1

MASSACHUSETTS UNDERGROUND STORAGE

TANK (UST) PROGRAM Baseline Compliance Assessment

1MassDEP 8/2/2011

2

UST Program• UST program was transferred from DFS to

MassDEP in July 2009

• Between July 2009 and November 2010 MassDEP inspected ≈ 350 randomly selected facilities in order to:

– understand “baseline” compliance status of the sector as a whole

and– aid in the development and implementation of

the regulatory program2

MassDEP 8/2/2011

3

Main Discussion Topic

Compliance with EPA “Significant Operational Compliance” Performance Measures (SOCs) related to:

– Release Prevention– Release Detection

NOTE: EPA uses different measures to quantify and evaluate the number of spills or leaks that have occurred.

3MassDEP 8/2/2011

4

UST Program Purpose

• The UST Program ensures that underground storage tanks do not release regulated substances into the environment

• The regulated substances include:

4

• Gasoline• Diesel• Fuel oil• Waste oil

• Acids• Bases• Hazardous substances• Solvents

MassDEP 8/2/2011

5

UST Program Universe• There are:

≈ 3800 active facilities ≈ 9100 registered active tanks

• These facilities include:

fuel dispensers industrial operations hospitals schools military bases

5

airports authorities Federal, state and local

government agencies small businesses

MassDEP 8/2/2011

6

Key Program RequirementsPer the Energy Policy Act of 2005:• Tank and pipe construction and installation must meet

standards that prevent spills and leaks

• Approved leak detection systems must be in place and operated to identify leaks so that they can be addressed before they become a serious problem

• Leak detection and prevention systems must be maintained and tested to ensure their proper operation

• Recordkeeping must be performed to document regulatory compliance

• Facilities are inspected routinely to insure that the regulatory standards are met (In MA, Third Party and MassDEP inspections are used.) 6

MassDEP 8/2/2011

7

Complexities

• New program for MassDEP

• Regulations currently in force were written by another agency (DFS)

• Regulatory requirements may differ from facility to facility due to the variety of compliance options and UST systems

7MassDEP 8/2/2011

8

Release Prevention SOCs• Spill prevention equipment is present and operating

properly• Overfill prevention equipment is present and operating

properly

• Tanks and pipes are tightness tested within six months of UST system repairs

• Corrosion protection systems are tested for functionality within 30 days of UST system repairs

• Corrosion protection systems are operating and maintained properly

• Impressed current cathodic protection system is inspected every 60 days

• Corrosion Protection is in place for all tanks and pipes

Note: The SOC “Lined tanks are inspected periodically and lining is in compliance” was not included in the analysis because there were no facilities in the sample to which it applied.

MassDEP 8/2/2011

9

Release Detection SOCs

• Leak detection systems are in place

• Leak detection systems are operating properly

• Leak detection systems meet the applicable performance standards

• Proper response to suspected releases

• All tanks and pipes are monitored at the required frequency and records are kept

Note: The SOC “Hazardous substance USTs meet leak detection requirements” was not included in the analysis because there were no facilities in the sample to which it applied. The SOC “Out of service tanks containing product meet leak detection requirements” was excluded because it is not applicable in MA.

9MassDEP 8/2/2011

10

“Groups” of UST Facilities Assessed

• Gas Stations where owner owns >5 facilities (27% of universe, sample size = 55)

• Gas Stations where owner owns < 5 facilities (36% of universe, sample size = 48)

• Manufacturing / Utilities (10% of universe, sample size = 43)

• Misc. Small Business & Municipalities (18% of universe, Sample Size = 53)

• Institutional/State & Federal Government (9% of universe, sample size = 42)

MassDEP assessed the performance of a random sample of facilities from 6 individual groups:

• each of the above categories and• early submitters (by 7/1/09) of the required Third Party Inspection

reports

USTs facilities were grouped into one of five categories:

10

MassDEP 8/2/2011

11

Overall Performance

Based on a weighted average of the five facility categories*

• 85% were in compliance with all EPA Release Prevention SOCs

• 44% were in compliance with the all EPA Release Detection SOCs

42% of the facilities were in compliance with all EPA SOCs (both Release Prevention and Release Detection)

* NOTE: The Third Party Inspection Group was not included in this calculation

11

MassDEP 8/2/2011

12

Massachusetts Assessment Results vs Other States’ EPA SOC Performance

• Release Prevention Measures– New England: 69% - 86% – National: 45% - 98% Average: 84%– Massachusetts: 85%

• Release Detection Measures– New England: 68% - 82% – National: 55% - 98% Average: 79%– Massachusetts: 44%

• All SOCs– New England: 54% - 84% – National: 36% - 90% Average: 71%– Massachusetts: 42%

SOURCE: EPA Semiannual Report of UST Performance Measures Mid Fiscal Year 2011 as of March 31, 2011 (5/2011)12

MassDEP 8/2/2011

1313

Overall Facility Performance onEPA Release Prevention SOCS

(Weighted average of the performance of each of the five facility categories)

MassDEP 8/2/2011

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SOC: Spillprevention

present andfunctional for all

tanks

SOC: Overfillprevention

present andfunctional for all

tanks

SOC: Systemstightness testedwithin 30 days of

repair

SOC: Corrosionprotection

systems testedwithin 6 months of

UST systemrepair

SOC: Corrosionprotection

systems properlyoperated andmaintained

SOC: Impressedcurrrent cathodic

protectionsystems are

inspected every60 days

SOC: Corrosionprotection in

place for all tanksand pipes

% o

f fa

cilit

ies

in c

om

plia

nce

(w

eig

hte

d a

vera

ge

)

1414

Overall Facility Performance on EPA Release Detection SOCS

(Weighted average of the performance of each of the five facility categories)

MassDEP 8/2/2011

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SOC: Releasedetection method

present for all USTsystems

SOC: All primaryrelease detection

systems are operatingproperly

SOC: All releasedetection systemsmeet performance

standards

SOC: Properresponse to

suspected releases

SOC: All tanks andpipes are monitored atthe required frequency

and records kept

% o

f fa

cil

itie

s i

n c

om

pli

an

ce

(w

eig

hte

d a

ve

rag

e)

15

Each Group’s Performance on EPA Release Prevention SOCs

MassDEP 8/2/2011

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

SOC: Spill preventionpresent and functional

for all tanks

SOC: Overfillprevention present

and functional for alltanks

SOC: Systemstightness testedwithin 30 days of

repair

SOC: Corrosionprotection systems

tested within 6months of USTsystem repair

SOC: Corrosionprotection systems

properly operated andmaintained

SOC: Impressedcurrrent cathodic

protection systemsare inspected every

60 days

SOC: Corrosionprotection in place for

all tanks and pipes

We

igh

ted

Av

era

ge

Co

mp

lia

nc

e R

ate

Gas Station: Owner owns >5 facilities (sample size = 55) Gas Station: Owner owns <6 facilities (sample size = 48)Manufacturing / Utilities (sample size = 43) Institutional / State & Federal Government (sample size = 42)Misc. Small Business & Municipalities (Sample Size = 53 facilities) Facility submitted TPI before July 2009 (sample size = 55 facilities) 15

1616

Each Group’s Performance on EPA Release Detection SOCs

MassDEP 8/2/2011

17

18MassDEP 8/2/2011

18

Requirements Generally Achieved

• Required Leak Detection Systems are installed and turned on

• UST systems have adequate corrosion protection

• Cathodic corrosion protection systems are operating

• Properly sized spill buckets are installed

• Overfill protection is installed

1919

How Many Individual Requirements Did Facilities Violate?

• The average facility violated 21% of the requirements that applied to the facility

• 88% of facilities violated at least one of all of the requirements included in the assessment

• 58 % of facilities violated at least one SOC

Based on a weighted average of the performance of each group

MassDEP 8/2/2011

20

Average Facility Violation Score for Each Group

% of applicable requirements the facility violated)

Gas Station: Owner owns >5 facilities 13 %

Gas Station: Owner owns <5 facilities 22%

Manufacturing / Utilities 19%

Institutional / State & Federal Government 22%

Misc. Small Business & Municipalities 28%

Facility submitted TPI before July 2009 20%MassDEP 8/2/2011

21

Facility can document that excess water in tanks was removed and managed as required 43%

The past 12 months of release detection records are available for review* 37%

Tank inventory records are reconciled monthly 35%

Automatic line leak detection systems (catastrophic leak detection) have passed the annual functionality test and been certified within the past year*

33%

Spill buckets are clean and free of debris 31%

Facility can document that overfill devices are operable 31%

The sumps at facilities with interstitial monitoring systems are clean and free of debris and water 29%

Facility can document that interstitial monitoring and tank release detection systems have been properly operated, calibrated and maintained*

28%

Facility monitors for spills/overfills during fuel deliveries 27%

Spill bucket waste is properly managed 16%

Frequently Violated Requirements% of Facilities in Violation

MassDEP 8/2/2011

22

Violation Rates for Frequently Violated Requirements by Group

MA Wtd Average

Gas Station: Owner

owns >5 facilities

Gas Station: Owner

owns <5 facilities

Manufac-turing / Utilities

Institutional /

State & Federal Government

Misc. Small Business & Municipali-

ties

Facility submitte

d TPI before

July 2009

% of facilities violating the requirement Facility can document that excess water in tanks was removed and managed as required 43% 33% 41% 63% 30% 59% 63%

Release detection records for the past 12 months are available* 37% 21% 42% 43% 30% 53% 38%Tank inventory records are reconciled monthly 35% 10% 43% 25% 53% 54% 41%Automatic Line Leak Detection systems (catastrophic leak detection) have passed the annual functional test and been certified within the past year*

32% 23% 25% 60% 50% 35% 14%

Spill buckets are clean and free of debris and water 31% 31% 30% 27% 34% 37% 16%Facility can document that overfill devices are operable 31% 22% 33% 22% 38% 46% 27%The sumps at facilities with interstitial monitoring systems are clean and free of debris and water* 29% 22% 31% 11% 21% 48% 22%

Facility can document that interstitial monitoring and tank release detection system have been properly operated, calibrated and maintained*

28% 15% 30% 23% 30% 41% 21%

Facility monitors for spills / overfills during product delivery 27% 19% 38% 44% 10% 18% 46%Spill bucket waste is managed properly 16% 9% 26% 9% 14% 13% 9%*Contributes to an SOC MassDEP 8/2/2011