upgrading tanks wculd ;irrJ)ose
an undue hamship en owner/g:,erat.ors. As release detectim devices
nust be installed en all existfrn tanks by late 1993, it is believed
that such a warning system will provide at least nanina.l protection
until all tanks have been upgraded.
Revised 9/12/1991
5) Rule .0303 (Notification Requi rement )
-a) Rule .0303 is not necessary. 'Ihe oil industry is currently under a
mandate to upgrade all UST locations and must register all new UST
locations when they are canplete. It is an additional burden to file
a "notice of intent" before work has carmenced. '!his rule adds to
the industries work load while providing little benefit.
-b) '!his rule has not been shown to be necessary.
-c) Apparently the Deparbnent must be notified in the event that a leak
detection device is installed on the outenrost wall of the tank and
piping. Notification is not required for in-tank rconitors or for
interstitial m::ni tors. Why is one type of noni taring reported and
another is not.
Ccmnents made in Asheville, May 2, 1990 by:
A) Mr. Dan Waddell, President, Reaben Oil Co. (Crnrnent: a)
B) Mr. Mike Royster, President, Royster Oil Co. (Crnment: a)
Written Crnments:
A) Mr. Ed Turlington, Attorney, 'Iharrington, Smith, and Hargrove,
representing the Convenience Store Association. (Crnment: b)
B) DMCO, Inc. (Ccmnent: c)
Staff fu11u1:::uts:
In oroer for the Divisicn to nari.tor and enforce a::oplianoe with
these nu.es . staff DIJSt have prior mtice of certain critical events
in the life of a tank.
ftbritar wells nust be inspected at the t:iJre of installaticn. After
installaticn, critical features . sudl as screen locatioo, are not
visible. Internal mrltari.rg devices are checked by neans of
external. mrltors which can be inspected at any t:iJre.
6) Rule .0404 (Re pairs Allowed ).
-a) Why is this necessary? 'Ihe repairs must be made. Why should they
also be reported?
-b) This rule has not been shown to be necessary.
-c) Sul:mission of data on UST repair is appropriate and we support the
Division's decision to require this infonnation.
Ccxrmen.ts made in Asheville, May 2, 1990 by:
A) Mr. Dan Waddell, President, Reaben Oil Co. (Crnrnent: a)
Written Carmen.ts:
A) Mr. Ed Turlington, Attorney, 'Iharrington, Smith, and Hargrove,
representing the Convenience Store Association. (Ccxrmen.t: b)
B) Southern Environmental Law Center\North Carolina Environmental
Defense Fund. (Crnment: c)
Revised 9/12/1991
staff O:.Jments:
Staff agrees that the regu:irenelt to repar L repairs slnJld be
deleted. Requ:i.ranents for notifying the agency of a release or of
mrrecti.ve acticn taken, would provide sufficient infarmaticn en
repairs.
7) Rule .0405 (Rerorting and Recordkeeping )
-a) Rule .0405(b)(1) requires that the subnittal of site investigation
results within 30 days following canpletion of the site
investigation. A 30 day time period is insufficient. Laboratory
turnaround time is generally 30 days or nore. Suggest sul:mittal of
results in 60 days.
-b) Strongly support Rule .0405.
-c) Paragraph .0405(c)(3) specifies that certification of the proper
operation of a corrosion protection system shall be part of the
sul:mittal data to the Division within 30 days following canpletion of
the installation, and "in a manner specified by in 40 CFR 280.31."
40 CFR 280.31 allows up to six rronths after installation for the
testing of a cathodic protection system because, technically, it may
require this rrruch time for noisture to penneate sacrificial anodes
and thereby fully activate the system. The proposed rule should be
amended to reflect this change.
-d) This rule has not been shown to be necessary.
-e) Establishment of reporting and recordkeeping procedures is
appropriate and we support the Division's decision to require this
infonnation.
Written Ccmnent:
A) Duke Power canpany. (Ccmnent: a)
B) Mr. Bill Holman, Conservation Council of North Carolina and the
Sierra Club. ( Ccmnent: b)
C) Mr. Gerald P. Matthews, P. E. , Technical Director, North Carolina
Petroleum Marketers Association. (Ccmnent: c)
D) Mr. Ed 'furlington, Attorney, 'lharrington, Smith, and Hargrove,
representing the Convenience Store Association. (Ccmnent: d)
E) Southern Environmental Law Center\North Carolina Environmental
Defense Fund. (Cmment: b,e)
Staff Respoose:
It is remnnemed that .0405 (c ) (3 ) be ameooed by replacing the
words 11 as dem::Xlst:rated by11 with the words 11ur;x::n a:::npleticn of testing
and.11
• '1he :rnle was not intended to inply that the certificaticn was
required within 30 days of cmpleticn of tank installaticn but
rather, within 30 days of a:::npleticn of testi.JxJ .
8) Rule .0502 (Requirements for Petroleum UST s ystems )
-a) Support .0502(b) alternative requiring petroleum USTs to canply
with the same release detection requirements as hazardous substance
USTs.
Revised 9/12/1991
-b) D:> not supIX)rt the alternative to .0502(b) because it seeks to
implement the requirement in alternative regulation .0301 that
petroleum USTs nrust be double-walled or have secondary containment.
-c) This section would require that USTs be treated as Hazardous Waste
Tanks. This would place the ad.di tional burden of safety courses,
safety suits, and health nonitoring on the petroleum industry.
-d) This Rule allows tanks (using rronthly inventory and minimal
upgrading requirements) to canply with release detection requirements
by simply conducting a tank tightness test every 5 years until 1998,
or 10 years after the upgrade, whichever is latest. We strongly
object to this Rule. We encourage the EIVC to amend the pro{X)Sed
regulations and to avoid these inappropriately lengthy deferrals on
installation of release detection.
-e) This section mandates secondary containment as the only fonn of
release detection for petroleum UST systems after 1998. Since
secondary containment cannot be retrofitted to existing tanks, it
mandates replacement of all existing UST systems before December,
1998. This is an extreme and unnecessary burden on UST CMners.
Written Catments:
A) Mr. Bill Holman, Conservation Cotm.cil of North carolina and the
Sierra Club. (Catment: a)
B) Mr. F.d Turlington, Attorney, Tharrington, Smith, and Hargrove,
representing the Convenience Store Association. (Catment: b)
C) DAAOO, Inc. (Catment: c)
D) North carolina Petroleum Council. (Catment: e)
E) carolina Power and Light. ( Catment: b)
F) Southern Environmental Law Center\North carolina Environmental
Defense Fund. (Catment: d)
Staff Respoose:
As we are ri ..... ec"""o..,.o ... 11'""'1ei-moo: in . 0301 that USTs located in proximity to
surface sources of plblic water suwl y have seaxmry a::ntaimen.t, it
is llE'O-S5a!Y to anexJ .0502 to mte that thJse petrolemt tanks nust
neet the :release detection reguirenelts far hazardous substance tanks
found at 40 CFR 280.42 (b ).
Sale cameitators have obj ected to the :retention of periodic
inventmy arrl tank testin.J as an a.ll.cMable means of leak detection
far the next ten years . Staff reccmnends that this option be
:retained in order to avoid placing excessive ecx:n:mi.c hardship an
sore owner/operators.
9) Alternative to Rule .0503 (Requirements for Hazardous Substance UST
Systems ).
-a) Suggest the alternative be rerroved fran further consideration.
-b) D:> not suPIXJrt the alternative to .0503 because it seeks to
implement the requirement in alternative regulation .0301 that
petroleum USTs nrust be double-walled or have secondary containment.
-c) D:> not feel that secondary containment should be required for all
regulated tanks after the effective date of the rules.
Revised 9/12/1991
Written Ccrcment:
A) Mr. Gerald P. Matthews, P.E., Technical Director, North carolina
Petroleum Marketers Association. (Crnrnent: a)
B) Mr. Ed 'furlingtan, Attorney, Tharrington, Smith, and Hargrove,
representing the Convenience Store Association. (Ccrcment: b)
C) Bridgeport Chemical Corporation. (Crnrnent: a)
D) carolina Power and Light. (Crnrnent: a)
E) North carolina Fann Bureau Federation. ( Crnrnent: c)
Staff Resprnse:
Rule • 0503 has been :re-written to reference the c:ir'coo5tances in
which requi.rarents far hazanbls substance US'I's aie also applicable
to scne petroleum US'I's.
10) The r equirements of rules .0502 and .0503 seem unclear. The rules
can be interpreted to mean that all tanks rrrust have double walls or
equivalent s econdary containment. During the Hearing , it was understocxl.
that these rules a ppl y only to new tanks. If this is the case , the
v-K:>rding needs to be clarified.
Ccrcments made in Asheville, May 2, 1990 by:
A) Mr. Paul Meli, Vice-President, Bridgeport Chemical Corp.
Staff Resprnse:
Rule • 0503 has been :re-written to reference the circlinstances in
which reguirements far hazanbls substance US'I's aie also applicable
to scne petroleum US'I's.
11) Rule .0504 (Wells used for tvbnitoring )
-a) Rule .0504 should not be m:xlified by the State. The Federal
Regulations require rronthly sampling. The states m:xlif ications would
require sampling every 14 days. Please do not nodify the Federal
sampling frequency. See if the Federal requirement will produce the
needed results first.
-b) Rule .0504 states that before the installation of vapor groundwater
IIOI1itoring equipnent, the site rrrust be accessed as required by
federal regulations and the work perfonned by a licensed geologist or
professional engineer. Suggest that licensed contractors perfo:rm the
assessment instead.
-c) Rule .0504 states that before the installation of vapor groundwater
IIOI1itoring equipnent, the site rrrust be assessed as required by
federal regulations and the work perfonned by a licensed geologist or
professional engineer. It is suggested that contractors perfonn the
soil sampling and closure procedures at rroni taring well sites. They
should also have to follow the established sampling protocols and
accountability requirements
-d) Require bonding for individuals experienced in site assessment,
closure, etc.
Revised 9/12/1991
-e) The EI'-C is encouraged to delete inventory control as a means of
release detection as proposed by this rule. EPA has shown that
inventory control is not a reliable means of release detection.
-f) EPA has detenn:i.ned that thirty-day rronitoring is effective and we
are unaware of any data that would indicate that a fourteen day time
frame would significantly improve release rronitoring. This departure
fran the federal standards appears to be unwarranted and adds
additional burdens to the regulated carmunity for unknown if any
benefit.
-g) A geologist should be the only individual allowed to install wells
for leak detection. A geologist is nost qualified to detennine if
the soil is suitable for va:por migration and if the yearly water
table is within twenty feet.
Carments made in Asheville, May 2, 1990, by:
A) Mr. Dan Waddell, President, Reaben Oil Co. (Carment: a,b)
Carments made in New Bern, May 14, 1990, by:
A) Mr. Tan Potter, Sr., President, Tan Potter Oil Conpany.
(COTrnent; b)
Written Corments:
A) Mr. Gerald P. Matthews, P.E., Teclmical Director, North carolina
Petroleum Marketers Association. (Carment: a,c)
B) DAACO, Inc. (Carments: d)
C) North carolina Petroleum Council. (Carment: f)
D) Southeastern Geological. (Carment: g)
E) Southern Environmental Law Center\North carolina Environmental
Defense Fund. (Carment: e)
Staff Respoose:
'lhe fourteen day §?!!Pl ioo frequency m• • earl in the ntles is not
OCDSidered OYerly hlaJensale. S inple, inexpensive netlms are
allowed. Ch the other harrl, the ccnseguences of a release remaining
undetected far 30 days could be enomous.
'lhe rnle has been :revised to allOW' site assessnents by qualified
persoos rather than oo.ly by licensed geologists or engineers.
12) COTrnent was received concerning Rules • 0504 ( e ) and . 0803 (a ) ( 2 ) .
'!he rules state that site assessments . remediation , and closure shall be
conducted by a licensed geolooist or professional engineer. This
r egulation p roduced a variety of carments as follows:
-a) A licensed geologist or professional engineer may know very little
al:x:>ut UST installation and remediation. Such a professional may have
never installed or renoved a tank.
-b) 'Ihe costs involved in hiring licensed geologists and professional
engineers for remediation, site assessment, and closure make this
course of action prohibitive.
-c) Rules .0504(e) and .0803(a)(2) ignore other professionals who are
as qualified to perfonn site assessments and remediation.
-d) Suggest that the State or sane other agency license contractors to
perform the work.
Revised 9/12/1991
-e) During closure, each UST site should be investigated an a case by
case basis. In the event contamination has occurred, a licensed
geologist or professional engineer should be called to the location.
There is no need for a licensed geologist or professional engineer
unless a leak has occurred.
-f) Request that these rules be deleted.
-g) Contractors and installers should be allowed to perfonn the tasks
designated to licensed geologists and professional engineers.
-h) Approve of the regulations as they are.
-i) 'Ihe problem caused by contamination quite often is rrore a::mplicated
than would appear at the surface. A consultants focus must be
necessarily broadened to include the public health and environmental
issues beyond the mechanics of UST systems. 'Ib allow contractors to
perfonn closure, site assessments, and etc, would jeopardize the
intention of the DEM program.
-j) Set up a certification program. Degreed professionals wishing to
perfonn site assessments, remediation, and closure would have to be
certified. Contractors would not be eligible for certification if
they did not also possess the required four year degree. Suggest
that certification could be handled by the North carolina Wastewater
Treatment Plant Operators Certification carmission. The private
sector might also be willing to regulate the certification program.
-k) suggest rewording rule .0803(A)(2) as follows: "Site assessment
shall be conducted by or under the supervision of a licensed
geologist, professional engineer, or knowledgeable professional
environmental scientist, or soil scientist". A knowledgeable
environmental scientist should be defined as "a person who is
presently an environmental scientist or soil scientist and possessing
at least a four year college degree in environmental science or
the equivalent, and has at least one year practical experience in
conducting environmental assessments involved in underground storage
tanks. II
-1) Reccmnend that no individual involved in the distribution of
petroleum products be allowed to perfonn site assessments,
remediation, and closure. The conflict of interest is tc:o great.
-m) suggest a two year program to be offered by the Cormunity College
system in North carolina. After successfully a::mpleting the
requirements of the program, an individual could then becx:me
certified to perform remediation, site assessments, and closure.
-n) Nearly all banks and financial institutions require an
Environmental Assessment for real estate transfer. This work is
often perfo:rmed by qualified environmental scientists who are not
professional engineers or licensed geologists. This will increase
the cost of Environmental Assessments, delay real estate transfers
(because of a lack of qualified Assessors), and damage the industry
in general.
-o) Offer to set up and administer a certification program for the
State.
-p) Suggest using the following definition in lieu of a licensed
geologist or professional engineer:
1) A certified UST site sampler/site investigator means a person
who, by reason of thorough knowledge of the physical sciences
acquired by education and practical expertise, is qualified to
Revised 9/12/1991
engage in the practice of obtaining soil or water samples, the
proper handling and transp:rrtation of soil or water samples and
the preparation of soil or water samples for analysis, using
methodology prescribed by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management.
A) Certification may be obtained by the successful canpletion
of the course ''Prelirninai:y Site Investigation and Sampling
Procedures for Underground Storage Tank Sites in North
Carolina'', under the direction and administration of the
Ccmnercial Lalx>ratories Association of North carolina.
B) Certification may be obtained by the successful canpletion
of the course ''Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: Corrective
Action Alternatives:, under the direction and administration
of the Georgia Technical Research Institute of Technology.
-q) 'Ihe phrase "under the supervision of" is not defined in the
regulations. Does this mean that a licensed geologist or
professional engineer must be present at all covered activities?
-r) Suggest that the phrase "persons qualified in professional
evaluations" be substituted for the licensed geologist/professional
engineer requirement in .0504(e) and .0803(2).
-s) Suggest that CMner/operators be accountable for site assessments
and closures. A high ranking official could sign the notification
fonns and satisfy the States concerns on accountability.
-t) Rewrite .0803(a)(2) as follows: Site assessments shall be
conducted by or under the supervision of a licensed geologist,
professional engineer or certified professional soil scientist.
(Sane state regulations; land application of wastewater and sludge,
already specify that a soil scientist report be subnitted as part of
penni t applications) .
-u) Set up a certification program. Degreed professionals wishing to
perform site assessments, remediation, and closure would have to be
certified.
-v) Suggests that soil scientists be allowed to conduct closures, site
assessments, and remediation.
-w) Require bonding for individuals experienced in site assessment,
closure, etc.
-x) Believe it is necessary to have a geologist or engineer on site
during tank closures and assessments, but question the need for a
licensed or registered professional.
-y) Suggest the wording of Rule .0803 be changed as follCMS:
(2) Site assessments shall be conducted under the supervision of or
reviewed by a licensed geologist or professional engineer.
-z) Given that the use of licensed geologists and professional
engineers if unnecessary, the state regulations should simply state
that the person or canpany doing this work must be qualified by
federal law to do so.
-aa) Due to the financial costs of remediation and closure, an
atnosphere for unethical practices exists. Therefore, the State
needs the type of control over the "disinterested third parties" that
it has over professionals through the professional licensing boards.
-ab) Opposed to the requirement for licensed geologists and professional
engineers. Suggest that this requirement be deleted.
Revised 9/12/1991
-ac) Give the authority to perfonn site assessments, remediation, and
closure to the local fire marshal and or health departments.
Carments made in Asheville, May 2, 1990 by:
A) Mr. Ben Pace, President, Country Fcod Stores. (Carment: a,b,d)
B) Mr. Dan Waddell, President, Reaben Oil Co. (Carment: b,d)
C) Mr. Mike Royster, President, Royster Oil Co. (Crnment: b,e)
D) Mr. Robert Arey Jr. , President, Arey Conpanies. ( caunent: a)
E) Ms. Anne Coan, Natural Resources Division Director,
North carolina Fann Bureau Federation. ( Carment: b, f)
F) Mr. John Hardin, President,
Hardin's Pump & Conpressor, Inc. ( Carment: b, d)
G) Mr. Larry Bc:Jwden, Sales, Janes & Frank Corp. (Carment: d)
Carments made in Raleigh, May 7, 1990 by:
A) Mr. F.d Turlington, Attomey, Tharrington, Smith, and Hargrove,
representing the Convenience Store Association.
(Carment: b,g,q,r,s)
B) Mr. Rodger w. warren, President, UST Management Inc.
(Carment: e)
C) Mr. Ronald w. Sanders, President, Collnercial Laboratories
Association of North Carolina. (Carment: a,b,d,e,o,p)
D) Mr. Am.old Jones, President, Anlold Janes Oil and Heating.
(Carment: b)
E) Mr. Don Carter, Consul ting Engineers Council. ( Carment: h, i)
F) Mr. Frank McNeill, Jr., Vice-President, McNeil Oil Co.
(Carment: b,e)
G) Mr. Robert E. Gresham, Vice-President, Service Distributing
Conpany. (Cannent: a,g)
Carments made in New Bern, May 10, 1990 by:
A) Mr. William E. Burnett, Environmental Planner, Von Osen and
Associates. (Cannent: a,c,j,k,1,n)
B) Mr. Bobby L. Tripp, General Manager, Daughtridge Oil.
(Carment: m)
Corments made in New Bern, May 14, 1990 by:
A) Mr. Tan Potter, Sr., President, Tan Potter Oil canpany.
(Carment: b,d,g)
B) Mr. A. Frank Massey, General Manager, Hall's Petroleum.
(Carment: b,g)
Written Corments:
A) Newsan Oil Canpany. (Cannent: a,b,d)
B) F.den Oil Canpany. (Cannent: b,d)
C) Soil and Environmental Consultants, Inc. (Carment: a,c,i,n,t,u)
D) H.J. Kleiss, Associate Professor, North Carolina State
University. ( Carment: c, v) '
E) J.M. Davis Industries, Inc. (Carment: b,d)
F) DMCO, Inc., (Carment: d,e,w)
G) Steven B. Lucas. (Carments: a,x)
H) M::>ore and Van Allen, Attorneys at Law representing Federated
Mutual Insurance Canpany. ( Carmen ts: y)
Revised 9/12/1991
I) Holt Oil canpany. ( carments: d)
J) A.T. Williams Oil Conpany. (Crnment: b,d,z)
K) Crown Central Petroleum Corporation. ( carment: b, d, z)
L) Friendly Mart Inc. (Crnment: b,d,z)
M) Tri-county Petroleum. (Crnment: b,d,z)
N) A.T. Williams Oil Conpany. (Corment: b,d,z)
0) Neighbors Stores, Inc. (Corment: b,d,z)
P) Colonel's Pantry. (Corment: b,d,z)
Q) Sessans Properties, Inc. (Ccmnent: b,d,z)
R) LI'L 'Ihrift FCXJd Marts, Inc. (Corment: b,d,z)
S) McCracken Oil Conpany. (Corment: b,d,z)
T) Quik Shop Gas Stop. (Corment: b,d,z)
U) Sav-Way, Best Hot Dogs in Town. (Corment: b,d,z)
V) Open Pantry FCXJd Marts of the Carolinas, Inc. (Corment: b,d,z)
W) Majik Market. (Ccmnent: b,d,z)
X) Quick Stop Fcod Mart, Inc. (Ccmnent: b,d,z)
Y) Fast Track FCXJds, Inc. (Corment: b,d,z)
Z) Seagroves Supply Co., Inc. (Corment: d)
AA) Law and canpany. ( Ccmnent: c, u)
AB) Southeastern Geological. (Ccmnent: aa)
AC) :North Carolina Fann Bureau Federation. (Corment: ab)
AD) Asheville Oil Conpany, Inc. (Corment: a,b)
AE) The Pantry. (Corment: a,b,d)
AF) Arnold Janes Oil and Heating Co., Inc. (Corment: ac)
Staff Resprnse:
Staff agree that the Alternative to the prooosals in Rules .0504 (e )
and .0803 (a ) (2 ) whidl restrict site assess1B1ts to licensed
qeo1ogists or professialal. engineers, is overly restrictive and may
not serve the best interests of the state.
Alternative lamuage is pp~ whidl describes performance
standards for perscns ccn:1ucting assessments and provides exan:ples of
discip lines whose practitiaiers typically mu1d be expected to neet
the performance criteria.
13) Rule .0601 {Suspected Releases )
.:..a) 'Ihe Federal notice periods are adequate and should be maintained.
-b) '!his section renoves the departments ability to grant an extension
or alternative to time frames outlined in these sections an an across
the board basis requiring all requests for extensions to be handled
on a case by case basis.
Written carment:
A) Mr. F.d Turlington, Attorney, Tharrington, Smith, and Hargrove,
representing the Convenience Store Association. (Ccmnent: a)
B) North Carolina Petroleum Council. ( Corment: b)
Staff Respoose:
In the event of an unexpected release, it is not un:reasooable to
expect an omer/g:>erator to call the Deparb:relt within 24 hours.
Revised 9/12/1991
14) Rule .0602 (Investigations Due to Off-Site Impac ts )
-a) Feel that a licensed geolog-ist is necessary to understand the
novement and migration patterns of groundwater flow.
Comlents made in Raleigh, May 7, 1990 by:
A) Mr. Fdwin E. Andrews III, Geolog-ist, Russnow, Kane, and Andrews,
representing the N.C. Licensing Board of Geolog-ists and the
Carolina Section of the America Institute of Professional
Geolog-ists. (Ccmnent: a)
Staff Respcnse:
Owners and g::ieratars are required by the Deparbnent to ccnfuct an
investigatirn in the event of a release. 'llle Deparbnent is in a
positirn to review the results of the investigaticn to determine its
adequacy . Staff will have an g;p.µ. Lw.rlty to di SOJSS the
investigatirn with the c:Mner /cperatnr in advance, and advise him of
the necessity to utilize professiooals skilled in qeotechnical
matters.
15) Rule .0603 (Release Investigation and Confinna.tion Steps )
-a) Feel that a licensed geolog-ist is necessary to understand the
m:::>vement and migration patterns of groundwater flow.
-b) The Federal notice pericrls are adequate and should be maintained.
-c) Suggest the proposed rule be changed as follows:
The "Release Investigation and Confinna.tion Steps" provisions
contained in 40 CFR 280.52 (Subpart E) have been adopted by reference
in accordance with G.S. 150B-14(c).
Ccmnents made in Raleigh, May 7, 1990 by:
A) Mr. Fdwin E. Andrews III, Geolog-ist, Russnow, Kane, and Andrews,
representing the N.C. Licensing Board of Geolog-ists and the
Carolina Section of the America Institute of Professional
Geolog-ists. ( Ccmnent: a)
Written carment:
A) Mr. F.d Turlington, Attorney, Tharrington, Smith, and Hargrove,
representing the Convenience Store Association. (Carment: b)
B) M::ore and Van Allen, Attorneys at Law representing Federated
Mutual Insurance Conpany. (Connent: c)
Staff Resprnse:
Owners and ooeratars are required by the Deparbnent to ccnfuct an
investigatirn in the event of a release. 'llle Deparbnent is in a
positirn to review the results of the investigaticn to del:emrine its
adequacy . Staff will have an g.p.u.lwlity to disoiss the
investigatirn with the a-mer/creratnr in advance. and advise him of
the necessity to utilize professiooals skilled in qeotechnical
matters.
Staff :reccmlBlds that approval of extensirns of the dead] i ne for
beginning an investigatirn be approved by Divisicn regiaial staff
rather than the Director, and cnly µpen sbJwi..nq of g:xrl cause.
Revised 9/12/1991
16) Rule .0604 (Re pqrting and Cleanup of Sp ills and Overfills )
-a) '!he Federal notice periods are adequate and should be maintained.
-b) 'Ibis section renoves the deparbnents ability to grant an extension
or alternative to time frames outlined in these sections an an across
the board basis requiring all requests for extensions to be handled
on a case by case basis.
Written Carment:
A) Mr. F.d Turlington, Attorney, 'Iharrington, Smith, and Hargrove,
representing the Convenience Store Association. (Carment: a)
B) North Carolina Petroleum Council. ( Carment: b)
Staff Respoose:
Many cctlllleutatars ci>j ected to the prgJOSal to adpt the Federal
deadlines far :r.t4-W-Ling release ccnfinnation, cleanup of spills and
overfills, presence of free proouct, initial abatenent st:eps. and
release assessnent without a provision far exterdirn: these deadlines
when adverse ci.rctmstances interfered.
Staff p.u J,,. .sc:s to auend these sectiais to provide far regiCDal
office ag:,roval of requests to extend deadlines on the caxlition that
the request is Dede before expiration of the deadline and uprn. a
showing of good cause.
ill Rule • 0701 (b) ( Clean-up Requirements)
-a) This cleanup requirement does not allow the agency any flexibility
in detennining when a cleanup is canplete. 'Ihe requirements of 15A
NCAC 2L .0106 are very stringent. If a site cannot be restored to
the groundwater standard, then cleanup will never be canplete.
-b) There is no flexibility for the Agency in extending deadlines for
canpliance.
Ccrcments made in Asheville, May 2, 1990 by:
A) Ms. Anne Coan, Natural Resources Division Director,
North Carolina Fann Bureau Federation. (Ccmnent: a)
Ccrcments made in Raleigh, May 7, 1990 by:
A) Ms. Jeanne Hankerson, Environmental Coordinator,
Federated Mutual Insurance Co. (Carment: a)
Written Carment:
A) North Carolina Fann Bureau Federation. (Carment: a,b)
Staff Respcnse:
It is the m inion of the staff that the nu.es regard:i.m oar:rective
action in the Grourrlwater Standards ( 15A K7C 2L • 0106 ) provide the
necessary fleJribi J j ty far cleamp g:>era.tiCDS. Open a showing that
the <XDtirruation of cleanup efforts will not result in any
appreciable :inprovement in qroooowater quality. the Director may
authorize tennination of cleanup and seek reclassifica.ticn of the
polluted area.
Revised 9/12/1991
18) Rule .0702 (Initial ResJX>nSe to leaks )
-a) 'Ihe Federal notice periods are adequate and should be maintained.
-b) '!his section renoves the departments ability to grant an extension
or alternative to time frames outlined in these sections an an across
the ooard basis requiring all requests for extensions to be handled
an a case by case basis.
Written Ccmnent:
A) Mr. Ed Turlington, Attorney, Tharrington, Smith, and Hargrove,
representing the Convenience Store Association. (Ccmnent: a)
B) North Carolina Petroleum Council. ( Ccmnent: b)
Staff Respoose:
'lhe requirement to report a release to the Divisicn within 24 hours
of cxnfinnaticn does not seen unreasrnable nor does the requirement to
begin procedures to prevent further releases.
19) Rule .0703 (Initial Abatement Measures and Site Check )
-a) Feel that a licensed geologist is necessary to understand the
novement and migration patterns of groundwater flow.
-b) Question the ten day response time. Design installation and
pennitting may take weeks in sane cases. In addition, even if an
owner/operator were to request an extension inmediately ui;x:m release
discovery, it is doubtful the Division could approve the extension
before the end of the ten day period.
-c) 'Ihe Federal notice periods are adequate and should be maintained.
-d) 'Ihis section renoves the departments ability to grant an extension
or alternative to time frames outlined in these sections an an across
the ooard basis requiring all requests for extensions to be handled
on a case by case basis.
-e) suggest the proi;x,sed rule be changed as follows:
'Ihe "Release Investigation and Confi:anation Steps" provisions
contained in 40 CFR 280.62 (Subpart F) have been adopted by reference
in accordance with G.S. 150B-14(c).
carments made in Raleigh, May 7, 1990 by:
A) Mr. Edwin E. Andrews III, Geologist, Russnow, Kane, and Andrews,
representing the N.C. Licensing Board of Geologists and the
Carolina Section of the America Institute of Professional
Geologists. (carment: a)
B) Mr. Robert E. Gresham, Vice-President, Service Distributing
Carq;>any, Inc. (Ccmnent: b)
C) Ms. Jeanne Hankerson, Environmental Coordinator, Federated
Mutual Insurance Carq;>any. ( Ccmnent: b)
Written Ccmnent:
A) Mr. Ed Turlington, Attorney, Tharrington, Smith, and Hargrove,
representing the Convenience Store Association. (Ccmnent: c)
B) North Carolina Petroleum Council. (Ccmnent: d)
C) M:x:>re and Van Allen, Attorneys at Law representing Federated
Mutual Insurance Carq;>any. ( Ccmnent: e)
Revised 9/12/1991
Staff Respoose:
'1he staff prg:ose that .0703 {a ) be :rewritten to provide a 14 day
deadline arrl approval by Divisicn staff of requests far extensicn.
'lbe Pfq.µ,ed revisicn of the :rules regarding extensicn of deadlines
would apply to this c:xmnent.
C'.amelts regarding the need far a licensed geologist are noted.
20) Rule .0704 (Initial Site Characterization )
-a) Feel that a licensed geologist is necessary to understand the
nnvement and migration patterns of groundwater flow.
-b) The 45 day deadline for sul:mission of the site investigation rep::,rt
should be extended. The deadline may be difficult to meet due to
unforeseen problems.
-c) The Federal notice periods are adequate and should be maintained.
-d) Suggest the proposed rule be changed as follows:
The "Release Investigation and Confinnation Steps" provisions
contained in 40 CFR 280.63 (SUbpart F) have been adopted by reference
in accordance with G.S. 150B-14(c).
Camtents made in Raleigh, May 7, 1990 by:
A) Mr. Edwin E. Andrews III, Geologist, Russnow, Kane, and Andrews,
representing the N.C. Licensing Board of Geologists and the
Carolina Section of the America Institute of Professional
Geologists. (Ccmnent: a)
written Ccmnen.ts
A) Federated Mutual Insurance Ccrnpany ( Ccmnent: b)
B) Mr. Ed Turlington, Attomey, Tharrington, Smith, and Hargrove,
representing the Convenience Store Association. (Ccmnent: c)
C) M:lore and Van Allen, Attomeys at Law representing Federated
Mutual Insurance Conpany (Ccmnent: d)
Staff Respoose:
'lhe propgi0d revisicn of the :rules regarding tine extensicns ag,l y
to these cumenls.
a..tmer1ts regarding the need far a licensed geologist are noted.
21) Rule .0705 (Free Product Rercoval )
-a) Feel that a licensed geologist is necessary to understand the
nnvement and migration patterns of groundwater flow.
Camtents made in Raleigh, May 7, 1990 by:
A) Mr. Edwin E. Andrews III, Geologist, Russnow, Kane, and Andrews,
representing the N.C. Licensing Board of Geologists and the
Carolina Section of the America Institute of Professional
Geologists. (Ccmnen.t: a)
Staff Respoose:
a..tments regarding the necessity of a licensed geologist are noted.
Revised 9/12/1991
22) Rule .0706 (Investigations for Soil and Groundwater Cleanup)
-a) Feel that a licensed geologist is necessary to understand the
novement and migration patterns of groundwater flow.
-b) The r:ules state that "the infonnation collected must be collected
under paragraph (a) of this section in accordance with a special
order, consent special order or similar document". In many cases, a
special order can take years to be brought into action. An
investigation needs to be performed in as timely a manner as
possible.
-c) The need for a special order is recognized in certain instances.
However, to require an order in all instances is not necessary.
In addition, negotiation of a special order adds both additional time
and cost to the investigation and corrective action. It is suggested
that the provisions for special order be·deleted.
-d) The Federal notice periods are adequate and should be maintained.
-e) This section indicates that an order must be issued prior to the
owner or operator proceeding with a site assessment or corrective
action. Since these activities are mandated by r:ule, orders are
unnecessary and nost likely will be a stumbling block tc:Mards the
expeditious canpletion of these activities. The deparbnent should
establish by r:ule the requirements for the canpletion of these
activities and minimize the am::runt of paperwork and bureaucracy
required to canplete these tasks.
-f) Suggest that this section be rewritten as follows:
The provisions for "Investigations for Soil and Groundwater
Clean-up" contained in 40 CFR 280.65 (Subpart F) have been adopted by
reference in accordance with G.S. 150B-14(c), except that 40 CFR
280.65(b) has been rewritten as follows: "Owners and operators must
conduct the investigation and suhnit the infonnation collected under
paragraph (a) of this Section in accordance with a special order,
consent special order, or due to the owner or operator's failure to
canply with the requirements of the Section voluntarily, or upon
agreement between the Division and the owner or operator that such is
necessary.
-g) The special order requirement is redundant as DEM already has the
authority to require such an order under NC G.S. 143-215.2.
-h) Suggest that DEM pursue the possibility of using a Letter of
Agreement rather than a special order. This would not involve the
legal personnel or carry the onus of legal requirements and would
serve DEMs purpose.
Ccmnents made in Raleigh, May 7, 1990 by:
A) Mr. :Edwin E. Andrews III, Geologist, Russnow, Kane, and Andrews,
representing the N.C. Licensing Board of Geologists and the
carolina Section of the America Institute of Professional
Geologists. (Crnment: a)
B) Mr. Chris Reinhardt, Consulting Geologist, RKH, Inc. (Crnment:b)
Written carments:
A) Federated Mutual Insurance Ccxnpany. (Corment: c)
B) Mr. Ed Turlington, Attorney, Tharrington, Smith, and Hargrove,
representing the Convenience Store Association. (Crnment: d)
c) North carolina Petroleum Council. ( cannent: e)
Revised 9/12/1991
D) Mx>re and Van Allen, Attorneys at Law representing Federated
Mutual Insurance Conpany (Ccmnent: f,g,h)
Staff Response:
Staff agrees that it is not necessary to require Ccmnissim orders
far site investigatioos. Rule .0706 slntl.d be anex1ed to delete
anything after ''GS 1 SOB-14( c) 11
•
23) Rule .0707 (Corrective Action Plan)
-a) Feel that a licensed geologist is necessary to tmderstand the
rrovement and migration patterns of groundwater flow.
-b) 'Ihe need for a special order is recognized in certain instances.
However, to require an order in all instances is not necessary.
In addition, negotiation of a special order adds l::oth additional time
and cost to the investigation and corrective action. It is suggested
that the provisions for special order be deleted.
-c) (this suggestion is made because Rule .0701(b) specifies that any
corrective action taken must meet the specifications and requirements
of 15A NC.AC 2L .0106. Rule .0707 mirrors the federal language
requiring the subnission of a plan which provides for the protection
of human health and the environment, excluding 15A NC.AC 2L .0106.
Rule .0707 standing alone, could potentially require that the tank
owner or operator perfonn a risk assessment to establish that its
plan is protective of human health and the environment) Suggest
deleting .0701(b) and changing the wording of rule .0707 to:
'Ihe provisions for a "Corrective Action plan" contained in 40 CFR
280.66 (Subpart F) have been adopted by reference in accordance with
G.S. 150B-14(c), except that":
(1) 40 CFR 280.66(a) has been rewritten to read: "At any point
after reviewing the infonnation subnitted in canpliance with 40 CFR
280.61 through 40 CFR 280.63, the Division may require owners and
operators to sutmit additional infonnation or to develop and suhnit a
corrective action plan for responding to contaminated soils and
groundwater. If a plan is required, owners and operators must sul:mit
the plan according to a reasonable schedule and fonnat established by
the Division. Owners and operators are responsible for sutmitting a
plan that provides for adequate protection of human health and the
environment in accordance with the requirements specified in 15 NCAC
2L .0106 for affected groundwater and by N.C.G.S. 143.215.84(a) for
affected soils, '' and must nodify their plan as necessary to meet this
standard.
(2) In 40 CFR 280.66(c) the words "schedule and in a fonnat
established by the in1?lementing agency.'' are replaced by the words
"special order, consent special order, or similar document, if such
is detennined to be necessary by the Division, due to the failure of
the owner or operator to canply with the requirements of this
section voluntarily, or upon agreement between the Division and the
owner or operator that such is necessary.
Revised 9/12/1991
-d) Proposed rule .0707 should be improved to clarify when corrective
action plans for restx)I1di.ng to contaminated soils and groundwater
will be required. This is particularly important because only
releases requiring such plans trigger public participation and notice
under Rule .0708.
-e) This section indicates that an order must be issued prior to the
owner or operator proceeding with a site assessment or corrective
action. Since these activities are mandated by rule, orders are
unnecessary and nost likely will be a stumbling block towards the
expeditious ccripletian of these activities. The deparbnent should
establish by rule the requirements for the ccripletion of these
activities and minimize the arrount of pape:rwork and bureaucracy
required to ccriplete these tasks.
-f) The special order requirement is redundant as DEM already has the
authority to require such an order under NC G.S. 143-215.2.
-g) Suggest that DEM pursue the possibility of using a Letter of
Agreement rather than a special order. This would not involve the
legal personnel or carry the anus of legal requirements and would
serve DEMs purpose.
-h) The existing groundwater regulations at 15A NCAC 2L .0106 require a
cleanup plan whenever an activity results in a violation of a
groundwater standard. This groundwater regulation should be referred
to in the UST regulations. Similarly, whenever extensive
contamination of soil has occurred, a plan should be required and
public participation invited.
Ccmnents made in Raleigh, May 7, 1990 by:
A) Mr. F.dwin E. Andrews III, Geologist, Russnow, Kane, and Andrews,
representing the N.C. Licensing Board of Geologists and the
Carolina Section of the America Institute of Professional
Geologists. (Connent: a)
Written Connents:
A) Federated Mutual Insurance Conpany. ( Connent: b)
B) North Carolina Petroleum Council. (Connent: e)
C) MJore and Van Allen, Attorneys at Law representing Federated
Mutual Insurance. ( Connent: c, f, g)
D) Southern Environmental Law Center\North Carolina Environmental
Defense Fund. (Connent: d,h)
Staff Respoose:
Corrective acticn plans are required for groundwater quality
violatiCI1S in 1 SA OC1IC 2L • 0106 which is referenced in Secticn • 0701
of these rules. Corrective acticn plans far soil reneliaticn may be
required if detennined necessary en a case by case basis.
Special Orders will not be required for site assessments.
It is not cg.pu;pdate to d;lame .0707 {b ) as recamended as the
language pr, 5-.sed in the rules is ccnpatible with the existing
requireoelts in 1 SA OC1IC 2L . 0106 which stirulates that mrrecti ve
actiCilS shall be conducted in accordance with a cannissicn order.
Letters of Agreement or other doc:uuents authorlzed by the General
Statutes which the Omnissim chooses to issue. oey be used to
stipulate the ccnlitiCilS of cleanup instead of a special order.
Revised 9/12/1991
24) Rule .0708 (Public Participation )
-a) Suggest that .0708 be expanded. 'Ihe Division should specifically
notify the local health deparbnent. In addition, citizens and public
interest groups which request notification should also be notified.
Copies of corrective action plans should be made available at the
public library and local health departments.
-b) Rule .0708 is unclear regarding which of the optional methods of
public notice the agency intends to use in cases involving corrective
action plans. '!his rule should be strengthened by indicating what
methods the Section will use, not merely what methods of public
notice the Section may use. Similarly, how the Section will
detennine which members of the public are "directly affected" by the
release or the plan for notice purposes should be spelled out.
-c) 'Ihe federal rule already provides for public participation;
therefore, the addition of this section is redundant.
-d) '!here is concern over the impact of extensive public participation
during the developnent of the corrective action plan. Since
corrective action is defined by the deparbnent, it seems that
specific public participation should only be appropriate when the
prq:osed corrective action plan deviates fran the state's targets for
cleanup. 'Ibis provision should be deleted.
Written Crnments:
A) Mr. Bill Holman, Conservation Council of North carolina and the
Sierra Club. (Cmrnent: a)
B) North carolina Petroleum Council. (Crnment: c,d)
C) Southern Environmental Law Center\North carolina Environmental
Defense Fund. (Crnment: b)
Staff Respoose:
Uprn. further review, the staff concludes that .0708 (b ) is
unnecessary and reccrme:rl that it be deleted.
In accamance with Divisicn rolicy. local health officials as well
as local goyernnent officials and the general plb.lic are mtified.
Cg:,ies of corrective acticn p lans are avail.able far review in the
Deparbrent's regicnal files.
R:>tice is nede by µJblicaticn in local newspapers arrl by direct
mtificaticn of local officials.
25) Rule .0802 (Closure ) should not include De minl.ffll.s concentrations.
Tanks containing De minimis concentrations should not have to undergo
closure. '!he requiranent is unnecessary and is particularly burdensane
to g eneral property owners (such as fanners ) who have r egulated USTs.
Ccmnents made in Asheville, May 2, 1990 by:
A) Ms. Anne Coan, Natural Resources Division Director,
North carolina Fann Bureau Federation.
Revised 9/12/1991
Staff Respoose:
Tanks ccnt.a;in:in:J De minimis caicentratials are requb:ed to uooercp
closure far the fol.l.owim reascns:
1 ) Such a tank may be used at a later date to stare hazaroous
materials witlnlt the Deparbnents knowlecge.
2} Individuals engaged in excavaticn or cxmstructi.cn activities
could accidentally rupture an old tank. SUch tanks are fire hazards
and may explcxle when ruptured.
3) '1he tank will eventually rust away. leaving a large cavity.
'Ibis oould CXI1Stirute a hazard to people travelling on the groro
surface imreliately above the tank.
26) Rule .0803 (Assessing the site at closure or change-in-service).
-a) Suggest that the State can:y this out in the fonn of having a
preclosure assessment and reIX)rt done on all tank closures. 'Ihis
being done prior to any action with regard to the physical renoval of
the tank. The individuals perfonning closure should know in advance,
the health risks they face and the IX)tential for explosion. This will
also pennit advance planning with regard to remediation of the site.
carments made in New Bem, Ma.y 1 0, 1990 by:
A) Mr. William E. Burnett, Environmental Plarmer, Von Oesen and
Associates. (Corment: a)
Staff Respoose:
Staff recnmeids anerlinq this Rule to allCM assessnents to
be oooducted by "qualified persons".
Rule . 0803 ( 4) shatl.d be deleted as it is unnecessary.
Revised 9/12/1991
SECl'ICN II
PRO:EEDINGS OF HEARINGS
Revised 2/12/1991
Introouction
SECI'IOO II
PRCX:EEDINGS OF HEARThKIB
'Ihree public hearings and one public meeting were held by the
Deparbnent of Environmental Management to receive public crnment on 15A
NCAC 2N, Underground Storage Tanks. 'Ihe first was held May 2, 1990, at
7:00 p.m. in the Htn'Ilailities lecture Hall, UNC-Asheville, Asheville, North
carolina. 'Ihe second hearing was held on May 7, 1990, at 7:00 p.m., in
the Hearing Roan of the Archdale Building, 512 North Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, North carolina. 'Ihe third hearing was held in the main
courtrocm of the Craven County Courthouse, New Bezn, North carolina. A
public meeting was also held on May 14, 1990, at 7:00 p.m., in the main
courtro::::m of the Craven County Courthouse, New Bern., North carolina. A
total of 287 people attended the hearings with 50 presenting oral
cannents. A total of 190 written crnments were received.
Public notice of the hearings were mailed to lcx:::al governments,
environmental organizations, and individuals registered as being
interested in groundwater regulation. Public notice was also published
in the Raleig h News and Observer on April 9, 1990, and the Sun Journal on
April 11, 1990.
'Ihe hearings were chaired by Mr. Charles Brady in Asheville, Dr. Art
Cooper in Raleigh, Mr. Douglas Boykin in New Bern., and Mr. Mick Noland in
New Bern..
Attendees -Asheville, N.C.
May 2, 1990
1) Mr. Ben Pace, President, County Food Stores, Chandler, North
carolina.
2) Mr. Olip Gould, Executive Vice-President, Cason CO'npanies,
Inc. , Hendersonville, North carolina.
3) Mr. Hall Waddell, Vice-President, Reaben Oil Conpany,
Hendersonville, North carolina.
4) Mr. Dan Waddell, President, Reaben Oil Conpany, Hendersonville,
North carolina.
5) Mr. Mike Royster, Vice-President, Royster Oil canpany, Shelby,
North carolina.
6) Mr. Paul Meli, Vice-President, Bridge:p:::>rt Olemical Cor:p:::>ration,
Panpano Beach, Florida
7) Mr. Robert Arey, President, Arey CO'npanies, Shelby, North
carolina.
8) Ms. Anne Coan, Natural Resources Division Director,
N.C. Fann Bureau Federation, Raleigh, North carolina.
9) Mr. Joel W. Wright, Jr. , Ccmnissioner, City of Hendersonville,
Wright Oil Conpany, Hendersonville, North carolina.
1 O) Mr. John Hardin, President, Hardin's Pump & canpressor, Inc. ,
Winston-Salem, North carolina.
11) Mr. Larry ~en, Sales, Jones & Frank Corp:>ration, Charlotte,
North carolina.
12) Mr. James Joe White, E.P. Nisbet Conpany, Charlotte, North
carolina.
13) Mr. Steve Propst, Treasurer, Propst Brothers Distributors,
Inc. , Concord, North carolina.
14) Mr. Jim Gouge, Jr. , President, J. J. Gouge and Son
Oil canpany, Inc. , Spruce Pine, North carolina.
15) Mr. F. Daniel Martin, Division Maintenance Engineer,
N.C. Deparbnent of Transportation, Division of Highways.,
Asheville, North carolina.
16) Craig P f.'k::Neal, District Manager, Dover Corp:>ration/OPW,
Winston-Salem, North carolina.
17) J. D. Whisnant, Branch Manager, Southern Pump and Tank Conpany,
Candler, North carolina.
18) Don Thanas, Sales Representative, SPA'IO), Candler, North
carolina.
19) Jerry Sloan, Sales, SPA'IO), Candler, North carolina.
20) Jack Hatcher, Representative, E.L. Shannon and Associates,
North carolina.
21) Debbie Sailors, Environmental Director, Petroleum World, Inc.,
Cliffside, North carolina.
23) Glen A. Burrgarner, President, Bungarner Oil Canpany, Inc.,
Hickory, North carolina.
24) N. G. Reavis, Sales, Pumptank Ship., Statesville, North
carolina.
25) w. T. r-t:>riss, Sales, SPA'Irn, Asheville, North, carolina.
26) William C. Shell, President, Shell Bros. Distributing Inc.,
Taylorsville, North carolina.
27) Don Isley, General Manager, Propst Bros. Distributors, Concord,
North carolina.
28) Larry Htmter, Vice President, SPA'Irn, Charlotte, North
carolina.
29) John Terrell, Engineer, UNC Air Pollution Control, Asheville,
North carolina.
30) Delx>rah Plampin, Marketing Coordinator, Delta Environmental
Consultants, Charlotte, North carolina.
31) Bill Wiley, Video Producer, UNCA-Environmental Quality
Institute, Asheville, North carolina.
32) Frank McLeod, President, Subcon, Florence, North carolina.
33) John Whitehead, Project Geologist, Westinghouse Environmental
Geotechnical Services, Spartanburg, South carolina.
34) Hc:Mard Perry, Environmental Services Manager, Westinghouse
Environmental, Spartanburg, North carolina.
35) carro11 Snead, Boos Oil canpany, Hanocmy, North carolina.
36) D. W. Jarrett, President, Superior Oil canpany, Salisbury,
North carolina.
37) Van Dotson, Operations Manager, Petroleum Pump and Tank,
Asheville, North carolina.
38) Rodger McKel vey, Sales, Subcon, Inc. , Florence, South carolina.
39) Richard R. Williams, Manager, Arnold F.quipnent Conpany, Arden,
North Ca:rolina.
40) Jean Parker, Vice-President, C. Parker Oil Crnlpany, Asheville,
North Ca:rolina.
41 ) Wendell Boggs, Vice-President, Rhodes and Beal Oil Canpany,
Lincolnton, North Ca:rolina.
42) Rilly Chapnan, Finance Director, Town of Valdese, Valdese,
North Ca:rolina.
43) James M. Stockton, Director of Public Works, Town of Valdese,
North Ca:rolina.
44) Rooger M. Lyda, Director of Public ~rks, Town of Canton,
Canton, North Ca:rolina.
45) Barbara Sudrabin, Secretary, Fibrestone N.C. Inc.,
Hendersonville, North Ca:rolina.
46) David A. Sudrabin, President, Fibrestone N.C. Inc.,
Hendersonville, North Ca:rolina.
4 7) F. E. Isenhour, Jr. , Assistant Town Manager, Town of Lake Lure,
Lake Lure, North Ca:rolina.
48) Cecelia C. Pa,.,ell, Right of Way Agent I, N.C. Deparbnent of
Transportation, Asheville, North Ca:rolina.
49) Terry L. Brigman, Right of Way Agent I, N.C. Department of
Transportation, Asheville, North Ca:rolina.
50) Phyllis D. tvbrgan, Asheville, North Ca:rolina.
51) Bill Lindsey, Service Manager, Henderson Oil Canpany,
Hendersonville, North Ca:rolina.
52) Jeff Riddle, Right of Way Agent, North Ca:rolina Department of
Transportation, Asheville, North Ca:rolina.
53) Katherine C. Powell, Right of Way Negotiator, North Ca:rolina
Department of Transportation, Asheville, North Ca:rolina.
54) John M. Knox, Service Manager, SPA'ICO, Candler, North Ca:rolina
55) Ha:crold Sloan, Senior Vice-President, SPA'ICO, Candler, North
Ca:rolina.
56) F.ddie HcMa.rd, Manager, Rhodes and Beal Oil Crnlpany, North
Ca:rolina.
57) Tan Seanone, Plant Manager, Shell Beas Distributing Inc.,
Taylorsville, North Ca:rolina.
58) Bob Alexander, Project Manager, RMI, Inc., Greenville, South
Ca:rolina.
59) James J. White IV, Sales Manager, E.P. Nisbet Oil Conpany,
Charlotte, North Ca:rolina.
60) Jan Justice, Sales Engineer, Jones and Frank Corporation,
Greenville, South Ca:rolina.
61) T.C. Blackm::m, Jr., Sales Representative, Jones and Frank,
Greenville, South Ca:rolina.
62) Kay K. Thorp, Asheville Oil Conpany, Inc., Asheville, North
Ca:rolina.
63) Karl Kcon, Vice-President, Asheville Oil Canpany, Inc.,
Asheville, North Ca:rolina.
64) Mark Ramsy Jr. , Manager, cason Canpanies, North Ca:rolina.
65) Kurt B. Fmendt, Manager, Petroleum Environmental Consultants,
Inc., Charlotte, North Ca:rolina.
66) Tony B. Jones, Service Manager, Arnold F.quipnent Canpany,
Arden, North Ca:rolina.
67) c. Barry F.dwards, General Manager, Henderson Oil Conpany, Inc. ,
Hendersonville, North.Carolina.
68) Randy Ramsey, Service Manager, Tri-County Oil Di vision cason
Conpany, Spruce Pine, North Carolina.
69) Freddie Han-ill, Vice-President, Petroleum Testing Services,
Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina.
70) Ron Dulin, Sales Manager, Petroleum Equipnent and Service,
Charlotte, North Carolina.
71) Michael R. Barker, Chemist/Owner, B.A.W. Laboratories, Inc.,
Charlotte, N:>rth Carolina.
72) Jim A. Bobbins, Robbins Oil Canpany, Forest City, N:>rth
Carolina.
73) James Haynes, Office Manager, Robbins Oil Conpany, Marion,
N:>rth Carolina.
74) Michael Grant, Fquipnent Installation, Robbins Oil Conpany,
Forest City, North Carolina.
75) John Wright, Secretary, Wright Oil Conpany, Hendersonville,
N:>rth Carolina.
76) Jeff G:mge, Vice-President, J .J. Gouge and Son Oil Conpany,
Inc. , Spruce Pine, North Carolina.
77) Richard Kelly, President, Southeastern Geological Services,
Shelby, North Carolina.
78) H.J. Hensley, Robbins Oil Canpany, Forest City, North Carolina.
Attendees -Raleigh, N.C.
May 7, 1990
1) Fd 'I\.trlington, Attorney, 'Iharrington, Smith & Hargrove,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
2) Edwin E. Andrews III, Geologist, Russ11CM, Kane &
Andrews, Inc. , Raleigh, North Carolina.
3) Jeanne Hankerson, Environmental Ox>rdinator, Federated
Mutual Insurance Canpany, Owatonna, Minnesota
4) Edward S. Holms, Jr. , Operations Manager,
Kenan Oil Conpany, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
5) M. J. Johnson, Owner, Johnson Oil Conpany, South Mills,
North Carolina.
6) Roger W. Warren, President, UST Management Inc, Spring
Hope, N:>rth Carolina.
7) Gerald Matthews, Technical Director, N. C. Petroleum
Marketers Association, Raleigh, North Carolina.
8) Steven Levitas, Director, N.C. Environmental Defense Flmd,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
9) Ronald W. Sanders, President, Comtercial Laboratories
Association of North Carolina, Fayetteville, North Carolina.
10) Arnold Jones, President, Arnold Jones Oil and Heating, High
Point, North Carolina.
11) Don carter, Consulting Engineers Council, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
12) Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
13) Frank McNeil!, Jr., Vice-President, McNeil! Oil Canpany,
Aberdeen, North carolina.
14) Bill Holman, Conservation Council of North carolina,
Raleigh, North carolina.
15) William B. Pittman, General Council, North carolina Land
Title Association, Raleigh, North carolina.
16) 'Ibney Rieck, Executive Director, Nation Leak Prevention
Association, Cincinnati, Ohio.
17) Robert E. Gresham, Vice-President, Service Distributing
Conpany, Inc. , Albemarle, North carolina.
18) W. C. Collins, Vice-President, Stallings Oil Canpany, Rocky
M:>Unt, North carolina.
19) Rob Cohen, Attorney, Maupin, Taylor, Ellis, and Adams,
Raleigh, North carolina.
20) Bill Johns, Corporate Secretary, Nisbet Oil Canpany,
Olarlotte, North carolina.
21) Olarles Akin, Director of Construction and Maintenance,
Service Distributing Conpany, Albemarle, North carolina.
22) Chris Reinhardt, Consulting Geologist, RKH, Inc., Raleigh,
North carolina.
23) Larry Hunter, Vice-President, SPA'ICO, Charlotte, North
carolina.
24) Bill carroll, Norfolk Oil
25) Gale E. Crawelle, President, Rodgers Oil Canpany, North
carolina.
26) Mr. Hal Glouep, Retail Manager, Miller Oil Conpany, Raleigh,
North carolina.
27) William Stewart, Manager UST, Westinghouse Environmental
Consultants, Greensbo:ro, NC.
28) Larry M. Jordan, President, L.G. Jordan Oil Conpany, Apex,
North carolina.
29) 'Ihunran E. Askew, Secretary Treasurer, Newson Oil Conpany,
Inc. , Roanoke Rapids, North carolina.
30) Kenneth R. Heldennnan, Service Distributing Center, Albennarle,
North carolina.
31) Tan Berry, Vice-President, Berico Fuels Inc., Greensbo:ro, North
carolina.
32) Joe Beck, Sales Representative, Collson Murray Conpany, Inc.,
Goldsbo:ro, North carolina.
33) Steve Marian, Jones and Frank, Raleigh, North carolina.
34) David Dulmage, Business Developnent Coordinator, Holding
Brothers Inc., Concord, North carolina.
35) Mitchell Bowyer, Environmental Engineer I, DEM-UST, Raleigh,
North carolina.
36) Thanas J. Walker, Geologist, Chemical and Environmental
Technology, Inc. , cary, North Carolina.
37) Danny P. Tripp, Owner, Westside Oil Conpany, Dunn, North
carolina.
38) Angela Swardorf, Associate Director, North Carolina Pet:roleun
Council, Raleigh, North carolina.
39) Robert L. Pleasant, Owner, C and A F.quipnen.t Services, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
40) Sam Kitchen, Sales, C and A F.quipnent Services, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
41) William Shipton, Band M Supervisor, Mid State Oil canpany,
Lexington, North Carolina.
42) James A. Hewitt, Sales, C and A F.quipnent Service, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
43) Richard Kelly, President/Geologist, Southeastem Geological,
Shelby, North Carolina.
44) Wayne Floyd, Branch Manger, Westinghouse Environmental and
Geological Services, Inc. , cary, North Carolina.
45) Thanas Armons, Technician, Environmental Hydro-Consultants,
Lumberton, North Carolina.
46) Kim Marshall, Assitant to President, Marshall Oil canpany,
Inc. , Wake Forest, North Carolina.
47) casey Champion, Salesman, SPA'ICO, Raleigh, North Carolina.
48) B. D. Newberry, Owner, B. D. Newberry Repair and Service,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
49) John Peters, Site Assessment Analyst, SPA'ICO, Kernersville,
North Carolina.
50) Mitchell Norton, Manager, Quality Oil Crnlpany, Laurinburg,
North Carolina.
51 ) Donald F. Norton, Manager, Cooper Peb:oleum Inc. , Laurinburg,
North Carolina.
52) James Izzell, Jr., Geologist, Underground Testing Inc., Garner,
North Carolina.
53) M. Gale Johnson, Geologist, DEM-Groundwater Section, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
54) J.A. Rader, Vice-President Gasoline, The Pantry, Sanford, North
Carolina.
55) Ken E. James, President, Ceilwall Contracting canpany,
Nashville, North Carolina.
56) Sidney L. Edrmmdson, Red Star Fuel Oil Crnlpany, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
57) Ernest Galla-ray, Owner/Manager, Oak View Oil Canpany, High,
Point, North Carolina.
58) Tan Betts, BcMeir and Bunc:Mr, Secretary, Henderson, North
Carolina.
59) Steven B. Lucas, Branch Manager, SPA'ICO, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
60) Henry Bael, President, Red Star Oil Canpany, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
61) Tirrothy P. Sullivan, Attorney, Poyner and Sprvill, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
62) Charles N. &Mell, Branch Manager, SPA'ICO, Kernersville, North
Carolina.
63) Alex McGilvary, Geologist, SPA'ICO, Kernersville, North
Carolina.
64) Chester calhoun, Vice-President, Pilot Peb:oleum Canpany,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
64) John W. Carroll, President, Northwc:xJd Oil Canpany, Inc. , High
Point, North Carolina.
65) David B. Ferguson, Four Seasons Industrial Services, Charlotte,
North Carolina.
66) Malcolm Whitney, Branch Manager, Four Seasons Industrial
Services, Charlotte, North carolina.
67) David Brewster, Project Manager, Environmental Investigations,
Inc., Durham, North carolina.
68) Kirk W. Clinard, Manager, Clinard Oil Canpany, High Point,
North carolina.
69) Kerry L. Clinard, General Manager, Clinard Oil Canpany Inc. ,
High Point, North carolina.
70) Aubrey D. Hines, Manager, Bowers and Burrows Inc., Warrenton,
North carolina.
71) Richard J. King, Operations Manager, Mid-State Oil Canpany,
Lexington, North carolina.
72) Glen Walton, Marketing Representative, Red Star Oil Conpany,
Raleigh, North carolina.
73) Michael Branson, Project GeolCXJist, Westinghouse, cary, North
carolina.
74) M. Kennedy, President, Kennedy Oil Canpany, High Point, North
carolina.
75) Robert c. Baroour, Representative, Baref(X)r and carolina Oil
Canpanys, Concord, North carolina.
76) Harvey Danner, President, Certifoam Services, Inc.
77) Tan Mappes, Senior Engineer, (lJJNI Environmental Services, Inc. ,
Durham, North carolina.
78) Dolly Bidwan, Manager, Law and Canpany, Wilmington, North
carolina.
79) Eric tvbtzno, HydrogeolCXJic Technician II, DEM-Groundwater
Section, Raleigh, North carolina.
80) Mark P. Johnson, Jr., President, Mark Oil Canpany, Charlotte,
North carolina.
81) Bill McRibbin, Petroleum Sales Representative, SPA'Im,
Charlotte, North carolina.
82) Kurt Craig, Petroleum Sales Representative, SPA'Im, North
carolina.
83) Rodger S. Smith, Branch Manager, SPA'Im, Raleigh, North
carolina.
84) Jay Henmingway, Sales, SPA'Im, Raleigh, North carolina.
85) Steven Addy, Project Engineer, SGI Engineering, Carrboro, North
carolina.
86) L.N. Ferguson, GeolCXJist, SGI Environmental Engineering
Services, North carolina.
87) Matthew C. Beckwith, Engineer, HSMVI, Greensboro, North
carolina.
88) Jinmie and Jessie Smithe:anan, President and Secretary,
Smithennann Oil Canpany, Inc., North carolina.
89) Gerald N. Baker, Sr., President, Burke, Inc., Valdese, North
carolina.
90) Steven R. Andrews, Vice-President, Collson Murray Conpany,
Inc. , Greensboro, North carolina.
91) Michael Graves, Environmental Chemist, Burroughs Wellcane
Canpany, Research Triangle Park, North carolina.
92) Bill Brantley, Ad. Assistant, Bunn and Brantley Intp. , Rocky
M:runt, North carolina.
93) W.C. Palmer, Distribution Representative, Collson/Murray,
Greensooro, North Carolina.
94) William Sun, Superintendant, City of Durham, Durham, North
Carolina.
95) Michael R. Johnst, Manager, Benicoo Fuels of Alamance Oil
Conpany, Burlington, North Carolina.
96) Vernice U. Beroth Jr. , Beroth Oil canpany, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina.
97) Frank McNeil, President, McNeil Oil Canpany, Aberdeen, North
Carolina.
98) James Harris, Estimator, DMOJ Inc., Greensboro, North
Carolina.
99) Pete M:mda, Hydrogeologist, Groundwater Mangement Associates,
Cary, North Carolina.
100) John M. Halms, Vice-President, Spectrum Environmental, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
101) M.H. Rachael, Marketing, DMOJ, Inc., Greensboro, North
Carolina.
102) Charles Ross, Senior Scientist, CP&L, Raleigh, North Carolina.
103) Richard H. Gassen, President, Dick Grassen Associates, Inc.,
Greensooro, North Carolina.
104) F.dward T. Perkins, Operations Manager, Hoffman Oil Conpany,
Burlington, North Carolina.
1 05) Burrie Boshoff, Environmental Supervisor, DEHNR, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
106) Alan Pierce, Manager Business Developnent, ESE Biosciences
Group, Raleigh, Horth Carolina.
107) Gerold W. Adams, General Manager, Variety Pie-Up Inc. , Raleigh,
North Carolina.
108) Craig Cal.ham, Corp:>rate Secretary, Pilot Petroleum Canpany,
Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina.
109) Myrtle Calh0tm, President, Pilot Petrolet.nn Ccrnpany, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
110) ton Joiner, Project Manager, Floyd BrcMn Associates, Sanford,
North Carolina.
111) Douglas Dixon, Project Engineer, Sirrine Environmental
Ccmsultants, Raleigh, North Carolina.
112) Steven C. Lawerence, Fayetteville, North carolina.
113) Babara Oslund, Environmental Engineer, ABB Environmental
Services, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
114) Myrtle Pearce, Vice President, T. Ragland Distributing Conpany,
Inc., Fuquay Varina, North Carolina.
115) James H. Berry, Owner/Operator, A.H. Berry Trucking and
Construction, Linden, North Carolina.
116) Dean Gokel, President, GeoChem, M::>rrisville, North Carolina.
117) Phillip Rahn, President, Aquaterra, Raleigh, North Carolina.
118) Mark A. Creel, Environmental Specialist, N.C. Petroleum
Marketers Association, Raleigh, North Carolina.
119) Ben Abrams, President, Ben's Store, Littleton, North Carolina.
120) Harry W. Alexander, Lube Engineer, Nisbet Oil Canpany,
Charlotte, North Carolina.
121) Bobby Harrison, Manager, Wake Forest, North Carolina.
122) Gary Harris, Adminsitrative Assistant, NCPMA, Raleigh, North
carolina.
123) Wayne Gibson, Raleigh, North carolina.
124) Tim Grant, Geologist, CI:M, Raleigh, North carolina.
125) Elizabeth Powell, Attorney, M:x)re and Van Allen, Raleigh, North
carolina.
126) Lloyd Williams, Sr., Vice-President, Williams Oil Conpany,
Shelby' North carolina.
127) Jim Ma.uney, Operation Manager, Williams Oil Ccxrpany of Shelby,
Inc. , Shelby, North carolina.
128) Donald L. Wells, Maintenance Supervisor, Town of Chapel Hill,
Chapel Hill, North carolina.
129) Richard Keith Snavely, Geologist, Chemical and Environmental
Technology, Cary, North carolina.
130) William L. Parrish, Controller, L.C. Williams Oil Conpany,
Inc., Pittsooro, North carolina.
131) R.S. Lawter, Jr., Staff Engineer, Westinghouse, Cary, North
carolina.
132) 'Ihanas C. Garrett, Ma.int. Supervisor, L.C. Williams Oil
canpany, Pittsooro, North carolina.
133) Tarrny Benton, Service Manager, Jones and Frank, Raleigh, North
carolina.
134) David Newson, Vice-President, Newson Oil Conpany, Roanoke
Rapids, North carolina.
135) George M. Beroth, Vice-President, Beroth Oil carpany,
Statesville, North carolina.
136) Thornton J. Beroth, Vice-President, Beroth Oil Ccxrpany, Mt.
Airy, North carolina.
Attendees -New Bern
May 10, 1990
1 ) Mr. Phil Walker, Beaufort, North carolina.
2) Mr. William Burnett, Environmental Plarmer, Von Clesen and
Associates, Wilmington, North carolina.
3) Mr. Bobby L. Tripp, General Manager, Daughtridge Oil of
Greenville, Greenville, North carolina.
4) Mr. Tyler B. Warren, Attorney, N.C. Bar Association -Real
Property Section, Bethel, North carolina.
5) Mr. Peter J. Obenauer, M:>bil Oil (Retired), New Bern, North
carolina.
6) Mr. LinWCXJd Fillingame, Vanceboro, North carolina.
7) Learm IVbran, Geologist, DEM-WARO, Greenville, North carolina.
8) Kevin Auolis, PE, President, Auolis Engineering, P.A., New
Bern, North carolina.
9) F. Ray M:x:>re, Jr. , President, F. Ray M:x:>re Oil canpany,
Washington, North carolina.
10) Rob Neel, Law Engineering, Greenville, North carolina.
11) L.F. Williams Jr., New Bern, North carolina.
1 2) Htm.tley Wernick, reporter, Stm. Journal, New Bern, North
carolina.
13) Glenn Hartzog, Environmental Engineer, ~ Cherry Point, New
Bern, N::>rth carolina.
14) Billy Robinson, Sales Manager, Service Oil, I.aurinburg, N::>rth
carolina.
15) A. Frank Massey, General Manager, Hall's Petroleum Fquipnen.t
Ccrnpany, Beulaville, N::>rth carolina.
16) Dan Besse, New Bern, N::>rth carolina.
17) David R. Baumer, Maritime Historian, Greenville, N::>rth
carolina.
18) Tim Gay lord, Airport Manager, Dare County, Manteo, North
carolina.
19) Gloria W. Blake, Safety/Training Officer, City of Kinston,
Kinston, N::>rth Carolina.
20) C.R. Blake II
21) Angela Waldorf, Associate Director, N.C. Petroleum Council,
Raleigh, N::>rth Carolina.
22) Ben Abrams, President, Ben's Store, Inc., Littleton, N::>rth
Carolina.
23) Robert Jones, Engineer, Contractors and Engineers Services,
Goldsboro, N::>rth carolina.
24) Bobby L. Ferguson, Superintendant/Facilities, City of
Wilmington, Wilmington, N::>rth carolina.
25) Rodger G. Russell, President, Roger G. Russell and Son's, Inc. ,
Vanceboro, North carolina.
26) Harvey Hardison, General Manager, Mallard Oil Ccrnpany, New
Bern, N::>rth carolina.
27) John S. Rouse, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspector, New Bern.
N::>rth carolina.
28) John D. Grady Jr., President, Contractors and Engineers
Services, Inc.
29) 'Ibny Mallard, President, Mallard Oil Ccrnpany,
Attendees -New Bern
May 14, 1990
1) Mr. Raynond E. Downing, New Bern, N::>rth carolina.
2) Mr. A. J. Ballard, President, Ballard Tire and Oil Canpany, New
Bern, N::>rth carolina.
3) Mr. Tan Potter, Sr. , President, Tan Potter Oil canpany,
M:>rehead City, N::>rth Carolina.
4) Mr. M. J. Johnson, Owner, Johnson Oil Canpany, South Mills,
N::>rth carolina.
5) Mr. A. Frank Massey, General Manager, Hall's Petroleum,
Beulaville, N::>rth carolina.
6) Jerry E. carpenter, President, J.E. carpenter IDgging Canpany,
Inc., New Bel:n, N::>rth carolina.
7) Edward E. Daykin, Maysville, N::>rth Carolina.
8) W.O. Willetts, President, 'Ihe Prime Cormercial Group, Inc., New
Bern, N::>rth carolina.
10) C.H. Hamn, Jr., Environmental Health Director, DEM-Craven
County Health Deparbnent, New Bern, N::>rth carolina.
11 ) Angela S. Waldorf, Associate Director, N. C. Petroleum Council,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
12) Rcdger McKel vey, Sales Representative, Sul::xxm, Inc. , Florence,
South Carolina.
13) Mark A. Larsen, District Representative, E.J. Pope and Son,
Inc. , Mt. Olive, North Carolina.
14) W. Watson Barnes, President, Wilson Petroleum Conpany, Wilson,
North Carolina.
15) Brian Fisher, General Manager, Fisher Oil canpany, New Bern,
North Carolina.
16) David Wheatly, President, Wheatly Oil canpany, tvbrehead City,
North Carolina.
17) Curtis Peny, Public W:>rks Director, Town of Beaufort,
Beaufort, North Carolina.
18) William Holt, Director of Environmental Affairs, Gate
Petroleum, Charlotte, North Carolina.
19) T.H. Potter, Vice-President, Tan Potter Oil Conpany, Inc.,
l'-brehead City.
20) K.M. Sprunt, Jr. , Vice-President, Springer-Eubank Oil Conpany,
Wilmington, North Carolina.
21 ) Luther Brown, General Manager, Springer-Eubank Conpany, Inc. ,
Wilmington, North Carolina.
22) Jimny Byrum, President, Sunberry, North Carolina.
23) Stanley D. Hall, Owner, Halls Petroleum Fquipnent, Reulaville,
North Carolina.
24) Bud Joyner, Dumns Oil canpany, Goldsboro, North Carolina.
25) Orris Ballard, Vice-President, Ballard Tire and Oil Conpany,
New Bern, North Carolina.
26) Joyce Ballard, Secretary, Ballard Tire and Oil Conpany, New
Bern, North Carolina.
27) Patty Hall, G and H Oil Equipnent, Greensboro, North carolina.
28) Peter Obenauer, Tenninal Supervisor, MJbil Oil Corporation,
New Bern, North Carolina.
29) Jake Hill, New Bern, North Carolina.
30) William V. Hill, G and H Oil Equipnent, Greensoboro, North
Caolina.
31) Thanas Edgerton, President, President, Wallace, North Carolina.
32) Dan Rand, President, Rand Oil Conpany.
33) Maxene Carpenter, Secretary, E. Carpenter Loggins Canpany, New
Bern, North Carolina.
34) John S. Myers, Environmental Health Supervisor II, New Bern,
North Carolina.
35) Ray Silverthorne, Jr., Environmental Health Supervisor, Cranven
County Health Deparbnent, New Bern, North Carolina.
36) Curtis Potter, President, Potter Oil Conpany, Inc., Aurora,
North Carolina.
37) Clyde wade, Manager, Mearing Oil Conapany, Snow Hill, North
Carolina.
38) Jeff Sawyer, Owner, Sawyer Convenience Mart, Bayboro, North
Carolina.
39) 'Charles M:>oring, Vice-President, M:>oring Oil canpany, LaGrange,
North Carolina.
40) Joseph w. Rose, President, Rose and Asscx::iates, P.A., New Bern,
North carolina.
41 ) Frank Williams, Assistant Secretary, Eastern Fuels, Inc. ,
Ahoskie, North carolina.
42) Dolly Bidwan, Manager, Law and Co., Wilmington, North CArolina.
43) Ben Abrams, President, Ben's Store, Inc., Littleton, North
carolina.
44) Preston Howard, Regional Supervisor, DEM -Wilmington Regional
Office.
Revised 2/12/1991
ADDENDUM I
RULE 15A NCAC 2N
UNDERGRCXJND S'IORAGE TANKS
(as adopted)
SUBCHAPI'ER 2N -UNDERGRaJND SIORAGE TANKS
SECT'ICN • 0100 GENERAL CXNSIDE:RATICNS
.0101 GENERAL
( a) The purpose of this Sul:clla.pter is to establish the technical
standards and oorrective action requirements for owners and operators
of underground storage tanks.
(b) 'Ihe Groundwater Section of the Division of Environmental
Management shall administer the underground storage tank program for
the State of North carolina.
( c) Di vision staff may conduct inspections as necessary to ensure
canpliance with this Subchapter.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282 ( 2 )(h);
Eff. January 1, 1991
.0102 CX)PIES OF REFERENCED FEDERAL REGJLATICNS
(a) Copies of applicable Code of Federal Regulations sections
referred to in this Subchapter are available for public inspection at
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources regional
offices. They are:
(1) Asheville Regional Office, Interchange Building, 59 Woodfin
Place, Asheville, North carolina 28802;
(2) Winston-Salem Regional Office, Suite 100, 8025 North Point
Boulevard, Winston-Salem, North carolina 27106;
(3) M:oresville Regional Office, 919 North Main Street,
M:oresville, North carolina 28115;
(4) Raleigh Regional Office, 3800 Barrett Drive, Post Office
Box 27687, Raleigh, North carolina 27611;
(5) Fayetteville Regional Office, Wachovia Building, Suite 714,
Fayetteville, North carolina 28301;
(6) Washington Regional Office, 1424 carolina Avenue, Farish
Building, Washington, North carolina 27889;
(7) Wilmington Regional Office, 7225 Wrightsville Avenue,
Wilmington, North carolina 28403.
(b) Copies of such regulations can be made at these regional
offices for ten cents ($0.10) per page.
History Note: statutory Authority G.S. 12-3.1(c);
143-215.3(a)(15); 143B-282(2)(h)
Eff. January 1, 1991
Revised 2/12/1991
.0103 AOOPITOO' BY REFERENCE UPDA'IES
The Code of Federal Regulations adopted by reference in this
Subchapter shall autanatically include any later amendments thereto as
allowed by G.S. 150B-14(c).
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282 ( 2) (h);
Eff. January 1 , 1991
.0104 IDENI'IFICATIOO' OF TANKS
(a) OWners and operators shall maintain at each facility a current
diagram that clearly indicates, for each underground storage tank:
( 1 ) location with respect to property boundaries and any
permanent on-site structures;
(2) total storage capacity, in gallons;
( 3) the exact type of petroleum product ( such as unleaded
gasoline, No. 2 fuel oil, diesel) or hazardous substance
stored; and
( 4) the year the tank was installed.
(b) The diagram shall be made available for inspection, during
no:anal operating hours, to authorized representatives of the
Department.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282 ( 2 ) ( h) ;
Eff. January 1 , 1991
Revised 2/12/1991
SECT'ICN . 0200 P:Ra;RAM SCOPE AND INl'ERIM PROHIBITICN
.0201 APPLICABILITY
The provisions for ''Applicability'' contained in 40 CFR 280. 10
(Subpart A) have been adopted by reference in accordance with G.S.
150B-14(c) except that undergramd storage tanks containing de minimis
concentrations of regulated substances are subject to the requirements
for pennanent closure in Rules .0802 and .0803 of this Subchapter.
Adqption b y Reference
§ 280. 10 Applicability.
(a) 'lhe requirements of this Part apply to all owners arrl operators
of an usr system as defined in § 280. 12 except as otherwise provided
in paragrapis (b), (c), am (d) of this secticn. Any usr system
listed in paragrapl (c) of this secticn nust meet the requirements of
§ 280.11.
(b) 'lhe following usr systems are excluded frcm the requirements of
this Part:
( 1 ) Any usr system holding hazardous wastes listed or identified
under Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, or a
mixture of such hazardous waste arxl other regulated
substances.
( 2) Any wastewater treabrent tank system that is part of a
wastewater treabrent facility regulated under Secticn 402 or
307(b) of the Clean water Act.
( 3) F.quipnent or machinery that cxntains :regulated substances
for operational purposes such as hydraulic lift tanks arxl
electrical equipnent tanks.
(4) Any usr system wtnse capacity is 110 gaJloos or less.
( 5) Any usr system that cxntains a de minimis ccricentraticn of
regulated substances.
( 6) Any energency spill or overflow cxntaiment usr system that
is expeditiously enptied after use.
(c) Deferrals. Subparts B, C, D, E, arrl G do not ilRUY to any of
the following types of usr systems:
( 1 ) Wastewater treabrent tank systems;
( 2) Any usr systems cxntaining radioactive material that are
regulated under the Atanic Energy Act of 1954 (42 USC 2011
arrl following);
(3) Any usr system that is part of an energency generator system
at mciear power generaticn facilities :regulated by the
Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnissicn under 1 O CER 50 Awerx1ix A;
(4) Airport hydrant fuel distributicn systems; arxl
(5) usr systems with field-cxmstnJCted tanks.
(d) Deferrals. Subpart D does not apply to any usr system that
stores fuel solely for use by energency power generators.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Ef f. January 1 , 1991
Revised 2/12/1991
. 0202 INI'ERIM PROHIBITICN FOR DEFERRED UST SYSTEMS
'!he provisions for "Interim Prohibition for deferred UST systems"
contained in 40 era 280.11 (Subpart A) have been adopted by reference
in accordance with G.S. 150B-14(c).
Adoption by Reference
§ 280. 11 Interim Prdrlbiticn far deferred UST systems.
(a) R> persor1 may install an UST system listed in § 280. lO(c) far
the purpose of staring regulated suhstances unless the UST system
(whether of single-or double-wall CCX1Structicn) :
( 1 ) Will prevent releases due to cnrrosicn or stnJctural failure
far the operatiael. life of the UST system;
(2) Is cathxlically protected against cnrrosicn, calStructed of
:rx::ncarrodible material, steel clad with a :rx::ncarrodible
material, or designed in a manner to prevent the release or
threatened. release of any stared substance; arrl
( 3) Is ca1St:ructed or lined with material that is oarpatible
with the stared substance.
(b) R>tw.it:hst:arxliDJ paragrapl (a) of this secticn, an UST system
witlDut cx:x:cosicD protecticn may be installed at a site that is
detennined by a cnrrosicn expert not to be cnrrosive enough to cause
it to have a release due to cnrrosicn duriDJ its operating life.
Owners arrl operators nust maintain records that deualstrate acmpliance
with the :requ:ixeoEnts of this paragrapl for the raIBin:ing life of the
tank.
[lt>te: 'lhe Natiael. M;SOCiaticn of Onruslcn Engineers Standard
RP-02-85, "ctDtrol. of External Cor.rosicn en Metallic Buried,
Partially Buried, or SulDe:ged Liquid Storage Systems," may be
used as guidance far carplyiDJ with paragrapl (b) of this
secticn.]
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1, 1991
.0203 DEFINITICNS
(a) '!he definitions contained in 40 era 280.12 (Subpart A) have
been adopted by reference in acoordance with G.S. 150B-14(c).
(b) 'Ihis Rule shall apply throughout this Subchapter except that:
(1) "Implementing agency" shall mean the "Division of
Envi10nmental Management. 11
(2) "Division" shall mean the "Division of Environmental
Management• I I
(3) "Director" and "Director of the Implementing Agency" shall
mean the ''Director of the Di vision of Environmental
Management• I I
(c) The following definitions shall apply throughout this
Subchapter:
Revised 2/12/1991
( 1 ) "De minimis concentration" means that arrount of a regulated
substance which does not exceed one percent (1%) of the
capacity of the tank, excluding piping and vent lines.
(2) "Expeditiously emptied after use" means the renoval of a
regulated substance fran an emergency spill or overflow
containment UST system within 48 hours after the necessity
for use of the UST system has ceased.
( 3) "Previously closed" means:
(A) An UST system fran which all regulated substances had
been rerroved using camonly employed practices, the tank
filled with a solid inert material, and tank openings
were sealed or capped prior to December 22, 1988; or
(B) An UST system renoved fran the ground prior to
December 22, 1988.
(4) "Temporarily closed" means:
(A) An UST system fran which the product has been renoved
such that not rrore than one inch of product and residue
are present in any portion of the tank; or
(B) Any UST system in use as of December 22, 1988 which
canplies with the provisions of 15A NCAC 2N .0801.
(5) "Secondary contairnnent" means a method or canbination of
methods of release detection for UST systems that includes,
but is not limited to:
(A) For tanks, double-walled construction, external liners
( including vaults) or other methods, approved by the
Division, which meets the provisions of 40 CFR
280.42(b)(5); and
(B) For underground piping, trench liners, double-walled
construction or other methods, approved by the Division,
which meet the provisions of 40 CFR 280.42(b) (5).
(6) "Person qualified to assess site conditions" means a person
who, through a canbination of training and experience, is
canpetent to evaluate the conditions existing at an UST
system site, including the physical and chemical conditions
of the subsurface.
Adoption by Reference
§ 280.12 Definiticns.
"Abovegramd release" means any release to the surface of the
land or to surface water. 'Ihis includes, but is not limited to,
releases fran the above-grc:uxl porticn of an usr system am
aboveground releases associated with overfills am transfer q,era.ticns
as the regulated substance JIDVeS to or fran an usr system.
Revised 2/12/1991
"Ancil..l.ary equiprelt" neans any devices including, hit not
limited to, such devices as piping, fittings, flanges, valves, and
ptmpS used to di.strlbute, meter, or ccntrol. the flow of regulated
substances to and fran an UST.
•~ re.lease" neans any release to the subsurface of the
land and to ground water. 'Ibis includes, hit is IDt limited to,
releases ftan the ~ partioos of an uooei:g:round storage tank
system and bel.owg:ramd releases associated with overfills and transfer
operatioos as the regulated substance DDYeS to or fran an umerg:rourrl
storage tank.
''Beneath the surface of the ground" means beneath the ground
surface or otherwise covered with earthen materials.
"Cathodic protectian" is a teclmique to prevent <Xlrl'.OSicn of a
metal surface by making that surface the cathode of an electrochemical
cell. Far exarpl.e, a tank system can be cathodically protected
through the application of either galvanic anodes ar inpressed
current.
"Cathodic protection tester' means a perscn liD can denolstrate
an underst:ancliDJ of the principles and measurements of all cauuon
types of cathodic protection systems as applied to buried or subierged
metal piping and tank systems. At a mininun, such perscns D1JSt have
educatian and experience in soil resistivity, stray current,
structure-to-soil potential, and crnp::nent electrical isolation
measurements of buried metal piping and tank systems.
••~•• neans the Ccnprehensive EnviraDel.tal Respcnse,
Ccmpensatian, and Liability Act of 1980, as ameooed.
"Chlpa.tibl.e" neans the ability of two or nare .......... substances._......-i to
maintain their :respective :p1ysical and chemical prqerties upm
ccntact with rne arnther far the design life of the tank system under
ccnlitioos likely to be encamtered in the UST.
110:Dnected piping" neans all umerg:rourrl piping including valves,
elbows, joints, flanges, and flexible camect:ars attadled to a tank
system through which regulated substances flow. Far the pirpose of
determining oow nuch piping is coonected to any individual UST system,
the piping that joins two CET systems shawl be al located equally
between them.
"Ccxlsulptive use" with respect to heating oil oeans CDlSmled an
the premises.
"Cbrrosian expert" oeans a perscn li'D, by reascn of tlorough
knowledge of the :p1ysical sciences and the principles of engineering
and mathematics aa)Uired by a professiooal educatian and related
practical experience, is qualified to engage in the practice of
corrosian ccntrol. an buried ar subnet gel netal piping systems and
metal tanks. SUch a perscn lllJSt be accredited ar certified as being
Revised 2/12/1991
qualified by the Natiaial. Associatien of Canoslen ~ or be a
registered professiooal engineer woo has certificaticn or licensing
that incJudes educaticn and experience in carrosicn cxntrol. of hlried
or subierged netal piping systems and netal tanks
''Dielectric material'' neans a material that CDeS IDt caiduct
direct electrica1 current. Dielectric oaatings are used to
electrically isolate UST systems fran the surrami.Ig soils.
Dielectric bushings are used to electrically isolate portioos of the
UST system (e.g. , tank fran piping) .
''Electrical equipoent" neans undecg:ramd equipoent that cxntains
dielectric fluid that is necessary far the operatien of equip1B1.t such
as transfamers and buried electrical cable.
''Excavatien zcme" neans the vol.me ccntaining the tank system and
backfill material bouooed by the ground surface, walls, and fl.oar of
the pit and trenches into -which the UST systan is pl aced at the tine
of installatien.
''Existing tank systan" neans a tank systan used to ccntain an
acamulatien of regulated substances or far which installaticn has
c:x:mrenced en or before December 22, 1988. Installaticn is ccnsidered
to have cx:mtelCed if:
(a) the owner or operator has obtained all federal, state, and
local approvals or penni.ts necessary to begin piysical ccnstructien of
the site or installatien of the tank systan; and if,
(b)(1) either a cxntimnis en-site physical CCDSt:ructicn or
installatien progrdln has begun; or,
( 2) the amer or operator has entered into cxntractual
cbligatioos--which camx>t be cancelled or noclified witlnit substantial
loss-far piysical ccnstructien at the site or installaticn of the
tank systan to be carpleted within a reasaiable t:me.
''Fann tank'' is a tank located en a tract of land devoted to the
productien of crops or raising animals, inclu:ling fish, and associated
residences and :i.uprovements. A farm tank IIIJSt be located en the farm
property. ''Fann'' includes fish hat:dlerles, rangeland and nurseries
with growing operatioos.
''FkM-through process tank" is a tank that fcmns an integral part
of a productien process through which there is a steady, variable,
recu:ni.ng, or intennittent flow of materials during the operatien of
the process. Flow-through process tanks oo IDt include tanks used
far the storage of materials prior to their introductien into the
productien process or far the storage of finished products or
by-products fran the productien process.
''Free product" refers to a regulated substance that is present as
a nooaqueous piase liquid (e.g., liquid IDt dissolved in water.)
Revised 2/12/1991
"Operaticmal life" :refers to the period beg:i.nn:in:J when
i.nstallatien of the tank systan has amoenced until the tine the tank
system is properly closed under Sl.q)art G.
''Operator'' means any perscD in a:ntrol of, or having
respc11Sibility for, the daily q,eraticn of the UST system.
"Overfill release" is a release that occurs when a tank is filled
beycn:l its capacity, result:inj in a dischllge of the regulated
substance to the envi.nnlent.
"Owner" DEanS: (a) in the case of an UST system in use en
November 8, 1984, or maight into use after that date, any perscn who
oms an UST system used for storage, use, or dispensing of regulated
substances; and (b) in the case of any UST system in use before
November 8, 1984, rut m la,9::1. in use en that date, any perscn who
owned such UST imoodiately before the discxntinuaticn of its use.
1 'Per:scn1
' means an individual, trust, finn, joint stock carpany,
federal aqercy, cuqxnaticn, state, nunicipality, cxmnissien,
political sulxlivisim of a state, or any interstate :t:x:rly. ''Ferscn"
also includes a ccmsartiun, a joint venture, a m1nercial entity, and
the United states Gove:r:ment.
"Petroleum UST systan" DEanS an underground storage tank system
that cxntai.ns petrolemi or a mixbJre of petroleun with de minimis
quantities of other regulated substances. Such systeos include toose
ccntaining notar fuels, jet fuels, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel
oils, lubricants, petrol.an solvents, arrl used oils.
"Pipe" or ''Fiping" DEanS a hollow cylinder or bJluJar OCilduit
that is CCI1Structed of ncn-earthen materials.
"Pipeline facilities ( i.ncluling gathering lines) 11 are new arrl
existing pipe rights-of-way arrl any associated equiprent, facilities,
or buildings.
''Regulated substance" means
(a) any substance defined in sectien 101(14) of the Chlprehensive
Envi.rcnoontal Respcrise, ~tim and Liability Act (cmcr.A) of
1980 (rut IX>t including any substance regulated as a hazanbJs waste
uooer subtitle C), and
(b) peb:ol.eun, including caite oil or any fracticn thereof that is
liquid at stamani cxnliticns of teq>erature arrl pressure ( 60 degrees
Fahrenheit and 14. 7 poonds per square inch absolute) • '!be tenn
"regulated substance" includes hit is IX>t limited to petmleon and
petrol.emi--based substances mrprised of a a:mpJ ex bleoo of
hyd:rocarlxms derived fran caite oil though processes of separatien,
cxnversicn, upgrad:iDJ, ard finishing, such as DDtor fuels, jet fuels,
distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants, petrol.emi
solvents, and used oils.
Revised 2/12/1991
''Gathering lines'' means any pipeline, equipnent, facility, or
bd J di'fl9' used in the transportaticn of oil or gas during oil or gas
producticn or gathering operatiais.
''Hazardous substance lET systan" means an umergrourrl storage
tank system that c:xntains a hazardous substance defined in secticn
101(14) of the Cbrprehensive Env:in:noental RespcDse, Cbrpensaticn and
Liability Act of 1980 (mt not :inc1lld:ing any substance regulated as a
hazaroaJs waste under subtitle C) or any m:i.xbire of sud>. substances
and peb:ol.eun, and whidl is not a petroleun lET systen.
''Heating oil" means petrol.Ellll that is No. 1, No. 2, No. 4--light,
No. 4--heavy, No. 5-light, No. 5-heavy, and No. 6 technical grades
of fuel oil; other :residual fuel oils ( including Navy Special Fuel Oil
and Bunker C); and other fuels when used as substitutes for aie of
these fuel oils. Heating oil is typically used in the q,eraticn of
heating equipnent, lx:>ilers, or furnaces.
''Hydraulic lift tank" means a tank holding hydraulic fluid for a
closed-loop mechanical system that uses carpressed air or hydraulic
fluid to operate lifts, elevators, and other similar devices.
11InplE11B1ting agency" means EPA, or, in the case of a state with
a program approved under secticn 9004 (or pm-suant to a meuutdl:d.ao. of
agreenent with EPA), the designated state or l.ocal agency resp:msible
far carrying out an approved UST progra111..
''Liquid trap" means smps, well cellars, and other traps used in
assoc:iaticn with oil am gas productirn, gathering, and extracticn
operatiais (:incllld:ing gas producticn plants), far the pirpose of
collecting oil, water, am other liquids. 'lllese liquid traps may
~Y mllect liquids far suhsequent di spant-.im or reinjecticn
into a prooucticn or pipeline stream, or oey cxJl.lect and separate
liquids fran a gas stream.
''Maintenance" means the normal operaticnal ~ to prevent an
undergrrxmd storage tank system fran releasing product.
''K>tar fuel" means petcol..am or a petroJeum--based substance that
is DDt:ar gas:>Jine, aviaticn gasoline, No. 1 or No. 2 diesel fuel, or
any grade of gasohol, and is typically used in the q,eraticn of a
notar engine.
''New tank system" means a tank system that will be used to
ccntain an accmula.ticn of :r:egul.ated substances and far which
installaticn has CXJmelCed after Decariler 22, 1988.
(See also ''Existing Tank System.")
''ltnxmnerci.al purposes'' with respect to notar fuel means not far
resale.
"Ch the premises ~ stared" with respect to heating oil means
UST systems located en the same prq>et.ly where the stared heating oil
is used.
Revised 2/12/1991
''Release" means any spilling, leaking, emitting, discharging,
escaping, leaching or disposing fran an UST into gram water, surface
water or subsurface soils.
''Release detecticn" oeans determining Nlether a release of a
regulated substance has occurred fran the UST system into the
enviram:nt or into the interstitial space between the UST system and
its seccridary barrier or seccridary cxntaimelt arourrl it.
''Repair" means to restore a tank or UST system cx:np:Dellt that has
caused a release of product fran the UST system.
''Residential tank" is a tank located en pu.Jperl.r used primarily
far dwelling purposes.
"SARA" means the Superfund Amerdnents and Reauthxiz.ati.cn Act of
1986.
"Septic tank" is a water-tight CXJYeCed receptacle designed to
receive or process, through liquid separaticn or biological. digesticn,
the sewage discha:cged fran a ruilding ~. 'lhe effluent fran such
receptacle is distributed far di spF<ll through the soil and settled
solids and scon :Er:ao. the tank are pmped out periodically and hauled
to a trea:b1Ent facility.
"Stann-water or wastewater collecticn system" neans piping,
i:;:unps, cxmduits, and any other equipoent :necessary to collect and
transparL the fl<M of surface water nm-off reslllting fran
precipitaticn, or oorestic, C'allle:'Cial, or i.rxJustr:i.a1. wastewater to
arrl fran retenticn areas or any areas where treablent is designated to
occur. 'llle collecticn of stonn water and wastewater does DJL include
treablent except where incidental to ccnveyance.
"Surface :iJJpDrdoent" is a natural tqx.Jg:raphic depressicn,
man-made excavaticn, or diked area farmed primarily of earthen
materials (alth:Jugh it may be lined with man-made materials) that is
not an injecticn well.
1 'Tank11 is a statiaiary device designed to cxntain an acamtl.aticn
of regulated substances and cxnstnicted of ncn--eart:hen materials
(e.g. , CXDCrete, steel, plastic) that provide structural SI.JRX)l:-l.
1Undergn)und area" neans an under:grourxl rcx::m, such as a basement,
cellar, shaft or vault, providing eaJUgh space far physical. inspecticn
of the exlerior of the tank sibJated en or above the surface of the
floor.
Revised 2/12/1991
"wastewater treabnent tank" neans a tank that is designed to
receive and treat an influent wastewater thraJgh piysical, chemical,
or biol.ogical methods.
History Note: Statutory Authority G. S . 1 43-215 • 3 (a)( 15) ;
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1 , 1991
Revised 2/12/1991
'Uxferg:ramd. release" neaIJS any be]a,grourxI release.
'~ storage tank11 or ''UsT'' means any aie or cxubinatic:n
of tanks (including underground pipes camected thereto) that is used
to ccntain an acom1Jatim of :regulated substances, and the voluoe of
which (incl.uliDJ the vol.me of underground pipes cxxmected thereto) is
10 percent or nore beneath the surface of the groom. 'Ihis tenn does
not inclooe any:
(a) Fann or residential tank of 1,100 gallcns or less capacity
used far stari.DJ ODtar fue1 far IlCXlCOOIDerCia purposes;
(b) Tank used far st.ad.DJ heating oil far ccnsmptive use en the
premises where stared;
( C) Septic tank;
(d) Pipeline facility (including gathering lines) regulated
under:
( 1 ) '1he Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 ( 49 u. s. c.
App. 1671, et seq.), or
(2) '1he Haz.aroous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 ( 49
u.s.c. App. 2001, et seq.), or
( 3) Nri.ch is an intrastate pipeline facility regulated
under state laws carparable to the provisicns of the
law referred to in paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this
definitic:n;
(e) Surface .inp)urdlelt, pit, pood, or lagocn;
(f) Stmm-water or wastewater oollectic:n system;
( g) Flo,-throogh pi:ocess tank;
(h) Liquid trap or associated gathering lines directly related
to oil or gas pr:oducticn and gathering q>eraticns; or
(i) Storage tank situated in an unde:rgrouoo area (such as a
basenent, cellar, mi.newarking, drift, shaft, or tunnel) if the
storage tank is situated upai or above the surface of the floor.
'lhe term "underground storage tank" or ''UsT'' does not include any
pipes camected to any tank which is described in paragraplS (a)
throogh (i) of this definiticn.
''Upgrade" means the additicn or :retrofit of sane systans such as
cath:xlic protectic:n, lining, or spill and overfill ocntrols to iirp.rove
the ability of an underground storage tank systen to prevent the
release of product.
''Usr system" or ''"lank system" means an underground storage tank,
camected underground pipiDJ, underground ancillary equipnent, and
cxntainlelt system, if any.
Revised 2/12/1991
.
SECI'ICN .0300 UST SYSTEMS: DESIGN, CCl';JSTRIJCl'ICN,
lliSTALLATICN, AND NJI'IFICATICN
.0301 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR NEW UST SYSTEMS
(a) The "Perfonnance standards for new UST systems" contained in 40
CFR 280. 20 ( Subpart B) have been adopted by reference in accordance
with G.S. 150B-14(c) except that:
( 1 ) 40 CFR 280. 20 (a) ( 2) (iv) has been changed to read ''cathodic
protectic:n systems are operated and maintained in accordance
with 15A NCAC 2N.0402, or as approved by the Director;"
(2) 40 CFR 280.20(b)(2)(iv) has been changed to read "cathodic
protection systems are operated and maintained in accordance
with 15A NCAC 2N.0402, or as approved by the Director;"
(3) 40 CFR 280.20(a)(4) is not adopted by reference; and
(4) 40 CFR 280.20(b)(3) is not adopted by reference.
(b) No UST system shall be installed within 100 feet of a well
serving a public water system, as defined in 1 SA NCAC 18C . 01 02, or
within 50 feet of any other well supplying water for human
consumption.
( c) An UST system, existing on the date of adoption of this
Subchapter and located within the area described in Paragraph ( b) of
this Rule, may be replaced with a new tank meeting the perfonnance
standards of 40 CFR 280.20 and the secondary containment provisions of
40 CFR 280.42 (b) (1) through (4). The replacement UST system may not
be located nearer to the water supply source than the UST system being
replaced.
( d) Except as prohibited in (b) of this Rule an UST system must
meet the requirements for secondary containment described at 40 CFR
280.42(b)(1) through (4) if installed:
(1) within 500 feet of a well serving a public water
supply or within 1 00 feet of any other well supplying water
for hurnan consumption; or
(2) within 500 feet of any surface water classified as High
Quality Water (H~), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW),
WS-I, WS-II, or SA;
( 3) in a location detei:mined by the Director to be unsuitable
for conventional installation based on an evaluation of the
site by Division staff.
Adoption by Reference
§ 280. 20 Perfcmnance standards far new usr systems.
In order to prevent releases due to strucbnal. failure,
carnJSic:n, or spills and overfills far as l.alg as the CB.l' system is
used to store regulated substances, all owners and operators of new
UST systems nust neet the folloring requirements.
(a) Tanks. Each tank DllSt be prq>erly designed and cxnstructed,
and any portiCD umergroond that raitinely c:xntains pnxluct oust be
protected fran un1usl01, in accor:dance with a code of practice
Revised 2/12/1991
develq>ed by a natiooal.l.y :r:ecDgnized associaticn or imepement
testing laboratory as specified bel.cM:
( 1 ) 'lhe tank is caistructed of fi.bezglass-:reinforced plastic; or
[lt>te: 'lhe following :imustry codes may be used to CDip].y with
paragrafh (a) (1) of this sectial: Underwriters I.abarataries Standam
1316, "standard far Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Underground
Storage Tanks far Petrol.an Products"; Underwriter's Laboratories of
Canada CAN4-S615-M33, "standard for Reinforced Plastic Underground
Tanks for Petrol.eon Products"; or American Society of Testing and
Materials Starmrd 04021-86, "Starmrd Specificaticn for
Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polyester Underground Petrol.emt Storage
Tanks."]
( 2) 'lhe tank is caistructed of steel and catlxxlically protected
in the following manner:
(i) 'lhe tank is coated with a suitable diel.ectric material;
(ii) Field-installed cathodic protecticn systems are designed by
a mnuslcn expert;
(iii) Inpressed current systems are designed to allow
detenninaticn of current q,erating status as required in § 280. 31 ( c);
and
(iv) Cathodic protecticn systems are q,erated am maintained in
accxm1ance with § 280.31 or according to guidelines established by the
inp1€11elting agency; or
[lt>te: 'lhe following codes am stamards may be used to CDip].y
with paragrafh (a)(2) of this secticn:
(A) steel Tank Instibit:e "Specificaticn far srr-P3 System of
EKl:ernal. Corrosicn Protecticn of Underground Steel Storage Tanks";
(B) Underwriters Laboratories Starmrd 1746, ''Corrosicn
Protecticn Systems for Underground Storage Tanks'';
(C) Underwriters Laboratories of Canada CAN4-S603--M85, "Starmrd
for steel Underground Tanks for Flanmabl.e and Chltlusti.ble Liquids,''
and CAN4--Q)J.1-M35, ''standard for Galvanic Clniusicn Protecticn
Systems far Underground Tanks for Flanmabl.e am Chltlusti.ble Liquids, II
am C2\N4-S631-M84, "Isolat:ug Bushings for Steel Underground Tanks
Protected with Cha.tings am Galvanic Systems"; or
(D) Natiaal Associaticn of Chr:msicn Engineers Starmm
RP-02-85, "U:ntrol. of EKternal Corrosicn en ft'Eta1lic Buried, Partia11y
Buried, or Sublerged Liquid storage Systems, II am lhErwriters
Iabarataries standan1 58, "standard far Steel Underground Tanks for
Fl.amnab1e and Chrhlsti.ble Liquids.'']
Revised 2/12/1991
( 3) 'lhe tank is cxnstructed of a steel-fiberglass-re:infor:ced-
plastic CC11pJSite; or
[ltlte: 'lhe following imustry oodes may be used to carply with
paragrap1 (a) (3) of this secticn: Unde:rwriters Laboratories Standard
1746, 11Q.n.1os.icn Pmtecticn Systems far UndeLgtuund storage Tanks, 11 or
the Associ atim far n 11p sj te Tanks ACl'-1 oo, 11Specificaticn far the
Fabricaticn of FRP Clad UndeLgtuund Storage Tanks. 11
]
(4) 'lhe tank is caistructed of metal witlnlt adlitiaial
corrosicn protecticn neasures provided that:
( i) 'lhe tank is installed at a site that is detemtined by a
corrosicn expert not to be a:niosive ellCAlgh. to cause it to have a
:release due to corrosicn during its operating life; and
(ii) Owners and q>eratars maintain records that daralstrate
carpl.iance with the requirenelts of pardtJl.api (a) ( 4) ( i) of this
secticn far the remaining life of the tank; or
( 5) 'lhe tank ccnst:ructicn and corrosicn protecticn are
determined by the inp)ementing agency to be designed to prevent the
:release or threatened release of any stared regulated substance in a
manner that is IXl less protective of lu:lnan health and the envircnnent
than paragraplS (a) ( 1 ) through ( 4) of this secticn.
(b) Piping. 'lhe piping that routinely cxntains regulated
substances and is in cxntact with the granJ nust be properly
designed, cx::nstructed, and protected frcm corrosicn in accamance with
a rode of practice developed by a natiCilal.ly recognized associaticn or
indepeooent testing laooratory as specified below:
(1) 'Ihe piping is cxnstructed of fiberglass-reinforced plastic;
or
[Note: '!he following oodes and stamards may be used to canply
with paragrap1 (b) ( 1 ) of this secticn:
(A) Unde:rwriters Laboratories Subject 971, ''UL Listed lbl--Matal
Pipe";
(B) Unde:rwriters Laboratories Standard 567, "Pipe Cc.rmectars far
Fl.armable and Ccmlustible and LP Gas";
( C) Unde:rwriters Laboratories of Canada Grl.de urc-107, "Glass
Fiber Reinforced Plastic Pipe and Fittings far Flanmable Liquids''; arrl
(D) Unde:rwriters Laboratories of Canada Staooard CAN 4-S633-M31 ,
''Flexible UndeLgtuund lbse Ccmlectars. "]
(2) 'Ihe piping is caistructed of steel and catlxxlically
protected in the following manner:
Revised. 2/12/1991
(i) '1he piping is coated with a suitable dielectric materia1;
( ii) Field-installed catlxxlic protecticn systems are designed by
a corrosicn expert;
(iii) Iop:essed cur.rent systems are designed to al.1.cM
detemrlnaticn of current q,era~ status as required in § 280. 31 ( c);
and
(iv) catlolic protecticn systems are q>erated and maintained in
accordance with § 280.31 or guidelines established by the :inp].ementiDJ
agency; or
[Note: '1he following codes and standards may be used to ccoply
with paragraph (b) (2) of this secticn:
(A) Natirnal. Fire Piotecticn Associaticn Standard 30, ''Fl.amnable
and CmhJstible Liquids Code'';
(B) Alrerican Petmlean Institute Publica.ticn 1615, "Installaticn
of ~ Petmlemi Storage Sys~";
( C) Alrerican Pet::mleml Institute Publica.tim 1632, ''cathodic
Protecticn of Undergroorrl Petrolean Storage Tanks and Piping Systems'';
and
(D) Natialal. Associaticn of Chr.msim Engineers Standard
RP-01-69, "Qnb:ol. of External Chr.msim m Sad IIP• gal Metallic Piping
Systems. II]
(3) '1he pipiDJ is caistructed of netal withaJt acklitiaial
carrosim protectim neasures provided that:
(i) '1he piping is installed at a site that is det:emrlned by a
carrosicn expert to not be conasive enough to cause it to have a
rel.ease due to carrosicn during its q>erating life; and
(ii) OWners and q,erat.ars neintain reund::i that denrnstrate
CDipliance with the :requirements of paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this
secticn far the remaining life of the piping; or
[N:>te: Naticmal. Fire Piotectim Associaticn Standard 30,
''Fl.anm3ble am Chrbustible Liquids Code"; and Natiaial. Associaticn of
Corrosim Engineers Standard RP-01-69, "Ck:nt:nll. of EKte:mal. Chr.rosicn
m Sul.uet.ga] Metallic Piping Systems," may be used to CDJpl.y with
paragraph (b)(3) of this sectim.]
( 4) '1he piping ca,structim and corrosicn protecticn · are
determined by the inpJemen~ agency to be designed to prevent the
rel.ease or tlrreatened rel.ease of any stored regulated substance in a
manner that is no less protective of lunan health and the envi.:rcn1Blt
than the requirements in paragraplS (b) ( 1 ) thrcllJh (3) of this
sectim.
Revised 2/12/1991
SECI'IOO' . 0400 GENERAL OPERATING ~
.0401 SPILL AND OVERFILL a::NIROL
The provisions for "Spill and overfill control" contained in 40 CFR
280.30 (Subpart C) have been adopted by reference in accordance with
G.S. 150B-14(c).
Adqption b y Reference
§ 280. 30 Spill and overfill caitrol.
(a) Owners and operators IIIJSt ensure that releases due to
spilling or overfilling oo rx>t occur. 'lhe owner and operator nust
ensure that the vol.me avai J abJ e in the tank is ga!a.ter than the
vol.me of product to be transferred to the tank before the transfer is
made am that the transfer (4)eraticn is oarl.tor:ed ooostantly to
prevent overfilling and spilling.
[Note: 'lhe transfer procedures described in Natiaial. Fire
P:rotecticn k;sociaticn Publicatim 385 may be used to mrply with
paragrapi (a) of this secticn. Further guidance en spill am overfill
preventicn appears in Anerican Peb:oI..eon Institute Publicati.cn 1621 ,
''Reccmrended Practice far Bulk Liquid Stock Qntrol. at Retail
Q.itlets, '' and Natiaial. Fire P:rotecticn Associatim Standard 30,
''Flanmable and Cotblstibl.e Liquids Code."]
(b) 'lhe owner and opera.tar IIIJSt report, investigate, and clean
up any spills and overfills in accardance with § 280. 53.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1, 1991
.0402 OPERATIOO' AND MA1Nl'ENANCE OF CX>RROSIOO' PROl'.ECI'ICN
'!he provisions for ''Operation and maintenance of corrosion
protection" contained in 40 CFR 280.31 (Subpart C) have been adopted
by reference in accordance with G.S. 150B-14(c).
p,dopticn by Reference
§ 280. 31 Operaticn and maintenance of corrosicn protecticn.
All owners and operators of steel UST systems with corrosicn
protecticn IIIJSt mrply with the followiDJ requi.raielts to ensure that
releases due to corrosicn are prevented far as lcog as the UST system
is used to stare regulated substances:
(a) All cxnius:irn protecticn systems IIIJSt be operated and
maintained to caitimxxlsl.y provide corrosicn protectim to the netal
Revised 2/12/1991
( c) Spill arrl overfill preventicn equipnent.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this secticn, to
prevent spilling and overfilliDJ asscci..ated with pax1uct transfer to
the usr system, owners and operators IIIJSt use the following spill arrl
overfill preventicn equipient:
( i) Spill preventicn equiprent that will. prevent rel ease of
product to the envinnrent when the transfer lose is det:adled :fran the
fill pipe ( for exanple, a spill catchnent basin); arrl
(ii) OYerfill preventicn equipient that will:
(A) .Autmetically shut off fl.ow into the tank when the tank is
no nore than 95 percent full; or
(B) Alert the transfer operator when the tank is no nore than 90
percent full by restricting the fl.ow into the tank or tri~ a
high-level alann.
(2) CNJers and q>erators are not required to use the spill and
overfill preventicn equipnent specified in paragraph ( c) ( 1 ) of this
secticn if:
( i) Alternative equip1B1t is used that is determined by the
:inplarenting agency to be no less protective of hunan health arrl the
envi.rcnielt than the equip11:11t specified in paragraph ( c) ( 1 ) (i) or
(ii) of this secticn; or
(ii) 'lhe IBT system is filled by transfers of no nare than 25
gallons at cne time.
(d) Installaticn. All tanks arrl piping llllSt be prq>erly
installed in accordance with a code of practice develqled by a
natiCllal.ly ::recDgDized asscciaticn or i.rrlepeooent test::iig laboratory
and in accordance with the marrufacturer IS instructiCDS •
[lt>te: Tank arrl piping system installaticn practi~ arrl
procedures described in the following codes may be used to cnrpl.y with
the requ:uareits of paragraph ( d) of this secticn:
(i) Aner:i.can Pet:rolean Instib.rt:e Publicaticn 1615, "Installaticn
of Urrergrourd Pet:rolean Storage System"; or
(ii) Pet:rolemt Equiprent Institute Publ.icaticn RP100,
''Recx:mrex3ed Practi~ far Installaticn of~ Liquid Storage
Sys~"; or
(iii) American Natiaial. standards Institute stamam. B31.3,
''Petcolemt Refinery Piping,'' arrl .American Natiooal Standards Institute
Standar:d B31.4 ''Liquid Pet:rolean Transpartaticn Piping System.'']
Revised 2/12/1991
Adoption by Reference
§ 280. 21 Upgrad:iDJ of existing usr systems.
(a) Alternatives alloEd. R:>t later than Dece.liber 22, 1998, all
existing mr systems must cx:q>l.y with CIJe of the following
:requirements:
( 1 ) New usr system performance staooards under § 280. 20;
(2) 'lbe upgrading :requirements in sectiCilS (b) t:hnDJh. (d) of
this secticn; or
( 3) Closure :requirements under Subpart G of this Part, including
applicable :requirements far carrecti.ve acticn under Subpart F.
(b) Tank upgrading :requirements. Steel tanks 111.JSt be upgraded
to ~t CIJe of the following :requirements in accordance with a code of
practice devel.oped by a naticDal..ly recognized assoc:iaticn or
indepeooent testing laboratory:
( 1 ) Interior lining. A tank may be upgraded by intema.1 lining
if:
(i) 'lbe lining is installed in accordance with the :requirements
of§ 280.33, and
(ii) Within 10 years after lining, and every 5 years thereafter,
the lined tank is internally inspected and fao:l to be structurally
souoo with the lining still perf6:rming in accordance with original
design specificatiCilS.
(2) catoodic p:rotecticn. A tank may be upgraded by cathodic
p:rotecticn if the cathodic p:rotecticn system neets the :requirements of
§ 280.20(a) (2) (ii), (iii), and (iv) and the integrity of the tank is
ensured using CIJe of the following net:h:Jds:
(i) 'lhe tank is internally inspected and assessed to ensure that
the tank is structurally sound and free of con:arlcn holes prior to
installing the catlmic p:rotecticn system; or
(ii) 'lbe tank has been installed far less than 10 years and is
naritared onn:hly far :releases in accordance with § 280.43(d) thraigh
(h); or
(iii) 'lhe tank has been installed far less than 10 years and is
assessed far carrosicn holes by ccmucting two ( 2) tightness tests
that rreet the :requirements of § 280. 43 ( c) . 'lhe first tightness test
nust be CDlducted prior to instal..l.iig the cathodic protecticn system.
'lhe seccm. tightness test DUSt be cxnducted between three ( 3) and six
( 6) IIOlths following the first ope:ratic:n of the cathodic p:rotectic:n
system; or
Revised 2/12/1991
(e) Certificat:icn of installat:icn. All owners arrl operators
nust ensure that aie or nare of the fol..l.oo.ng nethods of
certificatiai, testing, or inspectia1 is used to denolstrate
a:npliance with paragrap'l (d) of this sectia1 by providing a
certificatiai of carpli.ance a1 the UST notificatia1 farm in accardance
with§ 280.22.
( 1 ) 'Ihe installer has been certified by the tank and piping
marrufacturers; or
( 2) '1he installer has been certified or licensed by the
inplementing agency; or
( 3) '1he installat:icn has been inspected and certified by a
registered pr:ofess:i.alal engineer with educat:icn and experience in UST
system installaticn; or
( 4) 'lhe installat:icn has been inspected and approved by the
inplementing agency; or
( 5) All work listed in the manufacturer's installaticn
checklists has been carpleted; or
( 6) '1he owner and operator have carplied with another netlm far
ensuring a:upliance with paragrapl (d) of this sectia1 that is
detennined by the inplement-.ng agency to be m less pmtective of
hunan health and the envircnlent.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1, 1991
.0302 UPGRADING OF EXISTING UST SYSTEMS
(a) 'Ihe provisions for "Upgrading of existing UST systems"
contained in 40 CFR 280.21 (Sllbpatt B) have been adopted by reference
in accordance with G.S. 150B-14(c) except that existing UST systems
located within areas defined at Rule .0301(b) and (d) of this Section
shall be upgraded in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR
280.21 (b) through (d) and shall be provided secondary containment as
described at 40 CFR 280.42(b)(1) through (4). An UST system so
upgraded may not be relocated nearer to a source of drinking water
supply than its location prior to being upgraded.
(b) OWners must sul:mit to the Division, on fonns provided by the
Division, and within 30 days follCMing canpletion, a description of
the upgrading of any UST system conducted in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR 280.21.
(c) UST systems upgraded in accordance with 40 CFR 280.21 prior to
the adoption of this Subchapter are in cc:mpliance with these Rules.
Revised 2/12/1991
(iv) 'lhe tank is assessed far carrosicn holes by a nethod that
is detemlined by the inplenenting agency to prevent releases in a
nmmer that is no less protective of hunan health and the envinnrent
than paragraplS (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this secticn.
( 3) Internal lining carhined with catoodic protecti.al. A tank
may be upgraded by both inteznal lining and cathodic protecticn if:
( i) 'lhe l.:inmJ is installed in accor:dance with the requirements
of§ 280.33; and
(ii) 'lhe catlxxlic protecticn system oeets the requ:irements of §
280.20(a)(2)(ii), (iii), and (iv).
[N:>te: '1he fol.l.owirg codes and standards 110.y be used to canply
with this secticn:
(A) Aoerican Petrol.eon Institute Publicaticn 1631, ''Recxmrended
Practice for the Interior Lining of Existing Steel Uooel:g:raJrrl Storage
Tanks'';
(B) Naticnal. leak Preventicn Associati.cn standard. 631, "Spill
Preventicn, Mininun 10 Year Life EKtensicn of Ex::i..st::ing Steel
Uooerground Tanks by Lin:i:rg WithJut the Adliticn of cathodic
Pmtectioo.11
;
(C) Naticnal Associaticn of Cm:rosicn Engineers Standa:td
RP-02-85, 11Ccntml of External Corrosicn cn ft'.etallic Buried, Partially
Buried, or Sul:merged Liquid Storage Systems"; and
(D) Anerican Peb:oleun Instiblte Publicaticn 1632, "cathodic
Protecticn of Undergrourn Petroleun storage Tanks and Piping
Syst:ars •II]
( c) PipiDJ upgrading requirements. J.lleta1 pipiDJ that :routinely
ccntains regulated substances and is in ocntact with the ground 111.1St
be cathodically protected in acxXJrdance with a OJde of practice
developed by a naticnal.ly recognized associaticn or independent
testing laboratory and nust meet the requirenents of §
280.20(b)(2)(ii), (iii), and (iv).
[N:>te: 'lhe codes arrl standards listed in the note fol..l.ow:ing §
280.20(b)(2) may be used to carply with this requirenent.]
( d) Spill and overfill preventicn equipnent. 'lb prevent
spilling and overfilling associated with product transfer to the usr
system, all existing usr systems oust carply with new usr system spill
and overfill preventicn equiprent requirements specified in §
280.20(c).
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1 , 1991
Revised 2/12/1991
. 0303 IDI'IFICATICN REl2(JIREMENI'S
'Ihe "Notification requirements" contained in 40 CFR 280. 22 ( Subpart
B) have been adopted by reference in accx::n:"dance with G.S. 150B-14(c)
except that:
(1) Any owner of an UST system must sul:rnit to the Division, on
forms provided by the Di vision, a notice of intent to conduct any of
the following activities:
(a) Installation of a new UST system;
(b) Installation of a leak detection device installed outside of
the outenrost wall of the tank and piping, such as vap:>r
detection or groundwater nonitoring devices;
(c) Pennanent closure or change-in-service of an UST system.
( 2) Notification as required in Paragraph ( 1 ) of this Rule shall be
given at least 30 days before the activity is begun except as
authorized by the Director.
( 3) Owners and operators of UST systems that were in the ground on
or after May 8, 1986, were required to notify the Di vision in
accordance with the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984,
Public Law 98-616, on a form published by the Environmental Protection
Agency on November 8, 1985 (50-FR 46602) unless notice was given
pursuant to Section 103(c) of CERCTA. Owners or operators who have
not canplied with the notification requirements may canplete the
appropriate portions of the form, provided by the Division, and subnit
the fonn to the Division.
(4) Beginning October 24, 1988, any person who sells a tank
intended to be used as an underground storage tank must notify the
purchaser of such tank of the owners notification obligations under
Paragraphs ( 1 ) and ( 2) of this Rule.
( 5) Any reference in 40 CFR 280 to the notification fonn in
Appendix I shall refer to the North Carolina notification fonn
approved by the Division and EPA.
Adoption b y Reference
§ 280.22 Notification requirenents.
( a) Any omer who brings an undergrourrl storage tank systen into
use after May 8, 1986, lllJSt within 30 days of bringing such tank into
use, subnit, in the fcmn prescribed in Appendix I of this Part, a
notice of ex::istence of such tank systen to the state or local agency
or deparbreit designated. in Appendix II of this Part to receive such
notice.
[N:>te: Owners and q,eratar:s of lEr systems that were in the
ground on or after May 8, 1986, unless taken out of operaticn en or
before January 1 , 1974, were required to notify the designated state
or local agency in accordance with the Hazardous and Sal.id Waste
lmeldments of 1984, Public Law 98--616, on a fam pibli.shed by EPA on
tovember 8, 1985 ( 50 ER 46602) unless rx,tice was given pursuant to
secticn 103 ( c) of QHCCA. OWners and operators who have IX>t CC11plied
with the notification requirements may use partials I through VI of
the notification faan acntained in Appendix I of this Part. ]
Revised 2/12/1991
(b) In states where state law, regulati.ms, or pl.UCffilrres
require CHlerS to use fmms that differ fran tmse set forth in
Appendix I of this Part to fulfill the requirenents of this secticn,
the state fcmns may be subnitted in lieu of the fams set forth in
Appendix I of this Part. If a state requires that its farm be used in
lieu of the farm presented in this regulaticn, such fann oust neet the
requirenents of Secticn 9002.
(c) Owners required to subnit notices uooer parogr:api (a) of
this secticn oust provide notices to the appropriate ageric:i.es or
deparbrents identified in Appendix II of this Part for each t.ank they
own. OWners may provide notice for severcl1 tanks using cne
notificaticn fcmn, hit owners 'WIX> own tanks located at nore than cne
place of operaticn nust file a separate :ootificaticn farm for each
separate place of operaticn.
(d) Notices required to be subnitted under paragrap1 (a) of this
secticn 111.lSt provide all of the infcmnaticn in Secticns I thralgh VI
of the prescribed farm (or appt.qn.iate state farm) for each tank for
which IX>tice oust be given. Notices for tanks installed after
Decarber 22, 1988 oust also provide all of the infarmaticn in Secticn
VII of the prescribed form (or appropciate state form) for each tank
for which notice oust be given.
(e) All owners and operators of new usr systems IlUSt certify in
the notificaticn faan CDipliance with the following requirenents:
( 1 ) Installaticn of tanks and piping under § 280. 20 ( e);
( 2) cathodic protecticn of steel tanks and piping under §
280.20(a) and (b);
(3) Financial respcnsibility uooer SUbpart Hof this Part; and
(4) Release detecticn urx1er §§ 280.41 and 280.42.
(f) All owners and operators of new usr systems nust ensure that
the instal1er certifies in the :ootificaticn faan that the metlxxls used
to install the tanks and pipiDJ carplies with the requirenents in §
280.20(d).
(g) Beginning Octcber 24, 1988, any perscn woo sells a tank
intended to be used as an undergramd storage tank nust notify the
purchaser of such tank of the owner's IDtificati.cn obligatials under
paragrap1 (a) of this secticn. '1he farm provided in Appendix III of
this part may be used to CCllply with this requirenent.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1, 1991
Revised 2/12/1991
COOl)CXleilts of that portic:n of the tank and pl.pl.Ilg that Initinely
cxntain regulated substances and are in cxntact with the g:rourxl.
(b) All mr systems equiwed with cathodic protectic:n systems
nust be inspected far ptc.p::r operatioo by a qualified cathodic
protectic:n tester in accordance with the following requ:irarents:
( 1 ) Frequency. All cathodic protectic:n systems IIIJSt be tested
within 6 DD1ths of installaticn and at least every 3 years thereafter
or accxmling to another reasrnable time frame established by the
:i.mplarenting agency; and
(2) Inspectic:n criteria. '1he criteria that are used to
detenn:ine that cathodic protecticn is adequate as required by this
sectic:n IIIJSt be in accordance with a code of practice develq)ed by a
natiaial.ly re<X)9llized associatic:n.
[Note: Naticmal. Associatic:n of Onzusic:n Fapneers Starrlanl
RP-02-85, "Ccntml of EKternal. Corrosic:n en Metallic Buried, Partially
Buried, or SUbrerged Liquid Storage Systems," may be used to ccmply
with paragraph (b)(2) of this sectioo.]
( c) usr systems with impressed current cathxlic protectic:n
system; IIIJSt also be inspected every 60 days to ensure the equipte1t
is running properly.
( d) Far usr systems us:i.D]' cathodic protectic:n, records of the
operatic:n of the cathodic protectic:n nust be maintained (in accordance
with § 280 .34) to denrnstrate CCDI>liance with the perfaanance
standards in this sectic:n. '1hese records oust provide the following:
( 1 ) '1he results of the last three inspectians required in
paragraph (c) of this sectic:n; and
( 2) 'lhe results of testing fran the last bJO inspections
required in paragraph (b) of this sectic:n.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1, 1991
.0403 <D'IPATIBILITY
'!he p:rovisions for "Canpa.tibility" contained in 40 CFR 280.32
( Subpart C) have been adopted by reference in accordance with G. S.
150B-14(c).
Adoption by Reference
§ 280.32 C'alpatibility.
Owners and q,eratars oust use an usr system made of or lined with
materials that are carpatible with the substance stored in the usr
system.
Revised 2/12/1991
[Note: Owners and operators staring al.cciDl.. bleoos oe.y use the
following CXJdes to ccoply with the requirements of this secticn:
(A) l\merican Petrolewt Instiblte Publicatia:l 1626, "Staring arrl
Handling EtharX>l and Gasoline-Ethanol Blends at D:istriruticn Tenni.nals
arrl Service Staticris"; and
(B) American Petroleun Instiblte Publicatia:l 1627, "Storage arrl
Hamling of Gasoli.ne--Methanol./Cosolvent Blends at Distributicn
Tenninal.s and Service Staticris. 11
]
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a) (15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1, 1991
.0404 REPAIRS ALLCmED
The "Repairs Allowed" provisions contained in 40 CFR 280.33
( Subpart C) have been adopted by reference in accordance with G. S.
150B-14(c).
Adoption by Reference
§ 280. 33 Repairs a.l.loel.
Owners and operators of usr systems oust ensure that repairs will
prevent releases due to structural failure or corrosicn as lag as the
usr system is used to stare regulated substances. '1he repairs nust
meet the following requirements:
(a) Repairs to usr systems oust be prq>erly anJucted in
accordance with a CXlde of practice developed by a natirnally
recognized associaticn or an indepement testing laboratory.
[R>te: '1he following CXJdes and standards may be used to canply
with paragra{il. (a) of this secticn: Nat:icDal Fire Pmtecticn
Associaticn starK1aid 30, ''FJanmahJe and Conbustible Liquids Code";
Anerican Petrolemt Institute Publicaticn 2200, "Repairing Crooe Oil,
Liquified Petrolema Gas, and Product Pipelines''; Aoerican Petroleum
Institute Publicatiai 1631, ''RecDmelded Practice for the Interior
Lining of Existing Steel Underg:rnmd Storage Tanks"; and Nat:icDal I.eak
Preventicn Associatim stardnd 631, "Spill Preventicn, Mininum 1 O
Year Life Extensicn of Existing Steel Underg:rnmd Tanks by Lining
Without the .Additicn of cathodic Pmtecticn. "]
(b) Repairs to fibeI:gl.ass-:reinfarced plastic tanks oe.y be made
by the manufacturer's autlnrized representatives or in acoardance with
a c:xx:le of practice developed by a natirnally recognized associaticn or
an independent testing laboratory.
Revised 2/12/1991
(c) f'Eta1 pipe sect.ials and fit~ that have released product
as a result of oarrosicn or other damage nust be replaced. Fiberglass
pipes and fittings may be repaired in accordance with the
manufacturer's specificatiais.
(d) Reprln!d tanks am pipmg nust be tighmess tested in
accordance with § 280.43(c) and § 280.44(b) within 30 days following
the date of the a:upl.eti.cn of the repair except as provided in
paragrap1S (d)(1) through (3), of this secticn:
( 1 ) '1he :repaired tank is internally inspected in accardance with
a code of practice developed by a natiooally recognized associaticn or
an :independent testing laboratory; or
(2) 'Ihe repaired port:i.cn Of the OSI' system is oo:ri.taced lllllthly
far :celeases in accordance with a nethod specified in § 280. 43 ( d)
through (h); or
( 3) ArDther test nethod is used that is detennined by the
:inp1ementing agency to be ID 1ess protective of lumm hea1th and the
envinnIEnt than those 1isted above.
(e) Within 6 DD1ths following the repair of any cathodically
protected OSI' system, the cathodic protecticn system nust be tested in
accordance with § 280.31 (b) and (c) to ensure that it is q>eiating
prq,er1y.
( f) usr system owners am operators 11RJSt maintain records of
each repair far the remaining operating 1ife of the OSI' system that
denonstrate ooopliance with the :requi.renelts of this secticn.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1, 1991
.0405 REPORI'ING AND RECX)RDKEEPING
(a) The "Reporting and recordkeeping" procedures contained in 40
cm 280. 34 ( Subpart c) have been adopted by reference in accordance
with G.S. 150B-14(c).
(b) Owners and operators nrust also sul:Jnit to the Division, on fonns
provided by the Division and within 30 days following canpletion,
results of the site investigation conducted:
( 1 ) at pennanent closure; or
( 2) to insure canpliance with the requirements for installation
of vapor rronitoring and groundwater rronitoring devices, as
specified in 40 cm 280 . 43 ( e) ( 1 ) through ( e) ( 4) and
280.43(f)(1) through (f)(S), respectively.
(c) Owners nrust sul:Jnit to the Division, on fonns provided by the
Division, and within 30 days following canpletion:
( 1 ) A description of the upgrading of any UST system conducted
in accordance with the requirements of 40 cm 280.21;
(2) Certification of the proper operation of a corrosion
Revised 2/12/1991
protection system upon canpletion of testing and at a
frequency and in a manner specified in 40 CFR 280.31; and
(3) Certification of canpliance with the requirements for leak
detection specified in 40 CFR 280.40, 40 CFR 280.41, 40 CFR
280.42, 40 CFR 280.43 and 40 CFR 280.44. 'Ihe certification
nrust specify the leak detection method and date of
canpliance for each UST.
Adoption b y Reference
§ 280. 34 Reporting and Realrdkeepi.ng.
Owners and operators of lE'I' systems nust <Xqlerate fully with
inspecticns, m:nitarlng and testing CCXlducted by the inpl.enenti.ng
agency, as well. as requests far doo:nent subnissicn, testing, and
norltoring by the owner or operator pursuant to section 9005 of
Subtitle I of the Resource Ccrlservation and Recovery Act, as anended.
(a) Reporting. Owners and operators must sutmit the following
infaanation to the inplementi.ng agency:
( 1 ) libtificaticn for all UST systems ( § 280 .22), which includes
certification of installation for new UST systems ( § 280. 20 ( e) ) ;
( 2) Reports of all rel.eases inclm:irg suspected releases ( §
280. 50), spills and overfills (§ 280. 53), and CXDf:u:med rel.eases ( §
280.61);
(3) Corrective acticns planned or taken including initial
abat€11Blt measures ( § 280. 62), initial site characteriz.ation ( §
280. 63) , free product renoval ( § 280. 64), investigaticn of soil and
ground-water clearrup (§ 280. 65), and corrective acticn plan ( §
280.66); and
( 4) A notification before pennanent closure or change-in-service
(§ 280. 71). [not adq>ted]
(b) Recardkeepi.ng. Owners and operators 111JSt oeintain the
following· information:
( 1 ) A corrosion expert I s analysis of site corrosion potential if
axrosicn protecticn equip1E11t is not used ( § 280. 20 (a)( 4) ; §
280.20(b) (3)).
( 2) Ikx:urentaticn of operation of corrosion protecticn equip1E11t
(§ 280.31);
(3) n:x:urentation of UST system repairs(§ 280.33(f));
( 4) Recent <Dlpliance with rel.ease detection requirements ( §
280.45); and
Revised 2/12/1991
(5) Results of the site investigaticn ccnducted at pe:nnanent
closure(§ 280.74).
(c) Availability aIXi Maintenance of RecOl:ds. Owners aIXi
q,eratars DIJSt keep the records required either:
(1) At the lET site aIXi imnediately available for inspectim by
the inplementing agency; or
(2) At a readily available alternative site and be provided far
inspecticn to the inplenenting agency upcn request.
( 3) In the case of peaoanent closure recacds required uooer §
280. 74, owners aIXi q,erator:s are also provided with the additiCXJal.
alternative of mailing closure records to the inplement:iDJ agency if
they cannot be kept at the site or an alternative site as indicated
above.
(ltlte: '1he :recardkeeping aIXi reporting requiralents listed in this
secticn have been approved by the Office of Management aIXi Booget am
have been assigned om Ccntrol It>. 2050-0068.)
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1, 1991
Revised 2/12/1991
SECI'ICN .0500 RELEASE DEI'ECT'ICN
• 0501 GENERAL ~IREMENI'S FOR ALL UST SYSTEMS
The ''General requirements for all UST systems'' provisions contained
in 40 CFR 280. 40 ( Subpart D) have been adopted by reference in
accordance with G.S. 150B-14(c).
Adoption b y Reference
§ 280. 40 General requirements far all UST systems.
(a) Owners and operators of new and existing UST systems I11USt
provide a meth:ld, or cx:mbinatic:n of methods, of release detectic:n
that:
( 1 ) can detect a release fran any particD of the tank and the
coonected undergranl piping that J:UUtinely o:ntains product;
( 2) Is installed, cal i brated, operated, and maintained in
accordance with the marrufacbrrer I S instructi.CDS, i.:ncl..ulirg J:Ulltine
maintenance and service diecxs far operability or running cxnlitic:n;
and
( 3) ~ts the performance requirements in § 280. 43 or 280. 44,
with any perfcmnance claims and their manner of determination
described in writing by the eguipoent manufacturer or installer. In
additic:n, methods used after Derenrer 22, 1990, except far methods
pennanently installed prior to that date, nust be capable of detecting
the leak rate or quantity specified far that method in § 280.43(b),
(c), and (d) or 280.44(a) and (b) with a prolEbiJi:ty of detectic:n of
0.95 and a prd:)ability of false alarnl of 0.05.
(b) When a release detection method operated in acoardance with
the perfcmnance standards in§ 280.43 and§ 280.44 indicates a release
may have occurred, a,mers and operators DUSt notify the illplenenting
agency in accordance with Subpart E.
(c) Owners and opera.tars of all UST systems D1.1St a:mply with the
release detecl:i.al requirements of this Subpart by Dea>Drer 22, of the
year listed in the following table:
Year Installed
Before 1965 or
date unknown.
1965-69 ..
1970-74 ••
1975-79 ••
1980-88 .•
SOIElXJLE RR PHASE-IN OF RELFASE DEll!Cl'ICE
Year Release Detectic:n Is Required
(By Decanber 22 of the Year Indicated)
1989 1990 1991 1992
RD p
P/RD
p
p
p
RD
RD
1993
RD
New tanks (after December 22) imnediately upoo. i.nstallatic:n.
Revised 2/12/1991
P = M.Jst begin release detecticn for all pressurized piping in
accordance with 280.42(b) (4).
RD = M.Jst begin release detecticn for tanks and sucticn piping in
accordance with 280.41 (a), 280.41 (b) (2), and 280.42.
(d) Any existing OSI' system that cannot apply a :nethod of :release
detecticn that carpl.ies with the requirenents of this Subpart DUSt
cx:mplete the c1..asure PD ceni:a:P.S in Subpart G by the date m which
release detecticn is required for that OSI' system under pai.agrdfh (c)
of this secticn.
History Note: Statutory Authority G. S. 143-215. 3 ( a)( 15) ;
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1 , 1991
.0502 ~IREMENI'S FOR PEI'ROLEUM UST SYSTEMS
The "Requirements for petroleum UST systems" provisions contained in
40 CFR 280.41 (Subpart D) have been adopted by reference in accordance
with G.S. 150B-14(c) except that UST systems designated in Rule
.0301 (d) must meet the requirements for secondary containment
described at 40 CFR 280.42(b)(1) through (4).
Adoption b y Reference
§ 280. 41 Requirements for petroleum OSI' systems.
OWners and q,erators of petrol.eon lET systems DllSt provide
release detecticn for tanks and piping as follows:
(a) Tanks. Tanks DllSt be m:nitared at least every 30 days for
:releases using aie of the mettxxJs listed in § 280.43 (d)-(h) except
that:
( 1 ) lET systems that meet the performance standards in § 280. 20
or § 280. 21, and the ncnthly inventory cxntrol reguirenents in §
280.43(a) or (b), may use tank tightness testing (CDlducted in
accordance with§ 280.43(c)) at least every 5 years until December 22,
1998, or until 10 years after the tank is installed or upgraded under
§ 280.21 (b), whichever is later;
( 2) OSI' systaos that do not ueet the performance stamards :in §
280.20 or § 280.21 may use ncnthly inventory acntrols (CDlducted in
accordance with § 280.43(a) or (b)) and annual tank tightness testing
( crnducted :in accardance with § 280. 43 (c)) until Ilec9roer" 22, 1998,
when the tank nust be upgraded under § 280. 21 or permanently closed
under§ 280.71; and
(3) Tanks with capacity of 550 gallons or less may use weekly
tank gauging ( CD1ducted in accardance with § 280. 43 (b) ) •
Revised 2/12/1991
(b) Piping. Uooerground pip:ug that :a:ut:inely ocntains
regulated substances nust be narltored for releases in a manner that
neets aie of the folloo.ng :requi:reoelts:
( 1 ) Pressurized piping. Uooerground piping that cxnveys
regulated substances under pressure nust:
(i) Be equipped with an autanatic line 1eak detector carlucted
in accordance with § 280.44(a); and
(ii) Have an amrua11ine tightness test caiducted in acoardance
with § 280.44(b) or have ncnthly narl.tarlng caiducted in acoardance
with§ 280.44(c).
( 2) suction piping. Uooerground piping that CDIVeYS regulated
substances under sucticn oust either have a line tightness test
cxnJucted at 1east every 3 years and in accardance with § 280.44(b),
or use a DD1thly narltarlng method ccn1uct in accordance with §
280. 44( c) . It> release detection is required for sucti.al piping that
is designed and cxnstructed to neet the folloo.ng st:aooa:rds:
( i) 'lhe bel.ow-grade piping operates at 1ess than a~c
pressure;
(ii) 'lhe bel.ow-grade piping is slq>ed so that the ocnt:Bits of
the pipe will drain back into the storage tank if the sucti.al is
released;
(iii) Cnly aie check va1ve is included in each suction 1ine;
(iv) 'lhe check va1ve is located directly beloW' and as close as
practica1 to the suction ptmp; and
(v) A met:ood is provided that allows carpliance with paragraftls
(b) ( 2) (ii)-( iv) of this section to be readi1y detennined.
History Note: statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1, 1991
.0503 REQJIRElVIENI'S FOR HAZARIXXJS SUBSTANCE UST SYSTEMS
'Ihe ''Requirements for hazardous substance UST systems'' p:rov1.s1.ons
contained in 40 CFR 280.42 (Subpart D) have been adopted by reference
in accordance with G.S. 150B-14(c) except that the requirements for
secondary containment described at 40 CFR 280. 42 (b) ( 1 ) though ( 4)
shall also apply to petroleum UST systems described at Rule .0301(d).
Revised 2/12/1991
Adop tion b y Reference
§ 280. 42 Requirements far hazardws substance UST systems.
Owners and operators of hazardws substance mr systems oust
provide release detecticn that neets the following requirements:
(a) Release detectim at existing lET systems nust neet the
requirements far petroleun UST systems in § 280. 41 . By Decaliler 22,
1998, all existing hazardws substance lET sys-tens nust neet the
release detecticn requirements far new systems in paragrap1 (b) of
this secticn.
(b) Release detecticn at new hazardws substance lET systems
oust DEet the following requirements:
( 1 ) Seamdary ccnta:inlent sys-tens llllSt be designed, coostructed
and installed to:
( i) Oxltain :regulated substances released frcm the tank system
until they are detected and renoved;
(ii) Prevent the rel ease of regulated substances to the
envi.n::nrelt at any tine during the operatiaial. life of the UST system;
and
(iii) Be dleCked far evidence of a release at least every 30
days.
[Note: 'lhe provisicns of 40 CFR 265. 193, O:nt:aimelt and
Detecticn of Releases, nay be used to carpl.y with these requirements. ]
( 2) D:Jubl.e-walled tanks llllSt be designed, CDJStr:ucted, and
installed to:
(i) Oxltain a release frcm any particn of the inner tank within
the outer wall; and
(ii) Detect the failure of the inner wall.
( 3) Exte:mal liners ( including vaults) llllSt be designed,
coostructed, and installed to:
( i) ODtain 100 percent of the capacity of the largest tank
within its bourmry;
(ii) Prevent the interference of precipitaticn or gramd-water
intrusicn with the ability to ccntain or detect a release of regulated
substances; and
(iii) Surmurxl the tank mnpletely (i.e., it is ca{Bl1e of
preventing lateral as well as vertical migraticn of regulated
substances) •
Revised 2/12/1991
( 4) Undeig::rourrl pip~ nust be equi.R_led with seccmary
ccntaiment that satisfies the requirements of paragrap1. (b) (1) of
this secticn (e.g. , b:endl liners, jacketing of dc:uhJ e--toell ed pipe) •
In additicn, underground piping that anveys regulated substances
umer pressure 11J.JSt be equipped with an autanatic line leak detector
in accardance with § 280. 44(a) •
( 5) other nethods of release detecticn may be used if OoJilerS and
opera.tars:
( i) Deoolshate to the inplementing agency that an alternate
:nethod can detect a release of the stored substance as effectively as
any of the nethods allowed in§§ 280.43(b)-(h) can detect a :release of
petrolEUn;
(ii) Provide info:me.ticn to the :i.nplementing agency en effective
corrective acti.al techrnlogies, health risks, am. chemical and
physical pt.opeities of the stored substance, and the characteristics
of the OSI' site; and,
(iii) Cl>tain appmva1. fran the inplementing agency to use the
alternate release detecticn neth:xl before the installaticn and
opera.ticn of the new usr system.
History Note: statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1, 1991
.0504 MEIHODS OF RELEASE DEI'ECI'IOO FOR TANKS
(a) 'Ihe "Methods of release detection for tanks" contained in 40
CFR 280. 43 ( Subpart D) have been adopted by reference in accordance
with G.S. 150B-14(c) except that:
(1) 40 CFR 280.43(d)(2) is amended to read: "Inventory control,
or another test of equivalent perfonnance approved by the
Deparbnent, conducted in accordance with the requirements of
40 CFR 280.43(a);
( 2) 40 CFR 280 . 43 ( f )( 7) is amended to read: "Within and
inmediately below the UST system excavation zone, the site
is assessed to ensure canpliance with the requirements of 40
CFR 280.43(f)(1) through (f)(S), as m:xlified by this Rule,
and to establish the number and positioning of m:mi toring
wells or devices that will detect releases fran any portion
of the tank that routinely contains product"; and
(3) 40 CFR 280.43(f)(3), (f)(4), and (f)(S) are not adopted by
reference.
(b) Wells used for m::ni taring or testing for liquids on the
groundwater shall be:
( 1 ) For new installations, located within and at the end of the
excavation having the lowest elevation and along piping at
intervals not exceeding 50 feet; or
Revised 2/12/1991
(2) For existing installations, located in the excavation zone
or as near to it as technically feasible and installed in a
borehole at least four inches larger than the diameter of
the casing;
( 3) A minimum of bo inches in diameter. 'Ihe mnnber of wells
installed must be sufficient to detect releases fran the UST
systan;
( 4) Equipped with a screen that extends fran two feet below
land surface to a depth of 20 feet below land surface or two
feet below the seasonal low water level, whichever is
shallower. The screen shall be designed and installed to
prevent the migration of natural soils or filter pack into
the well while allowing the entry of regulated substances
into the well under both high and low groundwater level
conditions;
( 5) Surrounded with a clean sand or gravel to the top of the
screen, plugged, and grouted the remaining distance to
finished grade with cement grout;
( 6) Constructed of a pennanent casing and screen material that
is inert to the stored substance and is (X)rrosion resistant;
( 7) Developed ufX)Il canpletion of installation until the water is
clear and relatively sediment free;
( 8) Protected with a water tight cover and lockable cap;
(9) Labeled as a liquid m:::mitor well; and
(10) Equipped with a continuously operating liquid leak detection
device; or
(A) For tanks storing petroleum products, tested at least
once every 14 days with a device or hydrocarban-sensi ti ve
paste capable of detecting the liquid stored; or
(B) For tanks storing hazardous substances, sampled and
tested at least once every 14 days for the presence of
the stored substance.
( c) Wells used for m:::mi taring or testing for liquids on the
groundwater at new installations, and constructed in aC(X)rdance with
Paragraph (b) of this Rule, shall be deaned to be pennitted in
ac(X)rdance with the requirements of 15A NCAC 2C .0105.
( d) Any person canpleting or abandoning any well, used for testing
of vapors or rroni taring for liquids on the groundwater, shall sul::mi t
the reco:rd required by Rule . 0114 (b) of the Well Construction
Standards (15A NCAC 2C .0100).
(e) The site assessments required by 40 CFR 280.43(e)(6) and 40 CFR
280. 43 ( f) ( 7) shall be conducted by or under the supervision of a
person qualified to assess site conditions.
(f) Wells used for nonitoring for the presence of vapors in the soil
gas of the excavation zone shall be equipped with a continuously
operating vapor detection device or tested at least once every 14 days
for the presence of the substance stored.
Revised 2/12/1991
Ado ption b y Reference
§ 280. 43 Metlx:xls of :release detecticn for tanks.
Each method of :release detecticn for tanks used to maet the
requirements of § 280.41 DllSt be carlucted in accordance with the
following:
(a) Inventory ccntrol. Product inventory <XDtrol (or another
test of equivalent perfamence) DllSt be carlucted IIDlthly to detect a
:release of at least 1 • 0 percent of flat-through plus 130 gal Joos m a
nrnthly basis in the following manner:
( 1 ) Inventory vol.me measurements for regulated substance
inputs, wit:hdr:awals, and the anDUnt still remrining in the tank are
recai:ded each operating day;
(2) 'lhe equiprent used is capable of measuriBJ the level of
product over the full range of the tank's height to the nearest
cne-eighth of an inch;
(3) 'lhe regulated substance inputs are recxDCiled with delive:cy
receipts by measurenent of the tank inventory vol.me before and. after
delive:cy;
( 4) Deliveries are made through a drop tube that exteoos to
within one foot of the tank bottan;
( 5) Product dispensirxJ is metered and. recai:ded within the local
standards for DEter ralibrn.ticn or an accuracy of 6 cubic inches far
every 5 gal Jans of product withdrawn; and
( 6) 'lhe nea5l.R"ellelt of any water level in the bottan of the tank
is made to the nearest cne-eighth of an inch at least cnce a nrnth.
[Note: Practices described in the American Petml.eun Institute
Publicatic:n 1621, ''Recannended Practice far Bulk Liquid Stock Ccnhol
at Retail OJ.tlets," may be used, where awlicabl.e, as guidance in
maeting the requirements of this paragrapl.]
(b) Manual tank gauging. Marrual tank gauging DllSt maet the
following requirements:
( 1 ) Tank liquid level measureoeats are taken at the beginning
and erding of a period of at least 36 hours during "1.i.ch no liquid is
added to or renoved fran the tank;
( 2) Level nea5l.R"ellelts are based m an average of two
coosecutive stick readings at both the beginning and. erding of the
period;
Revised 2/12/1991
( 3) 'lhe eguiprent used is capable of measuring the level of
product over the full range of the tank's height to the nearest
cne---eighth of an i..n.ch;
( 4) A leak is suspected and subject to the :requirements of
Subpart E if the variaticn between beg:inn:iBJ and erding measurenents
exceeds the weekly or 11D1thly standards in the following table:
ltminal.
Tank capacity
550 gallons or less
551-1,000 galloos
1,001-2,000 ga)]CJ1S
Weekly Standard ftblthly Standard
(aie test) (average of fair tests)
10 gall<I'S
13 ga1loos
26 gallC11S
5 gal Jene;
7 galloos
13 gallcm,
(5) Oll.y tanks of 550 gallcns or less naninal capacity may use
this as the sale nethod of release detecticn. Tanks of 551 to 2,000
ga1loos may use the nethod in pl.ace of marmal inventory central in §
280.43(a). Tanks of greater than 2,000 gall<I'S naninal capacity may
IX>t use this nethod to meet the :requirements of this subpart.
( c) Tank tightness testing. Tank tightness testing ( or another
test of equivalent performance) RlJSt be capable of detecting a O. 1
gallon per hour leak :cate fran any particn of the tank that rrutinely
ccntains product while accounting for the effects of the:anal expansicn
or cx:ntracticn of the product, vapx-pockets, tank defcmnaticn,
evaparaticn or cx:ndensaticn, and the loca.ticn of the water table.
( d) Autanatic tank gauging. Equipoont for autanatic tank
gauging that tests for the loss of product and caxJucts inventory
control RlJSt meet the fol.ladng :requirements:
(1) '1he autanatic product level oarl.tar test can detect a 0.2
gallon per hour leak :cate fran any particn of the tank that rrutinely
contains product; and
( 2) Inventory central (or arother test of equivalent
perfo:anance) is CXXlducted in accordance with the :requirements of
§ 280.43(a).
( e) Vapor oarl.~. Testing or IIDlitoring for vapors within
the soil gas of the excavaticn zrne DUSt meet the following
:requirements:
( 1 ) '1he materials used as badcfill are sufficiently porous
(e.g., gravel, sand, crushed rock) to readily al..l.ow diffusicn of
vapors fran releases into the excavaticn area;
( 2) '1he stared regulated substance, or a tracer cafl)OO(ld placed
in the tank system, is sufficiently volatile (e.g., gasoline) to
result in a vapor level that is detectable by the IIDlitoring devices
located in the excavaticn zrne in the event of a :release £ran the
tank;
Revised 2/12/1991
(3) 'Ihe neasurement of vapors by the oarltadng device is not
:rendered inr:Jperative by the grourrl water, rainfall, or soil noisture
or other known interferences so that a release rould go urxletected far
nore than 30 days;
( 4) 'lhe level of background caitaminaticn in the excavaticn zcne
will not interfere with the method used to detect releases :Er::cm the
tank;
( 5) 'lhe vapor m:nitars are designed and operated to detect any
significant increase in CXIlCelltration alxJve background of the
:regulated substance stared in the tank system, a canpooent or
canpooents of that substance, or a tracer cmp:url pJacal in the tank
system;
(6) In the CET excavaticn zaie, the site is assessed to ensure
CXDpliance with the requ.:i.:renelts in paragraplS (e)(l )-(4) of this
secticn and to establish the m:nber and positioo.ing of m:nitoring
wells that will detect releases within the excavaticn zaie :Er::cm any
particn of the tank that routinely caitains product; and
(7) M::nitoring wells are clearly narked and secured to avoid
unautlxn:ized access and tanper:ing.
(f) Ground-water m:nitaring. Testing or oarltaring far liquids
en the grourrl water nust neet the following requi.reuents:
( 1 ) 'Ihe regulated substance stared is inmiscible in water and
has a specific gravity of less than crie;
( 2) Ground water is never nore than 20 feet fran the ground
surface and the hydraulic caiductivity of the soil(s) between the usr
system and the m:nitoring wells or devices is IXJt less than 0.01
an/sec (e.g., the soil shJul.d caisist of gravels,, coarse to ne:lium
sands, coarse silts or other pernveable materials); -
( 3) 'Ihe slotted particn of the narltoring well casing llllSt be
designed to prevent migraticn of natural soils or filter pack into the
well and to allow entry of regulated substance cn the water table into
the well under both high and low ground-water cam.liens;
( 4) M::nitoring wells shall be sealed fran the grourrl · surface to
the top of the filter pack;
(5) M::nitoring wells or devices intercept the excavaticn zcne or
are as close to it as is technically feasible;
( 6) 'lhe caitimJous m:nitoring devices or manual metoods used can
detect the presence of at least cne--ei.ghth of an inch of free product
en top of the grourrl water in the narltoring wells;
( 7) Within and inmediately below the usr system excavaticn zcne,
the site is assessed to ensure c:x:Dpliance with the requ.:i.:renelts in
Revised 2/12/1991
paragraplS ( f) ( 1 )-( 5) of this secticn and to establish the rnm:,er and
positicning of norltoring wells or devices that will detect releases
fian any particn of the tank that routinely cx:ntai.ns product; and
(8) Rm.taring wells are clearly mazked am secured to avoid
unautharlzed access am tampering.
( g) Interstitia1 m:nitoring. Interstitia1 m:nitaring between
the usr system am a secoodary barrier inmediatel.y m:onI or beneath
it may be used, but atl.y if the system is designed, cxnstructed and
installed to detect a leak fian any particn of the tank that raitinely
cx:ntains product am also DEets ale of the following requi.ranents:
(1) Far dolible--"'Ja]Jed OSI' systems, the saupJjrg or testing
nethod can detect a :re1ease through the inner wall in any particn of
the tank that routinely cx:ntai.ns product;
[lt>te: 'llle provisi<XlS outlined in the Steel Tank Institute' s
"Standard far Dual wall Underground storage Tanks" may be used as
guidance far aspects of the design am cxnst::ructicD of uooergrouoo.
steel double-walled tanks. ]
(2) Far usr systems with a secamry barrier within the
excavaticn zaie, the sanpliDJ or ~ nethod used can detect a
:re1ease between the usr system am the secx:ndary barrier;
( i) '1he seanJary barrier around or beneath the mr system
coosists of artificially cxnstructed !!g-teria1 that is sufficiently
thick and :iJrpe:meable (at 1east 10 an/sec far the regulated
substance stared) to direct a release to the m:nitaring point and
pennit its detectioo.;
(ii) '1he barrier is <Dlpltible with the regulated substance
stored so that a :re1ease ficm the usr system will not cause a
deteriaratioo. of the barrier all.adng a :re1ease to pass through
undetected;
(iii) For cathodically protected tanks, the seanJary barrier
nust be installed so that it ooes IX>t interfere with the prqJer
operatioo. of the cathodic protectioo. system;
(iv) '1he ground water, soil ooistur:e, or rainfa11 will not
render the testing or sanpling nethod used irq>erative so that a
:re1ease could go undetected far nore than 30 days;
(v) '1he site is assessed to ensure that the secoodary barrier is
a1ways above the ground water am IX>t in a 25-year f1ood plain, un1ess
the barrier and m:nitoring designs are far use under sudl ccn:liti<XlS;
and,
(vi) "°1i.taring wells are clearly mazked and secured to avoid
unauthorized access and tampering.
Revised 2/12/1991
(3) For tanks with an internally fitted liner, an autanated
device can detect a release between the inner wall of the tank arrl the
liner, and the liner is canpatible with the substance stared.
(h) other methods. Any other type of release detecti.cn method,
or Cllllbinaticn of methods, can be used if:
( 1 ) It can detect a O. 2 ga1J CX1 per hour leak rate or a release
of 150 gaJ JCX1S within a nrnth with a prooability of detecticn of O. 95
and a probability of false alann of 0.05; or
( 2) '1he iq>lenenting agency nay approve arKJt:her method if the
owner and operator can denolstrate that the method can detect a
release as effectively as any of the methods allowed in paragraphs
(c)-(h) of this secticn. In cx:nparing methxJs, the illplenenting
agency shall CDJSider the size of release that the method can detect
and the frequency and reliability with which it can be detected. If
the method is appmved, the owner and operator llllSt canply with any
cooditioos imposed by the inplenenting agency en its use to ensure the
protecticn of hunan health and the envircnielt.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1 , 1991
.0505 MEIHODS OF RELEASE DEI'ECI'IOO FOR PIPING
The ''Methods of release detection for piping'' provisions contained
in 40 CFR 280. 44 ( Subpart D) have been adopted by reference in
accordance with G.S. 150B-14(c).
Adoption b y Reference
§ 280. 44 ~thods of release detecticn far piping.
Each method of re:tease detecticn far piping used to meet the
requirements of § 280.41 nust be caiducted in accardance with the
following:
(a) Autanatic line leak detectors. IWethxJs whidl alert the
operator to the presence of a leak by restricting or shutting off the
fla,, of regulated substances through piping or triggering an audible
or visual alann nay be used cnly if they detect leaks of 3 gaJJO'l-c.; per
hour at 10 pounds per square inch line pressure within 1 hair. An
amrual test of the q>eraticn of the leak detector nust be caiducted in
accordance with the marrufacturer IS requirements•
(h) Line tighmess testing. A periodic test of piping nay be
ccnlucted cnly if it can detect a 0. 1 gal Jon per hour leak rate at one
and aie-half times the q>erating pressure.
Revised 2/12/1991
( c) Applicable tank methods. Any of the methods in §
280.43(e)-(h) nay be used if they are designed to detect a release
fian any portico of the undeigrourrl piping that :routinely ccntains
regulated substances.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1 , 1991
.0506 RELEASE DEI'ECT'ICN REroRDKEEPrnG
The provisions for "Release detection reoordk.eeping" contained in 40
CFR 280. 45 ( Subpart D) have been adopted by reference in accordance
with G.S. 150B-14(c).
Adoption by Reference
§ 280. 45 Release detectic:n recordkeeping.
All lET system owners and operators DUSt maintain :recaros in
accardance with § 280. 34 denalstrating crnpliance with all awlicable
requiraielts of this SuqE:rt. '1hese :recaros DUSt include the
following:
(a) All written perfm:mance claims pertaining to any release
detecticn system used, and the manner in which these c1.ai.ms have been
justified or tested by the equipre1t oenu:facturer or installer, must
be maintained far 5 years, or far arDther :reascnable period of time
detennined by the inplerienting agency, fian the date of installaticn;
(b) 'Ihe :results of any sanpling, testing, ar nonitaring DUSt be
maintained far at least 1 year, or far arother reasaiable period of
time detennined by the inplerienting agency, except that the :results of
tank tightness testing carlucted in accardance with§ 280.43(c) must
be retained until the next test is carlucted; and
(c) Written ckxnuentaticn of all calibra.tic:n, ne.:intenance, and
repair of release detectic:n equiprent permanently located en-site must
be maintained far at least aie year after the servicing l«Xk is
carpleted, or far arother :reascnable time period det:emrined by the
impleneiting agency. Any schedules of required cali.bratic:n and
maintenance provided by the release detectic:n equipre1t marrufacturer
must be retained far 5 years fian the date of installatic:n.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1 , 1991
Revised 2/12/1991
S~ICN .0600 RELEASE REPORI'ING, INVESTIGATICN, AND
CCNFIRMATICN
. 0601 REPORI'ING OF SUSP&:T.ED RELEASES
'Ihe provisions for "Reporting of suspected releases" contained in 40
CFR 280.50 (Subpart E) have been adopted by reference in aCCX>rdance
with G. S. 150B-14 ( c) , except that the words, "or another reasonable
time period specified by the implementing agency," are deleted fran
the first sentence.
Adop tion by Reference
§ 280. 50 Reporting of suspected releases.
OWners and q>e.ratars of UST systems llllSt xep:n:L to the
inplenenting agency within 24 h:Jurs, or another reasooable tine period
specified by the inplenenting agency, and folloW' the procedures in §
280.52 far any of the following ccnlitiais:
(a) 'lhe discovery by owners and q>e.ratars or others of released
regulated substances at the cm site or in the surrounding area ( such
as the presence of :free product or vapors in soils, basements, sewer
and utility lines, and neaiby surface water).
(b) Unusual q>e.rating ccnliticns obseived by owners am.
q>e.ratars (sudl as the erratic behavior of product dispensing
equiprent, the S1.rllen loss of product fran the cm systen, or an
unexplained presence of water in the tank), unless system equiprelt is
foorrl to be defective rut not leaking, and is :inneliately repaired or
replaced; and, .
(c) M':nitoring results fran a release detecticn method required
under§ 280.41 and§ 280.42 that inlica.te a release may have occurred
unless:
(1) 'lhe narltoring device is foorrl to be defective, am. is
:inneliately repaired, recalibrated or replaced, am. additiaial.
narltaring does not cxnfinn the initial result; or
(2) In the case of inventory ocntml, a sea:n:J m:nth of data
does not cxnfinn the initial result.
History Note: statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1, 1991
.0602 rnvESTIGATICN DUE 'IO OFF-SI'I'E IMPACT'S
'Ihe "Investigation due to off-site impacts" provisions contained in
40 era 280.51 (Subpart E) have been adopted by reference in aCCX>rdance
with G.S. 150B-14(c).
Revised 2/12/1991
Adoption b y Reference
§ 280.51 Investigaticn due to off-site impacts.
l'A1en required by the :iltplementing agency, owners and q>eratars of
UST systems nust foll.ow' the procedures in § 280. 52 to detennine if the
UST systan is the source of off-site impacts. 'lhese impacts include
the di.scDYery of regulated substances (sudl as the presence of free
product or vapors in soils, h3sement.s, sewer and utility lines, and
neai:by surface and drinking waters) that has been ooserved by the
implementing agency or brought to its attenticn by aIDther party.
History Note: statutory Authority G. s. 143-215. 3 (a)( 15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1, 1991
.0603 RELEASE INV.ESTIGATICN AND CXNFIRMATICN STEPS
The "Release investigation and conf innation steps" provisions
oontained in 40 CFR 280.52 (Subpart E) have been adopted by reference
in accordance with G.S. 150B-14(c), except that the first sentence has
been rewritten to read: "Unless corrective action is initiated in
accordance with Subpart F, owners must inmediately investigate and
oonfinn all suspected releases of regulated substances requiring
reporting under 40 CFR 280. 50 within seven days, 1.lllless approval for
an extension of time has been granted by the Division before the seven
days have expired, and only upon a shc:Ming of good cause by the owner
or operator of the UST system. In conducting such investigations,
owners and operators must use either the following steps or another
procedure approved by the Di vision:''
Adoption b y Reference
§ 280.52 Release investigaticn and c:xnfinnaticn steps.
Unless ax:rective acticn is initiated in acxxmJa:nce with Subpart
F, owners and q>eratars nust inmedi ately investigate and cxnfi.nn all
suspected releases of regulated substances requiring reporting urrler §
280.50 within 7 days, or aIDther reasonable tine pericxl specified by
the :inplementing agency, using either the fol..lamg steps or aIX>ther
procedure approved by the inplementing agency:
(a) Systan test. OWners and q>erators nust caiduct tests
(according to the requireflelts far tighbless testing in § 280. 43 ( C)
and § 280. 44 (b)) that detenni ne whether a leak exists in that particn
of the tank that routinely cxntains product, or the attadled delivery
piping, or both.
( 1 ) Owners and operators nust repair, replace or upgrade the UST
system, and begin oaa:ective acticn in acaardance with Subpart F if
the test results far the system, tank, or delivery piping indicate
that a leak exists.
Revised 2/12/1991
( 2) Further investigaticn is :rd: required if the test results
far the system, tank, and delivery pipiDJ do IX>t indicate that a leak
exists and if envin:nlental cxntaminaticn is :rd: the basis far
suspecting a release.
(3) Owners and operators nust cxnduct a site check as described
in paragrapl (b) of this secticn if the test :results far the system,
tank, and delivery piping do :rd: inlicate that a leak exists wt
envin:nlental ocntaminaticn is the basis far suspecting a release.
(b) Site check. OWners and operators nust neasure far the
presence of a release where cxntaminaticn is onst likely to be present
at the UST site. In selecting sanple types, sauple locatiCI1S, and
neasurenent methods, owners and operators oust ooosider the nature of
the stared substance, the type of initial a1.ann or cause far
suspicicn, the type of backfill, the depth of ground water, and other
factors appropriate far identifying the presence and sc:un::e of the
release.
(1) If the test :results far the excavaticn zcne or the lEI' site
inlicate that a release has occur.r:ed, owners and operators nust begin
corrective acticn in accordance with Sutpart F;
(2) If the test :results far the excavaticn zcne or the lEI' site
do not indicate that a release has occmred, further investiga.ticn is
IX>t required.
History Note: statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1, 1991
.0604 REPORI'ING AND CLEANUP OF SPIILS AND OVERFIILS
'!he "Reporting and cleanup of spills and overfills" provisions
contained in 40 CFR 280.53 (Subpart E) have been adopted by reference
in accordance with G.S. 150B-14(c), except that:
( 1) In 40 CFR 280. 53(a) and (b), the words, "or another reasonable
time period specified by the implementing agency," are not adopted by
reference;
(2) In 40 CFR 280.53(a)(1) and (b), the words, "or another
reasonable arrount specified by the implementing agency" are not
adopted by reference; and
(3) 'Ihe time periods within which reports required by the provisions
of 40 CFR 280. 53 must be sul:mi. tted to the Di vision may be extended
upon approval of requests made to the Di vision by the owner or
operator, before the expiration of the time period and upon a shc:Ming
of gcx::rl cause.
Revised 2/12/1991
Adoption by Reference
§ 280. 53 Reporting and clearrup of spills and overfills.
(a) Owners and operators of usr systems 111JSt ccntain and
:imreliately clean up a spill or overfill and l..efX.lL L to the
inplementing agency within 24 boors, or aIX>ther reasooable time period
specified by the inplementi.ng agency, and begin cxx:cective acticn in
accardance with Subpart F in the foll.oring cases:
( 1 ) Spill or overfill of pehol.eon that results in a release to
the envin:nlent that exceeds 25 gal lalS or another reascmabl.e anount
specified by the i.nplementi.ng agency, or that causes a sheen c:n nearby
surface water; and
(2) Spill or overfill of a hazardous substance that results in a
release to the envi:rcnnent that equals or exceeds its reportable
quantity under ~ ( 40 CFR 302).
(b) Owners and operators of usr systems 111JSt ccntain and
:imreliately clean up a spill or overfill of pet::mleun that is less
than 25 gallons or aIX>ther reasooable auount specified by the
implementing agency, and a spill or overfill of a hazardous substance
that is less than the reportable quantity. If clearrup canrxJt be
accarplished within 24 boors, or another reasooable time period
established by the inplementi.ng agency, owners and operators 111JSt
inmediately notify the implementing agency.
[Note: A :release of a hazardous substance equal to or in excess
of its reportable quantity lllJSt also be reported inmediately (rather
than within 24 boors) to the Natic:nal Respcnse Center under sections
102 and 103 of the Ccmprehensive Ehvircnrental Respcnse, Cc.trp:nsatic:n,
and Liability Act of 1980 (40 CFR 302.6) and to appropriate state and
local authorities under Title III of the SUperfund Amendments and
Reautharizatic:n Act of 1986 ( 40 CFR 355. 40) . ]
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1 , 1991
Revised 2/12/1991
SECI'ICN .0700 RELF.ASE RESPCNSE AND CDRRECI'IVE ACTICN FOR UST
SYSTEMS <XNI'AINING PEI'ROLEUM OR HAZARIXlUS
SUBSTANCES
.0701 GENERAL
(a) The "General" provisions contained in 40 CPR 280.60 (Subpart F)
have been adopted by reference in accordance with G.S. 150B-14(c).
(b) Any corrective action undertaken in accordance with this
Section nrust meet the requirements and standards specified in
15A NCAC 2L .0106.
Adoption by Reference
§ 280.60 General.
Owners and operators of petrol.em. or ha7.ilnbJs substance usr
systems must, in respc11Se to a cxnfi:rmed :release f:rcm the cm system,
a:mply with the :requ:ixements of this subpart except far IBTs excluded
under § 280.10(b) and usr systems subject to RrnA Subtitle c
c:xxrective acticn requiralelts under secticn 3004(u) of the Resource
CcDservaticn and Reoovery Act, as anemed.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1 , 1991
.0702 INITIAL RESPCNSE
'Ihe provisions for "Initial res!X)IlSe" contained in 40 CPR 280. 61
( Subpart F) have been adopted by reference in accordance with G. S.
150B-14(c), except that the words, "or another reasonable time pericrl
specified by the implementing agency," in the first sentence are not
adopted by reference.
Adoption by Reference
§ 280.61 Initial respoose.
Upcn cxnfinnaticn of a :release in accrn:dance with § 280. 52 or
after a :release f:rcm the usr system is identified in any other manner,
owners and q,erators must perform the fol.low:ing initial respoose
acticns within 24 hcErs of a :release or within another reasaiable
period of tine detenni.ned by the inpl€JIBlting agency:
( a) Report the :release to the inpJ ementing agency (e.g., by
tel.ep1CI1e or elecb:a:rl.c mail) ;
(b) 'lake :inneliate acticn to prevent any further release of the
regulated substance into the envircnnent; and
Revised 2/12/1991
(c) Identify and mitigate fire, explosion, and vapor hazards.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1 , 1991
. 0703 INITIAL ABATEMENI' MEASURES AND SI'IE CHEO<
The provisions for "Initial abatement measures and site check"
contained in 40 CFR 280.62 (Subpart F) have been adopted by reference
in accordance with G.S. 150B-14(c), except that:
(1) 40 CFR 280.62(a)(6) is rewritten to read, "Investigate to
determine the possible presence of free product, and begin free
product renoval within 14 days in accordance with 40 CFR 280. 64,
unless approval for an extension of time has been granted by the
Di vision upon a showing of gcx:d cause, prior to the expiration of the
time period; and
(2) In 40 CFR 280.62(b) the l-'K>rds, "or within another reasonable
period of time detennined by the implementing agency,'' are not adopted
by reference;
Adoption b y Reference
§ 280.62 Initial abatement measures and site check.
(a) lllless directed to do otherwise by the illpleneiting agency,
omers and operators nust perfaan the follCMing abatement neasures:
( 1 ) ReJIDve as IlllCh of the regulated substance fran the UST
system as is necessary to prevent further release to the envircnnent;
( 2) Visually inspect any abovegrourrl releases or exposed
belowgrourrl releases and prevent further mi.graticn of the released
substance into surrounding soils and gram water;
(3) Ccntinue to oatltor and mitigate any additicmal fire and
safety hazards posed by vapors or free product that have migrated fran
the UST excavation zone and entered into subsurface structm:es (such
as sewers or basenents);
( 4) Remedy hazards posed by ccntaminated soils that are
excavated or exposed as a result of release cx:nfinle.ticn, site
investigation, abatement, or corrective act:i.cn activities. If these
renelies include treatment or di S(XFaJ of soils, the owner and
operator nust cnoply with applicable state and local requirements;
( 5) Measure far the presence of a release where ccntaminaticn is
DDSt likely to be present at the lBl' site, unless the presence and
source of the release have been cx:nfinlm. in acco:a:Jance with the site
check required by § 280. 52 (b) or the closure site assessnent of §
280. 72(a). In selecting sanple types, sanple l.ocatims, and
neasurement DEthods, the owner and operator 111.lSt ccmsi.der the nature
Revised 2/12/1991
of the stared substance, the type of backfill, depth to ginnl water
and other factors as apprq;xriate far identifying the presence and
scurce of the :release; and
( 6) Investigate to determine the passibJ e presence of free
product, and begin free product renoval. as socn as practicable arrl in
acoardance with§ 280.64.
(b) Within 20 days after :release Clllfinnaticn, or within another
reascilabl.e period of time detennined by the inplementing agency,
a-mers arrl operators nust subnit a report to the inpleneiting agency
sunmariziDJ the initial abatement steps taken umer paragrapi (a) of
this secticn and any resulting infmmaticn or data.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1, 1991
.0704 INITIAL SITE CHARACI'ERIZATIOO
'Ihe provisions for "Initial site characterization" contained in 40
CFR 280. 63 ( Subpart F) have been adopted by reference in accordance
with G.S. 150B-14(c), except that in 40 CFR 280.63(b) the words, "or
another reasonable period of time detennined by the implementing
agency, 11 are replaced by the words, ''unless prior approval has been
granted by the Division upon a showing of good cause, before the 45
days have expired.
Adoption b y Reference
§ 280.63 Initial site characterizaticn.
(a) Unless directed to do ot:henrlse by the impleneiting agency,
owners am. operators DUSt assemble infonoaticn about the site am. the
nature of the release, i.nclooing infmmaticn gained while Clllfi.nning
the :release or COipleting the initial abatement ireasures in § 280. 60
and § 280.61. 'Ibis infmmaticn nust include, but is not necessarily
limited to the fo11owing:
(1) nita en the nature and estimated quantity of release;
(2) rata fn:m available sources and/or site investigaticns
caicenrlng the following factors: surrounding p:l:uJat-..ials, water
quality, use am. approximate locaticns of wells potentially affected
by the :release, 51:b;urface soil ccnliticns, locaticns of subsurface
sewers, climatological ccnliticns, and land use;
(3) Results of the site d1eck required under § 280.62(a)(S); and
( 4) Results of the free product investigaticns required under
§ 280.62(a)(6), to be used by owners am operators to detennine
whether free product nust be recovered under § 280. 64.
Revised 2/12/1991
(b) Within 45 days of release caifi.nnaticn or arother :r:easooable
period of time detennined by the :inplenenting agency, CKleI:S and
operators DUSt suhnit the infcmnaticn cril..l.ected in cxupli.ance with
paragraph (a) of this secticn to the :inplenenting agency in a manner
that deoolst:rates its applicability and technical adequacy, ar in a
fcmnat and acard:iDJ' to the sdledule required by the :inplemanting
agency.
Histocy Note: Statutocy Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1 , 1991
.0705 FREE PRODUCT REIVDVAL
'!he p:rovisions for "Free product rerroval" contained in 40 CFR 280.64
(Subpart F) have been adopted by reference in accordance with G.S.
1 S0B-14 ( C) •
Adoption b y Reference
§ 280.64 Free product renoval.
At sites 'Where investigatials under § 280.62(a)(6) indicate the
presence of free product, owners and operators nust rarove free
product to the maxinun extent practicable as detennined by the
implenenting agency while c:xntimrlng, as necessary, any actiCilS
initiated under §§ 280.61 through 280.63, or prepariDJ far actiCilS
required uooer §§ 280.65 through 280.66. 1n meeting the requirements
of this secticn, owners and operators 111JSt:
(a) Cblduct free product renoval in a manner that minimizes the
spread of c:xntaminaticn into previalsly uncxntaminated zcmes by using
recovery and disposal techniques appropriate to the hydrogeologic
ccnditiCXlS at the site, and that properly treats, dischazges ar
disposes of :rea,yecy byproducts in c:x:npliance with clR)l.i.cable local,
state and federal regulatiCI1S;
(b) Use abatement of free product mi.graticn as a mininun
objective far the design of the free product renoval system;
( c) Hardle any flanmable products in a safe and oanpetent manner
to prevent fires or explosiCI1S; and
(d) thl.ess directed to do othenrlse by the inplenenting agency,
prepare and suhnit to the inplementing agency, within 45 days after
caifinni.ng a release, a free product renoval reparl that provides at
least the following infonnaticn:
(1) 'llle nane of the perscn(s) respCDSibl.e far inplementing the
free product renoval neasures;
Revised 2/12/1991
(2) 'Ihe estimated quantity, type, and thickness of free product
cbserved or neasured in wells, l:xlrelX>l.es, and excavatians;
(3) '1he type of free product recovery system used;
(4) Nlether any discharge will take place en-site or off-site
during the :recovery operaticn and where this discharge will be
located;
( 5) 'Ihe type of treablent applied to, and the effluent quality
expected fran, any discharge;
( 6) '1he steps that have been or are being taken to obtain
necessary permits far any discharge; and
( 7) '1he dispositicn of the recovered free product.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1, 1991
.0706 IlNESTIGATICNS FOR SOIL AND GROUND WATER CLEANUP
The provisions for "Investigations for soil and ground-water
cleanup" contained in 40 CFR 280.65 (Subpart F) have been adopted by
reference in accordance with G.S. 150B-14(c).
Adop tion b y Reference
§ 280.65 Investigatians far soil and ground-water clearrup.
(a) In order to detemrlne the full extent and locaticn of soils
CX][ltaminated by the release and the presence and CDJCentratials of
dissolved product <llltaminati.cn in the g:round water, owners and
operators nust cxn:1uct investigations of the release, the release
site, and the surroundiD3' area possibly affected by the release if any
of the following cooditians exist:
( 1 ) 'Ihere is evidence that ground-water wells have been affected
by the release (e.g., as found during release ccnfi.nnaticn or previous
cxxrective acticn measures);
(2) Free product is found to need recovery in cmpliance with
§ 280.64;
( 3) 'lhere is evidence that cxntaminated soils may be in CX][ltact
with g:round water (e.g., as faJnd during cx:n:luct of the initial
respa,se DEaSUreS or investigatials requiied urxJer § 280.60 tlmngh §
280.64); and
Revised 2/12/1991
( 4) 'Ihe inplementing agency :requests an i.nvestigatim, based en
the potential effects of ccntaminated soil or groom water en neamy
surface water and gram-water resoorces.
(b) CMners and operators DllSt subnit the in:fcmnatim collected
under paragrapl (a) of this secticn as SOCD as practicable or in
accurdance with a schedule established by the implementing agency.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1, 1991
.0707 CORRECT'IVE ACTICN PLAN
The provisions for a ''Corrective action plan'' contained in 40 CFR
280. 66 ( SUbpart F) have been adopted by reference in accordance with
G.S. 150B-14(c), except that:
(1) 40 CFR 280.66(a) has been rewritten to read: "At any point after
reviewing the infonnation sul:mi.tted in canpliance with 40 CFR 280.61
through 40 CFR 280. 63, the Di vision may require owners and operators
to sul:mit additional infonnation or to develop and subnit a corrective
action plan for responding to contaminated soils and groundwater. If
a plan is required, owners and operators must prepare a plan in
accordance with the requirements specified in 15A NCAC 2L . 0106, and
sul:mi.t it according to a schedule and fonnat established by the
Division. Owners and operators are responsible for sul:mitting a plan
that provides for adequate protection of human health and the
environment as determined by the Division, and must nodify their plan
as necessary to meet this standard"; and
(2) In 40 CFR 280.66(c) the words "schedule and in a fonnat
established by the implementing agency", are replaced by the words
"special order, consent special order, or similar dcx:ument.11
Adoption b y Reference
§ 280. 66 Corrective acticn plan.
(a) At any point after reviewing the infcmoatim subnitted in
catpliance with§ 280.61 through§ 280.63, the implementing agency may
require owners and operators to subnit additicnal. in:fcmnati.cn or to
develop and subnit a corrective acticn plan for :respcn:lirg to
ccntaminated soils and groom water. If a plan is required, owners
and operators llllSt suanit the plan acamling to a schedule and fo:anat
established by the inplementing agency. Alternatively, owners and
operators may, after fulfilling the requirenelts of§ 280.61 through§
280. 63, dXXJSe to subnit a corrective acticn plan for respadiD_J to
ccntaminated soil and gnJUDl water. In either case, owners and
operators are :respcmsibl.e for subnitting a plan that provides for
adequate protecti.cn of lnmm health and the envinnoent as detennined
by the implementing agency, and D1JSt nodify their plan as necessary to
neet this standard.
Revised 2/12/1991
(b) 'lhe inpJemenf-.irg agency will approve the corrective actim
plan mly after ensuring that inplementatim of the plan will
adequately protect hunan health, safety, and tbe envi.:a:nnent. In
making this detenni.natim, the inplementin3 agency slntld CXI1Sider the
follCMi.ng factors as apprqri.ate:
( 1 ) 'lhe piysical and chemical characteristics of the regulated
substance, including its toxicity, persistence, and potential far
migraticn;
( 2) 'lhe hydrogeol.ogi.c characteristics of the facility am. the
surrcundi..ng area;
(3) 'lhe proximity, quality, am. cur.rent am. future uses of
nearby surface water am. grourrl water;
( 4) 'lhe potential effects of residual ccntaminaticn en nearby
surface water am. grourrl water;
( 5) An exposure assessIB1t; am.
(6) Any inforina.tim assenbled in canpliance with this Subpart.
(c) Upcn approval of the corrective acticn plan or as directed
by the :i.nplementin3 agency, owners am. operators IIIJSt :inplement the
plan, including m:xlificaticns to the plan made by the inplementin3
agency. 'Ibey IIIJSt oorl.tar, evaluate, am. report the results of
implementin3 the plan in accordance with a schedule and in a faanat
established by the implementin3 agency.
(d) CMrlers am. operators may, in the interest of minimizing
envi.rcnreltal ccntaminatim am. prr.oDl::ing oare effective clearmp,
begin cleanup of soil am. graind water before the corrective acticn
plan is awroved provided that they:
( 1 ) H'.Jtify the :inplementing agency of their intenticn to begin
clearmp;
(2) Chlply with any cxnliticns inp,sed by the inplementing
agency, including halting clearmp or mitigating adverse ooosequences
fran clearmp activities; am.
(3) Il.o::n:fO[ate these sell-initiated clearmp neasu:res in the
corrective acticn plan that is subnitted to the :inplementing agency
far approval.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1 , 1991
Revised 2/12/1991
.0708 PUBLIC PARI'ICIPATICN
The provisions for "Public participation" contained in 40 era. 280.67
( Subpart F) have been adopted by reference in accordance with G. S.
150B-14(c).
Adoption b y Reference
§ 280.67 Public participaticn.
(a) Far each carfirmed release that requires a oarrective acticn
plan, the inplarenting agency DllSt provide IX>tice to the public by
means designed to :reach tlnse neme:r:s of the public d:iiect:ly affected
by the rel.ease and the planned oarrective acticn. 'Ibis notice may
include, but is IX>t linrl.ted to, public IX>tice in local newspapers,
block advertisene1ts, public service anrnmc:.BDe11ts, publ.icaticn in a
state register, letters to inli vidual hooseholds, or persaial. cx:ntacts
by field staff.
(b) 'Ihe inplenenting agency nust ensure that site rel.ease
infaanaticn and decisials cxncemiig the oarrective acticn pl.an are
made available to the public for inspecticn upcn request.
(c) Before approving" a oarrective acticn plan, the implenenting
agency may lDld a public DEeting to consider a 1111e1.ts en the proposed
corrective acticn plan if there is sufficient public interest, or for
any other :reascn.
(d) 'lhe inplenenting agency oust give public IX>tice that
canplies with paragraph (a) of this secticn if inplenentaticn of an
awmved oarrective acticn plan does IX>t adrieve the established
clearrup levels in the plan and tenninaticn of that plan is urx1er
consideraticn by the inplenenting agency.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1, 1991
Revised 2/12/1991
SECI'IOO .0800 001'-0F-SERVICE usr SYSTEMS AND CI.DSURE
.0801 TEMPORARY CWSURE
'Ihe provisions for "Terrq;x:)rary closure" contained in 40 CFR 280. 70
( Subpart G) have been adopted by reference in accordance with G. S.
1508-14 ( C) •
Adop tion by Reference
§ 280.70 'l'ellpn:ary closure.
(a) 9llen an UST system is tempararily closed, owners and
opera.tars DJSt ccnt:inue opera.lien and maintenance of oaa:osicn
p:rotecticn in accardance with§ 280.31, and any release detecticn in
accardance with Suqlart D. Sul:pJrts E and F nust be ccuplied with if
a release is suspected or confi.nood. However, release detecticn is
not required as lcng as the lE'I' system is arpty. 'lhe lE'I' system is
empty when all materials have been renoved using a11111nly employed
practices so that ID DDCe than 2 .5 cent:ineters (cne inch) of residue,
or O. 3 percent by weight of the total capacity of the lE'I' system,
:ranain in the system.
(b) N"lell an UST system is tempararily closed for 3 nrnths or
nore, owners and operators DJSt also cmp.ly with the following
requirements:
( 1 ) I.eave vent lines open and functicning; and
(2) cap and secure all other lines, pmps, manways, and
ancillary equiprent.
( c) N"lell an UST system is temporarily closed for nore than 12
11D1ths, owners and operators DRJSt per:manently close the UST system if
it does not meet either perfamance standanJs in § 280.20 for new UST
systems or the upgrading requirements in § 280. 21 , except that the
spill and overfill eguiprent requirements do not have to be net.
CMrlers and operators nust permanently close the suhstamard UST
systems at the end of this 12--ilDlth period in accardance with
§ 280. 71-280. 74, unless the inplement-.ing agency pmvi.des an extensicn
of the 12--ilOlth tanparary closure period. Owners and operators llllSt
crnplete a site assessnen.t in accardance with§ 280.72 before such an
extensicn can be applied for.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1 , 1991
.0802 PERMANENI' CWSURE AND OIANGES-IN-SERVICE
'lhe provisions for "Pennanent closure and changes-in-service"
contained in 40 CFR 280.71 (Subpart G) have been adopted by reference
Revised 2/12/1991
in accordance with G.S. 150B-14(c) except that an UST system
containing de minimis concentrations of a regulated substance must
meet the closure requirements of this Rule within 12 nonths of the
effective date of this Subchapter.
Adoption b y Reference
§ 280. 71 Permanent closure and changes-m-service.
(a) At 1east 30 days before beginn:inJ either permanent clasure
or a change-in-service under para.grap-lS (b) and (c) of this secticn,
or within another reascnabl..e time perial detennined by the
inplenBlting agency, owners and operators nust rotify the :mplenenting
agency of their mtent to pennanently close or make the
change-in-service, unless such acti.al is m response to corrective
acticn. 'llle required assessnent of the excavaticn zcne under § 280. 72
nust be perfarnm after notifying the iupJementing agency rut before
canpletian of the pennanent closure or a change-in-service.
(b) 'lb pennanently close a tank, owners and operators oust empty
and clean it by renoving all liquids and accmul.ated slmges. All
tanks taken out of service pennanently nust also be either renoved
fi:an the ground or filled it with an inert solid material.
( c) o:nt:inued use of an (ET system to stare a non-regulated
substance is cx:nsidered a change-in-service. Before a
change-in-service, owners and operators nust eopty and clean the tank
by reIDVing all liquid and accmulated sludge and CXDduct a site
assessreit m accardance with § 280. 72.
[Note: 'llle following cleaning and closure procedures may be used
to ccnpl.y with this secticn:
(A) Aneri.can Petroleum Institute Recamelded Practice 1604,
''Renoval. and Disposal. of Used Undergr:ound Petroleun Storage Tanks";
(B) Aneri.can Petroleun Institute Publicaticn 2015, "Cleaning
Petroleum Storage Tanks'';
(C) Aneri.can Petroleum Institute Recxmlerlrl Practice 1631,
"Interior Lining of Undergrourn storage Tanks," may be used as
guidance far carpliance with this secticn; and
(D) 'Ihe Natiaial. Institute for Occupatiaial. Safety and Health
"Criteria far a Recxmlelded Starmrd ... Rlrldng m caifined Space" may
be used as guidance far ccnducting safe closure procedures at srne
hazarihJs substance tanks.]
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1, 1991
.0803 ASSESSING THE SI'IE AT CLOSURE OR OIANGE-lli-SERVICE
Revised 2/12/1991
'Ihe provisions for ''Assessing the site at closure or
change-in-service" contained in 40 CFR 280. 72 (Subpart G) have been
adopted by reference in accordance with G.S. 150B-14(c), except that:
(1) references to methods and requirements have been expanded to
include all applicable references and methods listed in 15A
NCAC 2N .0504;
(2) site assessments shall be conducted by a person qualified to
assess site conditions; and
( 3) the mnnber and location of samples, and method of their
collections shall be determined in accordance with procedures
established by the Department.
Adoption by Reference
§ 280. 72 Assessing the site at closure or change-in-service.
(a) Before permanent closure or a change-in-service is
caopleted, owners and operators nust measure for the presence of a
release where CD1taminaticn is nost likely to be present at the usr
site. In selecting sanple types, sanple l.ocatiCDS, and measurerent
nethods, owners and operators nust CXDSider the nethod of closure, the
nature of the stared substance, the type of l::eckfill., the depth to
ground water, and other factors apprqld.ate for identifying the
presence of a :release. 'Ihe requiraients of this secticn are satisfied
if cne of the exte:mal release detecticn nethods a.1.1.0lled in
§ 280.43(e) and (f) is q,erating in accordance with the requirenents
in § 280.43 at the tine of c.Iasure, and in:licates no :release has
occurred.
(b) If CD1taminated soils, CD1taminated ground water, or free
product as a liquid or vapor is discovered uooer parag:ra{il (a) of this
secticn, or by any other manner, owners and operators nust begin
corrective acticn in accordance with Subpart F.
History Note: statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1, 1991
.0804 APPLICABILITY 'ID PREVIOUSLY CLOSED UST SYSTEMS
'Ihe "Applicability to previously closed UST systems" provisions
contained in 40 CFR 280.73 (Subpart G) have been adopted by reference
in accordance with G.S. 150B-14(c).
Adop tion by Reference
§ 280.73 Applicability to previously closed UST system;.
Nien directed by the implementing agerq, the owner and operator
of an UST system pennanently closed before December 22, 1988, nust
assess the excavatic:n zcne am close the usr system in accordance with
Revised 2/12/1991
this Subpart if releases frail the WI' may, in the jmgnent of the
inp1ementing agency, pooe a current or potentia1 threat to lmman
health and the envinnIEnt.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Eff. January 1 , 1991
.0805 CI:DSURE R&:ORDS
The "Closure records" provisions contained in 40 CFR 280.74 (Subpart
G) have been adopted by reference in accordance with G. S. 150B-14 ( c) .
Adoption by Reference
§ 280.74 Closure records.
Owners and operators nust maintain records in accaroance with
§ 280. 34 that are capahl e of denalstrating carpliance with closure
requ.irenelts under this Subpart. 'lbe :resu1ts of the excavaticn zcoe
assessrent required in § 280. 72 nust be maintained for at least 3
years after cmp1etion of pecmanent closure or change-in-service in
cne of the following ways:
(a) By the owners and operators woo t:ocx the lET system out of
service;
(b) By the current owners and operators of the usr system site;
or
( c) By mailing these records to the inplenent:i.D;J agency if they
cannot be maintained at the closed facility.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15);
143B-282(2)(h); 150B-14(c);
Ef f. January 1 , 1991
Revised 2/12/1991
ADDENDUM II
Written Public O::mnent Regarding
15A NCAC 2N
FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED 15A NCAC 2N
JUNE 13, 1990
Federated Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter IIFede..rated")
has been a provider of pollution liability insurance since the
early 1980's and is presently the largest nationwide provider of
pollution liability insurance for underground storage tanks
("UST''). Federated has handled over two thousand (2,000)
pollution claims nationwide, including approximately 110 in North
Carolina, most of which are for UST clean-up. For this reason,
Federated is interested in any proposed regulation affecting the
remediation of such contamination.
Federated is particularly interested in UST remediation in
North Carolina because of the steadily increasing costs
associated with clean-ups in the State. Based on a review of
remediations performed for its insureds in North Carolina,
Federated has determined that the average cost of its UST
remediation projects nationally is $75,000, while the average
cost for such a project in North Carolina is $95,000.
It is Federated's belief that much of the increase in this
cost could be the result of the Stat~•s procedure in implementing
the federal regulations. Recent changes in the clean-up
requirements imposed by the Division of Environmental Management
("DEM"·) have increased the costs in North Carolina. Further, the
requirements imposed are often not technically feasible or cost
effective. Therefore, these proposals to modify the federal
standards in Subchapter 2N are of particular interest to
Federated, in that they could again increase remediation costs in
the State.
Because Federated is financially responsible for remediation
of contamination at property owned by its insureds, it is
interested in assuring that such clean-ups are done completely,
efficiently, and in accordance with state and federal laws and
regulations. As presently proposed, Subchapter 2N contains
provisions which Federated believes could cause voluntary clean-
ups to be needlessly expensive and prolonged. Federated makes
the following comments and suggestions for modification of the
State regulations, which should continue to meet the state and
federal government goals of adequately protecting human health
and the environment. Federated seeks a cost efficient method of
remediation for the regulated community that ensures that money
is being spent for actual clean-up costs and not for legal or
administrative fees on the part of the government or the tank
owners or operators.
MOORE & VAN A L LEN
Hand"'""Delivered
Mr. Randy Prillaman
Environmental Specialist
DEHNR-DEM-Groundwater
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
Dear Randy:
ATTOR N EYS A T L AW
ONE H ANNOVE R SQ UAR E
SUITE 1700
P O ST OFFI C E BO X 2 6507
R AL EIGH . N .C . 27611
TELEPH ON E (9191 82 8 -4461
June 13, 1990
OTHER OFF I CES :
CH A RLO TTE, N .C.
D UR H AM , N .C .
RESEA R C H T R I ANG LE P A R K , N.C ,
SO U TH PARK -CHARLOTTE, N .C.
c _
TE:'lEFAX 1919) 8 2 8 --4254
Please find enclosed comments on the Division of Environmental
Management's proposed Subchapter 2N submitted on behalf of
Federated Mutual Ihsurarice Company. If there are additional
questions, or if we can be of additional assistance to your
office in preparation of these regulations, please feel free to
cont~ct Jeanne Hankerson, Federated's Environ~ental Coordinator,
at 1-800-533-0472, or me.
We appreciate this opportunity to participate in the rulemaking
process. Thank you for your cooperation and attention.
EMP/dhm
cc: Perry Nelson
Jeanne Hankerson
Very truly yours,
MOORE & VAN ALLEN
.(;
.__A.J. --'Jr, i i I .,....__z,. V --
Eliz abet h M. Powell
Federated sees five problem areas in the proposed
regulation:
1) lack of a procedure for requesting extensions of
deadlines;
2) lack of any deadline or requirement for responsiveness on
the part of DEM;
3) requirement of a consent order for site assessments and
corrective action;
4) apparent contradiction in the application of the
groundwater rules to corrective action; and
5) ambiguity in the requirement of a licensed geologist or
professional engineer for closure site assessment.
At the public hearing in Raleigh on May 7, Federated presented
written and oral comments regarding these issues. Federated will
not repeat the comments presented earlier, but instead refers you
to those comments. Herein, Federated provides suggested
revisions to DEM's proposed Subchapter 2N, as well as comments
explaining the basis for Federated's proposals.
I. COMPLIANCE DEADLINES
In its proposed regulation, the DEM makes two significant
changes which affect the procedure for extension of compliance
deadlines. The proposed regulation adopts the federal compliance
periods, removing, in most instances, the language allowing the
implementing agency the leeway to extend the deadline to "another
reasonable period of time determined by the implementing
agency." This change, alone, appears to eliminate any
possibility for DEM to grant extensions.
In addition, the proposed regulation adds language -to
Sections .0603, .0703, and .0704 setting specific response
periods, removing the "another reasonable period of time"
language, and inserting language requiring prior approval for an
extension by the Director before the proposed deadline expires.
By inserting these specific extension provisions and deleting the
provision for possible extensions in other Sections, it appears
that the intent of the proposed regulation is to limit OEM's
authority to grant extensions except in certain circumstances.
Federated submits that the procedure proposed in Sections
.0603, .0703 and .0704 simply is not practical and, therefore,
Federated proposes deletion of these references. As discussed in
more detail in Federated's previous comments, the proposed
procedure, in requiring that an extension be obtained from the
Director prior to expiration of the deadline, is not feasible in
that it places an incredible burden on the Director and the
regulated community. For example, the deadline under .0703,
-2 -
which requires initiation of free product removal in 10 days
unless an extension is obtained by the Director prior to the
expiration of that deadline, is particularly onerous, both on the
regulated community and the DEM. In order to comply with such a
procedure, a tank owner or operator . would have to request ~n
extension on the day the release is confirmed, so that it 6ould
be sure that should such an extension be determined necessary, it
would be able to receive such an extension within the allotted
time period. To do otherwise would risk noncompliance with the
regulations, which could result in the imposition of penalties.
Of course, the result of such a necessary action will be .to
inundate the DEM with immediate extension requests for all
confirmed· release sites. Thus, such provision should be deleted
fiom Subchapter 2N.
Federated has attached, as proposed Section .0204, its
proposat for a clear and practical procedure for requesting
extensions from the DEM under these regulations. Federated
believes this Section is necessary both because such extensions
are essential due to the burdensome administrative demands on the
DEM regional offices and because of inherent problems that occur
in remediation beyond the control of the UST owner or operator.
Under Federated's proposal, the owner or operator can request an
extension only upon a showing of good cause. Extensions are to
be requested from the DEM regional office in the region in which
the tank is located, rather than the Director. Regional office
employees are the ones who work with the tank's owner or operator
on_a day to day basis and are in the best position to determine
if there is good cause for such an extension and to respond to
such a request. Further, such a request need only be made before
the deadline expires in order to allow the owner or operator the
time necessary to determine if the deadline can be met and to
avoid the burdensome filing of potentially unnecessary extension
requests.
Federated believes that its proposed Section .. 0204 provides
an efficient system for requesting and responding to extension
requests in a manner which is cost and labor efficient for the
DEM and the regulated community. It also makes clear what is
required to request an extension, therefore avoiding confusion
for the regulated community, the endless calls to the regional
office with extension questions, and the possibility of ignorant
violation of deadlines caused by such confusion. In addition,
this procedure will reduce the work load of the DEM staff in
processing unnecessary extension requests.
II. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY DEADLINES
Under the proposed State UST regulations, many compliance
periods run contemporaneously against the tank owners and
operators. These regulations require the owner or operator to
submit a series of reports and information and perform certain
actions within specified time periods, all relating from the date
a release is confirmed. In complying with these Sections, the
-3 -
regulated community is continuously submitting information and
reports for review by the DEM. However, often the DEM does not
review and provide a response or comment on these submittals
within a reasonable time. When the DEM fails to make such a
response, the tank owner or operator is left with the opt~ons of
either moving forward with the compliance requirements witnout
guidance from the State and risking additional time and cost for
repeating or redoing work, should the State find some previous
phase of the work inadequate; or not moving forward and risking
the penalties of noncompliance. This is especially apparent
considering the DEM's guidance regarding the application of the
Commer.cial UST Trust Fund, in which the DEM has advised the
regulated community to submit its projected costs and proposals
for investigation and corrective action for preapproval before
starting work at the site, in order to assure reimbursement from
the trust fund.
If the State has no responsibility for timely response, the
regulated community is at the mercy of the DEM in its pursuit of
an effective and cost efficient investigation and remediation.
Federated proposes the attached Section be inserted into the
State regulations as Section .0206 to ensure that the DEM has
some degree of responsibility to the regulated community to
respond within a specified time, where possible and necessary.
When such a deadline is not necessary, the DEM should, at least,
provide the tank owner or operator with some notice that the
submittal has been received and advise the owner or operator of
the approximate date a response can be expected. This notice
will avoid continuous inquiries from the regulated community
about the status of the review.
III. SPECIAL ORDERS
Federated. suggests revision of Sections .0706 and .0707 to
delete the requirement that investigation and corrective action
be performed in accordance with a consent order or similar
document. As discussed more thoroughly in Federated's earlier
comments, to require that such an order be negotiated at all
sites will significantly increase the cost of and time required
for investigation and remediation, because attorneys for both the
tank owner or operator and the State will necessarily get
involved in negotiation of the consent order. As employees of
the DEM regional office can support, such negotiations, in most
instances, bog down the progress of the investigation and
corrective action. For the regulated community, such
negotiations drive up the cost and force companies and
individuals, many of whom are already in difficult financial
situations, to spend their limited resources on negotiation of an
order, rather than in cleaning up the environment.
The lack of need for such a mandatory requirement is further
supported by the fact that the DEM already has the authority to
require such an order under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.2.
Therefore, when such an order is necessary, either because the
- 4 -
tank owner or operator is recalcitrant or slow in compliance,
because the complexity of the investigation or clean-up makes
such an order beneficial to all parties, or other reasons, it can
be required by the DEM. However, to require such an order in all
cases, when in many cases the investigation and correctiv~ action
is a relatively simple procedure and the tank owner or op~?ator
is complying with the regulations voluntarily and adequately,
there is simply no need to drive up costs or to add to the time
required. In addition, the DEM has the authority under the
proposed regulations to assert civil penalties upon noncomplying
parties. Therefore, should a previously voluntary party
discontinue its work, the DEM has a method to motivate continued
compliance. A consent order is neither appropriate nor necessary
in all situations.
Should the DEM feel that some form of understanding between
the parties would be beneficial, Federated suggests that the DEM
pursue the use of some form of Letter of Agreement, possibly
signed by a corporate officer or the land owner, setting out an
agreement to the compliance requirements. This or some other
similar form of written agreement, which does not require the
involvement of legal personnel or carry the onus of legal
requirements, would serve the DEM's purpose of establishing the
agreement between the parties and obligating the tank owner or
operator to perform the investigation or corrective action.
The revision that Federated has proposed for Sections .0706
and .0707 eliminates the mandatory requirement for such an order,
but maintains DEM's authority to require such an order when
necessary. Federated believes that this position is more sound
for all parties.
IV. CLEAN-UP STANDARDS
As presently proposed, the State UST regulations contain
potentially conflicting or ambiguous provisions relating to
corrective action. In Section .070l(b) entitled "General," the
regulations require that "any corrective action undertaken in
accordance with this Section must meet the requirements and
standards specified in 15A NCAC 2L .0106." However, Section
.0707, entitled "Corrective Action Plan,'' mirrors the federal
language and requires the owner or operator to submit a plan
which "provides for adequate protection of human health and the
environment as determined by the Division." The requirement
under Section .0707 standing alone, could potentially require
that the tank owner or operator perform a risk assessment to
establish that its plan is protective of human health and the
environment.
It appears that, for purposes of corrective action under
Subchapter 2N, DEM intends to require corrective action in
compliance with the groundwater rules at Subchapter 2L. However,
Federated is concerned that despite OEM's intention, by inserting
that requirement under the ''General" Section, and not under the
-5 -
Section relating specifically to corrective action, the DEM has
created an ambiguity. A court asked to interpret this ambiguity
would be inclined to look to the specific section governing
corrective action and determine that the requirements in that
section are mote applicable to corrective action, than any
guidelines within the "General" Section. To avoid this po"ssible
result, Federated proposes that Section .070l(b) be deleted and
that Section .0707 be revised.to refer to the corrective action
requirements of the groundwater rules at Subchapter 2L. Through
this simple clarification, the DEM can assure that its intentions
are not later misinterpreted by the courts and that the regulated
community is able to prepare adequate corrective action plans.
V. USE OF LICENSED ENGINEERS AND PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGIST
Federated supports the requirement under Section .0803 that
a licensed engineer or professional geologist either supervise or
in some way review the site assessment performed at tank
closure. It is Federated's position that such a requirement will
help assure that the site assessment is performed by a reputable
company and will be fully and properly performed the first time,
thus avoiding unnecessary additional cost.
However, Federated suggests that the language of Section
.0803 be modified as indicated in the attachment, to clarify that
a licensed engineer or professional geologist is only required to
be involved with the site assessment in a supervisory capacity
and is not required to actually visit the site or take any
samples. It is Federated's position that the Section, as
drafted, is unclear and could be so interpreted. Such an
interpretation would add to the cost of the clean-up, would not
be necessary, and would be difficult in rural areas where such
professionals are not readily available considering the large
number of site assessments being performed. Again, it is
Federated's position that the often limited resources of the
regulated community should be spent only on actions which aid in
the clean-up of the environment.
- 6 -
FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
SUGGESTED LANGUAGE
FOR REVISIONS TO PROPOSED SUBCHAPTER 2N
COMPLIANCE DEADLINES
.0204 EXTENSION OF COMPLIANCE DEADLINES
Any deadline upon an owner or operator set within any
Section of this Subchapter may be extended by the Division's
appropriate regional office. Such an extension must be requested
fiom the Division in writing before the deadline expires. Such
extensions shall be granted only upon request of the tank owner
or operator to the regional office with jurisdiction over the
area in which the tank is located and only upon a showing of good
cause .
. 0603 RELEASE INVESTIGATION AND CONFIRMATION STEPS
The "Release Investigation And Confirmation Steps"
provisions contained in 40 CFR 280.52 (Subpart E) have been
adopted by reference in accordance with G.S .• 150B-14(c) .
• 0703 INITIAL ABATEMENT MEASURES AND SITE CHECK
The provisions for "Initial Abatement Measures And Site
Check" contained in 40 CFR 280.62 (Subpart F) have been adopted
by reference in accordance with G.S .. 150B-14(c) .
. 0704 INITIAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION
The provisions for "Initial Site Characterization'' contained
in 40 CFR 280.63 (Subpart F) have been adopted by reference in
accordance with G.S .. 150B-14(c).
STATE COMPLIANCE DEADLINES
.0205 ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY DEADLINES
The Division shall be under a duty to provide any review or
approval of reports, plans or other submittals by tank owners or
operators, in compliance with this subchapter, within fifteen
(15) days of receiving such submittal from the tank owner or
operator. If such a deadline cannot be met, the Division must
notify the tank owner or operator, in writing, prior to the
expiration of this deadline, of the approximate time in which a
response can be expected.
SPECIAL ORDERS AND CLEAN-UP STANDARDS
.0706 INVESTIGATIONS FOR SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CLEAN-UP
The provisions for "Investigations For Soil And Groundwater
Clean-up" contained in 40 CFR 280.65 (Subpart F) have been
adopted by reference in accordance with G.S .. 150B-14(c), except
that 40 CFR 280.65(b) has been rewritten as follows: "Owners and
operators must conduct the investigation and submit the
information collected under paragraph (a) of this Section in
accordance with a special order, consent special order, or
similar document, if such is determined necessary by the Division
due to the owner or operator's failure to comply with the
requirements of this Section voluntarily, or upon agreement
between the Division and the owner or operator that such is
necessary."
.0707 CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
The provisions for a "Corrective Action Plan" contained in
40 CFR 280.66(Subpart F) have been adopted by reference in
accordance with G.S •• 150B-14(c), except that:
(a) 40 CFR 280.66(a) has been rewritten as follows: "At any
point after reviewing the information submitted in compliance
with 40 CFR 280.61 through 40 CFR 280.63, the Division may
require owners and operators to submit additional information or
to develop and submit a corrective action plan for responding to
contaminated soils and groundwater. If a plan is required,
owners and operators must submit the plan according to a
reasonable schedule and format established by the Division.
Owners and operators are responsible for submitting a plan that
provides for adequate protection of human health and the
environment in accordance with the guidelines set out in 15 NCAC
2L .0106 for affected groundwater and by G.S. 143-215.84(a) for
affected soils, and must modify their plan as necess~ry to meet
this standard."
(b) In 40 CFR 280.66(c) the words "schedule and in a format
established by the implementing agency" are replaced by the words
"special order, consent special order, or similar document, if
such is determined necessary by the Division, due to the owner or
operator's failure to comply with the requirements of this
section voluntarily, or upon agreement between the Division and
the owner or operator that such is necessary."
SITE CLOSURE
.0803 ASSESSING THE SITE AT CLOSURE OR CHANGE-IN-SERVICE
(2) site assessments shall be conducted under the
supervision of or reviewed by a licensed geologist or
professional engineer.
May 14, 1990
N. C. Dept. Of Natural Resources
Ground Water Section
Division Of Environmental Management
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
Attention: Mr. Randy Prilliaman
Gentlemen:
r e: L
In response to your proposed changes to the Federal Underground
Storage Tank Regulations, we wish to submit the following comments.
We have been in the petroleum business for over 60 years, and al-
though we don't have all of the answers to today's problems, we have
the experience to deal with them.
We agree with the technical requirements which the federal law
imposes, however we cannot agree with the state's requirement that
all new tanks must be "DOUBLE WALL" or have some form of secondary
containment. We have been working towards compliance since 1985, using
the latest hi-tech tank systems containing of single wall fiberglass
or STIP 3 coated material. The manufacturers of these tanks warrant
that these tanks will last at least 30 years. This guarantee plus
the additional leak detection systems required by federal law are
more than adequate to protect against leaks. Please also note the
cost of double wall tanks is over twice the cost of single wall tanks.
We are already pulling out of selling gasoline in areas where we can-
not afford the federal upgrade and insurance expense as it now stands.
To tack on any additional burden in costs will only add to additional
service station closings. Please do not make rules which foolishly
escalate costs and provide very minimal benefit.
Also your proposed ruling that a geologist or professional engineer
must be present at site closings or tank upgrades is another ridiculous
and cost prohibitive rule. You should give serious consideration to
allowing the tank installer to perform these tasks. He could be certified
by the state just as gas pump mechanics are now certified. The combined
experience of the tank contractor and petroleum jobber is likely to be
more effective in resolving a pollution problem than a "Green" inexper-
ienced geologist.
In closing please remember that no matter how many laws and how
fancy the systems are that you propose, that the human element for
error will always prevail and oil will still be spilled by accident
into the ground. We are very responsible corporate and civic minded
citizens who will do our best to protect the environment. Please don't
legislate us out of business.
Sincerely,
David J. Newsom
DJN/bm
··Randy Prillaman -2-
I would appreciate your .full attention to this matter because this
decision will effect thousands of hard working businessmen
throughout the state. The future of the oil distributors is in
your hands.
RT/scg
Sincerely,
EDEN OIL COMPANY, INC. 1/ . ,J It ,.l cd ,?' .-u-y -------
Reid Teague
Sec.-Treas.
Mr . Char l es L . Bak.er
F e b rua r y 27 , 1 99 0
Pag e 2
Therefore, we r e spectfull y request your considerat i on" of
continuing to allow qualified env ir o n mental science professionals
to perform site assessments. We recommend that Section
0.803 (a) (2) be rewritten as follows:
"0.803(a) (2) Site assessments s hall be conducted by or
under the ~upervision of a licensed geologist, profes-
sional engineer, or knowledgeable professional environ-
mental scientist."
We further recommend that a definition of "knowledgeable profes-
sional environmental scientist" be included under Section
0. 0203 (c) (Definitions) as follows:
" ( 7) "Knowledgeable pr o fessional e nvironmental scien-
tist" means a person who is presently an environmental
scientist or soil scientist and possessing at least a
£our (4) year college degree in environmental science or
the equivalent and has at least one (1) year of practi-
cal experience in conducting environmental assessments
involving UST's. All knowledgeable professionals so
qualified must be certified by the N. C. Wastewater
Treatment Plant Operator Certification Commission before
conducting such assessments.
·while it is not prudent to allow the owners and operators of
UST's to perform their own assessments, we feel that the proposed
change will keep the present array of qualified talent in busi-
ness to help such persons to comply with the proposed rules. Ob-
viously, there has to be some level of control over those per-
forming such assessments so as to exclude incompetent, un-
qualified or biased individuals. However, over-regulation will
have serious economic and logistical implications that may not be
realized at this juncture.
In order to alleviate the Groundwater Division staff's con-
cerns about making judgments about the qualifications of such
c·onsultants, we recommend that serious consideration be given to
the development of a certification program for all persons per-
forming site assessments. Just because an individual is a P.E.,
a licensed geologist, or an environmental scientist does not, in
itself, qualify an individual to perform site assessments. Site
assessors need to understand the interrelationships of several
disciplines, including hydrology, soil science, organic
chemistry, physics, microbiology, and environmental engineering.
Therefore, we suggest setting up a certification program within
the existing Wastewater Treatment Plant Operators Certification
Commission. If an individual passes an examination which tests
his understanding of the site assessment process, he should be
able to conduct such assessments. Several states have programs
...,
April 27, 1990
1990
GR OU tt DVf ;\ i U< SECT I O N
R.AL[IGH, NC
Mr. Randy Prillaman
Environmental Specialist
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Re: Comments on Proposed UST Rules
File Nos: ENV-0309, GAH-0207
Dear Mr. Prillaman:
Duke power would like to of fer the following comments o n the
proposed groundwater storage tank rules (15 NCAC 2N):
Proposed Alternate Section .0301(c). The effect of this
proposed alternative is to require secondary containment for
all petrolewn underground storage tanks. As stated by USEPA
in the preamble to 40 CFR Part 280, 11 ••• the Agency has
concluded that single-walled protected UST systems combined
with the release detection required today will adequately
protect human health and the environment. 11 ( Fed .. Reg. Vol.
53, No. 185, p. 37101) We agree with USEPA that the new
generation of protected, monitored, single-walled UST
systems provide adequate environmental protection.
Section .0405(b)(l). This section requires submittal of
site investigation results within 30 days following
completion of the site investigation. Due to typical
laboratory turnaround times of 30 days or more, we feel that
a 30 day reporting period is insufficient and requires
needless paperwork to request extensions. We believe that
60 days is a reasonable time period for this reporting.
•
Page 2
If you have any ques tions concerning these comments, contact me
at [phone].
Sincerely,
D. E. M. Sullivan, Design Engineer
Engineering Support Division
Design Engineering Department
DEMS/mdc:dems211
1
Expl a n a t ion of
Cros s Ref e r e n ce Desc ri tion s
Most of the North carol ina Underground Storage Tank Rules
set out in 15A NCAC 2N . 0100 et. seq. are EPA regulations, 40
CFR, which have been adopted by reference in accordance with GS
150B-14(c). citations to, and the text of, the state's rule have
been identified by bold print. EPA regulations, which have been
referenced in the state rule, are set out in regular type and are
indented below the state rule.
In situations where a state written portion of a rule
replaces a 40 CFR cite the state written portion is cross
referenced and is not repeated within the 40 CFR portion of the
rule. Rule subdivisions are identified below:
Rule. 0201
State Written
Paragraph
Subparagraph
Part
Subpart
(a)
( l}
Ado p tion b y Reference
280.10 40 CFR Cite
(a)
( 1)
(i)
(A)
(A)
(i)
1024 Washington Street
Raleigh, N. C. 27605
May 8, 1990
Mr . Perry Nelson, Chief
Groundwater Section
Division of Environmental Management
Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Perry:
I am writing on behalf of the Conservation Council of N. C. and
N. C. Chapter of Sierra Club to supplement my oral comments in
support of proposed rules to regulate underground storage tanks
and in praise of the work of the Division of Environmental
Management 1 s Groundwater Section.
Over half of the citizens of North Carolina rely upon groundwater
supplies for drinking. Leaking underground storage tanks are a
major pollu·ter of the state 1 s groundwater supplies. Strong
regulations are needed to protect public health, to prevent fu-
ture leaks and to reduce expensive clean ups.
The 1989 General Assembly of North Carolina ratified ~B 957, Un-
derground Storage Tank Clean Up, by Representative Dennis Wicker
of Lee County. HB 957: l) enabled the Environmental Management
Commission to develop and adopt rules to regulate underground
storage tanks that are stricter cnan the u. S. Environmental
Protection Agency 1 s rules, 2) limited the liability of commercial
tank owners to $50,000 per leak (and thus assisted petroleum
marketers in obtaining liability insurance) and 3) created com-
mercial and non-commercial underground storage tank clean up
funds.
Environmental organizations such as the Conservation Council and
Sierra Club oppose subsidizing the oi.1 industry by limiting
liability. However the Conservation Council and Sierra Club sup-
ported HB 957 because although it limited the liability of the
industry .11: also promised stricter state regulatio~1 of Llnder-
ground storage tanks and prevention of future leaks. In HE 957
~ne oi.1 industry won liability limits and insurance; environmen-
talists won stricter regulations.
Many oil companies acted responsibly and
underground storage tani-:.::; a fter the U. S.
t ion Agency published interim tank r·1.lles.
E?A about four years to develop ac(-3 ad,:.:,p L
began u.pg rading their
Env i roruP.e,1 t al ?rotec-
':)!1f (}rt ur1a Le l ·i it Look
£ inal t a.n.t=~ r·ules , anc'
unf or tuna tel y EPA adopted the least st l" ingen t of the three basic
opt ions that it considered. tr'./-\.· s protracted adopt ion of weak
t an k r u l es i s no t c. n ad e qua t e excuse f o r i:. he ::: ~: v i r on men ta l
Management Co~mission to simply adopt EPA's rules.
Specific Comments
The Conservation Council and Sierra Club commend the Commission
and i i::s staff for including alternative rules in the proposed
rules.· -It is healthy and constructive to hear comments on both
the proposed and alternative rules.
The Conservation Counc~il and ::,1erra Club support proposed
.OlOl(d) to require land owners to record UST on property deeds.
Recordation of u~1 is needed to warn and to protect future
property owners. Recordation provides an incentive for current
land owners to clean up tanks. The State of North Carolina al-
ready requires so.1ia waste landfills and inactive ~1azardous waste
sites to be recorded on property deeds.
The Conservation Council and Sierra Club support proposed alter-
na c i ve to . 030 l Performance Standards for New UST Systems. The
Conservation Council and Sierra Club recommend that UST be banned
in WS-I watersheds and in the critical area of WS-II watersheds.
Secondary containment should be required for UST in the critical
areas of WS-III -proposed WS-V watersheds. On April 30 the En-
vironmental Management Commission's Watershed Protection Advisory
Council has proposed new watershed pro tee t ion standards, c las-
s if icat ions and requirements. UST rules should complernen t the
Commission's statewide watershed protection prog:::•,:i.•r,.
Alternative .030l(b) (2) should i:::1clude :.:gr: quc.lity waters" in
addition to w;:,-1, WS-II, WS-III, SA and O:RW. ViS-:::, vv'S-II, SA arcd
ORW are a subset of HQW.
EPA and DEM propose upgrading e:-(.i sting u::,:.. eve:::· the next ten
years. EPA and DEM propose phasing ir, :·el ease detection systems
over the next five years. Older tanks pose the greatest threat
to groundwater supplies. Couldn't existing tanks be upgraded on
a faster schedule --perhaps five years instead of ten?
The Conservation Counci.1 and Sierra Club strongly support .0405
Reporting & Recordkeeping. 1. ne Conservation Courie .1.1 and Sierra
Club believe that .i. t is imp or tan t : or lhe ,::; roundwa ter Sect ion to
monitor and have records on closures, repa: 1·!;:;, upgrades, cer-
tifications and tests.
The Conservation Council and Sie.r·rd Clue, suppurt alternative to
.0502 tu require petroleu.ir. ,JST to coply wii:h c.e same release
detection requ.j_:::·emeni:s as hazardo1_~::,; s:_;_':Jst.ct,\cf::' UST. The Conserva-
tion Counc: i l and Sierra C: ub are very cc1 r1C:e r-ned about older more
likely lo leak i.dnks
.0504(e) requires that site assessments be conducted by or under
the supervision of a licensed geologist or professional engineer.
The Conservation Council and Sierra Club support requiring
qualified personnel to conduct site assessments. The ··conserva-
tion Council and Sierra Club further understand that geologists
and engineers are bonded. Tank owners could seek damages for im-
proper site assessments from geologists and engineers and have a
reasonable chance of recovery. Would other site assessors be
bonded and liable for damages?
rne Conservation Council and Sierra Club believe that .0708
Public Part ic ipat ion should be expanded. The Div is ion should
specifically notify the local health department. The Division
should also notify in wr .1 c: .1ng citizens and public interest or-
ganizations that request notice. Copies of the corrective action
plan should be made available at the local health department and
public library.
The Conservation Council ana ~.1erra Club support local regulation
of tanks via fire codes and ordinances. The Conservation Council
and Sierra Club urge the Division to work with Attorney General's
Office and Institute of Government to develop a model tank or-
dinance.
Thank you for your consideration.
~:
1 1i l~~
Bi.11 Holman, Lobbyist
Conservation Council of N. C .
Sierra Club, N. C. Chapter
cc: Randy Schenck
David Howells
Bibb Edwards
Scott Breidenbach
N.C. Department of Environmental,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
May 7, 1990
Page 2
we offer for your consideration the following changes in Title 15A, Sub-
chapter 2N which we feel will satisfy your concerns regarding sample integrity
and site investigation, while minimizing the logistical and increased cost
factors.
Requested changes in Title 15A, Subchapter 2N:
1 •• 0203 Definitions (page 5) Add number 8a and 8b
8. A certified UST site sampler/site investigator means a person who,
by reason of thorough knowledge of the physical sciences acquired
by education and practical expertise, is qualified to engage in the
practice of obtaining soil or water samples, the proper handl.ing
and transporation of soil. or water samples and the preparation of
soil or water samples for analysis, using methodology prescribed by
the North Carolina Division of environmental. Management.
a. Certification may be obtained by the successful completion of
the course "Preliminary Site Investigation and Sampling Pro-
cedures for Underground Storage Tank Sites in North Carolina",
under the direction and administration of the Commercial
Laboratories Association of North Carolina.
b. Certification may be obtained by the successful completion of
the course "Leaking underground Storage Tanks: Corrective
Action Alternatives", under the direction and administration of
the Georgia Technical Research Institute of Technology.
2. • 0504 ( e) Methods for Release Detection for Tanks ( page 34) . Insert
after the word "engineer" -or shall be conducted by a certified under-
ground storage tank site sampl.er/site investigator.
3 •• 0803 (2) Assessing the Site at Closure or Change-In-Service (page 55).
Insert after the word "engineer" -or shall. be conducted by a certified
underground storage tank site sampler/site investigator.
4. It is our opinion that this document calls for an Environmental Site
Assessment on every tank closure or change in service. We feel an ESS
should only be required on those sites which have demonstrated through
analytical test results that they exceed the 10 ppm contaminant level.
N.C. Department of Environmental,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
May 7, 1990
Page 3
Should the Division find merit in these requested changes to Title 15A,
Subchapter 2N, we would be most interested in meeting with representatives of
the Division to insure the proposed training program meets all requirements of
the Division, and in fact has the active participation of Division personnel.
RWS/bks
Sincerely yours,
Ronald w. Sanders
President, CLANC
EL
817 Castle Hayne St. RONALD W. SANDERS
Fayetteville, N.C. 28303 Laboratory Director
[phone]
--.,, ..
NORTH CAROLINA UNDERGROUND TANK REGULATIONS
The Consulting Engineers Council of North Carolina endorses the technical
standards proposed by the Division of Environmental Management for new and
existing underground storage tank systems in North Carolina. With a large number
of underground storage systems in North Carolina, which are thought to be currently
leaking, the proposed regulations and standards are needed for underground storage
tanks which will protect human health and the environment. Because such a large
percentage of the population of North Carolina uses groundwater as a source of
drinking water, protection of public health and the utility of this· vital resource would
certainly be enhanced by installing no underground storage tank system within 500
feet of a public water supply.
It is certainly reasonable to expect all existing systems to meet this requirement
by 1998. In light of the many problems that may arise from poorly fabricated or
installed tanks and piping, corrosion of tanks which are not protected, and from spills
and overflows, for all new underground storage to have double walled or secondary
containment features will help to minimize the shortcomings of leak detection methods
currently used. There is, however, a clarification that needs to be made regarding the
distance that an underground storage tank system can be from private water wells.
It is unclear in the proposed regulations as to whether or not an underground storage
tank system, whether new or existing, may be within 50 feet of any private water well.
CEC feels that a 50 foot minimum should be established as a buffer from any private
water well even if the underground storage tank system has double wall or equivalent
secondary containment features. Some reasonable minimum distance, such as 50
feet, should be established to allow for corrective action before putting any
groundwater at risk which is used as a source of drinking water, whether public or
private.
NORTH CAROLINA UNDERGROUND TANK REGULATIONS
Page 2
The Consulting Engineers Council urges the Division of Envir~::>nmental
Management to uphold their proposed requirement for having site assessments and
closures to be made by or under the supervision of a licensed geologist or
professional engineer. CEC believes that to broaden the site assessment and closure
provisions to include contractors would jeopardize the intention of the DEM program
which now requires professionally registered, disinterested third parties to aid in the
proper regulatory process. This service is best provided by a consulting firm trained
to perform site assessments and experienced in closure of underground tank systems.
Often, the problems caused by contamination can be more complicated than they
appear on the surface. As a consequence, no matter what type of contaminants may
be found and no matter how they came to exist at the site, their presence can create
a huge financial risk for the site owners.
Although the work associated with conducting a site assessment or certifying a
closure does not usually necessitate a large fee, the consequences of the work are
of substantial importance. For this reason, it is essential for the regulatory agency to
rely on a qualified consulting firm. Representatives of that firm are in a position to
discuss what the work should comprise, the many alternatives available, and the
effects of the alternatives on the risk associated with each of the alternatives.
Finally, the consulting engineer or geologist is going to be in a much better
position to understand the overall implications of the site assessment and closure
based on one's experience with limitations of technology. The level of confidence
which that consulting geologist or engineer's opinion expresses can reflect to the
regulatory agency risk tolerance levels which may be far different than that of a
qualified, competent contractor, simply because the consultant's focus must be
necessarily broadened to include public health and environmental issues beyond the
mechanics of UST systems.
May 7, 1990
SU BM ITTAL T O
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
REFERENCE
PROPOSED RULES 15A NCAC2N -UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
NORTH CAROLINA PETROLEUM MARKETERS ASSOCIATION
P .0. BOX 30519, RALEIGH, N.C. 27622
TELEPHONE [phone]
GERALD P. MATTHEWS, TECHNICAL DIRECTOR
My name is Gerald P. Matthews, and I appear on behalf of the members of the North
Carolina Petroleum Marketers Association (NCPMA). The Association is comprised of ap-
proximately 540 petroleum marketers throughout the state, most of whom are small businesses
serving their local communities. A membership profile which describes a typical petroleum
marketer is appended to this statement. These petroleum marketers own or operate ap-
proximately 850 bulkplants in the state which receive, store, and dispatch petroleum products
to farms, commercial users, service stations, and homes. These same petroleum marketers
also market motor fuel products to approximately 6000 service stations and convenience stores
in North Carolina and actually own approximately one-half of these (3000). Altogether there are
approximately 11,500 service stations and convenience stores dispensing motor fuels when
those supplied from other sources are considered. The vast majority of the dispensing facilities
are equipped with underground storage systems. Additionally, there are many private dispens-
ing facilities at businesses, industry, and institutions which feature underground storage
facilities. The NCPMA membership includes approximately 150 Associate members who are vi-
tal to the petroleum industry by their supportive services in facilities contruction, environmentally
related activities, highway transportation as common carriers, and other important services.
The Association appreciates this opportunity to address the Proposed Underground Storage
Tank Rules and wishes to emphasize its appreciation for the Division's continuing policy of
open communications. The Association is mindful of the many ways that have been afforded to
),JCPMA and others to assist in implementing already effective E. P.A. Regulations as well as
contributing toward
development of a specific North Carolina U.S.T. Program. The Federal Interim Prohibition, ef-
fective in May, 1985 as part of the 1984 RCRA Amendments, began the deep commitment and
involvement of petroleum U.S.T. owners toward the goal of environmental improvement. That
commitment was substantially broadened by the introduction of the total federal U.S.T. regula-
tion in December, 1988, specifically the Technical Standards. The federal regulation was an-
ticipated to have far-reaching impacts because of its economic and technical stringencies, and
this anticipation has certainly materialized in terms of impacting petroleum marketing facilities
and costs of operation. The NCPMA urges the Division of Environmental Management to
thoroughly consider the marketing changes now occurring because of the federal regulatory
impact and to realistically assess the additional effect that some aspects of the proposed North
Carolina Rules may have.
First, NCPMA compliments the Division's adoption, by reference, of a substantial part of the
federal U.S.T. regulation. Very obviously, these adoptions are preferable because millions of
dollars have already been spent to meet these standards, and facility operating procedures
have been accordingly instituted. Of major importance is the gigantic task of information dis-
semination, seminar activity and case-by-case and person-by-person consultation that has
been necessary -and still is continuing.
There are some aspects of the Proposed Rules that NCPMA hopes will be implemented within a
)easonable time schedule. Paragraph .0104, Identification of tanks, presents no major problem
if adequate Time for compliance is available.
-1-
containment features which would double the cost of storage tanks and piping. The effect of
this adoption for new installations would be to greatly accelerate the closings of fueling facilities
across the state. But, the disastrous effect on the future of existin g petroleum U.S.T. installa-
tions is profound. If existing facilities are required to repeat new installation activity by Decem-
ber 22, 1998 to meet hazardous substance standards, ie double-walled, including repetition of
leak detection and overfill requirements, the catastrophe will be appalling. It should be remem-
bered that a large percentage of existing U.S.T. systems are new replacements or upgrades
made as good faith efforts to comply with the federal E.P.A. U.S.T. Regulation, which permits
singlewalled systems with appropriate corrosion-protection and leak detection standards.
Existing systems that have been up-graded by replacement or retrofitting were required to
provide documentary proof through the "notification" process which the Division now ad-
ministers. All replacement tanks, regardless of type, feature 30-year warranties against leakage
from corrosion or approximately until the . year 2015. To require removal and replacement of
these tanks, together with their leak detection and overfill protection systems, by December 22,
1998, would be a terrible waste. The resulting impact would profoundly reduce motor fuels
availability everywhere and eliminate It outright In rural areas.
To achieve compliance with the proposed double-walled ALTERNATIVE requirement, the fol-
lowing estimated costs can be projected for a facility requiring (4) 10,000 underground storage
i anks:
1. NEW IN STALLATI O NS
The additional cost of double-wall over the E.P.A. standard requiring protected single-walled
tanks and piping will range from $25,000 to $50,000 depending upon the type of tanks and
piping selected.
2. EXISTIN G IN ST ALLATIONS
The approximate cost of removing four 10,000 gallon tanks, p1p1ng, and leak detection
facilities; then installing secondary containment, and then reinstallation of these facilities
ranges from $55,000 to $65,000. If new, replacement double-walled tanks and piping are in-
stalled, the cost is estimated to exceed $100,000 according to our membership survey.
We believe that the E.P.A. Technical Standards of the Underground Storage Tank Regula-
tions are totally adequate for storage tanks and piping because they are based upon several
years of investigation which included experience surveys, input from corrosion engineers and
other national institutions for safety and construction standards.
The NCPMA urges that Paragraph .0503 ALTERNATIVE be removed from further considera-
tion.
-3-
Page 26, Paragraph .0405(c)(3) specifies that certification of the proper operation of a corro-
sion protection system shall be part of the submittal data to the Division within 30 days following
completion of the installation, and "in a manner specified by in 40 CFR 280.31." NCPMA
respectfully submits that 40 CFR 280.31 allows up to six month s after installation -for the testing
of a cathodic protection system because, technically, it may require this much time for moisture
to permeate sacrifical anodes and thereby fully activate the system. The Proposed Rule should
be amended to reflect this change.
Page 34, Paragraph .0504(b)(10)(A) and (f) require that wells for groundwater monitoring or
vapor monitoring be tested at least once each fourteen days. The NCPMA observes that the
federal requirement is at least once each thirty days and, because of the cost and recordkeep-
ing burdens, urges that the Division consider the adequacy of monthly monitoring. The
Proposed Rule apparently adopts the federal regulation, regarding Automatic Tank Gauging
Systems, page 36, Paragraph 280.43(c) which we interpret to require being placed in test
modes at least once each 30 days.
Page 34, Paragraph .0504(c) specifies that site assessments for wells used in vapor or
groundwater monitoring are to be conducted by or under the supervision of a licensed
geologist or professional engineer. NCPMA certainly agrees that those parties are appropriate
)egarding technical skill, integrity, and accountability. NCPMA also observes that various con-
tractors already practice sampling and assessment procedures because they are already on
the site in the process of U.S.T. installations or closure situations. Regarding installations, the
contractors are part of the certification process required in the existing U.S.T. Regulation to
identify the contractor and assure accountability. NCPMA urges that the samplings of soils at
new monitoring well sites and closure situations be allowed by contractors, also, and that they
follow the established sampling protocols and accountability requirements.
In closing, the NCPMA wishes to emphasize the difficult task ahead, both to enforce regula-
tions and to comply with them. Therefore, it feels that the best regulation, whatever the require-
ments, Is one that is clearly written, readily understandable, and thoroughly taught to both the
regulatory personnel and those applicable under the regulation. NCPMA also urges that the
ever-mounting burden of documentation and record-keeping be lightened wherever possible
by simplified and shortened forms.
NCPMA appreciates this opportunity to be heard in this important environmental matter and
wishes to continue good liason and cooperation with the Division at every opportunity.
-4-
Gerald P. Matthews, P.E.
Techical Director
TYPICAL PETROLEUM MARKETER PROFILE
(NORTH CAROLINA PETROLEUM MARKETERS ASSOCIATION)
PREFACE
THE NORTH CAROLINA PETROLEUM MARKETERS ASSOCIATION (NCPMA) IS A ,~TATEWIDE, NON-
GOVERNMENTAL, NON-PROFIT TRADE ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING APPROXIMATELY 535 PETROLEUM
MARKETERS. MOST OF THE MEMBER FIRMS HANDLE BOTH MOTOR FUEL AND HEATING FUELS BUT A
SMALL NUMBER HANDLE MOTOR FUELS SOLELY AND ANOTHER LIMITED NUMBER HANDLE ONLY HEATING
FUELS. NCPMA MARKETERS SELL APPROXIMATELY so~ OF THE MOTOR FUEL IN NORTH CAROLINA AND
APPROXIMATELY 90% OF HEATING FUELS FOR SPACE HEATING. TODAY THE TYPICAL PETROLEUM
MARKETERS NOT ONLY SELLS AT WHOLESALE TO SERVICE STATIONS, FARMERS, COMMERCIAL AC-
COUNTS, FLEET OWNERS, ETC. BUT ALSO OPERATES HIS OWN MOTOR FUEL OUTLBTS AND/OR CON-
VENIENCE STORES. IN NORTH CAROLINA THERE ARE 11,500 RETAIL MOTOR FUEL OUTLBTS (SERVICE
STATIONS, PUMPERS, CONVENIENCE STORES, CAR WASHES, ETC.) AND PETROLEUM MARKETER MEMBERS
OF NCPMA OWN, OPERATE, CONTROL OR SERVB APPROXIMATELY 60,. OF THE OUTLETS. THEY OWN,
OPERATE, CONTROL OR SERVE APPROXIMATELY 70~ OF THE CONVENIENCE STORES IN THE STATE.
PROFILE OF THE TYPICAL PETROLEUM MARKETER OR JOBBER
IN NORTH CAROLINA THE TYPICAL PETROLEUM MARKETER OR WHOLESALER WOULD HAVE THE FOL-
LOWING AVERAGES:
AVERAGE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES PER FIRM
NUMBER OF VEHICLES OPERATED PER FIRM
AVERAGE GASOLINE VOLUME ANNUALLY
AVERAGE FUEL OIL VOLUME ANNUALLY
AVERAGE NUMBER OF MOTOR FUEL OUTLETS SERVED
NUMBER OF CONVENIENCE STORES AND STATIONS OWNED
LOCAL INVOLVEMENT
26.5
9.8
4.5 MILLION
1.1 MILLION
15.5
6.8
OIL WHOLESALERS, MARKETERS, DISTRIBUTORS, ETC. ARE NOT CONTENT TO DO A GOOD JOB IN
THEIR CHOSEN FIELD. MOST ARE ACTIVE IN THEIR CHURCH AND CIVIC AFFAIRS AND MANY ARE ALSO
INTERESTED IN OTHER BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES. BY SURVEY, WE HAVE FOUND PAR-
TICIPATION IN:
LOCAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT -ELECTED OFFICE 11,.
BANK DIRECTORS 13%
QUASI-JUDICIAL (SCHOOL,ZONING,HOSPITAL BOARDS, ETC.) 15%
STATEMENT SUPPLEMENT
N.C. PETROLEUM MARKETERS ASSOCIATION
SUBMITTED BY DON M. WARD
TO THE
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH & NATURAL RESOURCES,
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
REFERENCE: PROPOSED RULES
At the recent hearings by the Division of Environmental Management regarding the proposed
regulations for underground storage tanks, the attached statement was submitted by Gerald P.
Matthews, Technical Director, N.C. Petroleum Marketers Association. As Executive Vice Presi-
dent, I would like to add comments for the record and perhaps expand on some of the cost cal-
culations cited by Mr. Matthews.
First, we should perhaps review the fact that there are approximately 74,000 underground
petroleum storage tanks registered with the State under the Federal and State Laws. Of these,
it is estimated that approximately 40-45,000 of such tanks are at retail motor fuel outlets, either
service stations, convenience stores or a host of other specialty shops or businesses like car
washes. If there should be adoption of Par .. 0301 Alternative which would implement Section
.0503 including a requirement for secondary containment (including the double wall tanks) we
1' • :tve it will have a conversion cost impact on roughly 10,000 of the 11,500 present retail motor
fuel outlets. Most of the others will not opt to replace and comply with secondary containment
but rather will decide to close up and merely get out of the petroleum business. Some retailers
and wholesalers have indicated that they will be forced out of business. This means there will
be a terrific economic loss and unfortunately most of those who will probably decide they can't
afford such cost will be small marketers.
Our estimated cost for the 10,000 who will probably decide to replace their tanks will have to
pay an average of $60,000 per location at today's dollar value which means it will cost for these
outlets approximately $600 million. When you add the inflation factor for the next 8 years as-
suming some will be replaced periodically, but most will be replaced in the last few years of
the eight year span, there will be at least $85 million additional ( at a 3.5% inflation rate -with
an average of 1. 75% per year).
Each year we can expect roughly 400 new facilities but we believe half of these will be re-
placements of previously existing facilities, therefore you will have a net of 200 per year of
new outlets. As explained in Mr. Matthews' presentation on page 3 the average additional cost at
new outlets will be about $37,500 for secondary containment, depending upon the types of tanks
and piping selected. This means that we are talking of an additional $70 million ($37,500 x
1 f,J)O) extra cost for new outlets, if secondary containment is required, which also assumes a
I
low inflation factor.
-1-
· This means that for our petroleum industry we are estimating $7S5 million as the additional
co;;;t for secondary containment under the proposed parag raph .0S03 (.0301 alternative) in the next
---:,-r•~----------
8 Jars. ·
Considering the adverse impact on small businesses that have to liquidate or at least close
their petroleum operation, we are confident the overall economic cost will approach one billion
dollars if secondary containment is promulgated. The other petroleum underground storage tank
owners at commercial establishments and facilities will also be impacted and if only half comply
with the new secondary containment and if their average number of tanks is 2 per facility, the
cost will probably approach $120 million ($20,000 per facility times 6,000). This gives us nearly
$900 million cost for compliance with secondary containment regulation if enacted for the
petroleum marketing and non-petroleum commercial tank owners by 1998 plus the economic loss
by firms closing or being liquidated.
We realize full well that cost alone cannot be the determining factor. You must weigh the
benefits against the cost and that's exactly what we're asking the Environmental Management
Commission to do. The Environmental Protection Agency has already made studies and has con-
cluded that secondary containment is not necessary and we urge the Commission to consider the
fact that the new technical standards will tend greatly to reduce the number of leaks in fact,
practically eliminating them or making it a certainty they will be detected at an early date if any
do occur so that they may be corrected and cleaned and remediated immedidtely, especially before
t' l can do any harsh damage.
The adoption of Paragraph .0301 (not ALTERNATIVE) will require double-walled systems
only within 500 feet of a public water well or 50 feet of a private water well and from certain
public streams. U.S.T. systems outside these limits would meet the E.P.A. U.S.T. Regulation
"protected" single-wall standard. Obviously, this proposal would have far less detrimental im-
pact upon applicable 'storage facilities. However, certain existing systems within the 500 and 50
feet limits which must meet double-walled standards by 1998 will suffer great hardship. Espe-
cially at rural locations, private water wells frequently exist as the sole potable water source.
If this proposal is adopted, the Division of Environmental Management is urged to consider grant-
ing variances from the double-walled standard in specific cases where mitigating circumstances
or dire hardships warrant such action.
As evidenced at the hearings by the large number of petroleum marketers in attendance, the
secondary containment question is of genuine concern to each and every one of them. They are
already being required to comply with a host of Federal and State Regulations, most of which
will be very expensive, such as the new tank regs (even without secondary containment), Stage I
Vapor Recovery Rules that were recently adopted by the Environmental Management Commission,
and benzene testing of employees' exposure, as well as Emergency Response Requirements by the
F '.1eral Dept. of Transportation. Petroleum marketers on the whole are small business people
even though there are some large ones. They will have to compete with large, multi-national
companies that have unlimited resources. In the long run the public will pay either by higher
costs being passed on or by firms being put out of business which will tend to eliminate com-
petition.
-2-
Ne want to urge you as strongly and emphatically as we can that the secondary containment 1s
not necessary and that Sec .. 0301 Alternative should be rejected.
Thank you for your consideration of our additional comments along with Mr. Matthews'
original statement.
END
-3-
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
HEARING ON PROPOSED UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
MAY 7, 1990
STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
ASSOCIATION OF CONVENIENCE STORES
BY ED TURLINGTON
THARRINGTON, SMITH & HARGROVE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Chairman, members of the Environmental Management
Commission, I am a member of the Raleigh law firm of Tharrington,
Smith & Hargrove which represents the North Carolina Association
of Convenience Stores. Thank you for the opportunity to speak
today on these proposed state regulations.
It is important to emphasize at the outset the impact the
regulations will have on the Convenience Store industry and
members of the Association. One hundred fifty-eight companies
representing 2,000 retail stores comprise the North Carolina
Association of Convenience Stores. Since gasoline is increasing-
ly distributed at the retail level through these stores, there
are literally thousands of underground storage tanks at conve-
nience stores across our state.
As you know, leaking underground storage tanks present a
serious environmental problem. They also present a serious
economic problem for convenience store operators. In addition to
the exorbitant insurance costs for tank owners and operators (if
insurance can be obtained), the owners and operators must meet
federal financial responsibility requirements and technic~l
standards. In fact, we believe the financial responsibility
requirements imposed by federal law for operating underground
storage tanks have already caused some convenience stores to go
out of business.
Because of these environmental and economic considerations,
the North Carolina Association of Convenience Stores worked hard
to secure enactment of a state law to address the problem. Both
in 1988, when the legislation was first enacted, and in 1989 when
it was revised, Association members and our firm as its counsel
have met with legislators, officials of Natural Resources and
Community Development [now Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (EHNR)], industry and environmental representatives to
produce a workable law.
In summary, the Convenience store Association has worked
hard to assist its members, the state and the public in the
search for a solution to this problem. We look forward to
working with you and others in the future.
Prompt action on these proposed regulations --and prompt
issuance of regulations on financial responsibility require-
- 2 -
ments --are necessary to get the state's underground storage
tank fund working.
On behalf of the Convenience Store Association, I also want
to commend the work of Perry Nelson and his staff at the Ground-
water Division. Although we do not always agree with them, Perry
and his staff have considered the concerns expressed by us on
behalf of the Association about the proposed state underground
storage tank regulations.
The Division --and all state agencies that enforce the
underground storage tank law --need more staff and money. We
endorse that need since a fully-staffed underground storage tank
program can assist both tank owners and the public in avoiding
future environmental problems and in cleaning up existing leaks.
We first offer three observations on the proposed regula-
tions. First, it appears that in those instances in which the
state regulations vary from the federal regulations, the state
regulations are more stringent. We believe the existing federal
regulations are sufficient and before adopting tougher state
regulations, the Commission should be convinced that a compelling
need exists to do so. The more stringent the regulations, the
greater the cost of compliance. Since these additional costs
will likely be passed along to the consumer, the public will
- 3 -
ultimately bear the cost of any excessive regulation. We there-
fore request that you regulate only where it is necessary to do
so.
Second, as with all regulations, these state regulations
should be tough enough to prevent and clean up leaks, but not so
tough as to bankrupt an entire industry.
Third, wherever possible, the regulations should be clearly
written and evenly enforced in order that tank owners and opera-
tors will know what the law is and how it applies to them
that, of course, will facilitate compliance and eliminate unnec-
essary and costly enforcement action by the Department.
Although we have examined all of the proposed state regula-
tions, we cite the following regulations for special comment:
* .0104 Identification of Tanks: This regulation re-
quires owners and operators to maintain at each facility a
diagram with information about the tanks on that site. EHNR
should consider developing a standard form for this purpose and
should mail it to all tank owners and operators without their
having to request it.
- 4 -
* ~301 (b ) and (c ) -Eerforman~c ~e standards for New UST
S y stems: These regulations prohibit underground storage tanks
within certain distances of water supplies and if the tanks are
within a certain distance of the water supplies, they must meet
certain construction requirements. These proposed regulations
should be adopted instead of the alternative .0301{b) and {c)
discussed below, which are unnecessarily stringent.
* .030l (b ) and (c ) (Alternative ): These alternative
regulations differ from .030l{b) and (c) in two important ways.
First, they would prohibit underground storage tank systems
within 500 feet of a well serving a public water system {100 feet
in other regulations) or within 500 feet of certain surface water
classifications or any other source of public water supplies (100
feet in other regulations). Alternative .030l(b) agrees with the
other .0301{b) in prohibiting underground storage tanks systems
within 50 feet of any other well supplying water for human
consumption.
Second, these alternative regulations would require all
underground storage tank systems, both new and old, to have
double-walled tanks or secondary containment, regardless of their
proximity to water supplies. Such a requirement could be finan-
cially disastrous for tank owners and operators because it would
require existing tanks that do not meet this requirement (even
- 5 -
the ones installed or upgraded after the effective date of the
new federal regulations in December 1988) to be pulled out of the
ground and replaced by December 1998.
In addition to being incredibiy expensive, such a re-
quirement is unnecessary to protect the environment. Compliance
with the December 1988 federal regulations, which require all
tanks to be replaced or upgraded by the December 1998 date but
which do not require secondary containment except for tanks
containing hazardous substances other than petroleum, will ensure
tank safety.
* .0502 (b ) (Alternative ) -Requ irements for Petroleum UST
S y stems: This regulation should not be adopted because it seeks
to implement the requirement in alternative regulation .0301 that
petroleum underground storage tank systems must be double-walled
or have secondary containment.
* -~503 (Alternative ) -Requ irements for Hazardous
Substance UST S y stems: This regulation should not be adopted
because it seeks to implement the requirement in alternative
regulation .0301 that petroleum underground storage tank systems
must be double-walled or have secondary containment.
* New Notifica~ion Re qu irements: A number of the pro-
posed state regulations add notification requirements for tank
- 6 -
owners and operators. Regulation .0303 requires that written
notice be given to the state at least 30 days before installation
of a new underground storage tank system, installation of'-··a leak
detection device or permanent closure or change-in-service.
(Federal regulation 40 C.F.R. § 280.22 requires written notice
within 30 days after --rather than before --bringing it into
use.) Regulation .0404 requires owners of underground storage
tank systems to submit within 30 days following completion writ-
ten notice to the state of repairs made to that tank. (Federal
regulation 40 C.F.R. § 280.33 only requires maintenance of repair
records.) Regulation .0405 requires owners and operators of
underground storage tank systems to submit site investigations
conducted at permanent closure and to ensure compliance with
release detection requirements and to submit a description of
repairs and certification of the proper operation of a corrosion
protection system within 30 days following completion of these
activities. (Federal regulation 40 C.F.R. § 280.34 only requires
owners and operators to maintain records of these activities.)
The federal notice and reporting requirements for these
activities are adequate and should be the standard. A showing
has not been made that Regulations .0303, .0404, and .0405 of the
proposed state regulations are necessary.
- 7 -
* ~0504 (e ) and .0803 (2 ): These regulations require that
vapor and groundwater monitoring and site assessments at closure
or change-in-service be done by or under the supervision Of a
"licensed geologist" or "professional engineer." This require-
ment will impose a financial burden on tank owners and operators
with little, if any, environmental benefit. Use of contractors
for these services complies with federal requirements. The state
regulations should simply state that the person or company doing
this work must be qualified by federal law to do so.
These proposed state regulations do not define "under
the supervision of.11 Must the licensed geologist or professional
engineer be present at all covered activities? If so, that could
be prohibitively expensive. The regulation should be clarified
in this respect.
Requiring a licensed geologist or professional engineer
would place a special burden on tank owners and operators in
rural counties. Given the fact that many, if not most, of the
licensed geologists and professional engineers reside in urban
areas, rural tank owners and operators will have to spend a lot
of money on travel costs.
If the goal of regulations .0504(e) and .0803(2) is to have
a professional that is accountable for the covered inspections,
- 8 -
then the current practice of contractors signing the notification
form as the installer-contractor is adequate. Three other
approaches to the accountability problem might also be consid-
ered.
First, state licensing of installer-contractors could
provide assurance that they are qualified and would be account-
able since their licenses could be revoked if they submitted
false results. A second alternative would be for the company
president or a top employee of the tank owners or operator to
sign the notification form. Finally, the phrase "persons quali-
fied in professional evaluations" could be substituted for the
licensed geologist/ professional engineer requirement in .0504(e)
and .0803(2). This would allow some flexibility for tank owners
and operators to comply with the state regulations without being
prohibitively expensive.
The state regulations should follow the federal regulations
on the vapor and groundwater monitoring and site assessments.
* New Rep orting Periods: The following state regulations
shorten the reporting periods of the comparable federal regula-
tions, which generally allow "a reasonable time period," in
addition to a specific number of days, to meet certain deadlines:
- 9 -
0
§ .0601 (suspected releases)
§ .0603 (release investigation and
confirmation)
§ .0604 (reporting and cleanup of
spills and overfills)
§ .0702 (initial response to leaks)
§ .0703 (initial abatement measures
and site check)
§ .0704 (initial site characteriza-
tion)
§ .0706 (investigations for soil
and groundwater cleanup)
The federal notice periods are adequate and should be
maintained.
Thank you for consideration of these comments on the pro-
posed regulations.
* * *
(c:jet/ncacs.doc/rh]
-10 -
( . {\\ CARo
(,'"~ ~~ < -<?
;N*C z
0
~
..... ~
NORTH CAROLINA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION -i.. .
~
~r l.f ASSOC
May 7, 1990
Mr. Randy Prillaman
Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
RE: Proposed Adoption of Title lSA,
Subchapter 2N of the North Carolina
Administrative Code entitled
Underground Storag~ Tanks
~~ar Mr. Prillaman:
1
made
P.M.
This is to supplement my oral
at the hearing being held tonight
in the Archdale Building in Raleigh.
remarks
at 7:00
The Executive Committee of the North
Carolina Land Title Association would like
to register an objection on behalf of the
Association to the proposed requirement of
Paragraph (d) of Section .0101 which would
require land owners to ensure that the presence
and location of all UST systems is recorded
on all deeds at the time of transfer, to any
property on which the UST systems are located.
Such a requirement, if adopted, would
have wide-reaching effects on both the title
insurance industry and the lending industry
in North Carolina. Even though the presence
or absence of UST systems on land is not a
matter of title, l e nders will perceive it to
be a matter of title and will ask title insurance
companies either [ l] to insure that there are
no UST systems located on property, or [2]
to insure against loss or damage because of
~e presence of UST systems on property. Title
~hsurance companies are not financially prepared
nor authorized by statute to undertake this
PRESIDENT
Gary W. Chadwick
The Title Co. of NC, Inc.
Wilmington. NC
VICE PRESIDENT
Peter E. Powell
Raleigh. NC
TREASURER
Larry D. Johnson
Common~ealth Land Title Co. of NC
Raleigh, NC
SECRETARY
Joseph M. Ritter
Jefferson-Pilot Title Insurance Co .
Greensboro. NC
IMMEDIATE
PAST PRESIDENT
T. Alfred Gardner
Lawyers Title of NC
Greensboro. NC
.-\ HORNEY SECTION
KEPRESENT..\ TIVE
Thomas E. Wagg. Ill
Carruthers & Roth. PA
Green sbo ro . '-IC
G ENERAL COUNSEL
William B. Pinman
Fi rst Title Insurance Co .
Raleigh. NC
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Penney De Pas
Raleigh, ~lC
EXECUTIVE OFFICES
~ 101 Lake Boone Trail
Suite 20I
Raleigh. NC 27607
[phone]
FAX (919 ) 787-4916
,,
Mr . Randy Prillaman
May 7, 1990
Page 2
this type of risk and, if such coverage is
not available, lenders may refuse to lend money
secured by real estate. As evidence of lenders'
concern about environmental matters, they now
require title insurers to attach an Environmental
Protection Endorsement (A.L.T.A. Endorsement
8 .1) to residential policies insuring them
that no environmental lien was filed prior
to closing. Such coverage is not available
on commercial property or large tracts of land.
As evidence of the title insurers' concern,
I have attached the latest list of CERCLA liens
and releases filed across the country which
total more than $275,000,000.
Finally, the adoption of Paragraph
( d) would require additional searching and
certification by real estate attorneys and
surveyors who may be unwilling to assume this
liability with or without additional
compensation. We think alternative means for
the disclosure of UST systems should be explored.
Thank you
appear before you.
Sincerely,
~ -I ~ t, ,
William B. Pittman
General Counsel
WBP:pje
Enclosure
for this opportunity to
I
Federal Superfund Liens as of March 9,1990 1
Last Up:late: March 9, 1990
Date Lien
Filed or
~ianed ~ RA ~ite R§&Ji o n I..cca :tj.Q□
1. Dec. 10, 1986 Tinkham I I.ondonderry, NH
2. Dec. 26, 1986 Tinkham I I.ondonderry, NH
3. Jan. 23, 1987 Western Processing X Kent, WA
4. Jan. 30, 1987 Aub.Jrn Rd. Landfill I I.orrlonderry, NH
5. Jan. 30, 1987 Salem k=res I Salem, MA
6. Feb. 2, 1987 Printed Circuits III LevittcMn, PA
7. Feb. 11, 1987 Zenith Cllemical Co. IV \mitfield City, GA
8. Feb. 12, 1987 Nicx,let, Inc. III Ambler, PA
! Feb. 25, 1987 Renora, Inc. II Fdison Ta.omship, N .J
10. May 25, 1987 Gacy Heldt VIII Brookings, SD
11. May 19, 1987 '!'ewer Olemical Co. IV Clernont, FL
12. June 24, 1987 .Anerican Environmental IV D.lval County, FL
Energy Corp.
13. ~-9, 1987 Printed Circuits III Bucks COl.mty, PA
14. ~-19, 1987 Northernaire Platin;J V cadillac, MI
15. ~-21, 1987 Indiana Jones V Fort Wayne, IN
16. Sept. 11, 1987 E.C. ~ IX Anaheiln, CA
17. Sept. 21, 1987 Rigel street Dn.nn IX san Diego, CA
18. Sept. 30, 1987 ROIC IX SUn Valley, CA
1 'lhls list is campiled by the Office of Enforcement and Complian:::e
1 . :t-bnitorin:J (OB:M), EPA, Washington, D.C. based up:m in£onration
!:>~tted by EPA's ten Re'.Jional Offices. By o:mipilin:J arrl nak1.n:J this list
available to the p.lblic, OB:M and EPA make no representations rega.rc:li.n:J the
acx::uracy or completeness of the list.
Estimated
Va l ue
RELEAs:rn
10/4/89
RELFAS:rn
10/4/89
$6,500,000
$245,211
$1,200,000
$777,000
$750,000
$225,000
RELEASID
5/10/89
I
19. o:::::t. 7, 1987 ABCD IX M::Jnrovia, CA RELEASED
5/10/89
20. o:::::t. 8, 1987 Rolfite Company I Shelton, ct $1,500,000
21. o:::::t. 22, 1987 Ellisville/Tu)salie VII Ellisville, MJ $177,000
22. o:::::t. 22, 1987 Ellisville/callahan VII Ellisville, MJ $886,000
23. o:::::t. 22, 1987 Aidex VII Mills County, IA $10,000,000
24. Nov. 4, 1987 Metcoa, Inc. ' VI Fort Worth, TX $332,759
Pesses Company
25. Nov. 18, 1987 Peter Gull IX Norco, CA
26. Nov. 18, 1987 Martin Woods IX Norco, CA
27. Nov. 19, 1987 M:Mbray Engineering IV Greenville, AL $400,000
28. Nov. 19, 1987 Coleman Evans IV Duval Co. , FL
29. Jan. 8, 1988 Conservation Chemical V Gacy, rn
Company
3U. Feb. 8, 1988 cam-or V Indiana $5,800,000
31. Feb. 16, 1988 Middlet.a.m Road III Annap::,lis, MD
32. Feb. 18, 1988 Lackawanna Refuse III Old Forge, PA $25,000,000
33. Feb. 22, 1988 Rigel street Drum IX san Diego, C.A RELFASED APPROX
( anarled See # 17, at:ove) 5/10/89
34. Feb. 19, 1988 Whittier Propel IX Whittier, C.A
35. Feb. 19, 1988 Greencastle IX Los ~eles, CA RELFASED
6/2/89
36. Mar. 10, 1988 DiCello IX san Diego, C.A
37. Mar. 21, 1988 Western carol ina IV Madison Co. , NC RELFASID
Snelting Dec. 20, 1988
38. Mar. 21, 1988 Bishop Frank Green IV Fayetteville, NC REI.EASED
1/27/89
39. Apr. 11, 1988 Clothier II Granby, NY
40. J..pr. 22, 1988 Westfir Energy X Westfir, OR
Company
41. Apr. 25, 1988 Whi brayer L3.b:Jra tori es III Myerstown I PA $147,756+
Inc.
42. Apr. 25, 1988 Lehigh Electric arrl III Old Forge, PA $5,034,406
Erqineering Company
43. Apr. 26, 1988 Apa.che Pc,,,,ler eornpany IX Cochise ColD1ty, AZ
44. May 19, 1988 A.H.A.S. IX M::>nterey Park, CA
45. May 19, 1988 OII IX M::mterey Park, CA
46. May 25, 1988 Chern Scienc.e V Wisconsin $500,000
47. May 27, 1988 International Disk V Michigan $500,000
48. May 31, 1988 Pallister Paint X Everett, WA
49. June 14, 1988 Lee's lane Landfill IV Jefferson Co., KY
50. June 17, 1988 Hennan IX Los .An:;Jeles, CA
51. JLD1e 28, 1988 Fager Beaver III Tc7Nnvi.lle, PA
52. Jtme 30, 1988 North.side Sanitary V Irx:liana $1,600,000
landfill (3 liens)
s::. July 11, 1988 Reliable Plating V Ohio $520,000
54. July 13, 1988 Accra-Pac V Indiana $317,000
55. July 19, 1988 Pristine V Ohio $13,000,000
56. July 25, 1988 stamina Mills I North Smithfield, RI $30,000,00o+
57. Aug. 1, 1988 Kane & I..Dmre.rd III Baltinore City, MD
58. Aug. 2, 1988 Shaffer F.quip. Co. III Fayette City, WVA $4,000,000
(2 liens)
59. Aug. 11, 1988 General Larni.nates IV Hamilton Co., FL
60. Aug. 12, 1988 Mattiache II Glen Cove, NY $1,000,000+
61. Aug. 15, 1988 John & Macy M.i let:ich V Gary, IN
(Midco Site)
62. Aug. 22, 1988 Interstate Transforner III Ellw::x:xi City, PA $700,000
63. Aug. 24, 1988 Midco II V Irx:liana $200,000
64. Aug. 29, 1988 SUrnrnit National V Ohio $47,500,000
65. Aug. 30, 1988 waste Disp:)Sal V Indiana $14,000,000
~ineering
66. Sept. 12, 1988 Gal:vey Avenue IX Baldwin Park, CA
67. Sept. 26, 1988 O::Ol10IlD!.1eC V Wisconsin $1,100,000
68. Sept. 27, 1988 southern Crop SVcs. IV Delray Beach, FL
69. Sept. 29, 1988 Bergeron Marine IV Hanccx:.k Co. I MS
70. oct. 4, 1988 Liquid Waste Mgmt. V Ohio $200,000
71. oct. 11, 1988 Rare Coal Tar IV Rome, GA
72. oct. 21, 1988 Spectra-O'lern V Wisconsin $108,342+
73. Nov. 1, 1988 Bruin Lagoon III Butler County, PA $10,000,000
74. Nov. 4, 1988 Burra,..is LF V Michigan $3,600,000
75. Nov. 9, 1988 Priority Finishing I Putnam, rn $900,000
76. Nov. 9, 1988 Aerolite Chrome corp IX Washoe City, Reno, NV
't I. Nov. 10, 1988 Newp:,rt Dump IV Wilder, KY
78. Nov. 15, 1988 Jasco Olemical IX Santa Clara, CA
79. Dec. 7, 1988 Tyler Dnnn V lake County, IN
79. Jan. 9, 1989 Michael Battery VII Betterrlorf , IA $311,000
80. Jan. 30, 1989 Season-All Irrlustries III Jefferson City, PA $500,000
81. Feb. 13, 1989 Oak Grove I..an:ifill V Michigan $13,000,000
82. Mar. 2, 1989 Milbar Boulevard II New York
83. Mar. 8, 1989 Oladl:ourne Tire Fire DI Colurnb.ls City, NC
84. Mar. 14, 1989 Norwxxi PCB site I Norw:xxi, MA
85. Apr. 3, 1989 Hebelka Auto Salvage III Lehigh City, PA $5,500,000
Yard
86. Apr. 29, 1989 J..mt.rea::, Corp. DI Clinch Co., GA
87. May 15, 1989 Stasb.lrg I..an:if i 11 III Chester Co., PA
--..,,d. May 17, 1989 Michael T. Olovana.k VIII Helena, MT
89. June 1, 1989 Marianne canny II Biaj1amton, NY
90. June 1, 1989 Lawrence J. Pizer VIII Adams Cotmty, 0)
91. June 15, 1989 A.I.W. Frank Site III Exton, PA $8,000,000
(C.ontinental 'Refrig. C.o)
92. June 14, 1989 East Quincy Ave. VIII Arapahoe C.o. ' 0)
93. July 5, 1989 Ski:r;pers III IV Brevard City, FL
94. Aug. 21, 1989 Silver Ba.v/AROJ VIII Silver Ba.v City, MI'
95. Aug. 21, 1989 Valley~ Preserving IX stanislaus City, CA
96. Aug. 21, 1989 Lorentz Barrel & Drum IX Santa Clara City, CA
97. Sept. 18, 1989 Irxliana Refining Inc. V Princeton, m
98. Sept. 1989 Bliss Tank Site VII ' MJ
(3 liens)
99. o:t. 10, 1989 Aerovox.jNe,; Bedford I Ne,; Bedford, MA $20,000,00o+
100. Nov. 14, 1989 Avtex Fil:ers/ III Front Royal, VA $40,000;000
Front Royal , Inc.
101. Dec. 4, 1989 Interchem VII Sioux City, IA
I tiD #:) 1"/ t, 0 3 /, Jt?L , --·
--I
FEDERTED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
SUGGESTED LANGUAGE
FOR REVISIONS TO PROPOSED SUBCHAPTER N
COMPLIANCE DEADLINES
.0204 EXTENSION OF COMPLIANCE DEADLINES
Any deadline upon an owner or operator set within any
section of this Subchapter may be extended by the Division's
appropriate regional office. Such an extension must be requested
in writing from the Division before the deadline expires. Such
extensions shall be granted only upon request of the tank owner
or operator to the regional office with jurisdiction over the
area in which the tank is located and only upon a showing of good
cause •
• 0603 RELEASE INVESTIGATION AND CONFIRMATION STEPS
The "Release Investigation And Confirmation Steps"
provisions contained in 40 CFR 280.52 (Subpart E) have been
adopted by reference in accordance with G.S. 150 B-14(c).
.0703 INITIAL ABATEMENT MEASURES AND SITE CHECK
The provisions for 11 Initial abatement measures and site
check" contained in 40 CFR 280.62 (Subpart F) have been adopted
by reference in accordance with G.S. 150B-14(c).
• U /U4 1Nl'l'..1..8L ::i..l.'l't C.tiAK.8C'l't~.:1-UZ..8'1'1UN
The provisions for "Initial site characterization" contained
in 40 CFR 280.63 (Subpart F) have been adopted by reference in
accordance with G.S. 150B-14(c).
',\
STATE COMPLIANCE DEADLINES
.0205 ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY DEADLINES
The Division shall be under a duty to provide any review or
approval of reports, plans or other subrnittals by tank owners or
operators, in compliance with this subchapter, within fifteen
days of receiving such submittal from the tank owner or operator,
unless an extension of this time is shown to be reasonably
necessary by the Division.
SPECIAL ORDERS AND CLEAN UP STANDARDS
.0706 INVESTIGATIONS FOR SOIL AND GROUND WATER CLEANUP
The provisions for "Investigations for Soil and ground-water
cleanup" contained in 40 CFR 280.65 (Subpart F) have been adopted
by reference in accordance with G.S. 150B-14(c), except that 40
CFR 280.65(b) has been rewritten to read, "Owners and operators
must conduct the investigation and submit the information
collected under paragraph (a) of this section in accordance with
a special order, consent special order or similar document, if
such is determined necessary by the Division due to failure of
the owner or operator to comply with this section voluntarily or
upon agreement between the owner or operator and the provision
that such is necessary."
0707 CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
The provisions for a "Corrective Action plan" contained in
40 CFR 280.66(Subpart F) have been adopted by reference in
accordance with G.S. 150B-14(c), except that":
(a) 40 CFR 280.66(a) ha~ been rewritten to read: "At any
point after reviewing the information submitted in compliance
with 40 CFR 280.61 through 40 CFR 280.63, the Division may
require owners and operators to submit additional information or
to develop and submit a corrective action plan for responding to
contaminated soiis and groundwater. If a plan is required,
owners and operators must submit the plan according to a
reasonable schedule and format established by the Division.
Owners and operators are responsible for suomitting d f.J.ictn cnct c
provides for adequate protection of human health and the
environment in accordance with the guidelines set out in 15 NCAC
2L .0106 for affected groundwater and by N.C.G.S 143.215.84(a)
for affected soils," and must modify their plan as necessary to
meet this standard.
(b) In 40 CFR 280.66(c) the words "schedule and in a format
established by the implementing agency." are replaced by the
words "special order, consent special order, or similar document,
if such is determined to be necessary by the Division, due to the
failure of the owner or operator to comply with the requirements
of thi~ section voluntarily, or upon agreement between the
Division and the owner or operator that such is necessary."
SITE CLOSURE
.0803 ASSESSING THE SITE AT CLOSURE OR CHANGE-IN-SERVICE,
(2) site assessments shall be conducted under the
supervision of or reviewed by a licensed geologist or
professional engineer.
FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
ORAL COMMENTS ON
PROPOSED 15A NCAC, SUBCHAPTER 2N
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
HEARING, RALEIGH, NC
MAY 7, 1990
I am speaking on behalf of Federated Mutual Insurance
Company of Minnesota. We appreciate the opportunity to present
our comments on the proposed underground storage tank rules.
While we intend to address the issues raised today more thr-oughly
in written comments to be submitted following this hearing, our
oral comments will highlight the various issues which we consider
most crucial.
Federated Mutual Insurance Company has been providing
pollution liability insurance since the early 1980s. Federated
is currently the largest provider of pollution liability
insurance for underground storage tanks. Federated has handled
approximately two thousand pollution claims nationwide, most of
those for underground storage tank cleanup. For this reason,
Federated Mutual is interested in the regulation of the
remediation of petroleum contamination. Ultimately, Federated
Mutual seeks a regulatory program which provides for the
protection of human health and the environment through the
controlled clean-up of petroleum contamination. However,
Federated Mutual also seeks to meet this goal through a
regulatory program structured to allow owner/operator to
remediate contaminated sites in a cost-efficient and time-
efficient manner. As it is proposed, Subchapter N contains
-1-
provisions which we feel will cause voluntary clean-ups by
parties to be needlessly expensive and prolonged.
The first problem area that we see in the proposed
regulations is the deadlines which appear throughout the
regulations applicable to required actions. Differing with the
federal program, the proposed regulations have removed all
language allowing the implementing agency (in this case, the
Division of Environmental Management), to quickly and easily
grant reasonable extensions of .various .compliance deadlines ...
This causes a problem for two reasons. First, it leaves
ostensibly mandatory deadlines, which in most cases are
impractical. Second, it appears to remove any discretion on the
part of the Division to grant extensions of these deadlines
despite the need for such extension.
In working through many of these clean-ups with the various
regional offices, it has been our experience that, despite
reasonable diligence, there is rarely a remediation which
proceeds without the need for extension of some compliance
deadlines. Further, in administering the current federal
program, the DEM Regional Offices have taken actions indicating
their recognition of the impracticality of the time limits within
the federal program, which are now proposed to be incorporated in
the state program without allowances for extensions. For
example, the Raleigh Regional Office, upon notice of a confirmed
release, sends the owner/operator a letter setting out the
various compliance requirements and deadlines and granting an
automatic extension of certain deadlines by stating that
-2-
compliance periods begin running at the date of that letter,
rather than the date the release is confirmed, as required under
the federal regulations. By removing the DEM's ability t~ extend
deadlines, when reasonably necessary, the proposal makes
compliance with the federal regulations, and the avoidance of
penalties, impossible.
In only two instances do the proposed regulations allow
extensions of compliance periods by the DEM. Under Subsection
(a)(6) of Section .0703, the regulations require the
owner/operator to begin free product removal within 10 days, and
allows for extensions of this time period only by approval from
the Director prior to the end of the 10 day deadline. Section
.0704 provides a similar procedure for extension of the 45 day
deadli~e for submitting the initial site characterization
report.
Regarding the initiation of free product removal deadline,
it is our position, based on experience at various sites, that it
is not always practical to begin abatement within 10 days.
Establishing cost-effective system may not be physically possible
within ten days. Design, installation and permitting often take
several weeks. The requirement, however, that an extension be
obtained before the 10 day period expires is simply
unrealistic. Even if an owner/operator was to request such an
extension immediately upon release confirmation, based on our
experience, such an extension will not likely be received by the
end of the 10 day period, particularly if it must come from the
Director of the DEM and not merely an official in a regional
-3-
office. From our experience working with the regional offices in
ongoing remediation at UST removal sites, the DEM is overburdened
with sites, causing increasingly long .delays .in staff
availability to address such extension requests. We believe it
is unrealistic to think that an extension can be obtained from
the Director of the DEM prior to the termination of the 10 day
deadline for free product abatement. Should the owner/operator
not realize his/her need for an extension until late in the 10
day period, such an extension would -be impossible~ .. Although the
45 day period for submitting the site investigation report is
certainly presents a somewhat easier case for meeting the
deadline, the deadline may nevertheless difficult to meet due to
unforeseen problems. In such instances, the owner/operator will
face the same problem of having to ask for its extension
sufficiently far enough in advance to be able to receive the
extension from the Director prior to termination of the
compliance deadline. The greater the lead time required, the
greater the difficulty in predicting problems.
Inclusion of these two references to extensions, without
others, give the impression that they are exclusive and all other
compliance deadlines are mandatory. While we assume this is not
the case, and know that reasonable extensions are now being
granted by the regional offices, the proposed regulation leaves
this issue unclear. Further, without a specific procedure for
extension requests for extension are made through different
processes and granted on different bases, dependent upon the
regional office. This leads to confusion and inequitable
-4-
administration of the regulatory program. For these reasons, we
propose, and will address more completely in our written
comments, that these two extension procedures be deleted and a
separate, generic, extension procedure be inserted in the
regulations. Inclusion of a separate extension procedure
providing for the grant of reasonable extensions informs the
owner/operator of the requirements for requesting an extension
and of the fact that they are not available except by the stated
procedure. It also relieves the DEM; and its· regional offices,
of the burden of constant questions about extensions of
deadlines, and provides them with a clear, simplified procedure
for granting extensions.
The issue of deadlines and compliance periods leads to the
second primary area of concern for Federated Mutual, which we
believe has been a sore spot for the regulated community for some
time. That is the lack of any deadlines upon the DEM for their
required actions under the proposed program. The imposition of
what we believe to be unrealistic deadlines under the new
regulations, without benefit of reasonable extensions,
underscores the problem. As many of the requirements placed on
the owner/operator are dependent upon various approvals by the
Division, it is essential that the state bind itself to some
requirement to provide the necessary review and approval within a
particular time frame. Because deadlines imposed on the
owner/operator under the regulations are mandatory, noncompliance
could potentially result in penalties to that owner/operator,
making it absolutely necessary that the DEM be under similar time
-5-
restrictions for their response. Federated Mutual intends to
propose language for such provisions in their formal written
comments.
The third area of concern for Federated Mutual is the
requirement within Section .0706 and Section .0707(b) that
investigation and corrective action for soil and groundwater
clean-ups be performed in accordance with a special order or
similar document. We believe that this provision unnecessarily
complicates the clean-up process. We are aware, and we are sure
that the DEM is aware, that there are presently a large number of
voluntary soil and groundwater remediations ongoing without
benefit of special order. In many situations, the owner/operator
voluntarily complies with the regulations, moves the
investigation and corrective action forward at a reasonable pace,
and cleans up the site to the present State requirements without
ever involving a formal order with the State. We recognize the
need, in certain instances, for the State to issue an order, for
instance, where the owner/operator refuses to perform, moves at
an unacceptably slow pace, or is otherwise unresponsive in its
performance of an investigation or remediation. To require such
an order in all instances, however, is simply not necessary.
Negotiation of a special order adds both additional time and
cost to the investigation and corrective action. For the
owner/operator, additional time will be required to negotiate the
terms of the order and there may be significant additional costs
to hire an attorney or other consultant to participate in
negotiations. Such negotiation time will also be added to the
-6-
already overwhelming burden on the regional offices, which will
still have to review and approve each investigation and
corrective action plan proposed under an order. As the DEM
already has the authority to issue a special order to mandate
investigations and clean-ups, where such is necessary, we see no
need to make the requirement mandatory in all cases. Therefore,
we recommend deletion of these provisions.
The final area of concern is the narrative goal stated
within Section .0707 for a corrective action plan. Under this
section, the owner/operator is required to submit and implement a
corrective action plan, which "provides for adequate protection
of human health and the environment as determined by the
Division."
We submit that this language gives the regulated community
little guidance in drafting corrective action plans, and,
similarly, gives the DEM little guidance for reviewing such
plans. Presently, the requirements for approval of corrective
action plans vary depending on the regional office involved and,
sometimes, the particular state -official at that regional
office. There is much opportunity for inequitable administration
of the regulations, due to the vagueness of the present wording
of this subsection. The present language is fine for a statute,
but lacks the specificity which a regulation should provide. The
owner/operator needs more specific guidance in preparing such
plans in order to avoid the potential waste of time and money in
preparing plans later judged to be inadequate. This is
particularly a concern in the face of constantly changing
-7-
technology. The regional offices need more specific guidelines
to maintain some consistency in their review of those plans, to
reduce the number of redrafts and, therefore, the staff review
~
time, and to assure adequate protection of public health and the
environment throughout the state.
We appreciate your time today and in your review of our
written comments. We invite your questions based on these
comments either today, or in the future. Thank you again.
-8-
S&
EC Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
1125 C e darhurst Drive ■ Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 ■ [phone]
April 25, 1990
Mr. Charles L. Baker
128 s. Tryon street, suite 1400
Charlotte, NC 28202
Re: Proposed Rules 15A NCAC 2 N, Underground Storage Tanks
Dear Mr. Baker:
We have reviewed the subject proposed rules. We find them to be
an exceptionally good proposed addition to the existing body of
rules which govern the installation and removal of underground
storage tanks (UST's). We understand that the EMC decided to send
them to public hearings.
However, one section of the proposed rules has us greatly con-
cerned. Section 0.803(a) (2) states that "Site assessments shall
be conducted by or under the supervision of a licensed geologist
or professional engineer". We feel that this is unjustifiably
exclusive.
There are many highly qualified professional soil scientists
currently performing site assessments and environmental audits.
Many of these qualified individuals are associated with small one
or two-person environmental consulting firms. Others are
associated with some of the state's larger consulting firms. They
have excellent credentials and experience. Section 0.803(a) (2) in
its current form would caus·e North Carolina to lose a significant
number of qualified professlonals now performing these assess-
ments. The effect of this loss will be unnecessary increases in
costs and intolerable time delays for performing those
assessments.
Therefore, we respectfully request you consider rewriting Section
0.803(a) (2) in one of the following ways:
1. "0.803(a) (2) Site assessments shall be conducted by or under
the supervision of a licensed geologist, professional
engineer or certified professional soil scientist. (Some
state regulations; land application of wastewater and sludge,
already specify that a soil scientist report be submitted as
part of permit application.)
Soil/Site Evaluation . Mapping and Physical Analysis
W et land Mappi ng ;:ind Miti gation. Environmental Audits
I
2. The Groundwater Division staff has concerns about judging
the qualifications of consultants. We recommend developing
a certification program for all persons or firms performing
site assessments. Just because an individual is a P. E., a
licensed geologist, a soil scientist, or an environmental
scientist does not, in itself, qualify an individual or a firm
to perform site assessments.
Site assessors need to understand the interrelationships of
several disciplines. Hydrology, soil science, organic chemistry,
physics, microbiology, and environmental engineering are involved
in site assessments. Therefore, we suggest setting up a
certification program. If an individual or a group of individuals
in a firm passes a certification examination, he/they should be
able to conduct such assessments.
It is not prudent to allow the property owners and/or operators of
UST's to perform their own assessments. We feel that the proposed
changes will keep the present number of qualified talent in
business to help clients to comply with the proposed rules. The
proposed regulations may allow many incompetent, unqualified
and/or biased individuals and/or firms to perform site assessments
while excluding competent qualified individuals and/or firms.
Another aspect of this issue is the fact that many qualified
soil scientists who are not licensed P. E.'s or geologists are
performing Phase I and II Environmental Assessments (audits) for
real estate transfer. Such assessments involve assessments of
potential wetlands, historical sites, archaeology, endangered
species hazardous wastes, etc. Many of these assessments involve
sites with UST's.
Nearly all banks and financial institutions in North Carolina are
requiring environmental assessments on all commercial property.
If the new rules are passed with Section 0.803(a) (2) in its
present form, many qualified soil scientists will be prevented
from performing some Phase I and Phase II Environmental Audits/
Risk Assessments. This will be unfair, environmentally unsound
and increase the cost to the consumer. It will also create
delays in commercial real estate transfers.
Soil science was one of the first to evaluate the movement and
fate of chemicals in soils and shallow ground water. It is not
logical to exclude certified soil scientists from performing
these assessments. There is no state licensing for soil
scientists in North Carolina but there is in other states. Why
North Carolina does not license soil scientists is another issue
we plan to discuss with the commission in the future. There are
1989
DIRECTORY OF PROFESSIONAL SOIL SCIENTISTS
IN NORTII CAROLINA
This directory of Soil Scientists was prepared by the North Carolina Registry of
Certified ·Professionals in Soils-a non-profit organization operated in c6operation
with the Soil Science Society of North Carolina. Certification recognizes specific
formal training. This training includes a college degree in Soil Science, Agronomy or
related field with emphasis in Soil Science usually involving at least 15 semester
hours of soil courses and a number of years experience as a practicing professional in
Soil Science. A six-member Board of Certification appointed by the Soil Science
Society of North Carolina reviews the credentials and eligibility for certification.
The following listing includes those certified professional soil scientists who
indicated their desire to be noted in a summary of this type. The last part of this
directory provides a complete list of individuals who have been certified through this
program as of 1989.
General Certification Procedure
Certification is based on scholarly preparation, knowledge, and experience.
Professionals listed on the Registry have met the educational and practical experience
standards, subscribe to the Code of Ethics, and qualify for particular identification
of special abilities.
Applicants must meet one of the following requirements to be considered for
, t ification:
a. Possess a baccalaureate degree with a major in soils, or agronomy, or a
closely allied field of science or equivalent and five years as a practicing
professional in the Area of Soil Science.
b. Possess a master's degree with a major in soils, or agronomy, or a closely
allied field of science or equivalent and three years as a practicing
professional in the Area of Soil Science.
c. Possess a doctorate degree in s9ils, or agronomy, or a closely allied field
of science and one year as a practicing professional in the Area of Soil
Science.
d. Same degree and experience requirements as above but a major in a non-allied
area with a written examination in the individual's speciality within the
field o( soils or agronomy, are required. At the discretion of the Board of
Certification, an oral examination may also be required.
In addition to the foregoing requirements each Registrant has ascribed to a Code
of Ethics that defines his or her relationship and responsibility to the public, to
employers and clients and to other professionals. The Board of Certification reviews
the credentials of each applicant and has the right to deny, revoke or suspend
certification for violations of rules, regulations or Code of Ethics established by
the Board.
Prepared by:
North Carolina Registry of
Certified Professionals in Soils
Box 7619
Raleigh, NC 27695-7619
'
North Carolina State University
Department of Soil Science
Box 7619, Raleigh 27695-7619
[phone]
d Life Sciences f Agriculture an_ & Researc h
~~~tmit~~ns10n &.(='l7 .!!!id! J!J~
May 14, 1990
M~y 17 1990
lilM/N/SlRAfllVE SEBl'ICES fC1HJ11
-...
Mr. Charles L. Baker
Chrrn., Environmental Management Commission
128 s. Tryon Street, Suite 1400
Charlotte, NC 28202
•
~~} ~~,..--,;.,. '/ '.: ; L['' !~zc ' . ff' f,_' . . . ri c;c.,. r,
-: ,VIAY 18 19.9r
GRou NDWATER s .'
RALEIGH. /,\,
Subject: Proposed Rules Concerning Underground Storage Tanks
Dear Mr. Baker:
I am providing this response to recently proposed rules on underground
storage tanks (15A NCAC 2 N). More specifically Section 0.803(a)(2)
,,
indicates that "site assessments shall be conducted by or under the supervision
of a licensed geologist or professional engineer". This restriction
on qualifications seems excessively narrow and may in fact even be inappropriate.
At the least, such a restriction overlooks a large body of knowledge
that is very relevant to an assessment of the environmental risks of
these facilities.
The issues of concern in a comprehensive site assessment are many
and encompass much more than the expertise normally associated with a
degree in geology or engineering. The formal training commonly associated
with these professions could be totally devoid of biological sciences,
organic chemistry, microbiology and certainly an understanding of the
natural soil system at the surface. The dynamic portion of the earth's
crust that is of most importance is the soil. The physical, chemical
and biological properties of this thin zone are normally not part of
the training of a geologist. This cr~cial layer is certainly different
from rock that is the main focus of geological expertise.
An engineering approach to soil evaluation is generally more of
an assessment as a construction material in the way that concrete and
steel are evaluated for strength and support. This viewpoint lacks the
insight of soil as a complex dynamic media that is subject to daily and
seasonal changes in chemistry, biology and physical character. It is
not an inert media but can in fact be dcarnatically altered by any chemicals
that it may contact.
·\'nrtl, {~nr u /;,u, -~lot ,• l -'11J1•1)r~·ifri ;~-fl /11-,,.-/_,,.,,,,.,; ... 1;,.,,~,·•I •, , .... , .. , .... ~:~ ·----~ -'---~:" ,:n ., , ... i 7'1.,. r,
••,.
Mr. Charles L. Baker
May 14, 1990
Page 2
•
As I have tried to suggest the soil system, that is of concern with
underground storage tanks, is complex. No single discipline has all
the required expertise to independently undertake such an assessment.
There is a need for input from many sources. I would suggest that a
soil scientist whose breadth of training includes considerable chemistry,
biology and physics may offer the most comprehensive blend of expertise
to conduct such an assessment. This is certainly not to suggest that
the role of geologist or engineer is diminished, but that the contribution
of soil science not be overlO?ked in this important matter.
I would, therefore, request that strong consideration be given to
the inclusion of certified soil scientists as among the qualified professionals
who can undertake or supervise the site assessments of concern in this
rule. Furthermore I would encourage greater recognition and inclusion
of the expertise of soil science in the many and varied activities of
the DEM. Thank you for your· consideration of the role our profession
can make to the citizens of North Carolina.
HJK:nbj
cc: Dr. George Everette
'
Sincerely1
a-e;cfv~
f["'J. Kleiss
Associate Professor
Teaching Coordinator
"" ,;
q tf1 :11~ ·:·, .. i1-;,:.._, -
I· /1 '~ i J '· \.; iv;-' ., r~ ~'1.1 "-' ~-,_ ~> ~ ~
!i:.':.Y l 'Z 1990 .. ~7=:· AT&T
ABtA\~lS1MWt StR'ittl~ lGt\oitt ----·----------·--------------
VIA AIRBORNE EXPRESS
Mr. George T. Everett, Director
Dept. of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
Division of Environmenta l Manage ment
5l2 N. Salisbury Street
Archdale Building
Raleigh, NC 27611
RE: Comments on Proposed Adoption of
Underground Storage Tank Regulations
Dear Mr. Everett:
One Oak Way
Be rkeley Heig hts. I\IJ 07 922-27 2 7
201 771 -2000
~ )rJ'.'~'1 p·=·"""':r ·· . .,-,.., .. _,, __ ,..._
M~
1.~ti~,t~~i\,l~i {:? l~~1.:r\·
\k '"' . ~:J .... _,.
MAY 18 1?,
Gl?0/,JNDV{ll .. ,
f).!; ,;
We have reviewed the proposed ad o ption of Title 15A,
Subchapter 2N of the North Car o l i na Administrative Code,
entitled Underground Storage Tanks and have comments regarding
Section .0301 pertaining to Performan c e Standar ds for New UST
Systems. Our concern with this section, as discusse1 below,
is that a differentiation is not made between the replacement
of active UST systems and the installation of UST systems at
facilities that did not previously have UST systems.
Proposed Section ,0301 allows existing tanks within 500 feet
of certain surface waters and o ther sources of public water
supplies to be replaced with tanks having secondary
containment. We request that this section be adopted.
The alternative to Section .0301 would be too restricttve.
It does not provide the opportunity to replace a tank located
within 500 feet of certain surface waters and sources of
public water supplies with a d o uble wall tank. As written,
this alternative would require that these existing tanks be
either removed and not replaced or upgraded, if feasible,
rather than replaced with state-of-the-art double wall
systems. If a small stream flowing to a river or reservoir
used for drinking water i s c onsidered a source of public water
supplies, this alternative secti o n could cause problems for
many tank owners and unnecessarily restrict the u s e of double
wall systems.
!
-2-
In summary, we request that Section .0301 be adopted. Also,
to avoid confusion, a definition of "source of public water
supplies" should be provided or the term should be r.~eplaced
with "public surface water intake".
Thank you for considering our comments. If personnel in the
Division of Environmental Management have any questions
regarding our comments, please have them contact Mr. Larry
Elder of my Organization (Tel. No. 201-771-6624).
Sincerely,
u @~4-¾-
. R. Durante
Corporate Environmental
Engineering Manager
~.;:~-~ ... ~:.•::~,::::•·•.<:~
t-..... 0-A )
;;..' 0 ' ~-:· . : ·J i"' [;y ~"'
PO BOX 369 • U .S HIGHWAY 19 8 23 WEST
CANDLER. NORTH CAROLINA 287 15
704/667-4536
SOUTHERN PUMP.&. T:~~~, ~3:"~.~~r.:~~-;;~::-~~-~-· ... ::.;>
DEM Groundwater Section
512 N. Salisbury Street
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Attn: Mr. Perry F. Nelson
Dear Mr. Nelson,
1f ~~~ "1''~~ I!\ ' 1\,
,~ . .
K~~-:,AA'{ , 1 ~
' ~ t.~ S(Ci\0
r..RQ\l tH:l'l~A' .1 ~F
~ay ~~.L J990 ·•'-'
We recently attended the public hearing in Asheville, NC regarding
the proposed North Carolina changes to the Federal guidelines. This
meeting was very well conducted and very b~neficial, we feel.
We were pleased with the attendance at this meeting. We feel that all
the oil jobbers in · Western North Carolina are very concerned about
the Environment. Many of our long standing customers spoke at the
hearing and we concur with them. Some of _them h~ve spent a .lot of. money
to upgrade their locations to Federal guidelines and it would seem that
this is sufficient. For the state of NC to now modify these rules would
put an undue monetary hardship on these people. -
Our customers are installing fiberglass tanks, purchasing electronic
tank and line monitoring systems, installing spill containment manholes
and incorporating other equipment into their locations to protect the
Environment. It is our opinion that the Fedeiral E.PA. regulations for
underground storage tanks, if properly enforced, are ad::quate. We
see no need for additional regulations that would supersede these
federal guidelines. Please give careful consideration to these proposed
changes and the impact it would have on a large number of people •.
Thank you very much.
/Is
Liquid Handling Specialists
Cordially,
SOUTHERN PUMP & TANK COMPANY
() .)) . w~
~.D. Whisnant
Branch Manager
..
BURNS, DAY & PRESNELL. PA.
ATTORNEYS AT LA\l.'
2616 GLENWOOD AVENUE. SUITE 560
RALEIGH . NORTH CA ROLINA 216CIB
F. KENT BURNS
JAMES M . DAY
LACY M. PRESNELL Ill
GREG L. HINSHAW
DANIEL C . HIGGINS
SUSAN F VICK
May 21, 1990
Mr. Randy Prillaman
Environmental Specialist
EHNR-DEM Ground Water Section
Post Offic~ Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
(MAILING ADDRESS) IN ~(fJ'• ;~~)r' fif.'OSf"CF.Ttl aox 1os6,
1
r.~ ; ri \:;,:-~\tJ ·. }"lA1t~h-rrTH CAROi.i NA 11605
I h\'_. ... , TELE~lJ (19) 782-1441
'-l\;'· 22 FAX (91~;111
\1A'< 1900
GROUi'!UWA1t.H SECTION
RALEIGH. NC ·
Re: Title 15A of North Carolina Administrative Code -
Disclosure of Underground Storage Trailers ("USTs'') in
Deeds
Dear Mr. Prillaman:
I am writing you on behalf of the Wake County Real Property
Lawyers Association. I wish to express the Association's
opposition to the requirement in subchapter (d) of Section .0101
of Subchapter 2N of Chapter 2 of proposed Title 15A, which would
require disclosure of the presence and location of all UST
systems upon any deed transferring property.
Our primary objection is to the use of the deed as a
disclosure and regulatory instrument, as opposed to its use as
means of conveying title. We have serious reservations about the
impact such disclosures may have on the title conveyed, which is
the sole purpose of a deed. USTs are a regulatory matter, and
not a title matter. If we allow deeds to be used as a disclosure
mechanism for UST systems, deeds may eventually be improperly
used for any number of regulatory disclosure requirements.
We also believe such disclosure is repetitive and thus
unnecessary. Federal laws and regulations already require such
disclosure with the appropriate state agency (Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 USC Section 6991).
-~
Page 2
Thank you for attention to our concerns.
100, 1 52190
cc: Mr. B. Davis Horne
David R. Dorton
Laura K. Howell
Wake County Real Property Lawyers
Association
~'-, /.?· '•'>. '-<. _...,.<-;-, .... , .. ·:~ .... ...., ., ' ~-'~~~ ,.._(, .. ,. ,. . . .,, ,,
,.___ ... ·. ·' ,
-~-'?" '·:' f/
. ··'$: ,_~~ .... _/ ~ ~~ '\'-')~ /?'" ~~¾~~;_._,.
~~,:
~:
~' ~<.r\.J ,'0'-.· :;i.__ '-:, V
' -.. v' ~"' _,,:-,._, ,'I.. ..__,.
-~~ r .,•·' -:~) <.._.'-.'-> ~'0' .. -....--'>~-.;, ~i"
Dear Mr. Prillaman:
June 11, 1990
I am a licensed geologist with Southeastern Geological in Shelby,
N.C. After reviewing the proposed UST regulations and attending
the Asheville and Raleigh public hearings, I want to put on
record the following comments on tank closure, monitor well
installation, pricing, and enforcement.
Tank Closure:
Jobbers and contractors were opposed to requiring professionals
to perform a closure assessment, but from my experience I believe
this is necessary. At .tank closures I have been offered bribes
to only take samples from clean areas, which I would never do
because of my personal and professional integrity. Professionals
of lesser integrity may refrain from bribes because if caught
their professional license would be revoked and the geologist
or engineer would be completely out of business. Much was said
of licensing contractors for sampling but I do not believe the
State could have this much control over them, probably at most
the sampling license would be revoked and the remainder of the
the business would be intact. Due to potential environmental
cost an atmosphere for unethical practices exist, therefore
the State needs the type of control over the "disinterested
third party" that it has over professionals through the
professional licensing boards.
Monitor Well Installation:
A geologist should be the only individual allowed to install
wells for leak detection. A geologist is most qualified to
determine if the soil is suitable for vapor migration and if
the yearly water table is within twenty feet. Also the problem
discussed above applies here as there can be pressure to install
wells under inappropriate conditions.
Pricing:
The jobbers are against expanding the professionals roles because
they claim the cost will be too high, but I believe prices will
come down in the future. As other geologist are doing, I left
an environmental firm and started my own business because of
the potential in this field. As the number of environmental
firms increases the increased competition will bring prices
down. Already, there are firms like mine doing professional
work for reasonable rates. The jobbers want to allow contractors
to perform closure assessments and install monitor wells because
they believe their cost will be less. I do not believe the price
difference would be that great because the contractors would
soon realize they have a captive market. ·
Enforcement:
My grandfather,_ uncle, and father were Texaco oil jobbers so
I real~ze that ultimately the environmental cost will be paid
for at the pump. A problem the jobbers face is that without
strict enforcement their cost cannot be passed on and they cannot
compete with stations that have an illegal advantage.
Regards,
17 I / 1 , ;/ ~,/ /ui/2?001 Y /\u7
Richard Y. Kelly
CP&L
Carolina Power & Light Company
JUN I I 1900
SERIAL NO.:
-· 1·~r.<i~\~
;_ '·.,. y ,· s. . \\_ '_J '~ ~>· . . . ,.;\s,
-.._),"i:# ~
·-'-; ,..,\'-. .' , . . .. n<.'h
\)F" ·i Mr. Randy Prillaman
~·· $\)\\ \\i t\ti.l N.C. Division of Environmental Management
Groundwater Section . ,,.1\',\ \,\ ~
.. 'h\\}'I' ~n) P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
t;_i\J\) \'i~\.\.\
RE: COMMENTS ON PROPOSED UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK RULES
Dear Mr. Prillaman:
Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) has reviewed the proposed
underground storage tank (UST) regulations codified under Title 15A,
Subchapt,er 2N of the North Carolina Administrative Code and would like to
offer a few comments that we believe would make them more workable for the
regulated community. We understand and appreciate the difficulty involved in
developing these regulations; therefore, we hope our suggestions will assist
you with this effort. CP&L has always and will continue in the future to
support sound UST regulations designed to protect the valuable ground water
resources of our state.
Comments on ProEosed Regulation
Pro2osed: Alternative to .0301 -Performance Standards For New UST Systems
(b) No UST system shall be installed:
(1) within 500 feet of a well serving a public
water system, as defined in 10 NCAC .0702, or
within 50 feet of any other well supplying
water for human consumption; or
(2) within 500 feet of any surface water
classified as WS-I, WS-II, WS-III, SA or ORW,
as defined in 15 NCAC 2B.0200, or any other
source of public water supplies.
(c) All UST systems must meet the release detection
requirements of Rule .0503 .
Comment: CP&L believes that the proposed alternative for Rule
• 0301 should not be adoEted.
In part (b) of the proposed alternative for Rule .0301,
the prohibition on installing UST systems within 500 feet
of wells serving public water systems or certain
411 ~ayetteville Street• P O Box 1551 • Ral P.1gn N C 27 60 2
~tri.:i~,·11;,..-;: . .;.~f.s; z--:;.•:.~•:.~.~. ,;;-.: ... ':; ff~ .:.-t \.. .~-.:.~~ ; :r7. .~~-~--::: :;: r !-.~: ;-:;-;?·:~;· _ .. :
-2-
specified surface waters is too stringent, considering
the new EPA requirements now for all new UST systems to
be protected from corrosion and to have leak dection and
overfill and spill prevention devices. If a 500-foot
exclusion zone were included in the rules, many UST
system owners would be unable to upgrade their existing
systems with new tanks and piping, simply because their
lot size may be too small. CP&L therefore believes that
the originally proposed 100-foot exclusion zone is more
appropriate.
CP&L further believes that part (c) of the proposed
alternative for Rule .0301, which would require all
petroleum UST systems to have secondary containment or
double-walled systems, is overly stringent and
unnecessary. We believe the performance standards
currently required by EPA in 40 CFR 280.41 for petroleum
UST systems will provide sufficient protection to the
ground water and should be adopted by reference.
Proposed: Alternative to .0502 -Re quirements fo~ Petroleull!JJST Systems
(b) All petroleum UST systems shall also comply with the
"Requirements for hazardous substance UST systems"
provisions contained in 40 CFR 280.42 (Subpart D).
Comment: CP&L believes, for the same reasons stated in the above
comments for Rule .0301, that the proposed alternative
~or Rule .0502(b) should not be adopted. CP&L believes
it is unnecessary to require all petroleum UST systems to
comply with the hazardous substance UST system provisions
contained in 40 CFR 280.42.
Proposed: Alternative To .0503 -Requirements For Hazardous Substanc~ UST Systems
The "Requirements for hazardous substance UST systems"
provisions contained in 40 CFR 280.42 (Subpart D) have
been adopted by reference in accordance with G.S. 150B-
14(c), except that the requirements shall also apply to
petroleum UST systems as designated at Rule .0301(c).
Comment: CP&L believes, for the same reasons stated in the above
comments for .0301, that the proposed alternative for
Rule .0503 should not be adoEted.
-3-
Again, CP&L appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
proposed rules. We submit these comments with the sincere hope
that our suggestions will make the rules more workable for the
regulated community while at the same time providing the necessary
protection to the ground water.
CKR:dcs (-COM000461)
Yours very truly,
/2~d'~
G. J. Oliver, Ph.D
Manager
Environmental Services
TI 6 BR IDGEPORT C H E M ICA L C O RPORATION
in
CD .,
N
cli
I
in a
t!
~ •
3
' I ...
N
"' g
e
• g ...
"' I g; ...
in a
!:! •
~
11 g
ii:
~
% u
:li m
0
I
~
i •
Ill
:I z
!: -a
-5
in
&ai z a z;
N
June 12, 1990
Mr. Perry Nelson
North Carolina Dept. of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 N. Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27611
Re: Underground Storage Tanks
Dear Mr. Nelson:
My name is Paul Meli, Bridgeport Chemical Corporation. I
represent over 30 tank lining companies throughout the U.S. who
are upgrading petroleum underground storage tanks (USTs) per the
federal EPA and local state environmental regulations.
I appreciated the opportunity afforded me at your public hearings
in Asheville to address the proposed rules ·l5A NCAC2N -
Underground Storage Tanks. The tank lining industry compliments
the Division's adoption, by reference, of a substantial part of
the federal UST regulations. Bridgeport Chemical Corporation
wishes to express its compliments to the professional and
understanding attitude by Staff.
At that time some aspects of the proposed rules that deeply
concerned us as a result of some confusion with pertinent parts
of the rules appeared to be clarified at this meeting. However,
it was suggested that a written commentary be submitted.
Page 13, paragraph .0301 contains a contradictory statement which
needs to be addressed. Sub par. (b) (1) states that no UST
systems shall be installed within 50 feet of any well supplying
water for human consumption, while par (c) (1) states that a
system meeting. rule .0503 requirements is required within 50
feet of any other well supplying water for human consumption.
The proposed rule should clarify this apparent contradiction.
In reference to paragraph .0301 page 13, the Division is
proposing double walled or containment UST systems if the systems
are within 50 feet as well as serving a public water system or
within 50 feet of any other well supplying water for human
consumption.
This proposed rule will cause hardships to some small individual
1.,\~il.~ ~D_l.l fftat,
\"° .,,,, f)'O t(~l 1A$~ ;
2\ARMO R .....,
'o.fl' "~-~ ~---<._,.,,t::1
( no ........ n .. r.lj -'1-
Page Two
service stations or installations.
Page 13, paragraph .0301, Alternate to proposed .0301, contains
the same contradiction as described above for .0301 (standard),
and clarification should be made.
Page 14, paragraph .0301 Alternate to proposed .0301. sub par.
(c) calls for leak detection requirements of Rule .0503 page
(31). Rule .0503 is described on page 31 as the "Requirements
for Hazardous Substance UST Systems, and par. 0503 is followed by
par. 0503. Alternative which states "that the requirements shall
also apply to petroleum UST systems as designated at Rule .0301
(c). These references are not clear. This indicates that
adoption of the Alternative mandates the same requirements for
petroleum UST systems.
At the Asheville public hearings it was clarified by Staff that
the statement on page 32 under Alternative to proposed .0503
"except that the requirements shall also apply to petroleum UST
systems as designated at Rule .0301 (c) does not apply to
existing petroleum UST systems. This should be clarified in the
Rules.
Presently, across the nation petroleum UST owners are upgrading
per the Federal EPA Part 280 Technical Standards of UST
regulations on a daily basis. As an incentive to upgrade as
quickly as possible and achieve compliance, the Federal EPA
provided options for upgrading the first option is the interior
lining of USTs.
The interior lining provides an internal barrier within the shell
of an existing tank thereby preventing releases to the
environment. In the preamble of the Federal EPA Regulations, it
stated the highly successful history of i~ternal linings as
independent Federal EPA hired contractors reported that over
300,000 petroleum USTs as well as over 70,000 motor fuel USTs had
a success rate with only 0.5%. This success rate was for over a
period of thirty years. The tank lining installers guarantee
their work for 10 years and at a cost of 1/3 of that of tank
replacement. These tanks are ultrasonically tested and inspected
prior to lining and precision tested prior to replacing the tanks
back into service.
The approximate cost of replacing four 10,000 gallon tanks
exceeds $60,000 whereas lining costs approximately $20,000.
Bridgeport Chemical Corporation believes that the Federal EPA
Technical Standards of the UST Regulations are totally adequate
for storage tanks and piping because they are based on long term
investigation, as well as present and new technologies not the
-. '
Page Three
old or untested.
The tank lining industry requests that paragraph .0503
Alternatives be removed from further consideration.
Very truly yours,
?~T m~
Paul I. Meli, Jr.
Executive Vice President
mdh
A rnold Jones Oil and H eating Co., Inc.
.June 12, 1990
Mr. Randy Prillaman
GW Section
1iiir
YOUCAHDEftJIQDHIT
3516 KIVETT DRIVE
HIGH POINT, N.C. 27260
Division Environmental Management
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resourses
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Prillaman,
I testified at Your May 7 hearing concerning the new Underground
Storage Tanks law. The present uncertainness, misinformation, and
creation of unscrupulous .people and companies in the business of tank
removal is ridiculous. · .·• ·
The intent.of the new law to put the responsibility in the hands of
engineers and hydrogist is proving daily that they cannot be
trusted in our chicken houses.
Two cases in point are Quida Kent of High Point (919-886-4773) and
Phil Snyder (McAmps Muffler) in Greensboro (919-273-5851). Please
find enclosed a report from Mrs. Kent and the many people who have
either misinformed her from a supposeqly responsible job or ripped her
off from similar positions. To date 'she is out of $36,000.
The simplest method (if this would be acceptable) would be to give the
authority to the local fire marsh.all and or health departments.
The many very reputable companies who have been doing tank work tor
many years are seemingly being over looked for new unexperienced,
maybe opportune oriented companies, and certainly wi .thout the
expertise (and honesty) of the existing companies.
A point to always remember is that there is always a reasonable and
good method for anything after the hysteria subsides.
Thank You.
Arnold L. Jones, President
Arnold Jones Oil & Heating Co., Inc.
ALJ/dw
Enclosure
...•• ~ ••••• v ......... ,.; .. w..u n:,g"Ul;JLJ.UJ!S
1 Aquaterra, a Raleigh company, con-
du_cted tests; and Four Seasons test-
ed, ·.~emoved soil and removed all
eight' tanks from the property.
· : st:ite officiais also notified Chev-
ron :Y .s.A. of the violations. Under
EPkregulations, tanks put out of
servj}e before 1984 are considered
the l_'esponsibility of ·the laat owner
who:actually UBed the tank system.
-IQ"Kent'e case, that owner was .f~~-w~ch Chevron bought Ul -__
·; · Bi/t in nearly l ½ years of negoti'.
:::tintKent an<i Chevron have not
bee .able to come to an agreement
abo ' who will be responsible for
viha · . ·
:•.A · rneYB have suggested more
tha1fonce that _ Kent sue. Chevron.
She 'says no. .
: ,. "!""-don't want to sue," Kent said,..
"It · seems like everything _ I -d9
ca~sies me more trouble." .
• ~g said state ofliciais notiiit:d
Cheyron in April that the company
_ conu.nues to violate environmental
re~tions, Chevron representa-
tive . haye responded orally, telling
him I e company would remove the
con · ted soil th3t remains piled
on e propeity _by the end of June,
. · \ll'I& Gengo, a Raleigh lawyer
rep esenting Chevron-; would 'not ·
.co ent on the case without per-
mi ion· fro1i:i-the. oil ·company;: But
Bo Sheahan,-a. Higl) Point, lawyer
no representing Kent, said he-has
bee told the remaining cleanup of
con niinated soil will-cost ·about
$1C>q,OOO, He and Kent say they are
~ l~v ~::_ere ia any _additional l:nndili'lilila
. ---~-_.,,.
\ vmg one storage tank, when-no
. ,~-.-s wide; the average'·coai-ror :.
soil or water ia . C011tarninat.ed . ii!
$1, , according to Debbie en:ne, -. ;_
spo woman for the ·N.C. Division,
of En'(ironmental ~ent, ·
· · Removing three or four tanks
from a gas station with minor soil
contamination costs from $6,000 to
$8,000, she said. No average costs
are -.available -.for ·tank _-removals
when · more .contamination· is p~
sent, because .casei, vary, Crane
said.t-. ., ;
Kent doesn't want to spend any I
more money. : _ · _ -·. :I~~ to· do ~t's right," she
11a1d:-J:>ut I am getting BCJ"eWdli." .
,.Meanwhile,-the bilh! pile up:•from ·
Fout'~ns and Aquaterra, from
attorneys.-•from a consultant . Kent
hired~ help her:w&<!e _through_~
conitlsion. -·· · -" · · · · · -·' · · • ·,
-So~e of the '.hirings may. have .'
been unnecesaar,y. Raring, the state
offi~ in W111Ston-Salem,·sa,ys peo-·
pie fho find _ that _t,hey)l!lve under-·_
grou_hd · storage tanks should call
statiground-water officials (report-
ing ~ req_uired; anyway) before do--
ing ~-·State workers can ·te11
them· what needs , to be · done, he
said.;-
, -~ also urges patience. Some '
tank.,ownera may be _sble,to get fi-
~ help from state · or federal
.tru.st''funds, he said. --_--
· Ar.federal trust fund provides
money for investigation and cleanup
whe9 officials know who is responsi-
ble.;· abandoned storage ~ ~ut_
.. ·cann t find the person, Ranng 11a1d.
A -s te · tru8t provides money for
remO'Ving non-commercial tankll,
such '~ heating-oil tanks, when the
peop ¢ responsible for the tank can-
not :: found or cannot pay. The
state; fund kicks in for · commercial ·
tankJ . 00P.rator11 aft:-",. t.hey h~Y~
speni_ $50,000 !or tank removal ~d.
cleanup, and it will pay up _to $1 mil•
lion; he said. ·
· -"You don't need to rush into it,"
Ra.ring-said. "We're always ·pleased
wheri people are willing to pay the
few thousand dollars required. to
abandon (dispose of properly) tanks,
hut·we would never expect anyone
... ..
June 12, 1990 Ii. @1~~~v7~1 ~,)!~~l\ \ l lf.\ \ i . ···~\ i ~
J\}~.14 1900
North Carolina Department of Environmental Management
Chief Perry Nelson
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
G R.0\J NDWf\ 1ER SEC1\0N
Rfi..L£.\G\-\. NC
Subject: Environmental Protection Agency, Chevron Oil, Lawyers,
and "Environmental Experts"
Dear Chief Nelson,
In January 1988, I received letters from the High Point Fire Depart-
ment and Guilford County Health Department that 1 had to remove
tanks from my property at 1420 English Road within 90 days or face
fines and/or penalties. I was never given any instructions or
advice from any government agency on where .to go or who to see
~o get this done properly. In my efforts to .abide by the EPA
h les, I am, to date, almost $36,000 in debt and can forsee pos-
sible future debt. I have spent approximately $30~000 just in
clean up efforts and still the dirt is piled high on my property.
I have hired attorneys who only took my money and made no progress.
I have had so called "environmental consultants" and "experts"
work on it, and all they did was send me bills.
Finally, in May of this year, I ran out of money and patience.
The final blow came when I picked up the High Point Enterprise and
read an article (enclosed) that the paper could not locate the
owner of this property in order to get som_eone to clean up the
mounds of dirt, weeds and trash. The article stated that they had
called city officials, tax department, and environmental agencies
and no one knew who the owner was. I found this-strange since I
pay taxes every year -the bill comes to me, and, I had in my
hand a $540 bill from an "environmental consultant" where, in
April, he stated that he had notified the city, county, and state
of the continuation of this project. For this and reviewing
previous documentation, he had charged me $100/hour for 5.4 hours -
yet no one knew who owned the property. This bill was just more
in a string of rip offs. One more "environmental expert", who
is taking advantage of the unknowing, who are being forced by the
government to comply with their environmental regulations.
r desperation, I released all attorneys and "experts" and sought
,-,elp from the press. In the Greensboro News and Record (enclosed),
Andrew Raring (EPA) stated that there was a fund set up to assist
people in my position. I was never told this by any attorney or
"environmental expert". When I called Mr. Raring to get th e papers
t o fill o ut in order t o ge t my mo n e y back, he said that I d i dn't
• '
L·
qualify because I took my tanks up too soon. If I had waited until
June of 1988, I would have qualified. My letters from the fire
department stated the tanks had to be removed by April 1988 or
face fines and/or penalties. By complying with their demand~i I
no longer qualified for the fund. When I questioned him on this,
he had no answer. He suggesied that I try to get my money back
from Chevron. Then suddenly his phone started ringing and he said
he needed to catch it. End of conversation.
I have had a two year nightmare. My property has been tested by
Four Seasons in.Greensboro, Aquatera in Raleigh, owned by Four
Seasons, and Westinghouse, hired by Chevron. It is presently full
of holes and testing wells, and the testing goes on.
I seem to have no control -I feel like a rabbit who was resting
quietly in his briar patch. The EPA came along and told him
thatthe briars weren't good for his health and he must move out.
He had no choice and didn't know where to go, but the EPA ran
him out for the sake of his health. Waiting for him to come out,
was a pack of dogs. They gobbled him ~p. These dogs are getting
fatter and fatter and our government is helping them. We (the
rabbits) have guidelines to abide by, but the dogs (lawyers and
"pvironmental experts'') are flying high at out expense.
Si:n ly, 1/ (j/~t ~/
Ouida C K · ent
P02
1 2 P !vl :+·CROWN BALTIMORE -------2. 9 0 04
~ ~ Crown Central Petroleum Corporation
Refiners / marketers of petroleum products & petrochemicals
One North Charles Street • P.O. Box 1168 • Baltimore, Maryland 21203 • [phone]
Mr. Perry Nelson
Chief of Ground Water Section
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Diviaion of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street
8th Floor
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr . Nelson:
June 12, 1990
Crown Central Petroleum Corporation, an independent refiner and marketer of
petroleum products, operates 189 retail facilities in North Carolina included
C~own multi•pUl!lp gasoline stations and convenience stores under the brand
names of Crown and Fast Fare.
Thank you for allowing us to comment on the proposed rule5 for underground
storage tanks. WE--balie.v,, ;;hat th0 e:.d.sting fed~n:.!,_'l regv.1i;.tior,s ,i ·•;
sufficiE\nt and provide _ th.a_ n.eces~ary sa.f_a guard.;; for unf..1=,rgro·,;.nd st ;~T ;,_s ,~ ~«nk"
and that socondary containment is an unnece$ea.:i:y expense that wi11 co s:: ~"'.·,!_r
$1 billion to implement, These ·proposed regulations will force many of the
10,000 gasoline retailers in North Carolina out of business because they can
not afford to pay the exorbitant costs as required for secondary containment.
The Environmental Protection Agency has extensively studied underground
storage tanks ,uid has cor1cluded that tiecondary contaimnent 1.s not neadeJ. ~e
belhve that properly installed single-walled fiberglass tanks offer
reaeona.ble and sufff.cient leak protect.ion.
Estimates obtained by Crown for your proposed regulations for installing
double~walled tanks would cost near 1 y $153,000 for each of the 189 stations
owned by Cro"1n, This nearly $30 million price tag is too great a cost burden
t _o bear. If the costs of secondary containment are passed along to consumers,
gasoline prices in North Carolina would skyrocket,
We urge the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management to take a more
sensible and less costly approach to the proposed rules for underground
storage tanks and comply with the federal regulations for single-walled
fiberglau t:anka and lines; Thank you for your con111iderat:f.on of this matter .
cc: Representative Don Beard
st~r•. 1
£. Thomas Lat~
Director
Corporate Relations
~D r,
~ ' 5M\.AZ ,Ai;:-v n '° J J ;e__ 11 tdoJ -
r=\ ~ Crown Central Petroleum Corporation
Refiners / marketers of petrol e um products & petrochemical s
One North Charles Street• P .O . Box 1168 • Baltimore , Maryland 21203 • [phone]
June 5, 1990
Mr. Randy Prillaman
Environment Specialist
EHNR-DEM
Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
1145 -E EXEC UTIVE CI RCLE
~
27511 . .. :~ ,. l ~.1~1. 11Sfifi} /lj \\· · . , · II
~
<,.,o;·• . -,. ___ ~: •
-' t : I . ..,,.,
JUN 7 1990
tGROUNDWA U:.R SECTIO~"
RALEIGH, NC
RE: Proposed State Underground Storage Tank Regulations
Dear Mr. Prillaman:
This letter is to comment on the proposed state underground storage
tank regulations.
Two sections of the proposed regulations are especially troubling.
First, the requirement in alternative Rule .030l{c) that all
underground storage tank systems have double-walled tanks or
secondary containment by December 1998 could be financially
disastrous for tank owners and operators.
Alternative Rule .0J0l{c) could require existing tanks to be pulled
out of the ground (even if they had been recently upgraded pursuant
to the 1988 federal regulations) and replaced with double-walled
tanks or secondary containment. This could cost up to $100,000 per
site.
The existing federal regulations that require all existing tanks
to be upgraded or replaced by December 1998 are sufficient to
protect the environment. As a result, I ask that the Environmental
Management Commission reject alternative Rule .0J0l(c) and adopt
the federal standards for new and existing underground storage tank
systems without addition of the state requirement of secondary
containment or double-walled tanks.
In the alternative, if Rule .030l{c) is adopted, it should be
rewritten to indicate clearly that secondary containment or double-
walled tanks are required only for new petroleum underground
storage tank systems that are with certain distances of water
supplies as discuss e d in the regulations.
► •
June 5, 1990
Page 2
The second set of regulations that concerns us is Rules .0504(e)
and 0803 ( 2) • These rules require that vapor and gr6undwater
monitoring and site assessments at closure or change-in-service be
done by or under the supervision of a "licensed geologist" or
"professional engineer." This requirement will impose a financial
burden on tank owners and operators with little, if any,
environmental benefit. In addition, use of these professionals
will be a special burden on tank owners and operators in rural
areas since most of the licensed geologists and professional
engineers are in urban areas. The Commission might consider state
licensing of installer-contractors as a method to ensure
accountability in case of a leak. This could provide assurance the
installer-contractors are qualified and would be accountable since
their licenses could be revoked if they submitted false results.
Given that use of licensed geologists and professional engineers
is unnecessary, the state regulations should simply state that the
person or company doing this work must be qualified by federal law
to do so.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
t!ft{a<v-::;?-
R. Evans
Central Division Manager
JRE/hc
~~~ ~ rc;c~~~~
Clonsu//i"ry and ~a!f 6ca/ C?/Gnu:S/s
Main Office
1711 Castle Street
P.O. Box 629
Wilmington, N.C. 28402
ESTABLISHED 1903
Department of Environmental Health & Natural Resources
RANDY PRILLAMAN · .-
4 l 2 N. Salisbury
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Ref: Proposed Rules ISA NCAC2N
Underground Storage Tanks
919-762-7082 919-762-8956
FAX [phone]
June 12, 1990
l ---ID~~rt:J (JJ\v/'J,.:t'11,1n
I Cj \:,_, ,, , . '""" t-'I' 1/ !f\l ___ ~ ~-~-~_1 _Ji_• iJu --1 .. ;•
;, .· jLJN 13 1390 -,.~,~
-T) NiJWATER SECT! 0 l'1
Dear Sir, ':_\! E!GH. W::
Lhave reviewed these proposed rules and attended two public hearings concerning
them, one in Raleigh on May 7th and New Bern on May 14th. While these rules substant-
ially follow the Federal standards there are some additions that I feel certain took
much thought and consideration to make.
I appreciate the time and effort that was put into this draft and wish to thank
all parties involv~d. However, there is one regulation that I feel should be recon-
sidered. Section 0.803 (a)(2) states that ''Site assessments shall be conducted by or
under the supervision of a licensed geologist or professional engineer". If adopted
this rule will restrict these assessments to only such stated persons and exclude this
practive to all others who although are experienced and competent do not hold a profes-
sional license.
I know my fellings are shared by a number of concerned parties who spoke at the
public hearings. But to say this rule is unfair is not enough. An alternative solution
must be found.
I suggest a good alternative would be a certification program for "Site assessemnt"
that would be both comprehensive and informative. This course should include no less
than 16 hours of classroom followed by a final examination. Sucessful completion of
the course and a passing grade on the exam would then qualify an individual to be
certified for such "Site assessment".
This training course could be given by a private firm such as L.A. Weaver and
Company, with appropiate tuition charged. Drafting this course should hopefully not
create any additional burden to the State.
A solution like the one I have suggested would allow this practice of "Site
assessment" to all individuals who qualify, rather than only a selected group.
.Gt~cere~
~ Bidwan
MAUPIN TAYLOR ELLIS & ADAMS, PA.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
.ARMIST[ ... 0 J . MAVPI N
WILLIAM W . TATLOR , JR.
THOMAS F. CLLIS
THOMAS F'. AOAMS. JR.
Cl-tAALES 8 , NEELY, .JR •
THOMAS W. '""· ALEXANDER
ROBERT A. VALOIS
JA"4£S E GA1 ES
AMOS C . 0AW50N, m
STEVCN M . RU DISILL
LISA E. 8CNNC1'T
GILBERT C LAITE, W
RONALD A. ROG,ER5
JACK W . MARI"'
.3201 GLENWOOD AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2 7612·5008
TELEPHONE (919• 781-6800
.J0t,1N T. WILLIAMSON
P:-RANK P . WARO , JR.
ALBERT R. SELL, .IA.
RICHARD M , LC.WIS
NANCY S . RENDLEMAN
A. ST£PttCH CAMP
MARGIE T . CASC
M. l<EITH KAPP
MARK 5. THOMAS
DAVID R . DORTON
HUGH R. OV[RHOL T
OAvtO M. Bl.ANO
STEVEN 0. SI MPSON
JOHN C. COOKE
Tl-lOMAS A . FARR
HOLMES P . Hjl,,ROEN
JA.MES A. ROBERTS . m
0 . ROYCE POWELL
JOHN C. MII.LBCRG
WILLIAM 8. GWYN, JR.
SCOTT A . WILSON
STEPMCN T . Y[LVERTO"'
TIMOTHY 5. AlOJ:fO,._N
JOSEPH M. LISC1-tWC
SHARON L. MARTMAN
ELIZABETH DAVENPORT 5COTI
JACK S . HOLMCS
R CU BEN G . Cl.ARfli, ID
ROONEY 0 . LOHMAN
ROBERT A . COMCN
DANIEL K . BRYSON
GRETCt1CN W . (WALT
.JOHN T. MAJTCSON
WINSTON L . P .. VC, JR.
ROBCRT L. WllSON, .JR.
.JESSICA BAGG
.JOHN H. eENNCTT
F"RANK .J. GOROON
MICHAEL C. LORO
WILLIAM .J . BA I AN. JR.
GLENN E. GRAT
MICHAEL 5. SWINDELL•
FRANK H. SHEF"F°IELO. JR.
JOHN 0. !JEAAO
-'0""1TYl[0 0NLT IN 50UT .. CAROi.i NA•
BY HAND DELIVERY
June 13, 1990
Environmental Specialist Mr. Randy Prillaman,
Department of Environment,
Natural Resources
Division of Environmental
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Prillaman:
Health and
Management
27611
MAILING ADDRESS
POST 0F f"ICE DRAWER 19764
RALEIGH. NORTH CA~OLINA 2 7619-9764
TELE F AX 19191 782 -B788
WASHINGTON OFFICE
1130 CONNECTICUT AVENUE. N.W .. SUITE 750
WASHING.JON. 0 . C . .20036-390-4
TELEi:-Ax t2021 4S?·SSSS
TELEPHONE [phone]
ROCK HILL QF'",-ICE
ZOO OAKLAND AVENUE, SUITE 200
ROCK HILL . SOUTH CAROLrNA 29730·40ZZ
TELEFAX 18031 3,24-2093
TEL(PHON E t8031 324-B 11 B
MAILING AOCRESS
POST OFFICE BOX 10880
ROCK HILL, SOUTH CAROLINA Z9731·0BBO
WRITER 'S DIRECT OlAL NUMBER
881-4062
Enclosed
regarding the
please find
proposed
the Comments of
underground storage
Robert Alan Cohen
tank regulations.
Very truly yours,
Nd-~ &I-
Robert Alan Cohen
Enclosure
cc: Peter Rascoe, Esq. (w/encl.)
AR"'IISTCAD J. MAUPIN
WI\.LIAM W. TAYLOR • .JR .
THOMAS f", CLLIS
THOMAS f". ADAMS, J R .
CH .. ALES B . NECLf • .JR.
THOMAS W . H . ALEXANO C R
ROBERT A . VALOIS
JOHN T. WILLIAMSON
f"AANK P. WARO, JR.
ALOCRT A. 8£LL, JR.
RICHA.RO M. LEWIS
NANCY S. RENDLEMAN
A . STCPHCN CAMP
MARGIE T . CASE
M . ",£HH KAPP
MARKS. THOMAS
OAVIO R. DORTON
HVGH R. OVERHOLT
DAVID M. BLAND
STEVEN 0. SIMPSON
JOMN C. COOKE
THOMAS A. f"AAR
H OLMES P. HARDEN
JAM CS A . ROBERTS, m
0 . ROrCE POWELL
.JO"N C, M1l\.B£AG
WILLIAM B. GW'l"N, JR.
SCOTT A. WILSON
MAUPIN TAYLOR ELLIS & ADAMS. PA.
.JAMES E. GATE S
A.MOS C. DAWSON , m
sn::vEN M . RUD 151Ll
L I SA E , 8CNN (tl
G t LBCAT C . LA l'rE . ID
RONALD A . ROGCAS
J"'°CI( W MAR I N
STCPHEN T. TCLV[AT Q l'II
TIMOTHY 5. Rl0R04N
JOSEPH M . LISC HW£
5"1AR0N \.. HARTMAN
ELIZABETH DAVENPORT SCOTT
JACK 5 . HOlM.ES
R E UBEN G . CLARK, m
R00NET 0. 1.0NMAN
ROBCRT A . CONCN
OANICI. K. 8AT'50N
GRETC•1EN W . CWA1,,T
JOHN T MATTESON
WINSTON L. PAG[, .IA .
ROBERT l. WI LSON , J R .
JESSICA BAGG
JOHN N . 8[NNETT
f RANfl. J . GOROO N
M ICHAEL C . 1.0AO
WILLIAM J . BRIAN. JR .
GLENN E. GRAT
MICHAEL 5. SW•NOCLL'
SME:FF"lfLO. JR .
Ar rQ RNEYS AT L AW
3201 GL E NWOOD AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2 76 1 2-500B
TEL E P H ON E (919 1 78 1 ·6800
MAILING ADDRESS
PO ST OFFICE DRAWER 19764
RALEI G M . NORTH CAROLINA 2 7619-9764
T ELE FAX !9191 7B2 ·8788
WASHING TON OFFICE
11JQ C O NNECTICUT AVENUE , N.W., SUITE 750
W A SHINGTON, 0. C . 20036-.3904
TELEFAX 12021 4 5 7·8S58
TELEPHONE t 202 I 429 ·89 I 0
ROCK HI LL OF"FICE
200 OAKLAND AVE:NUE, SUITE ZOO
ROCK H I LL. SOUTH CAROLINA 29730·4022
TELEFAX 18031 324·2093
TELEPHONE [phone]·8118
MAILING ADDRESS
POS T OFFICE BOX 10880
ROCK HII.L, SOUTH CAROLINA i:'9731·0880
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
J O HN 0 . BCARO
A.OM<TTC:O ON ... , ,N sou~ .. CAROl.lN.0.0
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
PROPOSED UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK. REGULATIONS
15A NCAC 2N
Submit te d b y
Robert Alan Cohen, Esq.
I am an attorney in Raleigh; North Carolina with the law
firm of Maupin Taylor Ellis & Adams. My practice principally is
comprised of environmental regulatory and counseling matters and
environmental litigation. I have been called upon to advise
clients concerning underground storage tanks on numerous
occasions. I am submitting these comments in my capacity as a
private citizen.
Proposed Regulation 15 NCAC 2N .OlOl(d) provides that "land
owners shall ensure that the presence and location of all UST
systems" are recorded on deeds at the time of transfer. The
concerns expressed herein arise from the impact of this proposed
regulation, which on its face appears to present only real
property issues, on environmental liabilities of individuals and
business.
The Prop osed Re g ulation Unnecessaril y Enlar g es the Class of
Res p onsible Persons. Since 1980, landowners have become
increasingly liable for environmental contamination of their
property. The chief statute imposing such liability is the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act ( 11 CERCLA 11 }, 42 USC 9601 et §3• CERCLA and case law
interpreting it regulate certain landowners in their capacity as
such. In the wake of CERCLA, individual and business lan_downers
justifiably are concerned as to the nature and extent of other
environmental laws affecting ownership of land.
The UST regulations, both federal and state, appear to
regulate only "owners and operators" of USTs and UST systems.
The terms "owneru and "operator" are defined, and thereby give
notice to persons and entities falling within such definitions of
the conduct which is expected of them. While some owners of land
on which USTs are located may well be either or both the UST
"owner 11 or "operator" under UST law, such will not always be the
case. It is not at all uncommon for the landowner to be neither
the "ownern nor the "operator" of a UST on his or her land,
particularly if the UST has been abandoned for many years.
Not only are landowners ordinarily not regulated under the
present federal UST regulations, but they are not regulated as
such under North Carolina's Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Cleanup Law, NCGS Section 143-215.94A et seq. nor under North
Carolina's Oil Pollution and Hazardous Substances Control Act,
NCGS Section 215.84 et seq. 'rhese statutes regulate UST "owners
and operators" and "persons having control over oil or hazardous
substances prior to discharge 11 or "persons contributing to a
discharge of oil or hazardous substances, ,r respectively.
CERCLA, the principal environmental statute regulating
landowners, does not cover the petroleum products typical of
USTs.
Accordingly, it will come as a surprise to landowners to
discover that they are regulated under administratively
promulgated underground storage tank regulations. At the very
least, the term n1and owners" in RegL1lation .0101(d} should be
revised to read "owners and operators as defined in these
regulations." A better solution is to delete Subsection .0l0l(d)
altogether, substituting a request that the Groundwater Section
of the Division of Environmental Management make available to the
County Registers of Deeds its lists of registered USTs.
The Prop osed Re g ulation is Overbroad. A law is overbroad
when it seeks to impose obligations on citizens vastly in excess
of those required to accomplish a legitimate legislative purpose.
The open-endedness of this proposed regulation renders it
susceptible to charges of vagueness as well.
The purposes of this regulation would seem to be (a) to give
notice to purchasers of the existence of known tanks; and (b) to
require landowners to determine the location of pr e sently
undiscovered USTs prior to selling their property. The first
purpose appears legitimate, but the burden imposed t o accomplish
.:~
it is too great. The second purpose clearly is in excess of the
authority delegated by the General Assembly.
As noted, enlarging the class of regulated persons under
these regulations to include landowners will come virtually
without not.ice to landowners who are not UST "owners" or
"operators. 11 As this proposed regulation currently is dr.afted,
these are the obligations apparently imposed on "land owners:"
1. To visually survey property and determine, with some
unspecified degree of precision, the "presence and
location" of USTs on the property;
2. To "ensure," again by unspecified means, that "all"
UST systems on the property have been ascertained and
located;
3. In order to comply with the second requirement above,
perform a magnetometer survey or other procedure which
will "ensure" that no undiscovered tanks are on the
property; and
4. Record this information on a deed, which is a permanent
document of title; and
5. Bear the risk of some unspecified penalty or liability
for failure to comply.
These burdens purport to render landowners partial
of the environmental characteristics of their property.
appropriate method for imposing such responsibility is
legislative enactment, not administrative rulemaking.
of the legislation enabling these regulations recalls no
authority for imposing the affirmative obligations of
investigation noted above.
insurers
The
A review
It also should be noted that a permanent record of the
presence of a UST on land could render the property unmarketable.
If this regulation is enacted, then the affected landowner must
be allowed to expunge recordation of tank locations once the USTs
have been removed in accordance with Subpart G. To have a
permanent record of tank locations in the chain of title, long
after the tanks have been removed, is an unnecessary impediment
to alienability of the property.
The proposed regulation purports to impose a fairly strict
duty on landowners to make representation concerning the presence
or absence of USTs. It is not clear what the penalty is for
failure to ascertain the location of a tank nor what defenses
might serve (e.g., innocent omissions). Even if the authority to
impose such obligations was present, imposition of such an
open-ended obligation, without specifying defenses and limiting
remedies, is an impermissibly vague and ovcrbroad exercise of
such authority.
{
Conclusion. It is an unhappy purchaser of property who
discovers an abandoned underground storage tank on his or her new
land. But these purchasers have a remedy against the owner or
operator of the tank; under some circumstances, if the owner or
operator cannot be found, cleanup of any environmental damage may
be paid for through North Carolina's noncommercial UST c:J.eanup
fund. It is not necessary to burden land owners and the ·chain of
title in the manner suggested by proposed Regulation 15A NCAC 2N
OlOl(d). It is suggested that this subjection be deleted, and
that the Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater
Section's UST unit make available to title record searchers its
list of registered USTs.
~Jiw &d---
4
•·.
geologist or professional engineer for groundwater monitoring
and site assessments at a business closure or change in service.
The Commission might consider state licensing of installer-
contractors as a method to ensure accountability in case of a
leak as the problem would likely result from installation or
materials rather than by any wrong-doing of the station --0perator.
This could provide assurance the installer-contractors are
qualified and would be accountable since their licenses could
be revoked if they submitted false results.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Meribeth L. Seag~o~
Owner-Manager
WILLIAM H. WEATHERSPOON
Executive Director
NORTH CAROLINA
PETROLEUM
COUNCIL
A Division of the American Petroleum Institute
P .O. BOX 167 • RALEIGH, N.C. 27602
919/828-5438 • DEX 919/821-0337
ANGELA S. WALDORF
Associate Dirrcror
Mr. Randy Prillaman
Environmental Specialist
EHNR-DEM-Groundwater
June 13, 1990 1~~1.!WrFTffi l!;;, ...,~-~w,;1 .... '!I, .. ,
I L'
JUN 12 1900 ....
P. o. Box 27687 GROUNDWATc.R SECTION
Raleigh, N. C. 27611 RALEIGH, NC
Dear Mr. Prillaman:
The following comments regarding the proposed Underground Storage Tank
regulations are submitted on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute,
a trade association with approximately 200 corporate and 6,000
individual members representing all aspects of the petroleum industry.
The American Petroleum Institute has long been concerned about the
environmental pollution risks associated with improperly managed
underground storage tank systems. To that end, expert committees within
the Institute have developed a number of recommended practices for the
safe installation, management, repair, and removal of underground
storage tank systems. Several of these practices are specifically cited
as approved for compliance with various sections of the federal UST
standards. These recommended practices are evidence of the importance
that API's membership places on protecting the environment.
API commends the Environmental Management Commission for recommending
that a substantial portion of the federal UST standards be adopted by
reference. These standards have been in place since December, 1988 and
many of our members have expended millions of dollars bringing their UST
systems in compliance with these standards. Generally, API feels that
the federal UST standards are sufficient to adequately protect the
environment as evidenced by a national rate of occurrence of releases
from new single walled UST systems of less than .5%, most of which were
related to installation and physical damage to the system. Our comments
will, therefore, focus on those aspects of the proposed regulations that
differ from the federal UST standards.
SECTION .OlOl(d)
It is not clear how landowners should record the presence and location
of UST systems. Should metes and bounds from property lines be utilized
or could diagrams be attached? A uniform procedure or form should be
developed so that landowners will know how to comply with this
requirement.
What is the penalty for failing to comply with this provision? Will
failure to comply result in a penalty, a transfer that is not complete
and therefore a cloud on the deed, or something else? This section
should be expanded and all of these concerns should be specifically
addressed by the regulations.
The rule should specifically provide that references to UST systems may
be removed from the deed when the UST systems are removed from the
property. Furthermore, how are previously abandoned UST systems to be
treated? In many cases the presence or location of UST systems abandoned
years ago may not be known. The rule should be limited to those UST
systems that were required to be registered beginning in 1986 since
information regarding previously abandoned USTs may be difficult or
impossible to obtain.
SECTION .0104
It appears burdensome and redundant to require the regulated community
to obtain and keep a diagram of the facility onsite since all the
information except location is or has been submitted to the department
as part of the UST notification process.
SECTION .0203(c)(i)(A)
The definition of "De Minimis concentration" offers no clear
determination of what constitutes a de minimis concentration since the
operative use of the term "significant degree" is neither defined nor
quantified. Who, using what methodology, will determine what is a
"significant degree"? This definition should be more specific.
SECTION .301(b)
The distances from wells and surface water systems for which UST system
bans have been proposed are arbitrary and do not take into account site
specific criteria.
Since these requirements are included in the section entitled
"Performance Standards for New UST Systems," it appears that any
existing system that is upgraded by replacing tanks would be required to
meet these additional requirements. New excavations, piping systems,
etc. could be required or property owners could be prohibited from
locating storage tanks underground if the property is situated too close
to one or more neighbor's wells. Service station properties average 200'
x 200' and typically include some type of building. It is conceivable
that some existing facilities may not be able to meet the distance
requirements. This may be more of a problem for marinas than service
stations because of their proximity to surface waters. IF NFPA 30, which
has been adopted statewide, is enforced as currently written, retail
facilities would be prohibited from locating storage tanks above ground
and some could be forced out of business. These requirements should be
included in a separate section that clearly does not apply to
replacement or existing systems and/or some type of additional safety
requirement should be substituted for the unequivocal ban.
Because this provision has the potential of closing facilities, it could
prompt some UST system owners to upgrade tanks rather than replace them
when replacement would afford greater protection to the environment. If
facilities are forced to close down, owners may be able to challenge the
regulations on the basis of an unconstitutional taking.
SECTION .0301(c)(l)
API Recommended Practice 1615 recommends that secondary containment be
installed within 300 feet of a public drinking water supply or 100 feet
of a private drinking water supply.
Since all UST systems within the proximities to wells and surface waters
noted in the proposed regulations must meet the requirements of Section
503, all USTs, including those installed in good faith since December,
1988 to meet the federal requirements, will have to be retrofitted with
secondary containment by December 22, 1998. Brand new, state of the art,
UST systems will have to be dug up, secondary containment installed, and
reburied at a considerable cost. These regulations should not apply
retroactively. References and language changes will need to be made if
the intention is to apply these requirements prospectively.
SECTION .0301(c)(2)
,Requiring secondary containment within 500 feet of surface waters is too
~tringent since unlike water supply wells, surface water supplies
,generally do not influence the movement of groundwater and all surface
water supplies are not a discharge point for groundwater. In addition,
release detection monitoring on upgraded single walled tank systems will
provide the release detection capability necessary to identify, stop and
remediate a release prior to impact on a surface water supply.
As written, existing upgraded tanks would have to be retrofitted, which
is an unfair economic burden for tank owners.
SECTION .0301(c)(3)
This section provides the department with arbitrary discretion for
requiring secondary containment in any situation. These standards should
be technically based, not discretionary. If this subsection is
maintained, it should be revised to include clearly defined criteria for
requiring secondary containment in order to provide a technical basis
for a decision.
Opportunities for differential treatment should be eliminated to insure
that these standards are fairly and consistently applied. Serious
consideration should be given to deleting this provision in its
entirety.
SECTION .030l(b) (ALTERNATIVE)
The problems discussed regarding the same number section would be
magnified if the distances listed in this section were adopted. A 500
foot minimum distance from a public water supply system or designated
surface water body would be particularly burdensome for service stations
which are generally located on relatively small but expensive tracts of
land. This alternative should not be adopted.
SECTION .030l(c) (ALTERNATIVE)
This section would require statewide secondary containment. According to
the EPA, the national rate of occurrence of releases from new single
walled systems is less than .5%. Most of these releases are related to
installation and physical damage to the system. Given the failure rate
of new single walled tanks, this requirement does not seem to be
warranted. As written, all newly installed UST systems meeting all of
the requirements of the federal standard would have to be dug up and
retrofitted at a substantial cost. This section should not be adopted;
however, if it is, it should be modified to apply only to new UST
installations.
SECTION 502(b) (ALTERNATIVE)
?his section mandates secondary containment as the only form of release
detection for petroleum UST systems after 1998. Since secondary
containment cannot be retrofitted to existing tanks, it mandates
replacement of all existing UST systems before December, 1998. This is
an extreme and unnecessary burden on UST owners.
SECTIONS .0504(3)(b)(10) and (3)(f)
These sections shorten the monitoring time for monitoring liquid ~nd
vapor wells to fourteen days from the federal EPA requirement of thirty
days. EPA has determined that thirty-day monitoring is effective and we
are unaware of any data that would indicate that a fourteen day time
frame would significantly improve release monitoring. This departure
from the federal standards appears to be unwarranted and adds additional
burdens to the regulated community for unknown if any benefit.
SECTIONS .0601, .0604, .0702, .0703
These sections remove the department's ability to grant an extension or
alternative to time frames outlined in these sections on an across the
board basis requiring all requests for extensions to be handled on a
case by case basis. This appears to severely hamper the department's
flexibility in dealing with releases in areas where there are inadequate
numbers of vendors or where circumstances such as a recent tornado or
hurricane would make an alternative time frame reasonable across the
board. ·
Owners and operators may feel that it is necessary to sign inflated
clean up contracts or hire less competent vendors in order to meet some
of the very short time frames such as the ten day requirement in .0703.
There is no guarantee that a request will be answered within four hours,
twenty four hours, or some other reasonable time frame given the very
short time frames provided in some of these sections; therefore, the
pressure on owners and operators ''to do something" will be significant.
These rushed or pressured contracting decisions could adversely impact
the quality of the cleanup as well as the amount of money reimbursed
from the state's Cleanup Fund.
Retaining the department's flexibility to adopt alternative time frames
during peak times would provide for better management of the
department's personnel and resources. This departure from the federal
regulations should not be adopted.
SECTIONS .0706 AND .0707(b)
These sections indicate that an order must be issued prior to the owner
or operator proceeding with a site assessment or corrective action.
Since these activities are mandated by rule, orders are unnecessary and
most likely will be a stumbling block towards the expeditious completion
of these activities. The department should establish by rule the
requirements for the completion of these activities and minimi~e the
.amount of paperwork and bureaucracy required to complete these tasks.
j
SECTION .0708(b)
The federal rule provides for public participation; therefore, the
addition of this section is redundant. There is concern over the impact
of extensive public participation during the development of the
corrective action plan. Since corrective action is defined by the
department, it seems that specific public participation should only be
appropriate when the proposed corrective action plan deviates from
the state's targets for cleanup. This provision should be deleted.
We would be happy to provide additional information regarding the
comments made herein. The department's usual thoughtful consideration of
our views is always appreciated.
Since rely, , '73.1 I ( Ci\jy_~ ,yt'~
William H. Weatherspoor0
cc: Perry Nelson
Edythe McKinney
Ernie Carl
,., fi Southern lli Environmental
~,-; Law Center
June 13, 1990
Mr. Perry Nelson
Chief, Groundwater Section
Division of Environmental Management
Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
137 East Franklin St., Suire 30
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
919-967-1450 or 919 -967-0999
Regional 011·.
20 I W, 1
· ra est Main St ..
Charlorresvill ., Suite 14
22901-5064 e, VA
804-977-4090
lw.(l· .-~ ;· ,),~, ~ \ ' ·:, . ~.)'; 11 ~ ·, ;' \ ,-1, ,Ji
,.di'
JU~ l;) 19~·
GROU ND\'Ji\; · .. R SfC1\0N
~r,..Lt.lG\t NC
Re: Comments on Proposed Underground Storage Tank Rules
Dear Perry:
Please enter into the hearing record the enclosed comments of
the North Carolina Environmental Defense Fund and the Southern
Environmental Law Center on the Environmental Management
Commission's proposed underground storage tank rules ( 15 NCAC
2N.0100-.0805). These written comments supplement our oral
1 comments at the public hearing on these rules held in Raleigh on
May 7, 1990.
In addition to offering the enclosed substantive comments, I
also want to add my praise for the Section's drafting of
alternative rules for proposal by the EMC. I thought this worked
well and efficiently solicited public comment on a range of
proposals. I believe the use of alternative proposed rules will
also give the EMC greater flexibility to adopt amended rules
without the need for additional notice and hearings. I hope the
EMC will expand its use of alternative rule proposals in the
future.
Steve Levitas and I appreciate this opportunity to comment and
look forward to continued interaction with you and your staff in
the weeks ahead.
Sincerely,
1-.JL1~
Lark Hayes
Director, North Carolina Office
LH/pad
Enclosure
cc: Steve Levitas
1,111",. .,., •' ; •. ,! /t.J.J1,·,
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Supplemental Comments on
Proposed Underground Storage Tank Regulations
15 NCAC 2N
Steven J. Levitas
North Carolina Environmental Defense Fund
Lark Hayes
Southern Environmental Law Center
June .13, 1990
******************************************************************
We commend the Groundwater Section and the Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) for moving forward to address the
environmental and public health threats presented by underground
storage tanks (UST' s) • As the EMC knows, more than half the people
in North Carolina rely on groundwater for their principal source
of drinking water. The some 66,000 underground storage tanks in
the state may present the greatest threat to these drinking water
supplies. As of December 31, 1989, the Groundwater Section has
confirmed leaks in more than 857 tank systems. Thus, leaking tanks
are now the most frequent cause of groundwater contamination in
this state. Report on the Status of Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks and the State Cleanup Fund in North Carolina, Office of
Underground Storage Tanks, January 1, 1990 (UST/Fund Report) .
Given that some 32,000 tanks are more than 16 years old and some
17,000 more than 20 years old (or age unknown), we can expect many
more leaks and cases of grou~dwater contamination in the future,
even with the best of regulatory programs. Annual Survey, Office
of Underground Storage Tanks, May 15, 1990.
There are also strong economic and fiscal reasons to minimize
the incidence of groundwater contamination due to leaking
underground storage tanks. The remediation of groundwater
contamination is extremely difficult and expensive. Indeed, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognized in its preamble
to the federal underground storage tank rules that a well-crafted
program of leak prevention would be in the best economic interests
of our society as a whole.
The Groundwater Section lacks the resources to respond
effectively to even the current level of LUST incidents. The most
recent projections are that the State Trust Fund (Commercial and
Non-Commercial) will need some $67 million to cleanup existing
leaks alone. UST/Fund Report, p.5. For 1990, the shortfall for
the Commercial Fund is estimated at $10.7 million. In light of our
state's current fiscal crisis, this situation is not likely to
improve in the foreseeable future. As noted above, however, the
incidence of LUST problems is likely to get worse.
Moreover, with the passage last year .of House Bill 957, the
State of North Carolina has assumed the bulk of the financial
responsibility for the cleanup of leaking underground storage
tanks. The EMC has an obligation to the people of North Carolina
to ensure that it does everything reasonably possible to minimize
the state's potential financial liability for this remediation.
This is particularly important because with the assumption of
liability by the state, tank owners have reduced financial
incentives to prevent leaks.
Fortunately, North Carolina has the opportunity to put in
place an effective underground storage tank regulatory program.
The federal regulations, on which most of our proposed state
regulations are based, were intended only as a minimum program on
which states could build programs tailored to local needs.
Certainly, North Carolina law allows an UST program which is more
stringent in some regards than the federal program. Accordingly,
we encourage the EMC to adopt state rules which are more stringent
than the federal counterparts in the following regards:
Public Notice S y stem for Existence of UST's
With regard to Rule .0l0l(d), we strongly support the concept
of notice being provided to prospective purchasers of real property
of the existence of underground storage tanks when known. We
recognize, however, that the specific notice mechanism proposed in
the rules (i.e. recordation on deeds to real property at the time
of transfer) has been criticized by the Real Property Section of
the North Carolina Bar Association. We have discussed an
alternative means of providing notice with representatives of the
Real Property Section. This approach --notice to Registrars of
Deeds from the Groundwater Section for recordation and indexing -
-is acceptable to us. However, we believe that legislation will
be required to implement it. We would like to see such legislation
drafted and endorsed by the Real Property Section before Rule
. 0101 (d) is deleted from the proposed Underground Storage Tank
Rules. We wil.l attempt to meet with representatives of the Section
and your staff at the earliest opportunity to pursue this matter.
2
Ban on Tanks Near Water Supp lies
We support the proposed ban in the Alternate to Proposed Rule
.0301 on installation of an UST within 500 feet of a public water
system, within 50 feet of other supply wells and within 500 feet
of certain surface waters. we ·do suggest that state designated
High Quality waters be added to the list of surface waters near
which UST's would be banned. To the extent feasible,
implementation of this ban should be coordinated with the EMC's.
recently proposed regulations on watershed protection.
Secondary Containment
We support the requirement of secondary containment for all
new UST systems. In view of the environmental risk and financial
costs associated with failing UST systems, we believe this
requirement is fully justified. Indeed, EPA's financial analysis
for the UST regulations indicates that the cost of secondary
containment "may be fully offset" by reduced costs for corrective
action, insurance, leak detection, and operation and maintenance
when considered over the long term. 52 FR 12673. Also, please see
the discussion of this issue in a paper by EDF staff member Lois
N. Epstein, P. E., entitled "Improvements to EPA' s Underground
storage Tank Regulations: Advice to state/Local Regulators and
Tank Insurers for Increased Leak Prevention" (presented at a recent
conference of the Association of Groundwater Scientists and
Engineers and the American Petroleum Institute). This paper is
being provided under separate cover by EDF.
We also submit that existing tanks in environmentally
sensitive areas should be required to use secondary containment and
that this requirement should be implemented on a reasonably
aggressive phased-in schedule. (See related comments below on
upgrading requirements and release detection for existing tanks
generally.) If all new tanks are required to have secondary
containment and existing tanks in sensitive areas are subject to
secondary containment requirements on a reasonable schedule,
significant regulatory control could be achieved without the need
of requiring all UST systems to meet the requirements of Rule .0503
(which requires secondary containment for all tanks by December 22,
1998).
Upgrading of Existing UST S y stems
The older existing tanks no doubt present the greatest
environmental threat. As noted above, more than 32,000 tanks in
North Carolina are 16 years or older (or age unknown). The vast
majority of these tanks are steel tanks, probably bare steel tanks
in the case of most older tanks. We believe that these tanks
constitute a large proportion of those tanks which are currently
leaking. In view of this, allowing existing tanks --no matter how
old --10 more years prior to upgrading by interior lining or
3
cathodic protection is inadequate. Proposed Rule . 0302. The
regulations should require that the oldest tanks (20 years or
older) undertake upgrading at the earliest date determined feasible
by the EMC. It is noteworthy that only 737 of the more than 19,000
tanks in this oldest tank category have upgraded by interior lining
or cathodic protection at this time. Annual Report, May 15, 1990.
Without a regulatory requirement, we do not expect that many of
these oldest tanks will be upgraded before the expiration of the
10 year period granted by the proposed regulations. Similarly, the
tanks in the next lower age classes, e.g. 16-20 years and 11-15
years, should also be placed on an accelerated upgrade schedule
following the oldest tanks.
Release Detection
Like the requirements for upgrading, the requirements for
implementation of release detection are woefully inadequate,
especially with regard to older tanks. Particularly objectionable
is proposed Rule .0502 providing that tanks meeting the minimal
upgrading requirements mentioned above and using monthly inventory
may comply with release detection requirements by simply conducting
a tank tightness test every 5 years until 1998, or 10 years after
the upgrade, whichever is later. Likewise, those systems which
have not been upgraded at all may use monthly inventory controls
and annual tank tightness testing to defer installation of release
detection. We submit that these regulations allow unwise deferrals
of important release detection measures. As you will see from our
comments below, we believe that monthly inventory is highly
unreliable and that significant releases could occur between tank
tests. Indeed, Lois Epstein has calculated that leaks slightly
below the inventory control reliability limit could still allow
releases of some 8, 000 gallons before an annual test and some
40,000 gallons before a 5 year test. Accordingly, we encourage the
EMC to amend the proposed regulations to avoid these
inappropriately lengthy deferrals on installation of release
detection.
We also encourage the EMC to delete inventory control as a
method of release detection as proposed in Rule .0504. EPA itself
concluded that "several studies have shown that inventory control
records often contain errors that diminish their utility for
release detection." 52 FR 12726. EPA's preamble to its UST
regulations also cited a study which showed that 80% of the
participants initially supplied incomplete or incorrect inventory
data and that even after "intensive follow-up" only 50% of the
records were eventually complete enough for analysis. Also see
Epstein article. In view of its documented unreliability,
inventory control should be deleted as a method of release
detection.
4
state Tracking Sy stem
We strongly support proposed Rule .0405 regarding reporting
and record keeping. This rule is an important improvement over the
minimal federal rule. The state rule appropriately enables the
Groundwater Section to ensure that regulations requiring upgrading
and leak detection measures will, in fact, be followed by tank
owners and operators. Similarly, notice to the Section of repairs
to UST systems is appropriate, as required by Rules . 0404 and
.0405. Finally, the requirement for provision of the results of
a site investigation conducted at permanent closure is necessary
in view of the significance of closure activities.
Corrective Action
Proposed Rule . 0707 should be improved to clarify when
corrective action plans for responding to contaminated soils and
groundwater will be required. This is particularly important
because only releases requiring such plans trigger public
participation and notice under Rule .0708. The existing
groundwater regulations at 15 NCAC 2L.0106 require a cleanup plan
whenever an activity results in a violation of a groundwater
standard. This groundwater regulation should be ref erred to in the
UST regulations. Similarly, whenever extensive contamination of
soil has occurred, a plan should be required and public
participation invited.
Public Partici~ation
Rule .0708 is unclear regarding which of the optional methods
of public notice the agency intends to use in cases involving
corrective action plans. This rule should be strengthened by
indicating what methods the Section will use, not merely what
methods of public notice the Section may use. Similarly, how the
Section will determine which members of the public are "directly
affected" by the release or the plan for notice purposes should be
spelled out.
5
_,,
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE F\Jl{D
~· f< ·], \ \'.). ~~\
1616 P St reet , NW A'-\\, :·:· ~,."~•\\
Washington, DC 20036
[phone]
National Headg_uar!~!:~
257 Park Avenue South
New York , NY 10010
[phone]
1405 Arapahoe Avenue
Boulder, CO 80302
[phone]
5655 College Avenue
Oakland, CA 94618
( 415) 65 8-8008
1108 East Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
[phone]
128 East Hargett Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
[phone]
1800 Ciuadalure
/\ustin. T.'< 78701
(512) .fl8 -5lf,I
,· ·':'· ·.. 4-·
Mr. Perry Nelson
Groundwater Section
( f :.... . .. ~ .
June 13 ,~ir,· -~ ~~ ~~·\\J~ i \~ v . (\ \ i:'. . , \~ c...,-.,:.J ~-,.~ \'v •:) -('
\o,:,· • \'v" ''.\J ~lr--\)"(\, \'
~"y\ \,0
Division of Environmental Management
Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Nelson:
\,)~~ ~~
Please append the enclosed paper, "Improvements to EPA's
Underground Storage Tank Regulations: Advice to State/Local
Regulators and Tank Insurers for Increased Leak Prevention,"
to the comments of the North Carolina Environmental Defense
Fund and the Southern Environmental Law Center on the
Proposed Rules for Underground Storage Tanks (15A NCAC 2N).
These comments are being'submitted under separate cover.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
c1~-II. ~r,-J..;C___
Lois N. Epstein, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
v_c<i
/! I
IMPROVEMENTS TO EPA'S UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS:
ABSTRACT
ADVICE TO STATE/LOCAL REGULATORS AND TANK INSURERS
FOR INCREASED LEAK PREVENTION
By Lois N. Epstein, P.E.
Environmental Defense Fund
Washington, D.C.
Careful technical evaluation of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) final regulations for underground storage tanks shows
numerous instances where the regulations do not sufficiently prevent
releases to soils and ground water. Environmental Defense Fund research
has fo~nd that the EPA regulations are technically compromised,
particularly in the areas of tank design and leak detection. It is
perfectly acceptable under the EPA regulations, however, for states and
localities to adopt. more technically stringent regulations, such as those
suggested in this paper. Most -of the suggested technical improvements
contained in this paper will also ease regulatory implementation.
Underground storage tank insurers, in addition to state and local
tank regulators, need to be aware of the technical adequacy of the
federal regulations. In order to prevent numerous leaks that will not be
prevented by the EPA regulations, tank insurers might want to require
improved technical criteria be met prior to obtaining leak cleanup
insurance, even if such criteria exceed regulatory requirements.
Likewise, tank insurers might consider assessing lower premiums to tanks
that meet more stringent technical criteria, since such tanks would
likely have decreased probabilities of releases.
BACKGROUND
Following passage of the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), owners and
operators of underground storage tank (UST) systems (tanks and piping)
anxiously awaited the publication of UST regulations by U.S . EPA.
Subtitle I of the amended RCRA required development of UST regulations,
but the law gave EPA considerable discretion as to their exact form and
2 1
their associated costs. EPA published two sets of proposed technical
regulations in the Federal Re g ister , on April 17, 1987 and December 23,
1987, which gave the public some idea of the factors EPA was considering
in UST rule development and the general structure of the final
r egulations. Final technical regulations were published in the September
23, 1988 Federal Re g ister.
Because the approximately two million covered UST systems across the
U.S. likely would cause significant adverse environmental impacts if
inadequately regulated, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) wrote
extensive comments on the two proposed regulations. EPA's final
technical re·gulations, however, are notably less stringent than EDF' s
recommendations for an adequate UST program (see next section).
Fortunately, numerous states are strengthening their UST programs by
adopting some of EDF's recommendations, especially the recommendation for
full or partial statewide secondary containment of new petroleum UST
systems. The advantages of EDF's recommended UST program incluqe:
Increased protection of the environment, especially groundwater,
resulting in fewer liability concerns for UST system owners and
operators and UST insurers,
Decreased instances of safety hazards from UST system leaks,
Greater ease of implementation for UST system owners and
operators because less operation and maintenance of leak
detection systems would be required, and for UST insurers, who
would need to respond to fewer leaks, and
Easier enforcement, which ultimately will result in increased
regulatory compliance.
EDF is currently actively encouraging state UST programs to include
the regulatory changes discussed in this paper. Additionally, in order
to avoid future environmental, liability, and public relations concerns,
UST system owners and operators would be wise to implement voluntarily as
many of EDF's technical and public participation recommendations as
possible.
ANALYSIS
Table 1 compares the federal UST regulatory program to EDF's
recommended program. The remainder of this section summarizes the
principal data and rationale EDF utilized to develop its UST system leak
prevention recommendations.
Desi g n. EDF's recommended program contains a fundamentally different
assumption from thP. EPA t'rogram, namely, that all UST s y stem leaks must
be maximall y p revented , before they .ru;:g detected. Given that the most
effective means known to prevent environmental contamination from UST
systems is 360-degree secondary containment, EDF recommends that all new
22
ll&.lm.
D£11GII
<40 aa. ,.,. zeo .
~ti)
coaa.1m1 PIIOTECTlml
IIEIITUU
l Cllolcee
EXIITIIIG TAUi
4 Cllol-
lltV PIPIIIG
l Dlolcee
EXIITIIC PIPING
Z Cllol-
PILL/OIIIIIFlll _,,mi
AU TMO
-··
AI.L tun
LIIIN
LEM D(f[ct 1011
(40 Cfl, Part UII ,
$~01
MEV TAlll
2 C!lalCft
EXISTIIG Tbl<S
] C!lo1Cft
MEV I O:ISTUG
PtE ... IUD •tOIMG
Olalce ef ow frOM
tKft .. ,
ll'E\I & IE'XIST'JNC
SUCTIOI< PIPINC
l CholcN
PER,.-CIRJU•ct
UCIJlt[Ji(!NT!
TA&l( 1
,~ of t:PA UST ,r09r• lewul ■ctcna• rd
EDf•e •~ •~• for Stat• UIJ ,ro,r-
m Mil~ lnvl ■rin
Coat• .,,. cat"8111catlv pt'OHctad (a cor,,.,M
pr-oucllan •trtacll ltffl . or
flblfoltN&, or
StNl tl!M clad_,,,. ftbe ... Lua
s--.,.:iCll"III ·• for NII t-•• or
Add alllodtc ..,..ceni., .,., •• or
lntM"tr ltnt"9, or
1ntetter ltntfll.,.. eatn•le crotecttan
co.,• -a-lally procecc• .... 1. or ,._.., ..
'i ... apct.,. • tor ,,._. •t•.i"'• w
C.UMIIIUcaUy JN"Ol"Kted atNl
ca,_ lllllit,. •-• ilut-tle lllutoff _,,,,._, or:
a-flll •I-, or
tall floot •I-
.. ,.._..,n.....,.•
Aftr 10 ....-. fall•lftl 11 .. ,,... 11510 -t 11e
'"' ..... tty trwpacncl ..,.,., ' "·" , •• ,.,...,.
t.,. atna:aral ~.,. 11Nr h,r .. r,ty
NaMtlt y aoni tort "4, or
_,,. ,_,.,., control -•-tlt[II,_
CNtlnt ....., t .,._ (fou con m,ty ... u,ta
ctlotN for to .,..,.. •• ,.,. I Nt■Uetl•.)
Nandlly ..,hDrffll, or
-ly ,_.,., control -...... 1 •-tlt[llt-
cnu,. UM ■ ct,at .. c■r1 m,ty lie UNCI ..,,11
D_,. 19911, I, or
-IY 1---, control -•-tft[ll.,...a
tNflftl -,, 5 ';WW11 (fftfa dloic:. c■r'I ClftlY t,o
,..,. for 10 _. otcor _,,.. .,...,..,.;..,
protoetfm, -■ofll/-1111 ~,.., or
1.111:tt 0.C-.. 1991, llttCM'¥91" Clet■ ia L ■tff.)
Auto. flow ... ,rtctor, or Arn. Ltne tNttne. or.
Auto. llhuroff dl¥tc:e, or ·and• llanttlly _,,.itOl'il"II
Conu.....,. elant ..,.,. <•&.eeaC an:~tic , .. _;,..,
IConttllY ..,,rort"' (uceoc a,rmattc ,.,. tlllJ91na>, or
U na rntir.a ....,-y J .,..•"• or
No,.._,,~ (If th■...._,. Nie th•
cherKter,attca DHCr1bld '" th■ ftna, re91,1t.■1tona>
Effec:ttw oec._,,. 22 . 1990
P~tllty of , ••• CNtectlon • 0 .9'5
PrODabU lty of f ■lH tea& •tecr1an • 0 .05
23
m!!l !IS9!"'!1"5M Wll. ~ Inv\ It i Snt
Ca.tad ... c.tftadtcally prouc:t• ftNl "''"
Hc...,-Y centei,-w. or
Jlbet-tlua Iii th lilC'Otlllllf"Y eem:a1,-w. or
ltMl I'_. clad wttfl 1'tt•f'Wl_. 111itt1 ~ry
c:orrtalf'allftl
lo ..... ~•aetllR' MC__,, CCll'lt81..-.t N·
q.,ired tn ar .... WU:ft ....,Uy Y!Hd . &ol.e
tOUl"CW . or eNilY con,...,,., • .,......, ....
coated __. catt,ocUcaUy prntct .. ■tNl •it"
IL~ c-ont8i"-"'• Ol"
,tt.r9l-llltfl.......,, Oll'ft■I~
•o __,.. t••CetK ~ em,ra,,_,. re ·
~•rwd in.,. •• •Uh hefttty _.,.,.._ Mle
MUl"C8, or en,ty C'Cl'ltal"I~ .,......c«,
NDdl_,..
"'-•in '-DV8dt"'.., c.-.... •·••• a t ■tlar H
LeK •cecc1an .,_...in IICMdl,■
lerptaa.nt ef uste 11\t ,.. ,.,.. to ,...... aft..-
1 ;,,.,-;,,.taU ■ttan
fr....-rK •to-con,1,... aan,,.,.,,,.
Sec:Gl'llllry rom:a,,..,. "'"' ,..,. •tec11an tie•
tVMft tana wlla ..S a.. ____,.,. bln-ien for
Rlltllrall Sid Ml~ --unce USJ _,.,_
ao l""'-"'"Of"'Y cartt,..l (or ..,...l ~ .... , ... ,
lfft GIH.CtlCI'\ «n:i art for _,, ei1e t-: 1,,....,.. '°"' CCll'\tNl ia an ...,_,,ale •ttlcld ef tnt
dHec1:tan , Ncac1 ■Hy for •l-lMU
'Oct,.,,..
l...cll ■U t Y ·••ec,;w , &o .,,,, "'· _, N l iM>l•
CMV,cws er• \Mao
Pf"'0baatlitv ot leu detac:,ton • 0.99
Pr00101lfh of hlH leet detectu::n • -0 .01
TAIi.i: 1. com:tnad
M1l&1
_,ca1un
(40 CR, hrt ZIIU, .._,,,.,
AI.LTAa:11
USIII OIL
AI.L Jaa;s
a:ancr1w o1CT 1011
C4CI en, '"" lllO,
~•>
,un
Pl.al.IC
PAl!TICl,ATIOII
l?A 1111 t=a la,/l ■ti RID
lff ft.,.. i s'ld J for IDClt,11,t .. --
dof ..... lO t,... f--1 UST -l•U-
•--•te • Pltntl--UIT ..,,..,_
r•-•111 -•--.,;raauy total
dlocrett--,, _,_tty to NONIN --
of ca"l"Kt:nw ect:iGn .,,.,. ..s to ..,._, M&:tl
pl-
lo ,..._,,rea ,.,,ifleathn of !'be effected
~1Cof Nl_,.OCCW"a'IC9
r•-1"' -•• !!!!!!: llold IU>41c
11..,,,11111 pr,.-to corr-.ct'•w aclien plen --·
GL!.l. lfFSIWPIIIFI ta1 t.::ar.a lfflllltlPP
ID each•·---.......... ff'ml aw f...-.t
UST -••-_,. .. •U-tw t-w
!"NI-tel WI --1,100 .. ll-_. 1 ...
UNd fw .ar fual 11K fw ........ for UIT .,..
•--•llritll--•111 ell, fo,-Ult°""'
·-et 110 .. 11-w ·-· fw Ult sy,i•-
Mitll 8 aiD1aa __.,..I_ ef .-...,tao•
...,.._, tor un -,.c.. -fw --
__ 1 .. , .... un ....... -..... -
c.ci Ill -field
a-,tai••--•,.,.•--·
~etUlllldeil 1 ■...._...-ltlUMC8.
••••• --•• ---fflculty et -
otl ~•w set .. _... ta .-era, ..
COl"'f"Kt:IW act:6-
tornniw ecol••--_..,, If tlla
i;on11u1 .. ....,. ~ at .emaaL IIIVllUSl'I -
Tltla 60, , ... .,,.,.,n-s, Bl ■t, ••••• If
,,_.. wtlo -otfacnd, flMtllll 1-
(frN ...-.•--,_.,, w tf tllON ia
.,,,--•--•tto-.11eln
cantac:C lrilll ~--1•
lapl_i,_ -1• l!!aS. --•--iclt
crUar1• In ffll-1111 _..._.1,.. ocuon p&-.
••••• t11o crlHrt■ In !im 11 f.l!llml.
ln,dtUOM, fitla, '°• ••rt ll0 .. 6'<b>, .,.. .,,,
~~•tecl ..... ■Ulllllllf'a
~ natiffcatt., ef tile stfectm Pl,Dllc of
,...t ... ~
1111>1-ifll -I•~ IIOld cu,lic -•-
pdor to corNC:t1W Klian pt., IIDPf"'Oft'l
~•rtlolly t■t_, t ... Ille EPA OfflN of __,. ltDI'-1-■ iu,llcaticn ~ at 111.U.. 6 11,-=i: 21 .I!!! l!W hgyl ■tjO')I
f2r Yr'4rTV9Y!il ll2Cm le lnU!!I, f.PA/5:IO/UIT·IIII,_, llapt-19118, p. 16.
24
UST systems and existing systems in areas with heavily used, sole source,
or easily contaminated groundwater, be designed and installed with
secondary containment. In the final UST regulations, however, EPA
rejected mandatory secondary containment with interstitial monitoring for
petroleum UST systems (approximately 95% of the regulated UST
population), instead choosing to base the bulk of the federal regulatory
program on the assumption of detection, rather than prevention, of leaks.
In the preamble to the April proposed rule, EPA acknowledges that
requiring secondary containment and interstitial monitoring ("widely
believed to be the most accurate monitoring available," 52 FR 12673) for
all new UST systems "would guarantee that fewer releases would go
undetected" (Ibid.). From an engineering perspective, automatic
interstitial monitoring is clearly preferable to manual monthly leak
detection operations that are subject to human errors, in addition to
equipment malfunctions. EPA also recognizes that, compared to other
regulatory options, secondary containment alone has the advantage that it
is "simple·;. easy to understand, and easy to administer and enforce" (52
FR 12674). Finally, EPA's financial analysis for UST regulatory
development shows that secondary containment costs "may be fully offset"
in the long-term by savings in corrective action, insurance, leak
detection, and operation and maintenance costs (Ibid.). Regulators
should keep these significant advantages in mind when developing state
and local UST programs.,
In contrast, EPA's reasons for .rejecting secondary containment for
petroleum UST systems are not compelling. First, despite the fact that
secondary containment pays for itself in the long-term, EPA is concerned
that small businesses will be unable to pay the approximately 20-30%
higher initial costs of these more-protective UST systems.1 EPA's
financial analysis for UST regulatory development shows, however, that
most·facility closures prompted by the UST regulations will be caused by
corrective action expenses, not by the costs of installing secon~ary
containment and other tank system upgrades (53 FR 37193). Moreover, to
address the higher initial costs of secondary containment, states can set
up low-cost loan programs to ensure that small businesses with secondary
containment of UST systems remain viable.
Second, EPA rejected secondary containment for petroleum UST systems
because it "conflicts with most emerging state and local programs and
significantly curtails state flexibility to allow other approaches" (52
FR 12674). Prior to promulgation of the federal regulations, few states
had comprensive UST regulations. Of those that did, however, five states
required secondary containment for all new UST systems . Since issuance
of the regulations, at least one additional state has mandated secondary
containment for all new UST systems and several states have re quired
secondary containment for UST s y stems located™ water supplies.
1. The cost of secondary containment is decreasing over time as more of
these UST systems are installed and as technology improves (Holland,
1988).
25
Clearly, many states do not find that mandatory secondary containment
conflicts with their emerging UST programs; states are also increasingly
recognizing that mandatory secondary containment results in simpler and
more easily administered and enforced UST programs.
Leak Detection. Since the EPA regulations do not emphasize leak
prevention for petroleum UST systems, one would think that EPA would
require UST system owners and operators to use state-of-the-art methods
of leak detection. Unfortunately, however, the federal r .egulations do
little to ensure that the best methods of release detection are employed
by UST sys·tem owners and operators. Unlike the EPA of the early 1970s
which, through regulation, forced' the development of the catalytic
converter to control automobile air pollution, the EPA Office of
Underground Storage Tanks of the late 1980s appears uninterested in
accelerating the development, through regulation, of improved UST leak
detection and prevention technologies .
In the interest of not significantly modifying the current practices
of UST system owners and operators, the federal UST regulations allow the
use of inventory control as a monthly leak detection method, a method
that can detect only larger leaks (approximately 1 gallon per hour, or
168 gallons per week, at best, 53 FR 37150). EPA presumably compensates
for the inaccuracy of inventory control for a period of ten years by
requiring that ·it be used in conjunction with annual tank tightness
testing for existing, non-upgraded UST systems and every five years for
new or upgraded systems (upgraded refers to UST systems with corrosion
protection and spill/overfill controls). This leak detection schedule
could allow leaks slightly below the inventory control reliability limit
to result in releases of approximately 8,000 gallons before detection by
tank tightness testing in the former cas.e, and of approximately 40,000
gallons in the latter case. Because of its inherent lack of precision
and sensitivity, ·EDF strongly encourages states and localities to
consider inventory control, ·with or without tank tightness testing, only
as a redundant method of leak detection.
The best arguments opposing the use of inventory control as a
non-redundant method of monthly leak detection come from EPA's own data .
According to EPA, "several studies have shown that inventory control
records often contain errors that diminish their utility for release
detection" (52 FR 12726). The April proposal's preamble cites a study
entitled Under g round Motor Fuel Stora ge Tanks: b National Survev where
80% of the participants initially supplied incomplete or incorrect
inventory data on EPA's survey forms. Even after "intensive follow-up"
by EPA, only 50% of the records were eventually complete enough for
analysis (Ibid.). In short, it is not in the interest of states and
localities to allow inventory control as a method leak detection because
of its heavy oversight requirements, with such poor results.
If UST system owners and operators opt not to use inventory control,
cheir selection of leak detection devices currently ranges from highly
unreliable to very reliable. Until December 1990, UST system owners and
operators may comply with UST regulatory requirereents by installing leak
Zo
_,, .
detection devices that do not meet EPA performance requirements for
probability of leak detection (PD) and probability of false alarm (PFA).
After December 1990, these tank systems do not have to retrofit with new
leak detection devices that meec EPA performance requirements. EDF
believes states should require installation of leak detection devices
that currently meet EPA performance requirements, so unreliable
products will be driven from the market and more leaks will be detected
at their early stages.
In addition to requiring leak detection devices to meet EPA's
performance requirements immediately, EDF encourages UST programs to
include strengthened performance requirements . EPA data show that some
of the best leak detection devices can meet a PD of 0.99 and a PFA of
0.01 (53 FR 37145) .. States, localities, and insurers should require all
leak detection devices used to meet -a PD of 0.99 and a PFA of 0.01 to
ensure that more leaks will be detected at their early stages and fewer
distracting false alarms. wi·ll occur.
Applicability. In order to prevent leaks from UST systems not
currently covered by the federal UST regulations, states and localities
should consider regulating certain exempted or deferred2 categories of
tanks. For example·, as of May 1989, -36 _ states have .§..Q!!!g_ regulations
for UST systems used to store heating oil for consumptive use on the
premises where stored and/or for farm or residential UST systems of 1,100
gallons or less capacity used to store motor fuel fo·r noncommercial
purposes. EPA's recent report to Congress addressing these UST systems
stated that "the potential for (these] tank systems and regulated USTs to
leak is likely to be similar if they are not protected against corrosion"
(U.S. EPA, 1989). The report adds that "[t]he number of potential
releases . is much higher . fo _r [these] exempt tank systems than for
regulated USTs because exempt tank systems are nearly twice as abundant
as regulated USTs" (Ibid., p. 3-26). There is definitely a need to
prevent releases from these ,exempted tanks through regulation or more
stringent insurance preconditions.
Lastly, EDF recommends that states and localities regulate used oil
tanks as hazardous substance UST systems, not as petroleum UST systems,
because of the potential ris_ks associated with used· oil releases. Data
on used oil's constituents show relatively high levels of metals such as
lead and cadmium, chlorinated and aromatic solvents, and PCBs (U.S. EPA,
1984; additional studies are currently ongoing). EPA admits in the
preamble to, the final UST regulations that, compared to petroleum UST
system releases, "the health risks posed [by used oil UST system
releases] may potentially be greater because of the possibility of
contaminants in the used oil" (53 FR 37112). Cleanup of the
heterogeneous contaminant mixtures which may be released from used oil
UST systems is generally difficult because of the different treatments
necessary for inorganics and organics. Given the roter.tial health risks
2 . EPA decided to defer to a later time regulation of particular types of
UST systems covered by Subtitle I .
27
associated with used oil leaks and the lack of easily ·implementable
corrective action technologies, in contrast to petroleum leak cleanup
technologies, it is extremely important that states and localities
require used oil UST systems to meet the secondary containment/intersti-
tial monitoring standards of hazardous substance UST systems.
CONCLUSION
In summary, this paper addresses the primary areas where EDF finds
the federal UST regulatory program the most technically unjustifiable:
the lack of required secondary containment for petroleum UST systems, use
of inventory control as a monthly leak detection system, delay in
implementing EPA's leak detection device performance requirements, weak
le.ak detection device performance requirements, non-regulation of certain
types of UST systems, and regulation of used oil as petroleum rather than
as a hazardous substance. Given that states and localfties are free to
develop more stringent UST programs, EDF hopes that this paper proves
helpful. Likewise, EDF hopes UST system insurers will use this
information to assess the abilities. of individual ·facilities and state
and local UST programs to prevent and promptly detect leaks.
REFERENCES
µurgin, P., Worlund, J., D'Lugosz, J., ~Strategies for External Leak
Detection of Underground Storage Tanks," Proceedings of the 5th National
Conference on Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials, 1988.-
Environmental Defense Fund, Secondary Containment ; A Second 14.M of
Defense, 1988.
Holland, B., "Industry Makes a Case for Secondary Containment," Petroleum
Marketing Management, 1988, Vol. IX, No. 3, pp. 21-25.
Jacobs Engineering, "Cost Verification for UST Regulatory Impact Analysis
for U.S.E.P.A. -O.U.S.T.," EPA Contract No. 68~01-7058, 1987.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Musts for USTs, A Summar y of the
New Re gu lations for Under g round Storage Tank Sy stems, EPA/530/UST-88/008,
1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Summa ry of State Re p orts £n
Releases from Under ground Stora ge Tanks, EPA/600/M-86/020, 1986.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Under ground Heating Oil and Motor
Fuel Tanks Exem p t from Re gu lation Under Subtitle l of RCRA: A Study for
Re p ort to Con gress, 1989.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Com p osition and Mana g ement of Used
Oil Generated in the United States, 1984 .
28
T
T
T
3T CORPORATION
Mr. Rarrly Prillaman
Ground Water Section
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
C€ar Mr. Prillaman:
1246 Pearl Street Denver, Colorado 80203
[phone]
May 30, 1990
I represent 3T Corporation in the State of North Carolina which
!:pecializes in Undergrourd Tank Tightness Testing. Recently I have called
on a number of concerns which have undergoun:1 tanks which need testing.
One of the many questions that arises is, "If I have to replace these
tanks, who is licensed ard reliable in tank installation work?" We cannot
ans.ver that question.
I would like to recorrmeoo for the integrity of the overall program
which the State is undertaking that your department require companies that
install tanks or nonitoring devices of any kin:1 be registered with the
Cepartment of Environment, Health am. Natural Rerources.
Our company currently operates in five states ard as a result of our
field experience, we strongly recormnend that there be a clean an:i clear
reparation between companies that do testing for tightness ard those that
install tanks. In one case in particular, the customer hcrl their tanks
tested, were told they were leaking but not to worry because this company's
rubsidiary would replace the tank. The profit· on replacing the tank was
ll0x rrore than the profit on testing. A little like letting the fox in the
hen house.
We are currently training permanent personnel for tank testing in North
Carolina ard will be glcrl to be of help ard support to your department.
Sincerely,
~·;·;P.~
David R. White
P.O. Box 19322
Raleigh, NC 27619
/apl Telephone [phone]
cc: Mrs. Nargis S. Toma
TOTAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TESTING
fl _'\
,-
' ' HOLT OIL COMPANY, INC.
1709 Clinton Road
P. O. Box 53157
Fayetteville, N. C. 28305 .::.-'-~--_-, ~ 11•-..: "".,.,_ .. "'\ ~ -i AM
OCO •:?1"· i ";} :' .. ==~) rrt"•1.,, ... _ t .. , ·,\,
Area Code 919
Phone [phone]
MR RANDY PRILLAMAN
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
GROUND WATER SEC EHNR
BOX 27687
RALEIGH,NC 27611
DEAR MR PRILLAMAN:
~-~) '. ~ ., ~ ~-•. -_· ·i,::._ '·-' -·••,_ ·,t' I ,·' ,,.
1· ['\(\
<:I< \.9:JU -
JUNE 4' 1990 J\)11 :\ -,-t_C\ \()!\
, \-\ -'> 'N~ "ii> \{C "Rautrci •. oei\-\, u f.,,1.-
RE: UST REGULATIONS,PROPOSED
THIS LETTER IS TO COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED UNDERGROUND
TANK REGULATIONS. OUR COMPANY OPERATES FIFTEEN FACILITIES
THAT SELL GASOLINE WITH APPROXIMATELY 70 UNDERGROUND TANKS.
FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS WE HAVE BEEN UPGRADING OUR STATIONS.
INSTALLING OVERSPILL PROTECTION,FIBERGLASSING TANKS AND LINES,
INSTALLING LEAK DETECTION TO BRING OUR STATIONS TO EPA SPECS.
THE COST IS RUNNING ABOUT $30,000.00 TO $45,000.00 PER STATION.
WE HOPE TO FINISH ALL OF OUR EXISTING OUTLETS BY 1993 AT A TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST OF$ 600 TO $700,000.00.
WE ARE DOING THIS TO PROTECT OURSELVES AS WELL AS THE ENVIRONMENT.
TO CHANGE THE RULES ON US NOW WOULD BE A FINANCIAL DISASTER FOR
OUR COMPANY AS WELL AS ONES SMALLER AND LESS ABLE TO ASSUME THESE
RESPONSIBILITIES.
YOUR PROPOSAL .030l(C) COULD REQUIRE OUR EXISTING TANKS,THAT MEET
EPA SPECS,TO BE REPLACED EVEN THOUGH THEY COMPLY.THIS WOULD COST
ABOUT $60,000.00 PER STATION. CONSIDER REQUIRING DOUBLE WALL WHERE
SOIL CONDITIONS ARE CORROSIVE TO THE POINT THEY WARRANT DOUBLE
WALLS.
THE SECOND SET OF REGULATIONS REQUIRING "GEOLOGIST AND ENGINEER"
IS LIKEWISE ALARMING AND OFFERS LITTLE BENEFIT TO THE ENVIRONMENT.
A LICENSING OF INSTALLERS BASED ON THEIR QUALIFICATINS WOULD
PROBABLY BENEFIT EVERYONE BETTER.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO COMMENT.
SINCERELY,
HOLT OIL COMPANY INC
~ARLES _HOLT
(/Yi0Lt-,~
/
.,J
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS ON PROPOSED
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS
JUNE 8, 1990
STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE
NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF CONVENIENCE STORES
BY ED TURLINGTON
THARRINGTON, SMITH & HARGROVE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
These comments are filed on behalf of the North Carolina
Association of Convenience Stores to supplement the earlier
statement on the proposed state underground storage tank
regulations that was filed at the May 7, 1990 hearing in Raleigh.
These comments focus on alternative Rule .030l(c), which
states that "All UST system (sic) must meet the release detection
requirements of Rule .0503 of this Subchapter." Rule .0503
adopts by reference the requirements for hazardous substance UST
systems contained in 40 C.F.R. § 280.42. Among other things, 40
C.F.R. § 280.42 requires owners and operators of hazardous
substance underground storage tank systems to provide secondary
containment or double-walled tanks at new hazardous substance
underground storage tank systems.
As currently written, alternative Rule .0301(c) would
require all underground storage tank systems --both new and
existing --to have double-walled tanks or secondary containment.
Such a requirement would be financially disastrous for tank
owners and operators because it would require existing tanks that
do not meet this requirement (even the ones installed or upgraded
after the effective date of the new federal regulations in
December 1988) to be pulled out of the ground and replaced by
December 1998.
In fact, requiring double-walled tanks or secondary
containment for petroleum underground storage tank systems is
unnecessary. Compliance with the December 1988 federal
regulations, which require all tanks to be replaced or upgraded
by December 1998 but which do not require secondary containment
except for tanks containing hazardous substances other than
petroleum, will ensure tank safety.
Therefore, we ask the Commission to reject alternative Rule
.030l(c) and to adopt the federal standards for new and existing
underground storage tank systems.
In the alternative, if a version of Rule .030l{c) is
adopted, it should follow the original text of Rule .030l(c),
i.e., secondary containment or double-walled tanks would be
required only for new petroleum underground storage tank systems
within certain distances of water supplies.
Thank you for the opportunity to supplement our comments on
the proposed regulations.
[c:jet/state.jet/rh]
- 2 -
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
HEARING ON PROPOSED UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
MAY 7, 1990
STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
ASSOCIATION OF CONVENIENCE STORES
BY ED TURLINGTON
THARRINGTON, SMITH & HARGROVE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Chairman, members of the Environmental Management
Com.mission, I am a member of the Raleigh law firm of Thar~ington,
Smith & Hargrove which represents the North Carolina Association '
of Convenience Stores. Thank you for the opportunity to speak
today on these proposed state regulations.
It is impo~tant to emphasize at the outset the impact the
regulations will have on the Convenience Store industry and
members of the Association. One hundred fifty-eight companies
representing 2,000 retail stores comprise the North Carolina
Association of Convenience Stores. Since gasoline is increasing-
ly distributed at the retail level through these stores, there
are literally thousands of underground storage tanks at conve-
nience stores across our state.
As you know, leaking underground storage tanks present a
serious environmental problem. They also present a serious
economic problem for convenience store operators. In addition to
the exorbitant insurance costs for tank owners and operators (if
insurance can be obtained), the owners and operators must meet
federal financial responsibility requirements and technical
standards. In fact, we believe the financial responsibility
requirements imposed by federal law for operating underground
storage tanks have already caused some convenience stores to go
out of business.
Because of these environmental and economic considerations.,
the North Carolina Association of Convenience Stores worked hard
to secure enactment of a state law to address the problem. Both
in 1988, when th·e legislation was first enacted, and in 1989 when
it was revised, Association members and our firm as its counsel
have met with legislators, officials of Natural Resources and
Community Development [now Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (EHNR)], industry and environmental representatives to
produce a workable law.
In summary, the Convenience Store Association has worked
hard to assist its members, the state and the public in the
search for a solution to this problem. We look forward to
working with you and others in the future.
Prompt action on these proposed regulations --and prompt
issuance of regulations on financial responsibility require-
- 2 -
ments --are necessary to get the state's underground storage
tank fund working.
On behalf of the Convenience Store Association, I also want
to commend the work of Perry Nelson and his staff at the Ground-
water Division. Although we do not always agree with them, Perry
and his staff have considered the concerns expressed by us on
behalf of the Association about the proposed state underground
storage tank regulations.
The Division --and all state agencies that enforce the
underground storage tank law --need more staff and money. We
endorse that need since a fully-staffed underground storage tank
program can assist both tank owners and the public in avoiding
future environmental problems and in cleaning up existing leaks.
We first offer three observations on the proposed regula-
tions. First, it appears that in those instances in which the
state regulations vary from the federal regulations, the state
regulations are more stringent. We believe the existing federal
regulations are sufficient and before adopting tougher state
regulations, the Commission should be convinced that a compelling
need exists to do so. The more stringent the regulations, the
greater the cost of compliance. Since these additional costs
will likely be passed along to the consumer, the public will
- 3 -
ultimately bear the cost of any excessive regulation. We there-
fore request that you regulate only where it is necessary to do
so.
Second, as with all regulations, these state regulations
should be tough enough to prevent and clean up leaks, but not so
tough as to bankrupt an entire industry.
Third, wherever possible, the regulations should be clearly
written and evenly enforced in order that tank owners and opera-
tors will know what the law is and how it applies to them
that, of course, will facilitate compliance and eliminate unnec-
essary and costly enforcement action by the Department.
Although we have examined all of the proposed state regula-
-tions, we cite the following regulations for special comment:
* ~0104 Identification of Tanks: This regulation re-
quires owners and operators to maintain at each facility a
diagram with information about the tanks on that site. EHNR
should consider developing a standard form for this purpose and
should mail it to all tank owners and operators without their
having to request it.
- 4 -
* .0301 (b } and (c ) -Performance Standards for New UST
S y stems: These regulations prohibit underground storage tanks
within certain distances of water supplies and if the tanks are
within a certain distance of the water supplies, they must meet
certain construction requirements. These proposed regulations
should be adopted instead of the alternative .0301(b) and (c)
discussed below, which are unnecessarily stringent.
* .0301 (b ) and (c ) (Alternative }: These alternative
regulations differ from .0301(b) and (c) in two important ways.
First, they would prohibit underground storage tank systems
within 500 feet of a well serving a public water system (100 feet
in other regulations) or within 500 feet of certain surface water
classifications or any other source of public water supplies (100
feet in other regulations). Alternative .0301(b) agrees with the
.
other .0301(b) in prohibiting underground storage tanks systems
within 50 feet of any other well supplying water for human
consumption.
Second, these alternative regulations would require all
underground storage tank systems, both new and old, to have
double-walled tanks or secondary containment, regardless of their
proximity to water supplies. Such a requirement could be finan-
cially disastrous for tank owners and operators because it would
require existing tanks that do not meet this requirement (even
- 5 -
the ones installed or upgraded after the effective date of the
new federal regulations in December 1988) to be pulled out of the
ground and replaced by December 1998.
In addition to being incredibly expensive, such a re-
quirement is unnecessary to protect the environment. Compliance
with the December 1988 federal regulations, which require all
tanks to be replaced or upgraded by ~he December 1998 date but
which do not require secondary containment except for tanks
containing hazardous substances other than petroleum, will ensure
tank safety.
* .0502 (b } (Alternative} -Requ irements for Petroieum UST
S y stems: This regulation should not be adopted because it seeks
to implement the requirement in alternative regulation .0301 that
.
petroleum underground storage tank systems must be double-walled
or have secondary containment •
* .0503 (Alternative ) -Re qu irements for Hazardous
Substance UST S y stems: This regulation should not be adopted
because it seeks to implement the requirement in alternative
regulation .0301 that petroleum underground storage tank systems
must be double-walled or have secondary containment.
* New Notification Re qu irements: A number of the pro-
posed state regulations add notification requirements for tank
- 6 -
owners and operators. Regulation .0303 requires that written
notice be given to the state at least 30 days before installation
of a new underground storage tank system, installation of a leak
detection device or permanent closure or change-in-service.
(Federal regulation 40 C.F.R. § 280.22 requires written notice
within 30 days after --rather than before --bringing it into
use.) Regulation .0404 requires owners of underground storage
tank systems to submit within 30 days following completion writ-
ten notice to the state of repairs made to that tank. (Federal
regulation 40 C.F.R. § 280.33 only requires maintenance of repair
records.) Regulation .0405 requires owners and operators of
underground storage tank systems to submit site investigations
conducted at permanent closure and to ensure compliance with
release detection requirements and to submit a description of
repairs and certification of the proper operation of a corrosion
.
protection system within 30 days following completion of these
activities. (Federal regulation 40 C.F.R. § 280.34 only requires
owners and operators to maintain records of these activities.)
The federal notice and reporting requirements for these
activities are adequate and should be the standard. A showing
has not been made that Regulations .0303, .0404, and .0405 of the
proposed state regulations are necessary.
- 7 -
* .0504 (e ) and .0803 (2 ): These regulations require that
vapor and groundwater monitoring and site assessments at closure
or change-in-service be done by or under the supervision of a
"licensed geologist" or "professional engineer." This require-
ment will impose a financial burden on tank owners and operators
with little, if any, environmental benefit. Use of contractors
for these services complies with federal requirements. The state
regulations should simply state that the person or company doing
this work must be qualified by federal law to do so.
These proposed state regulations do not define "under
the supervision of." Must the licensed geologist or professional
engineer be present at all covered activities? If so, that could
be prohibitively expensive. The regulation should be clarified
in this respect.
Requiring a licensed geologist or professional engineer
would place a special burden on tank owners and operators in
rural counties. Given the fact that many, if not most, of the
licensed geologists and professional engineers reside in urban
areas, rural tank owners and operators will have to spend a lot
of money on travel costs.
If the goal of regulations .0504(e) and .0803(2) is to have
a professional that is accountable for the covered inspections,
- 8 -
then the current practice of contractors signing the notification
form as the installer-contractor is adequate. Three other
approaches to the accountability problem might also be consid-
ered.
First, state licensing of installer-contractors could
provide assurance that they are qualified and would be account-
able since their licenses could be revoked if they submitted
false results. A second alternative would be for the company
president or a top employee of the tank owners or operator to
sign the notification form. Finally, the phrase "persons quali-
fied in professional evaluations" could be substituted for the
licensed geologist/ professional engineer requirement in .0504(e)
and .0803(2). This would allow some flexibility for tank owners
and operators to comply with the state regulations without being
-prohibitively expensive.
The state regulations should follow the federal regulations
on the vapor and groundwater monitoring and site assessments.
* New Re p orting Periods: The following state regulations
shorten the reporting periods of the comparable federal regula-
tions, which generally allow "a reasonable time period," in
addition to a specific number of days, to meet certain deadlines:
-9 -
t
I
I
0
0
§ .0601 (suspected releases)
§ .0603 (release investigation and
confirmation)
§ .0604 (reporting and cleanup of
spills and overfills)
§ .0702 (initial response to leaks)
§ .0703 (initial abatement measures
and site check)
§ .0704 (initial site characteriza-
tion)
§ .0706 (investigations for soil
and groundwater cleanup)
The federal notice periods are adequate and should be
maintained.
Thank you for consideration of these comments on the pro-
posed regulations.
* * *
[c:jet/ncacs.doc/rh]
-10 -
CLIFTON W. EVERETT I 19 17·19891
CLIFTON W. EVERETT, IR.
T YLER B. WARREN
EDWARD J. HARPER, Il
RYAL W. TAYLOE
SCOTT W. WARREN
EVE RETT, EVERETT, WARR E N S HARPER
ATTORNEYS A T LAW
BETHEL, NORTH CA ROLINA 2 7 &12
11 9 RAILR O AD STREET-P. 0 , BOX 609
TELEPHO NE I 9 19) 8 2 5 -56 91
FAX I 9 191 825 -9259
June 6, 1990
Mr. Randy Prillaman, Environmental Specialist
Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
GREENVILLE, N.C. OFFICE
P. 0-BOX 1220
200 S. WASH INGT ON STREET
TELEPHONE ( 9191 758-4257
FAX [phone]
Re: Effect of Underground Storage Tank Regulations on Deeds
Dear Mr. Prillaman:
The purpose of this letter is to supplement my oral
remarks made at the public hearing held in New Bern on May
10, 1990, regarding the proposed adoption of Title 15A,
Subchapter 2N of the North Carolina Administrative Code
entitled Underground Storage Tanks.
You will note that Subsection Cd) of Section .0101
(GENERAL) provides that subsequent to the effective date of
the implementation of the proposed regulation, landowners
shall ensure that the presence and location of all
underground storage tank (UST) systems be recorded on all
deeds at the time of transfer to any property on which the
underground storage tank systems are located. I have
discussed the aforesaid Subsection (d) with the members on
the Real Property Council of the North Carolina Bar
Association who represent real estate attorneys throughout
North Carolina and the 20+ Council members are unanimous in
their opposition to the adoption of the aforesaid Subsection
(d). I further explained to the Council members that the
definition of UST exempted septic tanks, heating oil tanks
used on site, and tanks of 1100 gallons or less used to
store motor fuel for a farm or residence for a noncommercial
purpose, together with other exemptions, but the Council
members are still adamant in their opposition to the
adoption of any such regulation.
It is the opinion of the Council members that a deed is
to be used for the transfer of the title to real property
EVERETT, EVERETT . WARREN & HARPER
and the requirement of additional agreements or
representations will only create uncertainty regarding the
title to the property and may hinder the ability of the
title insurance companies to insure such title. To require
the presence and location of all UST systems to be recorded
on all deeds would open Pandora's box to allow other
additional representations to be included in the deed such
as the presence or absence of termites, the structural
condition of the improvements located upon the property, the
availability of water, sewer, or electrical services to the
property, and a host of miscellaneous requirements could
later be imposed upon the deed by other regulatory agencies.
Furthermore, under the proposed Subsection (d), landowners
could eventually be required to incur an expensive
environmental assessment and additional surveying costs as
they attempt to comply with Subsection Cd), especially with
recently acquired property of which the seller would not
have any personal knowledge regarding the presence or
location of UST systems on his property.
In summary, the purpose of a deed is not to serve as a
notice of disclosure or an instrument for complying with
regulations of various regulatory agencies, but the purpose
of a deed is to transfer the ownership of real property.
The deed is an instrument which has been well-defined over
the years by statute and a large body of case law.
Subsection (d) of Section .0101 of Subchapter 2N of Title
15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code as proposed
would create uncertainty in the transfer of titles, impose
additional representations and warranties upon sellers,
raise new legal issues regarding the effect of deeds and the
warranties therein, could create a problem with obtaining
title insurance on the title to said property, and would
probably cause the landowner to incur additional expenses in
order to ensure compliance with the aforesaid subsection
which would increase the cost of the transaction and the
purchase price of any property conveyed.
Therefore, the Real Property Section and the North
Carolina Bar Association oppose the adoption of the
aforesaid Subsection (d) of Section .0101 of the proposed
Title lSA, Subchapter 2N of the Administrative Code, and
would respectfully request its deletion from the proposed
Subchapter 2N.
2
I •
EVERETT. EVERETT. WARREN & HARPER
I would recommend another method of keeping records of
underground storage tanks and notifying the public and
appropriate state agencies. It is my understanding that
there is a state agency already assigned the task of keeping
records of the existence and location of underground storage
tanks and that either current or proposed regulations
require underground storage tank owners to disclose this
information to this state agency. I would suggest that the
burden of disclosure be placed on the state agency and that
they be directed, by code regulation, or by statute,
whichever is appropriate, to send disclosure notices to the
Register of Deeds in the county in which the tank is located.
The disclosure notice would name the owner of the property
on which the tank is located, with a brief description of
said property and/or tank, and the Register of Deeds would
be required to record and index the notice in the granter
index. If this procedure were properly and promptly
followed, it would place the notice of the existence of the
underground storage tank on the public record so that it
would be discovered in the routine course of title
examination. I believe that our section would not support
this alternative, however, unless it were stated clearly in
the proposed regulation or legislation that the disclosure
of the existence and location of the underground storage
tank in no way creates a lien or encumbrance on the title to
the property.
It is my hope that the Division of Environmental
Management will support the position of the Real Property
Section and the North Carolina Bar Association in deleting
Subsection (d) of Section .0101 of Subchapter 2N of the
proposed Chapter 15A and consider using the alternative
suggested above instead. The members of the Real Property
Section would be glad to assist you in the drafting of the
suggested notice and the procedure for use of the same.
Sincerely,
~ f Wa~C::::irman
Real Property Section
North Carolina Bar Association
TBW: la
3
.,, .-I
June 11 , 1990
Mr. Randy Prillaman
Division of Environmental Management
Groundwater Section
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Prillaman:
,~9Wl[E;ij
,JUN g -
CG~i!JllN@®/,:,U £fi §{ C'((O 1v
{f)~li El'GH, NC
I would like to submit the following thoughts concerning the requirements of the
use of a licensed geologist or professional engineer to conduct or supervise
various aspects of the proposed underground storage tank regulations. I am a
geologist and have been working for an Environmental Services Division of a major
petroleum equipment distributor. My background includes approximately two years
of geotechnical experience and approximately three years with the petroleum
equipment company.
rn· the past three years I have bekn involved with new tank installations, tank
testing, equipment upgrades including cathodic protection systems, tank closures,
site assessments, monitor well installations, assessment of groundwater quality,
and on site soil remediation. I am finding that my experience with petroleum
equipment is invaluable now that I specifically deal with problems caused by this
equipment.
My point is this. Even though I have experience in dealing with problems caused
by USTs, I will not be able to conduct tank closures and assessments if the state
regulations remain as proposed. I am currently attempting to acquire a license
to practice geology in North Carolina. I have also recently taken the registration
exam for the third time. The North Carolina Board for the licensing of geologists
seems to want to allow only the elite to acquire a license. The examination they
are requiring is no more than a game of Trivial Pursuit using extremely detailed
geologic questions. I am a person of average intelligence but seriously doubt that
I will ever acquire the registration, although I have a great deal more experience
in dealing with UST problems than the majority of the professional engineers and
licensed geologists in this area.
To summarize, I would like to say that I am all for UST assessment work being
supervised and conducted by qualified people. Is a geologist that has been grand-
fathered into getting a registration because of their mining experience more quali-
fied to supervise a tank closure assessment than a person with my experience? I
don't think so. Is a professional engineer with mechanical engineering background
more qualified? The proposed regulations seem to imply this. I believe it is
necessary to have a geologist or environmental engineer on site during tank
closures and assessments, but I question the need for a licensed or registered
professional. The North Carolina Board for the licensing of Geologist has changed
their experience requirements at least three times in three years and have only
~I\
'
I~ •
Page Two (2)
given the registration exam seven times, all of which have had extremely low pass-
ing rates. Geologist who make sound decisions in the field and who maybe of
average intelligence will be prohibited from conducting UST assesment work if a
license is required.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Steven B. Lucas
Concerned Geologist
2 .
doubtful there are nearly enough 9f them in the s;tate to
handle the work load over the next two to three years . A
program to further qualify or require bonding on the
already experienced mechanics to handle samples would be
more practical, and would be more consistent with a state
licensing of petroleum mechanics.
Sect .. 0502 (b) "Requirements for hazardous substance UST
systems" -If this section is adopted "it opens a huge can
of worms".
It would require a "safety course" for al 1 p11mp and tank
contractors and all their employees -at great expense .
It would require the same "safety course" for all pump
mechanics as well as service station attendants.
It would require "safety suits'' for all the above
mentioned people.
It would mandate "Health monitoring" for all the above
mentioned people -at extreme expense.
This section would financially devastate the pump and tank
installation industry and a lot of businesses would be
forced out. Of those remaining, the rates they charge
would go through the roof.
In all respect, we feel responsible legislation governing
the Petroleum Industry is essential, but must additional
laws be passed each year, even before the governing
agencies have fully implemented the present regulations?
We have seen tremendous changes for the better in our
environment and for the general public in the past few
years, all brought about by our presently enacted laws.
Why can't we move ahead just a little slower and let these
laws have their full impact before we impose additional
laws that will bankrupt an entire industry. The problems
we are trying to correct with this new legislation, have
been accumulating for over a hundred years. How can
anyone expect one industry to bear the tremendous
financial responsibility as well as the physical
impossibility of replacing and upgrading every fueling
location in existence in the span of just eight years?
Please consider these obstacles when reviewing the new
legislation. We will follow your act.ions closely.
Sincerely,
DAACO, INC.
Oa,tf&/ d ~vz,,J ;_
f 1ES H. HARRIS, JR. /
f _ __,-~ .-e~ ,,"a<t~~~~ %--.fo~ /') fl) II I ; k-rt?. ' \ w-I c::._,_
't' '\ \-,-,.,, ,.-, -. ~~\ y/ -# ~
:_-% ·\'-\J
-. -•:.'\. c..,_\_,\J
<.. ''-J' ~ ~( . J ,( \'t--, \.\''-'
~(.)~~' :::0 ·
"~' . \_0 -s~'-J ~~ -
FRIENDLY MART INC .
BERT MARTIN ROAD
MT . OLIVE, N.C. 28365
[phone]
.JUNE Uc:,, 1. C/90
Mr. Randy Prillaman
Environmental Specialist
EHNR-DEM
Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Re~ Proposed State Underground Storage Tank Regulations
Dear Mr. Prillaman;
Th is lt:>tte·c· 15 to c: Cr !Tr1T1e1-, t: o r-1 t; hr:::· ~:i ·1 -Ci p D ~-f?d ~i°t-:.:,_tE!
underground storage tank regulations. Our
convenience store business and operates
petroleum storage ta.nki:=;"
company is in the
25 underground
·r~A.IC1 SE•C ti c,·ns
t:r··r-,i 1h 1 ·i r,c, .. .. . ·--·-· ... ·-.. -::, -F:i.r·:=.:.t,
of the proposed regulations are especially
the requirement in alternative Rule.
030:L(c:) th:::i.t i::<.11 1_~ c1 c! f.~ r .. i:_;J r·· ei u. r·! d ·::::. ·1.·_: DY" -:·:-_-t!;_:J c~:• ii-:-·/ ~==:-t .: .:--::-:· rn !·--,a.
double-walled tanks or secondary containment bv December
1 °9 8 could be financially disastrous for
operators.
t.::,.r--,k o 1::•J -!°--! e:.· r· ~; -~J ·n d
t 0
Altern2tive
be pulled out
Rule .0301.(cl could require exis ting tanks
of the ground (even if they had been
recently upgraded pursuant to the
and replaced with double-walled
l C/ ::::: [1 ·f i:-:-:· d (!::• -!·-t•. l regulations)
secondary t: .:::t. r-1 k ~~ c, r ..
,:: c, -,-·1 ta. i nm1:-:~n t . This could cost up to $100,000 per site.
The existing federal regulations that require all
existing tanks to be upgrad e d or rep l aced by Decem ber 1998
are sufficient to protect the environment. () ~:::--:·::"a. r·· f:.· ::::. i ___ i_ J t I
{::·t 1:=> k t: t .. , .:::1• t t r-, E· E~ -r-1 \/ i ·,-o ,-, rn f!.·:· c, t E:t 1 tv1.::·~. T"! -=·~ (_J f•'.:• ff!(~:• y··, -J.-.: C:: D ff: iT! :'J. ·:-::. -:~:. J. Ci r··! .,---c::,, _j 1':0:C t
::i l t:,:.·, ·n-':~ ti vc::J Pu. J. <=! • 0'.30 .l (cl a.·nd adopt the federal ~=-t: -=-::·!_ r, d -=~-·! -d =-~==-
.c · ...... .
f I I f
new and existing underground storage ta nk sy stem s without
ad dition of the state requirement of secondar c ontainment or
d ou ble-walled tanks.
In the alternativ e , it Rule " () :J () J ( C ) 1 ·::-:-, -·'.:\ c! c, p t~ ( : d 11 :Lt
s hould be rewritt en t.:ci i ·(·! cl i c: -::~ .. t . F::.• ;:: J r.::-:· -=:~. r · 1 ·i_-_: !· '1 -:':":; t: ::::. r:~ ( : c, ·c·, r.::i ::·~-r
containm ent or double-walled t : . .."!. °!""! J-:. E:• r· i:".-:-:• q l __ I_ ':.··(: -::, , .. : _j_ r ·1 ;:_.;_• ~----.!
i::) ::;::_, ·t .. r u 1 i:::.~ I.). ffl U. r .. 1 d C:· ·r· (_'.J y·· (1 Lt y-! cl '.::; t: Li ·c -:·::·1. (_] C·::· ; . -:::•. ! r l-:. '\". r:_:· !Fj •~;:_ :···1:_;,·i· .::-1.1 \.-'._! .i -l_-_: !···! :i. !--! ;'.•::.~::~~s1~;, i ';i,'.\:'.;'~E•.!;,: 1,•'cc ,:,f 1•J ,,,t c,·· :.1 ..
1
: :··· 1 i ,,. ,.-.::,j""r l. ('";
J 1.,
..... June 06, 1990
Page 2
Tr·, f:c· ':::, F:: C c, .,. .. , cl ··-..... L ·:::,•:::: '-·· ,:::,·f ·i~· r:: GJ u. 1 -~~1. t ]. c:, r·1 ~::; tf"·1E1. t
Association is Rules "()5()i'.°t ( (:?) -:":Jr,cJ ., C•fJ():3 ( E?.) .,
require that vapor ""i.C1d '] r--ei u. ·n d ~"-.l .::~. t c-::: r· fi'!Dr-1-j_ ti:::i·i-· i r·!~J
(:·. (::: ("1 c.: €:.· '( {'! ~~-
-r·j·--! (-:~ ~'.::-F::·
i:tr .. id
(:1 ! ___ 1_(·
f"U.J.C-':'::;
!::',it F:::·
assessments at closuce or change -in-service be done by or
L\ r1cl E·i~-~~-Ll~:i .r::·r ·vi ::-i ci ·n o ·f -:::1. 11 l i c E-:·r·1 ::::t::d q E·:·o J Ct i:.~J i ~::.t: 11 c. r· 11 p y-t) ~r E-:•~~;~::. :'!. D r .. r-~::i.1
eng1neec. This requi1ement will impose a financial burden
on tank owners and operators with ttl e, if
"I"·-· . !. ! I AdditiDr!:• 1 . ..1. ~:-E~ cit environmental benefit.
professionals will be a . special burden on tank C1 ~~-Jr·, i:.?. r· ~:;.
t: !·--j c:_:•~::;(-:?
-::r.r-,c!
operators in cural areas since most
geologists and professional engineer are
of the licensed
1 !...t y·· I:::, D. r··1 i:::·:• ·::·:~ ~:::.
The Commission might consider state licensing eif i ·c·, ~;; t .:;1. l 1 t~ ·c· ---
contractors as a method to ensure accountability 1 i-·, C: Er.":::-f:: C -f ~~·:·,_
leak. This could provide assurance the installe r -contractors
are qualified and would be accountable since their licenses
could be revoked if they submitted false results .
Given that use of licensed qe:•,::, l c:,g is:, ts. .::·:,. r-, cl p r o -,=-E"? ~;; ~:~-i er r··, -::·:!. J
engineers is unnecessary, the state regulations should simpl
state that the person or comp~ny doing thi s work must be
qualified by federal law to do so.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
~
.-.: r "-'"" 1.,., ·1 \/ --I ·-.,. ,. ,....
t,l-,/.A/\..,t"A..,o/
Michael Price
President
~ -~
.. ="-· s· A-ve_. v
A s JVl Q J ~ l( J \.l_.1a("'W.
1HURRI-UPI
TRI-COUNTY PETROLEUM
P. 0 . Box 430
WALLACE, N. C. 28466
PHONE [phone]
Mr. Randy Prillaman
Environmental Specialist
EHNR-DEI:
Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, ~c 27611
June 4, 1990 1~~-~-~ .fl[rW-.;,:;_'"•1:-\,. ~: t_,;_:'.{;ff :(·,.,I ,. ~'"-·,, l!··I,.. ,.-. I :. ,•. -•-....... ..,,, . . I .,. , .. ·' .. J. \ t. ( .. ,.' '
,.jv
. :JUN ~ , ,::199()
· "'
0 0UMDJA.tt7r--k ··t•t·c·r10 •.' <~~ /y YVn C, <,)1_.. I f :
RALEIGH, NC'
Re: Proposed State Underground Storage Tank Regulations
Dear Mr. Prillaman:
This letter is to com.~ent on the proposed state underground
storage tank regulations. Our company is in the convenience store
business and operates __ ll__ underground petroleum storage tanks.
Two sections of the proposed regulations are especially troubling.
First, the requirement in alternative Rule .0301 (c) that all under-
ground storage tank systems have double-walled tanks or secondary
containment by December 1998 could be would ~ut us out of business
and have 29 employees without work.
Alternative 2ule .0301 (c) could require existing t anks to be
pulled out of the ground (even if they had been recently upgrade d
pursuant to the 1988 federal regulations) and replaced with double-
walled tanks or secondary containment. This could cost up to $100,000
per site.
The existing federal regulations that require all e xisting tanks
to be upgraded or replaced by December 1998 are suffici e nt to protect
the environment. As a result, I ask that the Environme ntal ~anage ment
Commission rej e ct alt e rnative Rule .030l(c) and a dopt the feder a l
standards for new and existing underground storage tank systems without
addition of the state requirement of secondary c ontainm e n t or dou b le-
walled tanks.
In the a lt e rnative, if Rule .0301(c) is adopted, it s hould be
rewritten to indicate cl e arly that secondary contain □ent o r double-
walled tanks a r e required ~ml~ f or new p e troleum µnderground storage
-
.-71..e_ St>tW__ -'S /},{_ oji /( .... M .. rW_s
A. ·T.: WILLIAMS OIL COMP ANY
--------DISTRIBUTORS PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
IW 1Lc2j P. 0. BOX 7287 5446 UNIVERSITY ~~,f:H\.W-~Y
WINSTON-SALEM, N. C. 27109 PH~N~}9~9I 767-;. 0.
t ..... \. .. . . 7.'.... t • .....
~· -~. i\
June 7. 1990 ~-"i~\;.'._, .. :. ",.,·
~1'\{>.. ~-
·,,\,, -1~~ ~' ,· .. ~tf:J\\~~
-~ !\::,.:.;~ "~~
Mr. Randy Prillaman
Environmental Specialist
EHNR-DEM
Groundwater Section
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611
Re: Proposed State Underground Storage Tank Regulations
Dear Mr. Prillaman:
This letter is to comment on the proposed state
underground storage tank regulations. Our company is in the
convenience store business and operates 275 underground
petroleum storage tanks.
Two sections of the proposed regulations are especially
troubling. First. the requirement in alternative Rule .030l(c)
that all underground storage tank systems have double-walled
tanks or secondary containment by December 1998 could be
financially disastrous for tank owners and operators.
Alternative Rule .030l(c) could require existing tanks to
be pulled out of the ground (even if they had been recently
upgraded pursuant to the 1988 federal regulations) and replaced
with double-walled tanks or secondary containment~ This could
cost up to $100 1 000 per site.
. -~ \)~\I'/ ($, ~
~i~~,-~\,~
The existing federal regulations that require all existing
tanks to be upgraded or replaced by December 1998 are sufficient
to protect the environment. As a result. I ask that the
Environmental Management Commission reject alternative Rule
• 030l(c) and adopt the federal standards for new and existing
underground storage tank systems without addition of the state
requirement of secondary containment or double-walled tanks.
In the alternative. if Rule .030l(c) is adopted. it should
be rewritten to indicate clearly that secondary containment or
double-walled tanks are required only for new petroleum
underground storage tank systems that are within certain
distances of water supplies as discussed in the regulations .
,y
June 7. 1990
Page 2
The second set of regulations that concerns our
Association is Rules .0504(e) and .0803(2). These rules require
that vapor and groundwater monitoring and site assessments at
closure or change-in-service be done by or under the supervision
of a "licensed geologist" or professional engineer." This
requirement will impose a financial burden on tank owners and
operators with little. if any. environmental benefit. In
addition, use of these professionals will be a special burden on
tank owners and operators in rural areas since most of the
licensed geologists and professional engineers are in urban
areas. The Commission might consider state licensing of
installer-contractors as a method to ensure accountability in
case of a leak. This could provide assurance the installer-
contractors are qualified and would be accountable since their
licenses could be revoked if they submitted false results.
Given that use of licensed geologists and professional
engineers is unnecessary. the state regulations should simply
state that the person or company doing this work must be
qualified by federal law to do so.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely.
'V~ ¥~a~ J,u./ 7--
A. Tab Williams, Jr.
Chairman. Chief Executive Officer
ATWjr:cj
0 June 11, 1990
Page 2
The sec6nd set of regulations that concerns our Association
is Rules .0504(e) and .0803(2). These rules require that vapor
and groundwater monitoring and site assessments at closure or
change-in-service be done by or under the supervision of a
"licensed geologist" or "professional engineer." This
requirement will impose a financial burden on tank owners and
operators with little, if any, environmental benefit. In
addition, use of these professionals will be a special burden on
tank owners and operators in rural areas since most of the
licensed geologists and professional engineers are in urban
areas. The Commission might consider state licensing of
installer-contractors as a method to ensure accountability in
case of a leak. This could provide assurance the installer-
contractors are qualified and would be accountable since their
licenses could be revoked if they submitted false results.
Given that use of licensed geologists and professional
engineers is unnecessary, the state regulations should simply
state that the person or company doing this work must be
qualified by federal law to do so.
GTY/kh
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
/4}~1.lj~
Gary T. York
President
~ l Jl..e. S-1ML 11S /Yl Aj,·r. Md,~
Coblel'sl Pantryj
Post Office Drawer 2166 • Morganton, North Carolina 28655 • (704) 437 -8000
June 5, 1990
Mr. Randy Prillaman
Environmental Specialist
EHNR-DEM
Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Re: Proposed State Underground Storage Tanlc Regulations
Dear Mr. Prillaman:
This letter is to comment on the proposed state underground
storage tank regulations. our company is in the convenience
store business and operates 38 underground petroleum storage
tanks.·
Two sections of the proposed regulations are especially
troubling. First, the requirement in alternative Rule .030l(c)
that all underground storage tank systems have double-walled
tanks or secondary containment by December 1998 could be
financially disastrous for tanlc owners and operators.
Alternative Rule .030l(c) could require existing tanks to be
pulled out of the ground (even if they had been recently upgraded
pursuant to the 1988 federal regulations) and replaced with
double-walled tanks or secondary containment. This could cost up
to $100,000 per site.
The existing federal regulations that require all existing
tanks to be upgraded or replaced by December 1998 are sufficient
to protect the environment. As a result, I ask that the
Environmental Management Commission reject alternative Rule
. 0301(c) and adopt the federal standards for new and existing
underground storage tank systems without addition of the state
requirement of secondary containment or double-walled tanks .
In the alternative, if Rule .030l(c) is adopted, it should
be rewritten to indicate clearly that secondary containment or
double-walled tanks are required only for new petroleum
underground storage tank systems that are within certain
distances of water supplies as discussed in the regulations.
~ ·"
'fCoJm:lel'sl
I_ Pantryj
Post Office Drawer 2166 • Morganton, North Carolina 28655 • (704) 437 -8000
June 5, 1990
Page 2
The second set of regulations that concerns our Association
is Rules .0504(e) and .0803(2). These rules require that vapor
and groundwater monitoring and site assessments at closure or
change-in-service be done by or under the supervision of a
"licensed geologist" or "professional engineer." This
requirement will impose a financial burden tank owners and
operators with little, if any, environmental benefit. In
addition, use of these professionals will be a special burden on
tank owners and operators in rural areas since most of the
licensed geologists and professional engineers are in urban
areas. The Commission might consider state licensing of
installer-contractors as method to ensure accountability in case
of a leak. This could provide assurance the installer-
contractors are qualified and would be accountable since their
licenses could be revoked if they submitted false results.
Given that use of licensed geologists and professional
engineers is unnecessary, the state regulations should simply
state that the person or company doing this work must be
qualified by federal law to do so.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
'
.--J:i:ln Salmon
/,..,,/
'--.---JS/ da 1
<i_ 5 'i ~ i~ /l__ S(W /V(__ As Jr1.,j i r Jll/ JrK~\.
-~ l \?. \':\\\
SESSOMS PROPERTIES, INl_f-:i\~~ CJ'~
P.O. BOX 386 • 41 □ ARMF'IELD,~ -. ~~ ,,
ST. PAULS, N.C. 28384 '.\.\'. _ ~ \,ii,_\\)V..
[phone] \~>-'';Ji~ (.n s'x;_·
June 8, 1990
Mr. Randy Prillaman
Environmental Specialist
EHNR-DEM
Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
l;J-. ~ \ \," ~r::,,
--~'.I" ·\.i ) .
• \ ~\) <-\_' •(:;.;"',\: ('\ \1 • ,,:\ -..,,~ . ~~..:• '~f'I""'
Re: Proposed State Underground Storage Tank Regulations
Dear Mr. Prillaman:
This letter is in response to the state's proposed underground
storage tank regulations. Our convenience store chain operates
fifteen stores with gasoline.
The first section of the regulation that troubles us is the
requirement in alternative Rule .0301Cc) that all underground
storage tank systems have double-walled tanks or secondary
containment by December 1998 will be £inancially disastrous
£or tank owners and operators. The cost of this section
could be as much as Sl00,000.00 per site.
We feel that the existing federal regulations that require all
existing tanks to be upgraded or replaced by December 1998 are
sufficient to protect the environment.
The second set of regulations that concerns us if Rules .0504Ce)
and .0803(2). These rules require that vapor and groundwater
monitoring and site assessments at closure or change-in-service
be done by or under the supervision of a "licensed geologist" or
"professional engineer". This requirement will impose a
financial burden on tank owners and operators with little, if
any, environmental bene£it. In addtition, use of these pro£essionals
will be a special burden on tank owners and operators in rural
areas since most of these pro£essionals are in urban areas. An
alternative idea would be for the state to license installer-
contractors as a method to ensure accountability in case 0£ a
leak.
Given that use of licensed geologists and professional engineers
is unnecessary, the state regulations should simply state that
the person or company doing this work must me qualified by federal
law to do so.
Thank you £or your consideration.
S}4}&~rYp~:S:-. _ ~£\~~~ ~-o--0~
Clyd e D. essoms
President
,c
1007 Arsenal Avenue
~ 11 ,<,1.AL__ Ci.d rVlojl Jc__ Jtill.--!GJ 1s,
Ll'L THRIFT FOOD MARTS, INC.
D/8/A Short Stop Food Marts
TELEPHONE: [phone] Fayetteville, N.C. 28305
~
~-,
,\-~ :~~--}~~\ . _,,-~-
Mr. Randv Prillaman
Environmental Specialist
EHNR-DEM
-f,)cf5
,j' ~ . ,-~
"'•:;,. \.'0~ . c\,,\J \
... ~ J <\' ::>
Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611
,\-s;_-. ;,,~ ~\.;
-\~'-\ ,).. ~\~-.., 0-~\" '❖~<:;:, ~~\,',
Re: Proposed State Underground Storage Tank Regulations
Dear Mr. Prillaman:
This letter is to comment on the proposed state underground
storage tank regulations. Our company is in the convenience store
business and operates approximately 175 underground oetroleum
storage tanks.
Two sections of the proposed regulations are esoeciall y
troubling. First, the requirement in alternative Rule .030l(c )
that all underground storage tank systems have double-walled tanks
or secondary containment by December 1998 could be financially
disastrous for tank owners and ooerators.
Alternative Rule .0301(c) could require existing tanks to be
oulled out of the ground (even if they had been recently upgraded
pursuant to the 1988 federal regulations) and replaced with double-
wal led tanks or secondary containment. This could cost up to
5100,000 per site.
The e>iisting federal regulations that require al 1 existing
tanks to be uograded or replaced by December 1998 are sufficient
to protect the environment. As a result. I ask that the
Environmental Management Commission reject alternative Rule
.030l(cl and adopt the federal standards for new and existing
underground storage tank systems without addition of the state
reouirement of secondary containment o~ double-walled tanks.
.\;
0
---~
June 8. 1990
Page 2
In the alte r nati v e. if Rule .0301(c) is adopted. it should be
rewritten to indicate clearly that secondary containment of double-
walled tanks are required only for new petroleum underground
storage tank systems that are within certain distances of water
supplies as discussed i n the regulations.
The second set of regulations that concerns our Association
is Rules .0504(e) and .080312). These rules require that vapor and
groundwater monitoiing and site assessments at closure or change-
in-service be done by or under the supervision of a "licensed
geologist" or "professional engineer." This requirement wil 1
impose a financial burden on tank owners and operators with little~
if any, environmental benefit. In addition, use of these
professionals will be a special burden on tank owners and operators
in rural areas since most of the licensed geologists and
professional engineers are in urban areas. The commission might
consider state licensing of installer-contractors as a method to
ensur-e accountability in case of a leak. This could pr-ovide
assurance the ins ta 11 er-con tractors are qualified and wou 1 d be
accountable since their licenses could be revoked if they submitted
false results.
Given that use of licensed geologists and professional
engineers is unnecessary~ the state regulations should simply state
that the person o r company doing this work must be qualified by
federal law to do so.
Thank vou for y ou r consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
\__,,() ()
Don Gill ~
DG/kl
~. \
_.'lCCRACKEN
OIL COMPANY
S,o«-<-. AS ~~t/ tr /c,Y '(
.·• rf•'~(;}:!J \S: . · )
··<K'''0:;Y ~t~ C ~~ ~ -e,~,,s,\\\)\\
~~ :5 i\-~ ~\.J
,\~\)~"~-~~~' \) '\.) \_\,
Mr. Randy Prillman
Environmental Specialist
EHNR-DEM
Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
~~ ~~ June 5, 1990
Re: Proposed state Underground Storage Tank Regulations
Dear Mr. Prillman:
This letter is to comment on the-proposed state underground
storage tank regulations. our company is in the convenience
store business and operates 55 underground petroleum
storage tanks.
Two sections of the proposed regulations are especially
troubling. First, the requirement in alternative Rule .0301(c)
that all underground storage tank systems have double-walled
tanks or secondary containment by December 1998 could be
financially disastrous for tank owners and operators.
Alternative Rule .0301(c) could require existing tanks to be
pulled out of the ground (even if they had been recently upgraded
pursuant to the 1988 federal regulations) and replaced with
double-walled tanks or secondary containment. This could cost up
to $90,000 per site.
The existing federal regulations that require all existing
tank to be upgraded or replaced by December 1998 are sufficient
to protect the environment. As a result, I ask that the
Environmental Management Commission reject alternative Rule
.030l(c) and adopt the federal standards for new and existing
underground storage tank systems without addition of the state
requirement of secondary containment or double-walled tanks.
In the alternative, if Rule .0301(c) is adopted, it should
be rewritten to indicate clearly that secondary containment or
double-walled tanks are required only for new petroleum
underground storage tank systems that are within certain
distances of water supplies as discussed in the regulations.
DIVISION OF MCCRACKEN ENTERPRISES, INC.
DABNEY DRIVE· P.O. DRAWER 1459 · HENDERSON. N .C. 27536 · 9191438·7158
,,
.\.
· June 5, 1990
Page 2
The second set of regulations that concerns our Association
is Rules .0504(e) and .0803(2). These rules require that vapor
and groundwater monitoring and site assessments at closure or
change-in-service be done by or under the supervision of a
"licensed geologist" or "professional engineer." This
requirement will impose a financial burden on tank owners and
operators with little, if any, environmental benefit. In
addition, use of these professionals will be a special burden on
tank owners and operators in rural ares since most of the
licensed geologists and professional engineers are in urban
areas. The Commission might consider state licensing of
installer-contractors as a method to ensure accountability in
case of a leak. This could provide assurance the installer-
contractors are qualified and would be accountable since their
licenses could be revoked if they submitted false results.
Given that use of licensed geologists and professional
engineers is unnecessary, the state regulations should simply
state that the person or company doing this work must be
qualified by federal law to do so.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
s ~· ncerely, ,_ M.
J. H~yde~
President
JHJ:ps
.,
Page 2
The second set of regulations that concerns '.JUr .l\s soc-i.ation
is Rules .0504{e) and .0803(2). These rules require t hat vapor
and groundwater monitoring and site assessments at closure or
change,;_in---service be done by or under the super1i.sion of a
11 1:i.censed .. g€'ologist:11 or "p:-:-ofessiona-1 engine1:-r . 1' Th.:i.s
requirement! will . impose a financial burden on tank owners and
operators with little, if any, environmental benefi t . In
ad~1't:'ion,-use of these professionals will be a special burden on
tank· owners and operators in rural areas since most of the
•1icerised geologists and professional engineers are in urbin ar~as. The Commission might consider state licensing of
insta:i.1e·r ·,;_contractors as a method to ensure accountability in
c ·a.se · of .a · leak. •rhis could provide assurance the instal1er-
contract:9rs are qualified and would be accountable sin·c~ their
licenses could be revoked if they submitted false resµ,lts .
Gi-.ren that use . of l.icensed geologists and professional
enginee·r,s is ·. unnecessary; the state . regula.t.ions --should simply
state that the person or company doing this work must be
qualified by federal law to do so.
'l'h.ank: you·· for ·your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
~R~ \
'Q. . .d( OR-.>IVI/V c..
C:, Q..,J-UA'-~,.... -~
·ISAV-WAV
-rf..1~ I~~ ~ 1.,<1~ ~ MAJit:-/1.AAr(c~l-'s
~~J ) ··the Best Hot Dog in Town"
' "_-\'4!· . . ,,.,\/j .. -.~· ,,
"--------j -~~DOG N TOWN 4801 West Wendover Avenue,,-::-~; .. ~~~~o'ro,r~-C~1~~19) 299-6642
.•,. ---~~ _.--'~ ~ _,-q.. s~
June 6, 1 990
Mr. Randy Prillaman
Environmental Specialist
EHNR-DEM
Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
~~~--~ .<.'<..,' ~ . ~.. .J t,\ ,\.. ·: • ·-\'(' c-,.,,,
'N~ ◊~ -~~r._~\~ .c-,<;::S ~ ~"
Re: Proposed State Underground Storage Tank Regulations
Dear Mr. Prillman:
This letter is to comment on the proposed state underground
storage tank regulations. Our company is in the convenience
store business and operates ten underground petroleum storage
tanks.
Two sections of the proposed regulations are especially troubling.
First, the requirement in alternative Rule .0301(c) that all
underground storage tank systems have double-walled tanks or
secondary containment by December 1998 could be financially
disastrous for tank owners and operators.
Alternative Rule .0301 (c) could require existing tanks to be
pulled out of the ground (even if they had been recently upgraded
pursuant to the 1988 federal regulations) and replaced with
double-walled tanks or secondary containment. This could cost up
to $100,000 per site.
The existing federal regulations that require all existing tanks
to be upgraded or replaced by December 1998 are sufficient to
protect the environment. As a result, I ask that the Environmental
Management Commission reject alternative Rule .0301(c) and adopt
the federal standards for new and existing underground storage
tank systems without addition of the state requirement of secondary
containment or double-walled tanks.
In the alternative, if Rule .0301 (c) is adopted, it should be
rewritten to indicate clearly that secondary containment or
double-walled tanks _ are required only for new petroleum
underground storage tank systems that are within certain distances
of water supplies as discussed in th e regulations.
J . ' .
resurt, I ~ld ask that the Envirorm:mtal Management Camrl.ssion reject .
Alternative Rules and require secondary containnent for only new petro-
leum underg£ound storage tanks. Systems that are within a damaging dis-
tance to underground water supplies as discussed in the regulations.
The second set of regulations that concerns our situation are Rules
~
.0504 (e) and .0803 (2). These rules require that vapor and groundwater
rronitoring and site assessments at closure or change-in-service be done
by or under the supervision .. of a "licensed geologist" or "professional
• " ,n...: • t t • 11 'r, nr-~ "' F;n., • ~1 \...-.. ~ --·--.... _. __ ,_ . -r · engi.neer . l.1u_s requiremen. .•.71. l!.'!f..,_,..,_ .... _ ..... l.'..lI::Cl.a. uu.Luei:, •Ju I...Cli.11' owne t:i
i
and operators with little, if any, environnental benefit. Rural areas ~d
be rrore of a problem under this system. 1be ccmnission might consider State
licensing of installer-contractors as a method to insure aacountability in
case of a leak. This could provide assurance the installer-contractors
are qualified and ~ld be accountable since their licenses could be re-
voked if ·they sul:mitted false reports.
Since licensed geologist and engineers are unnecessary, the State
regulations should simpl~ state that the person or canpany doing this
'
YK>rk nust be qualified by.Federal Law to do so.
1bank-you for your consideration of these carments.
Sincerly
LJ-~c::h Von:~ ~th
General Manager
Open Pantry Food Marts
Majik Market, 7000 Executive Center Or . Suite 300
B rent wo od. T N 37027 ..:. (6 15) 377-0955
,11 .
~JIK l1t<i\kq-'"
June 5, 1990
Mr. Randy Prillaman
Environmental Specialist
EHNR-DEM
Groundwater Section
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
' .. ~-,{-\) ·<·-.;[ \,\
~
·~.\~, ._t,.: ,,;~,-.. ~,:\'·'
~
\\ ,r<-'"'.~'" . ' •• , ~-,;.;.,
-..-• l -.. -.. " ,(\~ n ),.J
\'0\\. ·,, . (: \J\\Q)~
, •" ,:)':, . ~,' . -... ~,.... ....
·. ',p\\'-,' '1,,,r.
. ,,·\·J ·•·' . ,_,'I. "~
('\0~" \ \ \"-"''' ~\' i~\.,
RE: Proposed State Underground Storage Tank Regulations
Dear Mr. Prillaman:
R. L. HOWELL
Regional Vice President
This letter is to comment on the proposed state underground storage tank regulations.
Our company is in the convenience store business and operates 75 underground
petroleum storage tanks.
Two sections of the proposed regulations are especially troubling. First, the
requirement in alternative Rule .0301(c) that .all underground storage tank systems
have double-walled tanks or secondary containment by December 1998 could be
financially disastrous for tank owners and operators.
Alternative Rule .030l(c) could require existing tanks to be pulled out of the ground
(even if they had been recently upgraded pursuant to the 1988 federal regulations)
and replaced with double-walled tanks or secondary containment. This could cost up
to $100,000 per site.
The existing federal regulations that require all existing tanks to be upgraded or
replaced by December 1998 are sufficient to protect the environment. As a result, I
ask that the Environmental Management Commission reject alternative Rule .0301(c)
and adopt the federal standards for new and existing underground storage tank
systems without addition of the state requirement of secondary containment or
double-walled tanks.
In the alternative, if Rule .0301(c) is adopted, it should be rewritten to indicate
clearly that secondary containment or double-walled tanks are required Q..lli.)'._ for
new petroleum underground storage tank systems that are within certain distances
of water supplies as discussed in the regulations.
,· ,,
June 5, 1990
Page 2
The second set of regulations that concerns our Association are Rules .0504(e) and
.0803(2). These rules require that vapor and groundwater monitoring and site
assessments at closure or change-in-service be done by or under the supervision of a
"licensed geologist" or professional engineer." This requirement will impose a
financial burden on tank owners and operators with little, if any, environmental
benefit. In addition, use of these professionals will be a special burden on tank
owners and operators in rural areas since most of the licenses geologists and
professional engineers are in urban areas. The Commission might consider state
licensing of installer-contractors as a method to ensure accountability in case of a
leak. This could provide assurance the installer-contractors are qualified and would
be accountable since their licenses could be revoked if they submitted false results.
Given that use of licenses geologists and professional engineers is unnecessary, the
state regulations should simply state that the person or company doing this work
must be qualified by federal law to do so.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
/~/~/(
Robert L. Howell
Region Vice President
Central Region
/me
• I,.
June 11, 1990
Page 2
The second set of regulations that concerns our Association is
Rules .0504(e} and .0803(2). These rules require that vapor and
groundwater monitoring and site assessments at closure or change-
in-service be done by or under the supervision of a "licensed
geologist" or "professional engineer.'' This requirement will
impose a financial burden on tank owners and operators with
little, if any, environmental benefit. In addition, use of these
professionals will be a special burden on tank owners and
operators in rural areas since most of the licensed geologists
and professional engineers are in urban areas. The Commission
might consider state licensing of installer-contractors as a
method to ensure accountability iri case of a leak. This could
provide assurance the installer=contractors are qualified and
would be accountable $ince their licenses could be revoked if
they submitted false results.
Given that use of licensed geologists and professional engineers
is unnecessary, the state regulations should simply state that
the person or company doing this work must be qualified by
federal law to do so.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
~f[]t,~ooD
ice Pres ·a 1 ent
/dm
..
June 8, 1990
Page 2
The second set of regulations that concerns our Association
is Rules .0504(e) and .0803(2). These rules require that vapor
and groundwater· monitoring and site assessments at closure or
change-in-service be done by or under the supervision of a
"licensed geologist" or "professional engineer." This
requirement will impose a financial burden on tank owners and
operators with little, if any, environmental benefit. In
addition, use of these professionals will be a special burden on
tank owners and operators in rural areas since most of the
licensed geologists and professional engineers are in urban
areas. The Commission might consider state licensing of
installer-contractors as a method to ensure accountability in
case of a leak. This could provide assurance the installer-
contractors are qualified and would be accountable since their
licenses could be revoked if they submitted false results.
Given that use of licensed geologists and professional
engineers is unnecessary, the state regulations should simply
state that the person or company doing this work must be
qualified by federal law to do so.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
~~~
Director of Operations
JJC/mb
Dill NORTH CAROLINA
FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
TELEPHONE [phone] P. 0. BOX 27766
Mr. Randy Prillaman
Environmental Specialist
EHNR-DEM-Groundwater
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Prillaman:
June 13 , 1990
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27611
.-""-. (;:-;:::;,,--v.:..:, ~ -: -_"',.-"i')E,Jf-,::i·l·-,;,:.::.-:i~i--, 1··'' ,; ... , ... ,r, ''VI! ,.,-. I ,-i !\;''t' .1-<\y ::\(
... _,;)
The North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation is a general farm
organization representing the interests of farm and rural people.
The following comments are in response to the proposed
underground storage tank regulations published in the April 2,
1990 North Carolina Reg ister.
In many instances, these regulations conform to the federal
regulations for underground storage tanks. We support North
Carolina's regulations being consistent with and identical to the
federal regulations wherever possible. These federal regulations
are already very stringent. The deviations from the federal
regulations contained in this proposal are, at a minimum,
confusing to tank owners. In some cases, these deviations will
be extremely costly. The following are some of our specific
concerns. These are discussed, wherever possible, by Section
number.
Section .0100(d) -This section, as written, may cloud all deed
transfers that take place after the effective date of the rules,
because the requirement is general with no prescribed methodology
or form. The agency and/or Commission should consult with the
N.C. Registers of Deeds Association and the Real Property Section
of the N.C. Bar Association for further guidance in this area
before a requirement such as this is finalized.
Also, we recommend that this requirement not go so far as
requiring some sort of survey map location, as an additional
survey would add significantly to the cost of a closing or deed
transfer. Something less specific than a survey could be
prescribed, such as a written description prepared by the person
transferring the property.
Additionally, some method to remove the recordation when
tanks have been removed should be prescribed.
Section .0301 -Both of the alternatives offered contain outright
prohibitions for tank installations in certain locations. Also,
secondary containment is required under certain circumstances.
These outright prohibitions and secondary containment
requirements should be reexamined. If adopted, either
alternative will have a particularly adverse effect on farmers,
Mr. Randy Prillaman
June 13, 1990
Page 2
who cannot pass the cost of meeting these requirements on to
their customers, due to the world pricing structure of
agricultural commodities.
We are opposed to these particular new tank performance standards
applying to existing tanks after December 22, 1998 (as is
required under the section entitled "Performance Standards for
New UST systems"). After tank owners have complied with the
stringent requirements of federal and state regulations, and have
expended substantial amounts of money to do so, they will be
required to dig up their tanks under these prohibitions and
secondary containment requirements.
At some point, tank owners must be ensured that they going to be
in compliance if they expend the necessary funds. Otherwise,
they are constantly shooting at a moving target of increasingly
more stringent regulations, with no guarantee that the amounts of
money that they are spending will ensure regulatory compliance in
just a few years.
Sections .0303,.0404 and elsewhere -This rule requires
numerous forms and a tremendous amount of paperwork. An effort
should be made to cut down the amount of paperwork and forms that
have to be filed by tank owners and handled by the agency.
Farmers do not have a staff of employees to fill out and file
forms --they have to fill them out themselves. We would ask the
Commission and the agency to take a serious look at this and to
revise the paperwork and form requirements to require less
paperwork and fewer forms.
Section .0503 -As we understand this section, all regulated
petroleum underground storage tanks installed after the
effective date of the rules will require secondary containment
under the second proposed alternative. We do not feel that this
should be adopted and support the alternative that does not
require this. We feel that the federal rules, with some of the
modifications contained in these proposed state rules, provide
adequate protection. Also, this section is describing a new tank
performance standard that would require existing petroleum
underground storage tanks to be removed and retrofitted with
secondary containment before December 22, 1998. We are opposed
to the second alternative for this reason as well.
Section .504 -These monitoring well requirements are very
stringent. We feel that they should be modified to be made less
stringent and, therefore, more workable. This would make it more
likely that wells will be put in place where needed. We are
opposed to the section requiring a licensed geologist or
professional engineer to conduct site assessments (in this
..,
Mr. Randy Prillaman
June 13, 1990
Page 3
section and in .0803) as an added burden and added expense. We
recommend that this requirement be deleted.
Section .0701(b) Release Response and Corrective Action -
This cleanup requirement does not allow the agency any
flexibility in determining when a cleanup is complete. The
requirements in 15A NCAC 2L.0106 are very stringent. If a site
cannot be restored to the groundwater standard, then cleanup will
never be complete. There needs to be some flexibility in this
requirement. Also, we are concerned that there is no flexibility
for the agency in extending deadlines for compliance. We feel
that ~his type of flexibility is necessary and should be included
in the regulations.
Section .0802 -We are opposed to requiring permanent closure for
UST systems containing de minimus concentrations. We feel that
this requirement is unnecessary and particularly burdensome to
farmers and other property owners.
General Comments -We are very concerned about the requirement of
meeting double wall, secondary containment, or location
requirements when all existing tanks must meet "new performance
standards". We urge the Commission to consider the efforts that
have been made and the expense that has been incurred by farmers
and others to meet the current federal regulations and not
require in just a few years that existing tanks be removed
either permanently or for an expensive retrofit.
As mentioned earlier, farmers cannot pass on the cost of these
regulations to their customers. We hope that the Commission and
the agency will take this into consideration and evaluate what
are the truly necessary requirements to protect the environment.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
WBJ:afc
Sincerely,
~
W.B. Jenkins
President
...
ASHEVILLE OIL ~---,r~ ' ' _~Mobil
ASHEVILLE, ~8-:3 ~
4 FAIRVIEW RD. P.O. BOX 5374 . JU~ \i St.t,\\\\~ PHONE [phone]
~4ti,_\t.R
G~G\\ \\\) 't,\G\\, ~r,
Rt\\.
June 13, 1990
NC Dept of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Envirnomental Management
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Re: Proposed Rules 15A NCAC 2N
Underground Storage Tanks
Gentlemen:
This letter is in comment to the proposed rules for
underground storage tanks within the State of North Carolina.
The proposed draft adopts most of the Federal Regulation. but
there are significant di££erences in the State rules which
are more stringent and most troublesome to small oil Jobbers.
The most onerous of the differences involves the mandating of
secondary containment £or tanks and piping within 500 feet of
a public water well and/or 50 feet of any other well. This
requirement would apply to tanks currently meeting the
Federal standards even if upgraded within the past year.
Also, the question of £ulfilling the requirements arises if
underground storage tanks are installed and then later an
adJoining property owner decides he wants a well within 500
feet of the tanks. Will the adJoining owner be allowed to
install the well and the underground tank owner then be
required to dig up and restall secondary containment?
The second change in the State rules verses the Federal
rules is the requirement that a licensed geologist or
professional engineer be required for site assessments for
tank closures and the installation of vapor or groundwater
monitoring wells. This adds additional delays and costs and
can involve persons and firms unfamilar with the petroleum
business and underground tank installation and systems. This
requirement would overlook the most qualified of individuals,
the installer or contractor who has years of experience in
the field, and replace them with a textbook educated person
with little if any field experience .
.. -·•---•••,... --••••~,-,,-LAI 111r,r,,1,-..AII.IIC' --~-----.-.------------------
The proposed changes in the State rules are an anathema
to underground tanks owners in light of the numerous
regulations already confronting us. We are becoming
suspicious 0£ upgrading to an y current regulations ~~r fea .
that in a year, the rules will again be changed and previous
upgrades will have all been in vain. Please allow us to
adhere to the Federal regulations already in place which were
developed after years of study. Do not attempt to modify
these rules and as a result, regulate the small operator out
o:f existence.
Sincerely,
Asheville Oil Company, Inc.
x., _ __-t_ /1 ,K ~
Karl N. Koon, Vice-President
~ ~
PANTRY®
THE PANTRY, INC.
. -"'II,~\~~\ . ~ ~ .' \ 1\.-.) . ~ ' ~~~-~\l~ \ ,,<---~\,, . _·
,
r.'~.._,.. "'''" ·"-';.)
~ .. ·,
~\~ ~...: \~ \~ ...... .f:J~ (',:__,)\(\~
~-~l .)' ... 'Ii-:, ~l" . ( . ~ . f-' ,.,, .
J. A. "BO" RADER
Vice President
Gasoline Marketing
June 13, 1990
' ·"'''\\\\)\\'\ . ,-.\·~ .J~·
G9.'''· .(\\ ~Y>'· ·9.tt .. ~ .. , 1801 Douglas Dr., P.O. Box 1410
Sanford, N.C. 27331-1410
Mr. Ra.nd.v Prillaman
Environmenta.l Specialist
EHNR-DEM
Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina. 27611
Re: Pro p osed Tank Reg ulations
Dear Mr. Prillaman:
[phone]
Our company offers the following comments on the proposed underground
petroleum ta.nk regulations. The Pantry owns approximately 400 underground
stora.ge tanks in North Carolina. In addition our company began installing
Fiberglass ta.nks in 1984 in all new locations and upgrades.
file strongly oppose the proposed rule which would require double-walled
tanks on secondar:v containment. If these rules were passed, it would cost our
company approxim~<ttel,v $15,000,000 to compl,v. This means we would be removing
existing fiberglass tanks and lines which have been installed since 1984. r11e feel
the federal z·eguia.tions a.re sufficient.
Additionall.v., we are opposed to the proposed rule which would require a
licensed geologist or professional engineer to supervise all underground tank
insta.llations, upgrades, or removals. In addition to the unnecessar,v fin:1.ncfa.l cost,
there are few geologist or engineers who are qualified to supervise tank, pump,
and piping work.
As an alternative to having geologists or engineers supervise tank and
piping work, it would be more logical for installers to be trained a.nd licensed b .v
the state as are electrician and plumbers. When an electrician or plumber does an
installation, there are strict codes which they are required to follow: the::v (the
electrician and plumber) are held responsible for proper installation rather than
the owner of the building or structure. However, the f'eder,;1.J and state regulations
place the entire burden on the tank owner and none on the installers.
Please stop a moment to consider this analogy:
A plumber "''ho installs a 4" PVC pipe in a hcuse to carrv se~vag'e must go to
technical school, serve an apprenticeship, and pass an exam: however, ,3n_vone with
a pickup truck, a shoi·el, a pipe wrench, ,:1.nd the 8bility to cent a ba c khoe c.<w
in.c;ta/1 ft,::i.c;ohne underffround storaJ;fe tanks and pipin£f in No rth Carohna.
,{
<!'-
Mr. Rand.v Prillaman
June 13, 1990
page 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
f-ve strongl,v recommend that ,vou adopt the federal regulations concerning
tank and piping specifications. In addition, we recommend that installers be
trained and licensed to insure proper installation. We also suggest that all the
important 'Dos" and Don'ts" in the regulations be written in la :vman 's language so
tank owners and installers can readily understand the regulations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerel;v,
~
Ra.der
JAR/gs
't-.-
c:jet/draft.ltr/rh
DRAFT LETTER TO COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED
STATE UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS
(NOTE TO CONVENIENCE STORE ASSOCIATION MEMBERS: THE COMMENT
PERIOD CLOSES ON JUNE 13, 1990)
Mr. Randy Prillaman
Environmental Specialist
May / [ , 1990
EHNR-DEM
Groundwater Section
P. o. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
'1 ii,\_ )IMGJ~ r;:;.1, ,Jl f\·~<---.~m-~ tur,,. • . i ~ J _,~, :' , I¼"'
· ~ ~ ~ '-~ t,,;,"1"· --~"'•·.-: ·• ·• ; ~
]l\f'J\lN 22 1900~
nRO'\.HWWA. TER SECTION
,~~l.:J {i.\:{. NC
Re: Proposed State Underground Storage Tank Regulations
Dear Mr. Prillaman:
This letter is to comment on the proposed state underground
storage tank regulations. our company is in the convenience
store business and operates <Jo f ~vj underground petroleum
storage tanks.
Two sections of the proposed regulations are especially
troubling. First, the requirement in alternative Rule .030l(c)
that all underground storage tank systems have double-walled
tanks or secondary containment by December 1998 could be
financially disastrous for tank owners and operators.
Alternative Rule .0301(c) could require existing tanks to be
pulled out of the ground (even if they had been recently upgraded
pursuant to the 1988 federal regulations) and replaced with
double-walled tanks or secondary containment. This could cost up
to $100,000 per site.
The existing federal regulations that require all existing
tanks to be upgraded or replaced by December 1998 are sufficient
to protect the environment. As a result, I ask that the
Environmental Management Commission reject alternative Rule
.0301(c) and adopt the federal standards for new and existing
underground storage tank systems without addition of the state
requirement of secondary containment or double-walled tanks.
In the alternative, if Rule .030l(c) is adopted, it should
be rewritten to indicate clearly that secondary containment or
double-walled tanks are required only for new petroleum
underground storage tank systems that are within certain
distances of water supplies as discussed in the regulations.
-4 -
May __ , 1990
Page 2
The second set of regulations that concerns our Association
is Rules .0504(e) and .0803(2). These rules require that vapor
and groundwater monitoring and site assessments at closure or
change-in-service be done by or under the supervision of a
"licensed geologist" or "professional engineer." This
requirement will impose a financial burden on tank owners and
operators with little, if any, environmental benefit. In
addition, use of these professionals will be a special burden on
tank owners and operators in rural areas since most of the
licensed geologists and professional engineers are in urban
areas. The Commission might consider state licensing of
installer-contractors as a method to ensure accountability in
case of a leak. This could provide assurance the installer-
contractors are qualified and would be accountable since their
licenses could be revoked if they submitted false results.
Given that use of licensed geologists and professional ·
engineers is unnecessary, the state regulations should simply
state that the person or company doing this work must be
qualified by federal law to do so.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
xxxx
XXXX/rh
e ~&., ltJ~N--,_
[draft.ltr/ncacs/rhJ