publications and resources
Interstate Water Report
 |
| Download PDF of current issue |
Current Issue
Version 3.0
Revealing Findings in Latest NEIWPCC Tanks Survey
by Kara Sergeant, NEIWPCC
How many states have standards for ethanol? You can find that information and much more in the results of the third version of a national survey NEIWPCC first conducted in 2000. While the content of the surveys has evolved over the years, the primary goal has remained the same: to get a national snapshot of assessment and remediation issues related to leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) across the country.
The latest survey builds upon the information gained in the previous editions. In 2000, the focus was on methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MtBE), while the 2003 survey emphasized all fuel oxygenates. Our focus in 2007 is captured in the survey’s title: “State Experiences with Petroleum and Hazardous Substance Releases at LUST Sites, Heating Oil Tanks, and Out of Service Tanks.” Because this was our third survey, we were able to compare results from the previous editions and note changes.
NEIWPCC’s contractor on the project, Ellen Frye of Enosis – The Environmental Outreach Group, developed the questions with Pat Ellis of Delaware’s Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Several state LUST program staff reviewed the questions for clarity and content. The survey was divided into 12 areas: state standards for specific gasoline additives/blends, fuel blend/additive analysis, site assessment, drinking water impacts, remediation, remediation cost impacts, vapor-intrusion pathway, hazardous substance USTs, heating oil tanks, out-of-service tanks, ethanol, and miscellany.
State LUST managers from all 50 states responded electronically through a password-protected website. Among the findings:
Remediation Cost: Gasoline plumes from leaking tanks are expensive to cleanup, but how much does gasoline composition matter with respect to cost? MtBE has traditionally been seen as a driver in remediation costs because it is highly mobile in groundwater and often expensive to treat. But the survey showed most states do not feel MtBE increases a site’s cleanup costs, though the chemical continues to be a concern because of its well deserved reputation for being difficult to remediate and its potential impact on drinking water wells and human health.
Did the increased use of other oxygenates impact cleanup costs? Again, the states said no. So if gasoline composition doesn’t impact cleanup costs, what does? The survey showed the key factors are the length of the contamination plumes and the need for monitoring. The longer the plume, and the more extensive the monitoring, the higher the cost.
Ethanol: The increase in nationwide ethanol consumption is clear. According to the survey results, there are E85 (85 percent ethanol) gas stations in 34 states. Despite the increase in use, only seven states indicated they have standards for ethanol, only a slight increase from 2003. In states without standards, there is no requirement to look for ethanol contamination, so potential problems may go unnoticed.
Drinking Water Impacts: The ability of a state to prevent drinking water contamination from LUSTs and to prioritize cleanups is enhanced when information is shared between a state’s drinking water/source water protection program and its UST/LUST programs. In the survey, many states said there was some communication between these areas, but the responses underscored the need to do more in this area. NEIWPCC will continue to explore opportunities to encourage cross-program coordination. In recent years, we have held meetings in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Minnesota that brought together state UST, LUST, State Fund, and groundwater and source water program staff in an effort to foster greater collaboration.
These are only a few highlights from the extensive survey results, which will be useful to state and federal government staff as well as industry personnel interested in LUST trends. For the complete results, visit the survey section on our website
(www.neiwpcc.org/mtbe.asp), where you can also find detailed information on the 2000 and 2003 surveys.
Kara Sergeant is a NEIWPCC Environmental Analyst, and was the coordinator of the 2007 survey. For more information about the survey and the results, contact her at ksergeant@neiwpcc.org.