Testimony of Jan H. Reitsma, Director
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
On Senate Bill S. 1850
Before the Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment
Subcommittee
Environment and Public Works Committee
United States Senate
February 25, 2002
Introduction:
Good Morning. My name is Jan Reitsma and I am the Director of the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning on Senate bill
1850, the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2001. I would like to begin by recognizing Senator
Chafee’s leadership in drafting and introducing this legislation. After the many tank closures and upgrades associated
with the December 1998 deadline for corrosion protection, we have entered a new
era in operation and regulation of underground tanks. This legislation establishes the criteria and sets the priorities
for the next generation of tanks program.
The site of this hearing is
also very appropriate. As we all
probably know, Pascoag is the site of the most serious case of contamination by
methyl tertiary-butyl ether, or MTBE, in Rhode Island history. The investigation of that contamination
uncovered a serious release of gasoline at a facility operating underground
storage tanks less than 1700 feet from the sole source of drinking water for
the village of Pascoag. From September
of 2001 to January 2002, this village endured the hardships of going without
potable water and lived with the anxieties that the health of their families was
at risk. Through the hard work of many,
many people and various government agencies at the local, state, and federal
level, a replacement source of water was developed. That battle was won, but the war is far from over. The high levels of MTBE remaining in the
aquifer and widespread migration of that contamination into the community will
take years and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to clean up.
Program Background:
The use of underground
storage tanks is widespread in Rhode Island and across the country. The majority of underground storage tanks
are used for the storage and distribution of fuels, including gasoline and
diesel fuel. In Rhode Island, there are
currently approximately 3318 registered tanks located at 1784 locations.
In 1984, the United States
Congress recognized the need to properly operate and maintain underground tanks
and added Subtitle I to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. In 1986, Congress acknowledged the need to
respond to releases from USTs and amended RCRA to establish the leaking
underground storage tank trust fund.
The Environmental Protection Agency promulgated regulations for the UST
program in 1988. Those regulations set
forth the technical requirements for tank installation and operation,
established requirements for financial responsibility for owners and operators
of tank systems, and set the criteria for approval of State regulatory
programs. This system set clear
ten-year goals for the upgrade of all underground tanks across the country and
provided the framework for an effective partnership between EPA and the States,
where the States were given discretion and flexibility on the implementation of
the program. This delegation model is
often cited as an example of how the federal and state programs can work
together toward a common goal.
The Rhode Island underground
storage tank program was formed in 1984 and originally operated as an extension
of the water pollution program. In
1993, the Department promulgated the Regulations for
Underground Storage Facilities
Used for Petroleum Products and Hazardous Materials
that include specific operational requirements and leak and spill response
provisions for USTs. Prior to 1993, the
Department relied on the authorities in the Oil Pollution Control
Regulations, which served as the basis for regulating all oil spills,
including leaks from underground tanks.
In 1994, the Rhode Island
legislature passed the Rhode Island Underground
Storage Tank Financial Responsibility Act. That law established a petroleum clean up
account funded by a portion of the tax on gasoline sales to help meet the
financial responsibility obligations of tank owners and operators in the
state. The Regulations for the
Underground Storage Tank Financial Responsibility Fund, which outlined
procedures for eligibility and procedures to seek reimbursement, were
promulgated in January of 1997.
The partnership between EPA and DEM, and
more recently the Review Board for the Underground
Storage Tank Financial Responsibility Fund, has been very effective in
Rhode Island. Since the establishment
of the program, the program has regulated 8,698 underground storage tanks
holding petroleum products. Of that
number, 6,942, or 80%, have been permanently closed. The remaining tank universe has largely been upgraded to current
standards, 98% of the facilities with active tanks in Rhode Island meet
regulatory standards for corrosion protection and have leak detection systems.
Federal assistance has been
a critical component of this effort.
Since 1985, EPA has provided over $3,100,000 in funds to support the
regulation of underground tank systems.
Fees collected from owners and operators of tank systems have
supplemented these funds.
Leaking Tanks in Rhode
Island:
Leaking underground storage
tanks, as well as other types of spills and releases from these facilities, can
cause catastrophic impacts to the environment and the surrounding
community. We have all seen and heard
the horrible story from here in Pascoag.
However, since the start of our underground storage tank program, there
have been 1489 releases from underground tanks have been confirmed in Rhode
Island. The vast majorities of these
releases, 1117, or 75%, have been completely cleaned up. Of the remainder, 112 are subject to ongoing
monitoring to ensure that conditions continue to improve. There are currently 369 sites in Rhode
Island that either have corrective measures ongoing or require such action.
The impacts of the Pascoag
contamination are serious, widespread, and unprecedented in Rhode Island in
terms of the impact on people in the community. Over 4000 people were left without a safe source of drinking
water for their homes. Rhode Island has had a history of serious releases,
however. One of the earliest spills on
record occurred in Richmond, Rhode Island and impacted the water supply for the
Canob Park community. Groundwater
investigations in this community are documented as far back as 1963, with the
earliest suspicions of gasoline contamination documented in 1970. This case drew national attention as it
was featured on 60 Minutes in November of 1983 as one of the
first serious indications of a deeper problem with contamination from leaking
tanks. Years later, a major release at
the Hendel’s facility in nearby Connecticut seriously threatened one of the
water supply wells for Westerly. In
1993, a leak was discovered at the Willie’s Texaco facility on the border of
East Greenwich and North Kingstown.
That spill threatened major supply wells for the Kent County Water
Authority, the Town of North Kingstown, and the Economic Development
Corporation’s water supply for the Quonset Point Industrial Park. Fortunately, after great effort and expense,
the migration of that contamination was controlled before those water supplies
were impacted.
The damage from leaking
tanks is not limited to groundwater and water supplies. In 1993, serious leaks at the Coffey’s
Texaco facility in Newport and the Duva’s Texaco facility in Providence caused
contamination to flow under nearby buildings and into utilities, and vapors
seeped up into these structures. In
Newport, the historic Newport County Courthouse was temporarily shut down and
ventilation systems were installed to control the vapors. At the Duva’s site, a long, difficult battle
was waged to control contamination that was seeping into utility lines in the
streets At times, the level of
gasoline vapors in those lines reached potentially explosive conditions. In Bristol, a family had to be relocated for
over a year when gasoline vapors seeped into their basement from the Serpa’s
Getty site and in Cranston, a doctor’s office was impacted when vapors migrated
from the adjacent Speedy Oil gas station.
Unfortunately, we are battling the migration of contamination and vapors
in Pascoag now as well. Several
structures, including a single-family home, have had vapors from gasoline or
the individual constituents, such as benzene, detected inside.
Finally, leaking tanks can
seriously impact the quality of our environment and our quality of life. When contamination is detected in a
community, the anxiety of the residents rises as people worry about the health
and safety of their families. Property
values plummet when contamination is detected nearby. Contamination can migrate into our natural areas and destroy
their value and beauty. In Warwick,
gasoline migrated from the Potter’s Mobil site and contaminated a wetland area
in the center of a residential neighborhood.
Not only was the value of the wetland diminished, but odors from the
contamination caused problems throughout that neighborhood and impacted
resident’s quality of life until they were controlled.
The costs responding to
these releases are astronomical. Since
1987, EPA has provided over $9,500,000 in federal funding to Rhode Island for
response to leaking tanks and support for our leaking tanks program. Since it became operational in 1998, the
Rhode Island Underground Storage Tank Responsibility Fund has reimbursed tank
owners and operators for $21,248,648 in expenses incurred responding to leaks
at 155 facilities throughout the State.
We cannot even guess the costs incurred by business in responding to
these spills.
Many, many things have
changed since the underground storage tank program was first instituted. The nation’s tanks have been upgraded with
systems to protect them against corrosion and overfill. Tank systems have leak detection equipment
in place and mechanisms are in place to provide financial assurance for
response to spills and leaks. Still,
leaks are still occurring and we are struggling to identify the resources to
respond to major cases like the one here in Pascoag. New upgraded systems are also much more complex and difficult to
operate correctly.
We strongly support what we
see as the underlying principle of the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act
of 2001, which is to give States greater flexibility to implement the
underground storage tank program, particularly by providing more flexibility in
the use of funds to do more proactive work on preventing leaks.
We agree with the specific
provision that directs EPA to distribute at a minimum eighty percent of
the funds appropriated each year from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Trust Fund. It is our understanding
that, on average, EPA has distributed more than eighty percent of the funds
appropriated from this account to the States.
We applaud EPA for taking that approach and believe it has been
effective. Based on the partnership I
described earlier, the State programs implement the overwhelming majority of
the UST program nationally and it is critical that funds go to the States to
continue, and expand, this work.
Historically, States,
including Rhode Island, have used funding from the Leaking Tank Trust Fund for
corrective action and providing core funding for our leaking tank response
program. We have continually faced
challenges funding our regulatory program to oversee the operation of
underground tanks and effectively preventing leaks. We strongly support the new provisions in this bill that
allow
States to use funds from the leaking tank trust fund to enforce State or
local tank leak detection, prevention and other requirements through State or
local programs.
The bill also speaks to the
allocation process for distributing funds among the States. Rhode Island strongly supports the
allocation process currently being used by EPA.
The bill sets a very clear
mandate that all USTs regulated under Subtitle I of RCRA be inspected every two
years. When we first reviewed this
language, we were very concerned that we would not be able to meet this
mandate. Preliminary discussions with
environmental agencies from other States indicate that we are not alone in this
concern. Limitations on staffing and
other resources have restricted our ability to inspect tanks in Rhode Island to
a frequency of once every six to seven years.
While we recognize that this is unacceptable and is not providing the
level of protection necessary, we have not been able to build our staff to a
level that would allow more frequent inspections. In reviewing this concept over the past few weeks, we believe
that an effective alternative may be to license inspectors who conduct the
checks and monitoring necessary. We are
considering requirements for tank owners and operators to have their tanks
inspected by a licensed inspector on a yearly, or biennial, basis and condition
operation of the tank system on certification of a satisfactory
inspection. We could then use our own
resources to audit select stations based on priorities set over time, including
risk to water supplies and sensitive natural areas. This is one approach that we are considering in Rhode
Island. States have shown a history of
being innovators in this program and others and I am sure that many other
effective alternatives will also be considered as this bill moves forward. However, for Rhode Island, this will be a
very different approach than what is in place right now. We hope the bill will provide flexibility
during the transition period when States look to new, innovative ways to meet
this goal.
We support the concept of better training for operators of UST systems. We also believe that EPA is well suited to
develop guidance on different methods for training operators of underground
storage tanks. However, we believe that
the guidance should be flexible enough to allow effective and innovative
approaches that may be developed by States.
Prescriptive requirements on operator training programs may have the
unintended effect of stifling innovation and limiting programs to the lowest
common denominator. The bill clearly
recognizes the challenges that are faced when developing such a training
program and any effective program must be fluid enough to respond to the
frequent improvements in tank technology.
Furthermore, any training program must be clearly understood and under
almost continuous implementation given the turnover rate seen in the automotive
fueling business. Given these
challenges, the States should have maximum flexibility in developing and
implementing a program that meets their needs and the needs of their
stakeholders.
The bill allows the
Administrator to provide an award of up to $50,000 if the State develops and
implements a State operator training strategy.
We strongly support the concept of a “reward” for innovation and program
improvement.
As we are all aware, controlling and removing
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from the environment after a release is very
challenging. Conventional treatment
methods, such as pump and treat approaches and vapor extraction, are difficult
to implement due to the high solubility of the compound and the limited
effectiveness of activated carbon for capturing the material. In Pascoag, we were treating 200,000 gallons
of water per day to remove approximately 1,800 parts per billion of MTBE. The health advisory for drinking water is 40
ppb. Costs were much higher than our
original estimates based, in part, on the fact that the carbon filtration units
were not as effective as expected for removing the compound and needed to be
replaced much more frequently. Also,
since MTBE is so soluble in water, it migrates away from the source much
quicker than other compounds. This
increases the area and complexity of the investigation, and drives up the
cost. In Pascoag, the plume of
contamination is estimated to cover over 13 acres.
We strongly support the
provision in the bill that authorizes a one-time appropriation of $200 million
for the remediation of MTBE contamination.
We also support the recognition that MTBE contamination threatens the
welfare of people who may be impacted.
While the various health effects of MTBE are under continual discussion,
there is no doubt that concentrations near 40 ppb can render water
undrinkable. The taste and smell of
this contaminant is distinctive and objectionable and, in many cases, provides
the secondary standard driving remediation of these sites.
We support the provision in the bill that
provides funding to conduct inspections, issue orders, or bring actions under
this subtitle. This section of the bill
also requires States to submit to EPA a strategy to ensure compliance of tanks
owned by State or local governments with the provisions of the subtitle. In Rhode Island, the State has instituted a
program to proactively look at tanks owned or operated by State agencies. With municipalities, we have used a mix of
compliance assistance tools and enforcement actions to ensure compliance, with
varying levels of effectiveness. This
section also allows EPA to provide an award of up to $50,000 if the State
develops and implements such a strategy.
Again, we strongly support the concept of a “reward” for innovation and
program improvement.
In conclusion, we all
recognize that the underground storage tank program implemented by EPA and the
states have made tremendous progress in controlling the threats of
releases Bare steel tanks are largely
a thing of the past and the majority of tank systems are equipped to protect
them from corrosion, detect leaks in a timely manner, and prevent overfilling. However, these new systems are more complex
and difficult to operate. If not run
correctly, they can provide a false sense of security without the level of
protection they are designed to provide.
We strongly support the
underlying principle of the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2001,
which is to give States greater flexibility to implement the underground
storage tank program, particularly by providing more flexibility in the use of
funds to do more proactive work on preventing leaks.
We hope the bill will
provide flexibility during the transition period when States look to new,
innovative ways to meet all the goals of this bill. States have shown a history of being innovators in the UST
program and I am sure that many new and effective approaches will be considered
as this bill moves forward.
Thank you once again for the
opportunity to comment on this legislation and thank you once again, Senator
Chafee, for your leadership on this issue.