Full text of "Safe aboveground storage tanks : hearing before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, second session, September 14, 1994"

See other formats

SAFE ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS

Y 4. EN 2/3: 103-161

t./

Safe Aboveground Storage TankS/ Ser. . .JJ^Q-

BEFORE THE

SUBCOmOTTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND HAZARDOUS .ALITERIALS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATR^S

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 14, 1994

Serial No. 103-161

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

'^^oma

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86469CC WASHINGTON : 1995

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-046804-3

SAFE ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS

Y 4. EN 2/3: 103-161

Safe Aboveground Storage TankSi Ser...JJ^Q-

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE OX
TRANSPORTATION AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 14, 1994

Serial No. 103-161

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

APH 11

S95

■"•^'^^ssi^v

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86469CC WASHINGTON : 1995

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-046804-3

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

JOHN D. DINGELL,

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

PHILIP R. SHARP. Indiana

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

AL SWIFT, Washington

CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois

MIKE SYNAR, Oklahoma

W.J. "BILLY" TAUZIN, Louisiana

RON WYDEN, Oregon f [\J i

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico

JIM SLATTERY. Kansas

JOHN BRYANT, Texas

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

J. ROY ROWLAND, Georgia

THOMAS J. MANTON, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey

CRAIG A. WASHINGTON, Texas
LYNN SCHENK, CaUfornia
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

MIKE KREIDLER, Washington -— ^

MARJORIE MARGOLIES-MEZVINSKY,

Pennsylvania '' "*' T. *, . ""^

BLANCHE M. LAMBERT, Arkansas

Alan J. Roth, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

Dennis B. Fitzgibbons, Deputy Staff Director

Margaret A Durbin, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director

Michigan, Chairman

CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California

THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia

JACK FIELDS, Texas

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado

JOE BARTON, Texas

ALEX MCMILLAN, North CaroUna

J. DENNIS HASTERT, IlUnois

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

BILL PAXON, New York

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

SCOTT KLUG, Wisconsin

GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials

AL SWIFT,

BLANCHE M. LAMBERT, Arkans&sv.v-
W.J. "BILLY" TAUZIN, Louisiana
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
J. ROY ROWLAND, Georgia
THOMAS J. MANTON, New York
GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LYNN SCHENK, CaUfcrnia
PHILIP R." SHARP, Indiana
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
(Ex Officio)

Washington, Chairman

« MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio

\ JACK FIELDS, Texas
\ DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado
FRED UPTON, Michigan
BILL PAXON, New York
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
(Ex Officio)

Arthur P. Endres, Jr., Staff Director /Chief Counsel
Kristina M. Larsen, Staff Assistant

(II)

CONTENTS

Page

Testimony of:

DiBona, Charles J., president, American Petroleum Institute 19

Dietrich, Debbie, Director, Emergency Response Division, Office of Emer-
gency and Remedial Response, Environmental Protection Agency 8

Epstein, Lois N., engineer, Pollution Prevention Alliance, Environmental
Defense Fund 30

Houghton, Clark, state executive, Petroleum Marketers Association of
America 40

Moran, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress From the State
of Virginia 4

Mott-Smith, Marshall T., administrator. Storage Tank Regulation Sec-
tion, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 42

O'Neill, Anthony R., vice president, government affairs. National Fire
Protection Association 45

Robertson, Peter D., Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Environmental Protection Agency 8

Senter, Wayne, fire marshal, City of Auburn Fire Department 62

Tidwell, J.L., chairman, Uniform Fire Code Committee, International
Fire Code Institute 62

(III)

SAFE ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1994

House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Subcommittee on Transportation

and Hazardous Materials,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Al Swift (chairman)
presiding.

Mr. Swift. The subcommittee will come to order.

I would like to welcome everyone to the hearing on H.R. 1360,
the Safe Aboveground Storage Tank Act of 1993.

This bill provides an answer to what some see as a lack of com-
prehensive regulation of aboveground storage tanks. Unlike under-
ground storage tanks that are regulated by EPA under Title I of
the Resource Recovery Act, aboveground storage tanks are not reg-
ulated under one comprehensive law.

The regulation of aboveground storage tanks fall under more
than five different statutes. A principle question in this hearing is
whether this multi-statute approach provides a comprehensive
level of protection to human health and the environment or wheth-
er it leaves significant gaps that can result in the release of haz-
ardous chemicals.

There have been a number of highly publicized incidents since
the mid-1980's involving releases of aboveground storage tanks. In
some cases, they have ruptured, spilling large amounts of their
contents in a short period of time.

A good example is a 1988 failure of a tank in this wonderful
town in Pennsylvania that spilled approximately a million gallons
of oil in the Monongahela River. I can pronounce Monongahela, but
I was stymied by Floreffe, Pennsylvania.

In other instances, small leaks in aboveground tanks have over
time contaminated groundwater and spread beyond the tank facil-
ity boundaries. One of these, a leak discovered in 1990 at a petro-
leum facility in Fairfax, Virginia, resulted in the contamination of
dozens of neighboring homes.

Today, we are fortunate to have an expert on that incident and
the author of this legislation. Representative Jim Moran, to help us
better understand this problem and the solution offered by H.R.
1360.

I look forward to Congressman Moran's statement and the testi-
mony of all our witnesses, and I am happy to recognize the ranking
Republican in the subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio.

(1)

Mr. OXLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would like to wel-
come our colleague, Jim Moran. At today's hearing, we are using
the legislative proposal for the further expansion of Federal regu-
latory programs to be administered by EPA. This Congress, we
have all examined some of EPA's existing programs, such as
Superfund and the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Municipal
Landfill Program, and found them to be very problematic.

Before we entertain further expansion, we must seriously look at
Congress' and EPA's ability to fix the problems in existing Federal
programs, something neither Congress nor EPA has yet to accom-
plish.

I am pleased to begin to lay out a legislative record in the area
of aboveground storage tanks. Indeed, I could not support further
expansion of EPA authority without, first, having a strong and reli-
able statement of the problem warranting Federal attention and,
second, a clear indication of why State and local mechanisms rou-
tinely fail.

The RCRA corrective action program is a disaster, just as
Superfund is a disaster. Does Washington know the best answers
in the area of aboveground tanks?

I understand that the American National Standards Institute
and the American Petroleum Institute, in consultation with inter-
ested parties, have put together standards for the design, construc-
tion, operation, maintenance and inspection of terminal and tank
facilities. This constitutes an industry standard of care that can be
used in State or local programs with reliability purposes. Is there
a debate about these standards and what new expertise will the
EPA bring to this issue?

At our last hearing, we looked at the problem of one-size-fits-all
requirements for groundwater monitoring for landfills in Texas and
Alaska. Are all storage tank operations really the same in Louisi-
ana or California?

These are the kinds of critical questions that I would need re-
solved before seriously entertaining support for Federal legislation
in this area.

And, finally, as noted in EPA's testimony, any legislation must
provide for a risk-based approach so that both public and private
sector resources can be directed towards the most serious threats.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses
to begin to answer these questions.

Mr. Swift. I thank the gentleman and am happy to welcome a
gentleman, member of the full committee, who is quickly becoming
a de facto member of this subcommittee, Alex McMillan, for an
opening statement.

Mr. McMillan. I thank the Chair for allowing me to join the
subcommittee. It seems that most of my local problems are under
the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, so I appreciate your consider-
ation.

I, like Congressman Moran, became aware of the problem of
leaking of aboveground storage tanks when constituents in the Paw
Creek community, as it is known, west of the city of Charlotte, lo-
cated near a major tank farm, began to complain of increased can-
cer rates in the community.

This tank farm, I suppose like many, had really begun to develop
in the 1940's and was a major terminal on the pipeline in the area,
so there is quite a bit of oil storage capacity there, much of it put
in at a very different time, with a different attitude towards these
things. Studies of local wells indicated substantial amounts of con-
tamination but didn't seem to be able to fix responsibility. Some of
the stories that came out of that were rather shocking, having to
do with the amount of petroleum floating on top of the water table
and so on. I am not going to try to get into all of those problems,
regardless of what was said, the pollution was considerable.

The community logically turned to the petroleum companies in-
volved, and there were a number of them, for assistance and to es-
tablish some sort of cleanup schedule, and I would have to say that
in the first instance, from their perspective, they were stonewalled.
I think part of that arose out of confusion as to who was actually
the cause of the problem.

The fact of the matter is that because the tank farm was there,
the problem was there, and I think the response was extremely
slow to begin with. The efforts to operate through State regulation
were certainly, to the people who were affected, extremely frustrat-
ing and slow, although the State of North Carolina is pretty good
in most instances. But, nevertheless, it was frustrating to the peo-
ple involved in the community. Left with no alternative, naturally
the community turned to the Congressional office to try to find
some solutions.

I would have to say that I think in this instance the industry has
responded, trying to put together an effective plan among a num-
ber of companies to get the job done, both with respect to dealing
with that specific problem, and I think a lot is going on to deal
with the problem generally.

Nevertheless, despite all of the environmental laws, rules and
regulations, there seems to be a serious loophole in the law on
aboveground storage tanks. We regulate underground storage
tanks which leak. We regulate contaminants that seep into
streams. But we don't grant any regulatory authority to the EPA
to clean up or regulate leaking aboveground storage tanks which
directly contaminate the groundwater. Frankly, that doesn't seem
to make a lot of sense to me.

I am not one for more Federal regulation than we need. But I
think this is a problem that is unresolved that needs attention, and
whether this is the exact bill that needs to be enacted or whether
the industry is going to be able to demonstrate a response that
would lessen the need for regulation, I think remains to be seen.
This kind of leakage is a serious threat to human life and a safe
environment and something that I think we need to really look at
seriously.

At a minimum, regulation should provide for new tank construc-
tion standards, testing of existing structures, spill protection and
monitoring protocols. In particular, given the serious technical
problems associated with groundwater cleanup, we should ensure
groundwater protection by requiring both primary and secondary
containment that guarantee a high standard of impermeability.

Finally, Congress should take a serious look at how best to ad-
dress those areas which already have significant contamination.
Currently, there are no requirements which are enforceable to
clean up the contamination from a leaking aboveground storage
tank. It would be irresponsible not to choose to address this ques-
tion should Congress choose to act on this matter.

Again, I want to thank the chairman for his indulgence of a
member of the committee and stress I believe this is an issue
which deserves our serious consideration.

I have, Mr. Chairman, some further material which, with unani-
mous consent, I would like to submit for the record.

Mr. S^^^lFT. Without objection.

Mr. McMillan. And yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Swift. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Swift. We are very happy now to recognize the author of the
legislation. The gentleman has brought this matter strongly to the
attention of the committee.

We welcome you, Jim, and I will ask unanimous consent that
yours and the prepared text of ail of our witnesses this morning be
made a part of the record. Without objection, so ordered. And you
may proceed as you wish.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. MORAN, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Mr. MORAN. Thank you very much. Chairman Swift, and it is
good to have Mr. Oxley and Mr. McMillan here as well.

I want to start out by — with a personal note of appreciation for
you having the hearing and focusing on this issue. I know the
agenda is getting very tight at this time of the year. I would also
like to say that I join the chorus of people regretting the fact that
you are leaving us, Mr. Chairman. It is a personal loss for a lot
of Members and it is a great institutional loss.

Mr. Swift. It is good to know you are not joining the other cho-
rus which is cheering.

Mr. MORAN. I think the one that regrets you leaving is drowning
out any cheering that might take place.

You have got all the major players on this issue here today: Mr.
DiBona, the American petroleum Institute; you have got Clark
Houghton, Petroleum Marketers Association of America; Lois Ep-
stein, the Environmental Defense Fund; Tony O'Neill, National
Fire Protection Association; Jim Tidwell, the International Fire
Code Institute; Marshall Mott-Smith with the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection.

We thought that might be interesting to the EPA. Administrator.
So these are all the people that clearly need to be heard from to
develop a responsible piece of legislation.

I introduced H.R. 1360 last year in response to a leak that oc-
curred just 20 miles south of here in Fairfax, Virginia, at the Pick-
ett Road tank farm. There are a number of members that actually
live in that area. Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately for the
issue, none of them happen to live in the neighborhood that was
immediately adjacent to the tank farm.

But that tank farm, called the Pickett Road tank farm that is
owned by Star Enterprise, an affiliate of Texaco, was first detected

in September of 1990, resulted in approximately 200,000 gallons of
aviation oil, diesel oil and gasoline penetrating the soil. It seeped
into the groundwater, and it spread beneath the nearby residential
community.

As Mr. McMillan said happened in his community, the residents
suspected something was wrong, and initially they were
stonewalled as well. But now many residents have had to be evacu-
ated from their home because the petroleum vapors reached toxic
levels. Many have complained of respiratory problems stemming
from the leak. Since it has been fully identified, many more resi-
dents have had to permanently abandon their homes.

Star Enterprise has already spent about $200 million in com-
pensation to homeowners, $50 million for medical and other dam-
ages and $150 million for decreased property values. So, again, this
is an expensive thing that would be far less expensive if we could
just prevent these kinds of spills in the first place.

It is the largest leak in this area, but it is certainly not the only
one. We have smaller amounts of petroleum that are being cleaned
up, the Shell, the Exxon and the Crown facilities in Springfield,
Virginia. There is an aboveground storage tank just to the south
where Shirley Highway meets with the Beltway. That is not so
bad, and they have been responsible about it.

But as we find with about half of the aboveground tank fsirms
all over the country, they are leaking. And any tank farm that was
constructed before the mid-1970's, there is a very good chance that
leaking is going on.

Virginia is the 16th State to have passed aboveground storage
tank regulations, and other States are in the process of enacting
comprehensive aboveground tank legislation. But there is some-
thing of a patchwork that is going on at State initiative.

By the Environmental Protection Agency's own estimates, there
were more than 6,000 reported spills from aboveground tanks be-
tween 1988-1990. They released about 14 million gal^jns of oil.
Just to put that in perspective, the 1989 spill from the Exxon
Valdez into Prince William Sound released 11 million gallons of oil.

So from 1988 to 1990, that same period, there were 14 million
gallons released from these leaking storage tanks. And yet it obvi-
ously hasn't received anywhere near the kind of attention that the
Exxon Valdez spill generated. And that is because the leaks are
slow, and they are underground. So until a residential community
comes up with some kind of medical problems or you have a fire
disaster, whatever, you are not aware of it.

But there are very serious health, safety and environmental risks
that are taking place right now. They have the potential of perma-
nently contaminating groundwater, which is the source of drinking
water for more than half of the Nation. In many cases, ground-
water contamination is leading to serious surface water contamina-
tion, and yet we can't regulate groundwater contamination until it
contaminates the surface water. That is the problem.

What is astounding is that, while underground storage tanks are
highly regulated, it is the aboveground storage tanks which store
100 billion gallons of oil nationwide. They are very loosely regu-
lated by a patchwork of weak regulations. The GAO concluded that

the current laws for aboveground storage tanks are grossly inad-
equate.

Since the legislation was passed to regulate underground tanks,
there was a tendency to purchase aboveground tanks — a natural
reaction to the regulations of underground. Really what should
have happened is that we should have covered both at the same
time.

At the most elementary level, current law doesn't even require
comprehensive data collection to know how many aboveground
storage tanks are leaking. The legislation that we have is, in fact,
reactive. It is not proactive in any way.

While the EPA has comprehensive regulatory authority to regu-
late underground tanks under the Resource Conservation Recovery
Act and operate an entire office devoted to underground tanks,
aboveground storage tanks are regulated under the emergency re-
sponse division whose focus is on spills and not leaks. In other
words, focuses on the problem after it has happened, rather than
any kind of preventive measures.

There is— there are no credible requirements for prevention of
spills such as happened in Fairfax and, in fact, around the country.
What Federal authority there is to regulate aboveground storage
tank facilities is not designed to prevent underground releases, nor
is there specific authority to address existing contamination and
ensure no off-site migration of these leaks. That is why we intro-
duced H.R. 1360.

The key to the bill is prevention. The legislation requires the
EPA Administrator to issue regulations which would set perform-
ance standards for new and for rebuilt tanks designed to prevent
releases. Regular inspections and spill and overflow prevention
would also be required by the legislation to minimize the impact
of leaks which do occur. Release detection systems would be re-
quired. Tank owners would be required to develop corrective action
plans and obtain insurance to ensure that they can assume their
financial responsibility in the event of leaks.

Finally, to fill the vacuum in existing data, owners would be re-
quired to report information about their tanks and any releases
that exceed 42 gallons. Similar to other environmental programs,
if a State applies to have prim.ary jurisdiction over tanks, the EPA,
after reviewing and approving their program, can give States that
authority.

The legislation includes a requirement that tank owners pay a
nominal fee to a Federal or the designated State agency based on
the size of the tank. States could receive these fees if they had an
EPA-approved program.

Now, some are saying that this bill goes too far and that indus-
trywide standards are more than capable of dealing with leaks and
spills. In fact, if they were implemented across the board, they
would be.

The American Petroleum Institute — I am sure you are going to
hear this in a few minutes — maintains more than 400 standards
relating to petroleum storage tanks. But they are all voluntary in
nature. They are suggestive. It would be prudent for tank owners
to follow the API standards, but they are not forced to do so. As
a result, there have been major releases in every single State of

this Nation, from Anchorage, Alaska to Austin, Texas, to Syracuse,
New York, across the country. You name the State and we can
point out a leak.

Obviously, many tank owners are choosing not to follow the
American Petroleum Institute standards. And whether you have a
large tank or a small tank, a marketing tank, a refinery tank,
there is a possibility that there will be a leak. It only makes sense
that the tank owners prevent those leaks before they occur.

Senator Robb is the chief sponsor of the bill in the Senate. The
GAO will be reporting to the Congress on the number and types
of aboveground storage tanks across the country. While the EPA is
working to ascertain this information, it is important that we im-
mediately find answers to these questions and develop policies to
prevent these damaging leaks into the environment.

So, in summary, there is no question that aboveground tank
leaks are clearly pervasive across the country, and they are ongo-
ing as we speak.

I am anxious to work with the committee and the EPA and the
regulated industries to address the current deficiencies in Federal
law and, hopefully, to use H.R. 1360 to fill some of these gaps. And
so, in so doing. Congress can address one of the last remaining
loopholes in Federal environmental law.

And I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify before you
today.

Mr. Swift. Thank you very much, Jim. It is a very comprehen-
sive statement.

I want to commend you for the work you have done on this issue,
the development of the legislation and particularly for bringing it
to the committee's attention so that we were able to hold this hear-
ing and which I hope will lead to further action on this proposal,
if not in this Congress, certainly in future congresses.

Recognize the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. OxLEY. I have no questions.

Mr. Swift. Recognize Mr. McMillan.

Mr. McMillan. No questions.

Mr. Swift. Thank you, Jim, very, very much. We greatly appre-
ciate your participation.

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Swift. Would Mr. Moorhead, the ranking Republican of the
committee, care to make a statement at this time?

Mr. Moorhead. I do not have an opening statement this morn-
ing, but I certainly welcome our witnesses today.

Mr. Swift. Thank you very much.

Mr. Swift. With that, we welcome Mr. Peter Robertson, Deputy
Assistant Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste and Emer-
gency Response of the EPA. Good to see you again.

Mr. Robertson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Swift. Your statement has already been made a part of the
record, and you may proceed as you wish.

STATEMENT OF PETER ROBERTSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT AD-
IVONISTRATOR, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE, ENVIRONTMDENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, AC-
COMPANIED BY DEBBIE DIETRICH, DIRECTOR, EMERGENCY
RESPONSE DIVISION, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY AND REME-
DIAL RESPONSE

Mr. Robertson. Mr. Chairman, I have asked Debbie Dietrich,
who is the Director of the Emergency Response Division within the
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response at EPA, to join me at
the table. I appreciate your welcome.

I am pleased to appear before the subcommittee today to discuss
aboveground storage tanks and, in particular, H.R. 1360, Mr.
Moran's Safe Aboveground Storage Tank Act of 1993.

EPA has been engaged in regulatory activities dealing with
aboveground oil storage facilities for more than 2 decades, Mr.
Chairman. Our activities in this area were initiated and are still
conducted under section 311 of the Clean Water Act, which author-
izes the President to protect surface waters from the releases of oil
and hazardous substances.

I should make clear that neither the plain language of this stat-
ute as it was amended by the Oil Pollution Act nor the legislative
history explicitly authorizes EPA to protect groundwater in cases
where there is no discharge or threatened discharge to surface
water. Authority to prevent spills by implementing section 311 is
divided among the Department of Transportation, the Department
of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's ju-
risdiction encompasses inland non-transportation-related facilities.

Pursuant to section 311, EPA requires owners and operators of
non-transportation-related facilities to develop and implement so-
called spill prevention control and countermeasures, or SPCC,
plans. The facilities that must implement these plans include refin-
eries, tank farms, fuel oil dealers and many users of petroleum and
nonpetroleum products.

Very briefly, the SPCC regulation requires the use of good engi-
neering practices in the design, construction, operation and mainte-
nance of affected facilities. Not only must every facility subject to
the regulation have an SPCC plan but such facilities must also
have the procedures, the equipment and the trained personnel
needed to implement the plan.

Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which amended section 311
of the Clean Water Act, owners and operators of facilities that
could cause substantial harm to the environment are now required
to prepare plans for responding to worst-case discharges or the
threat of such discharges. The OPA greatly strengthened EPA's au-
thority to impose penalties for violations and strengthened our re-
sponse authority by making it clear that facility owners and opera-
tors have the primary responsibility for cleanup and by creating a
$1 billion trust fund that, subject to congressional appropriations,
EPA and other Federal agencies can use where necessary to con-
duct cleanup activities.

Over the past 4 years, in response to the Agency's own recogni-
tion of needed improvements and in accordance with the Oil Pollu-
tion Act, EPA has begun to strengthen its regulatory requirements.
A rule-making proposal in October 1991 clarified that elements of

an SPCC plan are mandatory, and it required, among other things,
that owners and operators of affected facilities furnish EPA with
information on facility location and size, as well as certain other
data.

Based on comments on this proposed rule, EPA initiated a survey
to gather data about the regulated universe of facilities. The final
rule will reflect the results of our ongoing data collection efforts.

Leaks from oil storage facilities, similar to the one in Congress-
man's Moran's district, have occurred in many other communities.
The Environmental Defense Fund documented many of these inci-
dents in an excellent report issued in February 1993.

In addition, the American Petroleum Institute recently completed
a survey of member companies' facilities. Of the facilities that par-
ticipated in the survey, 81 percent of those that monitor ground-
water have confirmed groundwater contamination. Whether this
contamination is due largely to historical practices that are no
longer followed, as API maintains, or due in part to more recent
releases is not clear. In any case, the data do confirm that contami-
nation exists at these facilities.

In 1993, Administrator Browner created an EPA work group to
perform a strategic review of aboveground oil storage facilities. In
the course of that review, the work group held forums in Philadel-
phia; Austin, Texas; San Francisco and here in Washington to hear
from all stakeholders. Discussions at the forums focused on the na-
ture of the problem and potential solutions. These discussions illus-
trated that a wide range of opinion exists with respect both to the
existence of a problem as well as potential solutions.

EPA estimates that about 500,000 aboveground oil storage facili-
ties may be subject to our SPCC requirements. The EPA facilities'
survey, which is aimed at defining and characterizing the universe
of EPA regulated aboveground oil storage facilities, is currently un-
derway, as I mentioned. Even when that is completed, however, we
believe it will be necessary to collect additional data to define the
actual extent of oil contamination of soil and groundwater and the
impacts on human health and the environment.

Earlier this year, in a letter from the Administrator to you.
Chairman Swift, the EPA described our specific comments on H.R.
1360. Let me briefly reiterate the main points.

First, it is essential that States be fully involved in any effort to
deal with aboveground storage facilities and that any legislation
calling for delegation to the States provide funding to enable them
to play their appropriate role.

Second, several States have already undertaken ambitious efforts
to deal with soil and groundwater contamination at aboveground
storage facilities. We believe that these States should not be re-

quired to make major modifications to their programs in order to
conform to any new Federal requirements.

Third, any new legislation dealing with discharges from above-
ground storage facilities should build on existing laws and regula-
tions and should specify how its provisions are related to the Clean
Water Act and to other Federal laws that pertain to such dis-
charges.

Fourth, such legislation must clearly apply not just to tanks, we
believe, but to all the structures, equipment and activities at above-
ground storage facilities. That is, the legislation should apply to the
facility itself, not just to the tanks, so that all significant sources
of releases can be addressed.

Fifth, because we believe there is still much to be learned about
the problems that such legislation would address, the legislation
should give EPA and States the flexibility to modify their activities
as new knowledge emerges.

Sixth, it should give EPA and States latitude to take a risk-based
approach to dealing with aboveground storage facilities so that
both public and private sector resources can be directed towards
the most serious health and environmental threats.

Seventh, because the universe of facilities is large and is diverse,
EPA and the States must be able to employ innovative ways of as-
suring that owners and operators take steps necessary to prevent,
detect and clean up discharges.

And, eighth, such legislation must include adequate provisions
for penalizing violators.

Mr. Chairman, that completes my oral presentation, and I will
be happy, with Ms. Dietrich, to try to answer any questions that
you may have.

[The prepared statement of Peter Robertson follows:]

Statement of Peter Robinson, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Environmental Protection Agency

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am Peter Rob-
ertson, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I am pleased to appear before the
subcommittee today to discuss aboveground storage tanks and in particular H.R.
1360, the Safe Aboveground Storage Tank Act of 1993.

I know that the administrator shares the very real concerns that prompted Con-
gressman Moran to introduce H.R. 1360. Sizable releases of gasoline and other pe-
troleum products from a number of aboveground storage facilities — including one in
Congressman Moran's district — have demonstrated that such facilities have the po-
tential to cause significant ground water contamination, disrupt the lives of people
living near these facilities, and threaten their health.

EPA has been engaged in regulatory activities dealing with aboveground oil stor-
age facilities for more than 2 decades. Our activities in this area were initiated and
are still conducted under section 311 of the Clean Water Act which, in general
terms, authorizes the President to protect surface waters from releases of oil and
hazardous substances. Authority to prevent spills by implementing section 311 is di-
vided among the Department of Transportation, the Department of the Interior, and
EPA. EPA's jurisdiction encompasses inland non-transportation-related facilities.

Pursuant to section 311, EPA requires owners and operators of non-transpor-
tation-related facilities to develop and implement Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasures, or SPCC, plans. Such facilities must have an SPCC plan if they
have aboveground oil storage capacity greater than 660 gallons in a single con-
tainer, total aboveground oil storage capacity greater than 1,320 gallons, or under-
ground oil storage capacity greater than 42 thousand gallons. Such facilities include
refineries, tank farms, fuel oil dealers, and many users of petroleum and
nonpetroleum products.

Very briefly, the SPCC regulation requires the use of good engineering practices
in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of affected facDities. Not
only must every facility subject to the regulation have an SPCC plan, but such fa-
cilities also must have the procedures, equipment, and trained personnel needed to
implement the plan. The SPCC requirements have helped prevent many millions of
gallons of oil from reaching surface water.

When a spill from a regulated facility does reach surface waters or adjoining
shorelines the person in charge of the facility is required to notify the National Re-
sponse Center, which is operated by the Coast Guard. Working with the Coast
Cfuard, EPA On-Scene Coordinators direct or monitor clean-up operations at hun-
dreds of inland spills annually.

Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), which amended section 311, owners
and operators of facilities that could cause substantial harm to the environment are
now required to prepare plans for responding to worst-case discharges or the threat
of such discharges. OPA greatly strengthened EPA's authority to impose penalties
for violations and strengthened our response authority by making it clear that facil-
ity owners and operators have the primary responsibility for clean-up and by creat-
ing a $1 billion Trust Fund that EPA and other Federal agencies can use where
necessary to conduct clean-up activities.

EPA's activities under the Clean Water Act and the Oil Pollution Act have been
focused on protection of surface waters. Neither the plain language of these statutes
nor their legislative history explicitly authorize EPA to protect ground water in
cases where there is no discharge or threatened discharge to surface water.

Over the past 4 years, in response to the Agency's own recognition of needed im-
provements, and in accordance with OPA, EPA has begun to strengthen its regu-
latory requirements. A rulemaking proposal in October 1991 clarified that certain
elements of an SPCC plan are mandatory and required, among other things that
owners and operators of affected facilities furnish EPA with information on facility
location and size, as well as certain other data. Based on comments on the proposed
rule, EPA initiated a survey to gather data about the regulated universe of facilities.
The final rule will reflect the results of these ongoing data collection efforts.

EPA will continue to be vigilant in preventing and cleaning up oil spills that af-
fect surface waters, but it is apparent that we must also pay increasing attention
to the threat — and the reality — of oil contamination of soil and ground water. Epi-
sodes similar to the one in Congressman Moran's district have occurred in many
other communities. The Environmental Defense Fund documented many of these in-
cidents in a report issued in February 1993. In addition, the American Petroleum
Institute (API), which recently completed a survey of member companies' facilities,
reported just 2 months ago that — of the facilities that participated in the survey —
81 percent of those that monitor ground water have confirmed ^ound water con-
tamination. Whether this contamination is due largely to historical practices that
are no longer allowed, as the API maintains, or due in part to more recent releases,
is not clear. In any case, the data suggest that contamination exists at these facili-
ties.

In 1993 the administrator created an EPA Work Group to perform a strategic re-
view of aboveground oil storage facilities. In the course of that review, the Work
Group held forums in Philadelphia, Austin, San Francisco, and here in the Washing-
ton area to hear fi-om representatives of petroleum producers and marketers, State
and local governments, environmental and community groups, and other stakehold-
ers. Discussions at the forums focused on the nature of the problem, if any, and po-
tential solutions. These discussions illustrated that a wide range of opinion exists
with respect to both the existence of a problem as well as a potential solution. A
summary of the highlights of the proceedings of these forums has been released, and
I would be happy to provide a copy for the record of this hearing, if you wish to
include it.

I think it is fair to say that while we know a great deal about the occurrence of
oil spills into surface waters, we still have a lot to learn about the occurrence of
soil and ground water contamination at aboveground oil storage facilities. In part,
the gaps in our knowledge reflect the fact that existing law does not explicitly re-
quire tnat such contamination be reported to the Federal Government. In addition,
aboveground oil storage facilities are numerous, diverse, and geographically wide-
spread. EPA estimates that about 500,000 aboveground oil storage facilities may be
subject to the SPCC requirements. As mentioned above, the EPA facilities survey
which is aimed at defining and characterizing the universe of EPA regulated above-
ground oil storage facilities is currently underway. Even when that is completed,
however, it will oe necessary to collect additional data to define the actual extent
of oil contamination of soil and ground water and the impacts on human health and
the environment.

EPA shares Congressman Moran's interest in defining the nature of the problem
as well as the role the Federal Government should play in preventing and remediat-
ing ground water contamination resulting from tne operation of aboveground oil
storage facilities. Earlier this year, in a letter from the administrator to Chairman
Swift, we described our specific comm.ents on H.R. 1360. I will briefly reiterate the
main points:

First, it is essential that States be fully involved in anv effort to deal v/ith above-
ground storage facilities and that any legislation calling for delegation to States pro-
vide funding to enable them to play their appropriate role.

Second, several States have already undertaken ambitious effort to deal with soil
and ground water contamination at aboveground storage facilities; States should not
be required to make major modifications to these programs in order to conform to
Federal requirements;

Third, any new legislation dealing with discharges from aboveground storage fa-
cilities should build on existing laws and regulations and should specify how its pro-
visions are related to the Clean Water Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act,
and to other Federal laws that pertain to such discharges;

Fourth, such legislation must clearly apply not just to tanks but to all structures,
equipment, and activities at aboveground storage facilities so that all significant
sources of releases can be addressed;

Fifth, because there is still much to be learned about the problem that such legis-
lation would address, it should give EPA and States flexibility to modify our activi-
ties as new knowledge emerges;

Sixth, it should give EPA and States latitude to take a risk-based approach to
dealing with aboveground storage facilities, so that both public and private sector
resources can be directed toward the most serious health and environmental
threats;

Seventh, because the universe of facilities is large and diverse, EPA and States
must be able to employ innovative ways of assuring that owners and operators take
the steps necessarj' to prevent, detect, and clean up discharges; and

Eighth, such legislation must include provisions for penalizing violators.

In summary, legislation addressing contamination from aboveground storage
tanks should provide opportunities to improve our knowledge and m.odify our ap-
proach as our knowledge increases; build on our two decades of experience in ded-
ing with aboveground oil storage facilities; offer flexibility to tackle the problem on
the basis of an objective assessment of health and environmental risks; and encour-
age, and provide support for State involvement. EPA is prepared to work with this
subcommittee and other stakeholders to fashion an appropriate solution to the prob-
lems of soU and ground water contamination associated with aboveground storage
facilities. I will be happy at this point to answer any questions the subcommittee
may have. Thank you.

Mr. Swift. Thank you very much.

I just want to note in toward the very end of your statement that
you mentioned that there needed to be some inclusion of risk as-
sessment involved in all of this, and I approve of that. I think some
who have decided that risk assessment is for, whatever reasons,
automatically a bad thing need to reassess. I think risk assessmient
has got to become a major tool that we use.

The caution on the other side is that it not become an article of
religious faith, as well. And I — in listening to some of the pro-
ponents of risk assessment, I kind of hear that developing, too, that
it is a grand magic wand that will solve all problems, and I don't
believe that.

If we can wrestle this debate away from the extremes and con-
centrate on risk assessment that makes sense and is used as a
major tool in the toolbox that we use to try to fix environmental
issues, it can be very, very good. And I am happy to note that EPA
believes that risk assessment has a role in these issues.

Let us talk about your authority under the Oil Pollution Act.
That is tied to contamination of surface water so that a release of
contaminants that only goes into groundwater falls into a regu-
latory gap. That is, obviously, a concern for you. Do you find this

legislation effectively deals with that or would you rather approach
it in some other way?

Mr. Robertson. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Moran's legisla-
tion would close that gap. I believe it is the single biggest gap in
our existing authority that we recognize and that prevents us from
dealing with discharges to groundwater and to the soil.

Let me also point out that virtually every State has some sort
of authority to deal with groundwater contamination, and a num-
ber of States are dealing with these sorts of problems under their
own authorities now.

Mr. Swift. Do you have any authority to require notification of
underground leaks from aboveground tanks?

Mr. Robertson. We do not, Mr. Chairman, have that authority,
either.

Mr. Swift. What I think we are going to hear later today is that
there is nothing to worry about because it is all being taken care
of one way or another, and I don't think that has got any credibil-
ity. Likewise, the concern that we are about to write some great,
grandiose thing that will just, you know, devour everybody is not
an illegitimate concern.

Do you think, whether it is the Moran proposal or something
else, that there is a way to come up with a unified regulatory
scheme that may even be simpler in that those affected by it will
have a — a one-stop-shop kind of situation where they would need
to go? Or because of the need to involve States and what have you,
do you just end up with a different kind of complex regulatory
scheme?

Mr. Robertson. Mr. Chairman, the working group that Adminis-
trator Browner formed in April of last year has been looking at this
issue. Their report is — frankly, should be released in about the
next week or so. It is being reviewed by senior management even
as we speak. I am prepared to talk a bit about the recommenda-
tions of that report, and I think it addresses your questions.

Assuming that Administrator Browner approves their report, the
working group will make four genersd suggestions for moving for-
ward on this problem.

First, we believe we do have to continue data collection to better
analyze and characterize the universe of these facilities, their oper-
ations and the soil and groundwater contamination that are coinci-
dent to those operations.

We also believe that we need to build on our existing regulatory
structure under section 311, particularly by completing the SPCC
rule amendments which were proposed in 1991 and which have
been delayed, Mr. Chairman, while we have responded to the other
mandates of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and other regulatory re-
quirements. And also, frankly, of late we weren't rushing to get
these out because we wanted to give the aboveground storage tank
work group an opportunity to make an independent assessment.
But we do believe we can strengthen our regulations and that the
October 1991 proposal will do so.

Number three, we are willing to continue to work with this com-
mittee and other committees in Congress in dealing with any legis-
lation that might be proposed, whether it be an approach like Mr.
Moran's that provides a new regulatory regime or whether it be

86-469 - 95 - 2

amending the Clean Water Act to broaden our existing authority
so that we can address some of these problems.

Finally, we want to investigate the feasibility of developing vol-
untary programs in cooperation with the industry to both clean up
current contamination and prevent future spills. In that light, Mr.
Chairman, I know that you are aware of the Common Sense Initia-
tive which is one of the highest priorities of Administrator Browner
right now. Under the Common Sense Initiative, we are looking at
six different industrial sectors to determine how we can do things
cleaner, cheaper and smarter.

The petroleum refining industry is one of the six sectors that we
are working with right now. I think this Common Sense Initiative
may provide an outstanding opportunity for us to work with the pe-
troleum industry to see whether, in addition to the other things
that I have described, we might be able to augment both cleanup
and prevention by working voluntarily with the industry.

So we are prepared to proceed on all four of these working group
suggestions, Mr. Chairman, to try to deal comprehensively with a
problem that we believe is a serious one.

Mr. Swift. I think one of the things that wears you down when
you sit on this side of the dais is that everything seems to start
with those who want to do everything yesterday and those who
want to not do an3rthing ever.

It seems to me that under Carol Browner EPA has been trying
more and more to include affected parties in the development of so-
lutions which I think has — is laudable and is patterned after at
least some of the concepts, I think, that are used by some govern-
ments in Europe to try and bridge this adversarial relationship
that too often exists.

It seems to me that you have something you can offer affected
people. It seems to me that business, if they can get certitude, if
they can get rapid turnaround, standards do not become as difficult
to achieve if industry knows that it can get its decisions made
quickly and effectively and consistently. That we really need to re-
model our regulatory structure so that, in effect, for those of us
who are concerned about the public health and safety can establish
standards we need and then reward business, if you will, by say-
ing, you know, we are going to make this as easy to comply with
as we possibly can.

I know that is a concern of Carol Browner's, and I think that the
effort that is under way on this issue may lead that way. If busi-
ness gets a little skeptical about that at the outset, I don't blame
them. I am from the Federal Government; I am here to help you
kind of thing.

But unless they think the environmental movement and all those
concerns are going to disappear any time in their lifetime, which
would be naive beyond the wildest dreams, it seems to me that it
is in industry's interest to help find a better model than this ter-
rible adversarial process that we use constantly here which leads
to winner-take-all kinds of decisions, which are usually not the best
decisions and so forth and so on.

With Miss Browner in the lead, I think we are searching for
some models and I hope there will be some response, positive re-

sponse, from industry to that, even though they may want to keep
their guard up for a little while, see how it all works out.

One last question which really grows out of all of this. When we
talk about cost-benefit, which is a very big thing, sometimes we
never talk about the benefits from certain regulatory structures.
And it seems to me that here, while there is going to be some costs,
that you have also got depreciation of property value that comes
from leaks. You have got health and medical expenses that can be
very costly. Has EPA got any study of what the benefits would be
to having a better regulatory structure for dealing with above-
ground storage tanks?

Mr. Robertson. Well, Mr. Chairman, certainly one study that
will touch upon that issue is the liner study that was required as
part of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. We have had the liner study
under way for some time, and I believe we are relatively close to
releasing that as well. It has been deferred for some of the same
reasons that I mentioned about the SPCC regulatory changes.

That study, while it is not ready for release yet so I am not pre-
pared to talk about specific numbers at this point, does address
costs and benefits of various options like protective liners of double
bottoms for tanks.

Mr. Swift. Thank you very much.

The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. OXLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Robertson, has the EPA had a chance to implement or to de-
cide what kind of resources would be necessary to implement the
legislation that Mr, Moran has introduced?

Mr. Robertson. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Oxley, we
have not yet put a figure on what it would cost to implement. In
the letter that I mentioned to Chairman Swift, we expressed some
of our concerns about the legislation. We obviously hope those con-
cerns could be accommodated in any ongoing legislative debate.
But I can't tell you what we think it would cost to implement
the

Mr. Oxley. Was one of the concerns the cost factor?

Mr. Robertson. That is one of the concerns. It is a concern not
only for EPA — we are always trying to do more with less, Mr.
Oxley — but it is also a concern for the States.

One of our concerns about H.R. 1360 which was specifically iden-
tified in Administrator Browner's letter to Chairman Swift was
that this provides a new requirement for States but doesn't provide
funding to help them implement it. It doesn't have anjrthing simi-
lar to the trust funds provided in the underground storage tank
program and Oil Pollution Act that are used to both clean up sites
when you can't find potentially responsible parties as well as to
help fund the State implementation of the programs. So certainly
cost concerns both from EPA's perspective as well as the States'
perspective exists.

Mr. Oxley. From the States' perspective, that is a clear example
of an unfunded mandate as it exists now, is that correct?

Mr. Robertson. Mr. Moran's legislation does provide for an au-
thorization of appropriations of such funds as may be necessary in
order to deal with this new regulatory regime. Obviously, it doesn't
make appropriations in the bill.

Mr. OxLEY. Does Mr. Moran's bill consolidate existing Federal
authorities or does the bill overlap the authority of the current
SPCC requirements?

Mr. Robertson. Well, another of the concerns that Adminis-
trator Browner identified, Mr. Oxley, is that H.R. 1360 doesn't en-
tirely make clear how this new regulatory regime would fit in with
the Clean Water Act and other existing authorities. So that is also
a continuing concern with the legislation.

Mr. Oxley. How can we be assured that existing State programs
are not disrupted under this legislation?

Mr. Robertson. Again, another concern that Administrator
Browner has identified and one of our suggestions for the legisla-
tion would be that it makes clear that the States that have already
started vigorous aboveground storage tank programs don't have to
revise those programs in a major way in order to comply with new
Federal mandates.

Mr. Oxley. So it would appear that the fact that this bill is not
going anywhere is probably good news for not only the industry but
the States and EPA as well.

Mr. Robertson. As I mentioned, we will have four general rec-
ommendations from the aboveground storage tank work group. One
of those recommendations is additional legislation. While we have
identified concerns about Mr. Moran's legislation, we do think that
additional legislative authority is going to be needed ultimately to
help us adequately deal with this problem. And I am not here to
say flatly that Mr. Moran's version is not the answer or that it is
the answer. We have concerns with the legislation, and we would
like to see those concerns addressed.

Mr. Oxley. It is clearly not the answer today because it is not
going to pass. And so the question is what we do in the next inter-
vening months or what EPA does to help bring some, as you actu-
ally said, common sense to this kind of a solution. And I applaud
the Administrator for her vision in dealing with these kinds of is-
sues and for setting up an agenda that is indeed a common sense
agenda, and certainly I am encouraged by that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Swift. The gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. McMillan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I compliment you on your statement about handling situations
such as this. I tnink your approach to this is going to be missed.
Hopefully, the succeeding leadership of the committee will be
eaually balanced in their approach to dealing with this — and the
aaministration, as well.

It seems like that so often we do operate around here on lines
in the sand. It has come up time and time again. And yet when
we get adversaries together and try to come up with a common so-
lution, particularly on a pragmatic problem, in a closed room, we
get pretty far along in being able to do that.

And then we get to the point where it may end up being voted
on and the groups subdiviae again because they think they might
come out better if they hold out a little bit longer and so forth, and
we don't get things done.

Mr. Swift. You are not talking about Superfund, are you, by any
chance?

Mr. McMillan. Well, let's just put it down as all of the above
over my 10 years of experience.

And I think that the approach that you are developing sounds
certainly sensible if it is really implemented in a way that is con-
vincing to all sides. And I think that is going to be the key to it.

You know, I think it is hard to reinvent government, even if we
are serious about it, and I think we are serious about it. However,
I am not sure we have got the right answers. But — I mean, this
is a perfect example of it.

And if one of those prongs which would include industry coopera-
tion in terms of— because they are the ones that ultimately are
going to have to do it. They are probably the ones that are going
to have to, in this environment, pass the cost on to the consumer
because we are probably not going to pay for it out of tax funds.
If we do, it will only be so on the margins.

The cost of the cleanup, the cost of adequate protection in the fu-
ture is going to become a cost of the product to the consumer. And
they have got every interest in solving the problem.

I agree with the chairman, the concerns about storage tanks
aren't going to go away. And not just because the Environmental
Defense Fund is leading an advocacy position on a national scale.
It gets down to the grassroots, because somebody has a pollution
problem they are concerned about. When neighborhoods are af-
fected, it becomes something very different.

I think we can find solutions to these things and get them done.
Perhaps, in many cases, they have already been thought through.

To what extent, as part of your plan, does EPA remain in full
consultation with the industry to really uncover examples of suc-
cess in dealing with either new construction or with preexisting
problems that have to be rectified or should be?

Mr. Robertson. We are just beginning this common sense initia-
tive, Mr. McMillan. In response to the concerns that you have just
discussed, similar to Chairman Swift's, I attended the initial meet-
ings for each of the six industry sectors that will participate in the
Common Sense Initiative. The petroleum refining industry ex-
pressed the greatest degree of initial skepticism about whether this
program could work. Frankly, I don't blame them for that at all.

Since they committed to Administrator Browner that they were
willing to be one of the industries involved in the Common Sense
Initiative, they have worked with the utmost vigor and utmost good
faith with the Agency.

We are literally just getting the Common Sense Initiative ofi" the
ground. We are looking to provide some early successes so that we
can show good faith to the industry and so that the industry has
something to point to as signals of progress.

We are very excited about the Common Sense Initiative. The API
has been nothing but cooperative since we started. We are just be-
ginning to move forward, but I certainly applaud them for their
work so far with us, including individual companies like Phillips
Petroleum who has been the leader among the industry in working
with us thus far.

Everybody in the Agency is very excited about the opportunities
that the Common Sense Initiative presents to revise the way the
Agency deals with the petroleum refining industry. We are particu-

larly excited in OSWER because we are the co-lead with region six
for the petroleum refining sector. I think it holds opportunities for
doing great things.

Mr. McMillan. Are there things legislatively that Congress can
do to reinforce that? So often we hear you don't have jurisdiction
to do that and so forth. And these kind of things forestall what I
would call creative managerial approaches to solving the problem,
if you will, that should preexist any legislation. legislation and
regulatory action that presumes that everybody is going to be a vio-
lator should be a last resort,

. What do we need to do that enables you, along with the private
sector, to take a creative approach to dealing with the problem be-
fore it has to be regulated?

Mr. Robertson. I hope you will still be willing to ask that same
question some time in the future, Mr. McMillan. We don't have any
specifics to recommend in terms of legislative changes right now.
We are still forming the stakeholders group that will discuss the
petroleum refining section. We haven't identified all the States and
environmental groups as well as industry and EPA stakeholders
who are going to participate. But nothing is going to be off the
table in these negotiations. And we do anticipate the possibility of
coming to Congress and saying that we have identified what we
think are some very creative ways to do things cleaner, cheaper,
and smarter but we need congressional authority in this area or
that area before we can proceed.

Mr. McMillan. Legislative recommendations would tend to deal
with that rather than an adversarial regulatory regime? It would
be sort of enabling?

Mr. Robertson. My sense, Mr. McMillan, is that if we come to
you looking for something that is adversarial in nature, we will
have failed in the Common Sense Initiative which is supposed to
be a cooperative venture.

Mr. McMillan. Could some of this take on aspects of empower-
ing the agency to enter some sort of agreement or compact with the
industry. We have got precedence for doing this kind of thing. We
do it in securities regulations which works extremely well. And I
wonder if that could be a part?

Mr. Robertson. I think it absolutely could be, Mr. McMillan. We
don't have any specifics yet because this is so new. But we are
looking at exactly those sorts of things. We are tr5dng to be creative
and trying not to be hindered by the way the agency currently does
its business or has done it in the past. And we are looking to the
industry to tell us what they need and how we could do better.

We are looking to the environmental groups to help us fashion
ways to do things better as well. Sometimes people focus on only
one of our three goals: Cleaner, cheaper, and smarter. We definitely
want to do all three of them. We want to do things cleaner as well
as cheaper. We are looking to all the stakeholders to help us iden-
tify ways to improve the way we do business and improve the envi-
ronment at less cost, transactional cost and otherwise.

Mr. McMillan. Well, that sounds very good, and I look forward
to seeing what you produce.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Swift. Thank you. I might note something else I think Con-
gress can do. If we want agencies to do things with more common
sense, and to show a little initiative, we have got to show a little
legislative restraint. We don't do the congressional bully boy bit
when things are not precisely the way any one of us would envi-
sion. I think we tend to overwrite legislation so they can't do any-
thing dumb. And we found that legislation keeps them from doing
anything intelligent, too.

And so if we are unwilling to provide a little flexibility for the
agencies, then we can't sit up here and complain because the agen-
cies don't react in as creative ways as they might. I thank you very
much. I appreciate your testimony.

Our last panel includes Mr. Charles DiBona, American Petro-
leum Institute; Lois Epstein with the Pollution Prevention Alliance
of the EDF; Mr. Clark Houghton, with the Petroleum Marketers
Association; Mr. Marshall T. Mott-Smith with the Florida Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection; Anthony R. O'Neill with the Na-
tional Fire Protection Association; and Mr. J.L. Tidwell, chairman
of the Uniform Fire Code Committee of the International Fire Code
Institute.

Your full statements, any attachments thereto, will be included
in the record. You may proceed as you want, and I think we will
take people in the order I introduced them, which means we will
begin with Charles DiBona, president of the American Petroleum
Institute.

STATEMENTS OF CHARLES J. DiBONA, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
PETROLEUM INSTITUTE; LOIS N. EPSTEIN, ENGINEER, POL-
LUTION PREVENTION ALLIANCE, ENVIRONMENTAL DE-
FENSE FUND; CLARK HOUGHTON, STATE EXECUTIVE, PE-
TROLEUM MARKETERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; MAR-
SHALL T. MOTT-SMITH, ADMINISTRATOR, STORAGE TANK
REGULATION SECTION, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVI-
RONMENTAL PROTECTION; ANTHONY R. O'NEILL, VICE
PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, NATIONAL FIRE PRO-
TECTION ASSOCIATION; AND J.L. TIDWELL, CHAIRMAN, UNI-
FORM FIRE CODE COMMITTEE, INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE
INSTITUTE, ACCOMPANIED BY WAYNE SENTER, FIRE MAR-
SHAL, CITY OF AUBURN FIRE DEPARTMENT

Mr. DiBona. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to present
our members' views on H.R. 1360. API represents more than 300
companies involved in all aspects of the oil and natural gas indus-
try. API has a 75-year history of standards setting for the petro-
leum industry and our standards have been accepted around the
world.

Our intent in this program has been to identify problems that
need attention and correct them so that government action would
not be required. We have tried to do this in the case of ground-
water contamination at terminals and other installations using
aboveground tankage. Consequently, API is updating individual ex-
isting standards affecting ground storage facilities — aboveground
storage facilities and have developed a new comprehensive stand-
ard for addressing these concerns.

API members voluntarily participated in a survey to better un-
derstand the extent of groundwater contamination, the historic
causes of the problem, and improvements of recent years. To ad-
dress the problems of leaks or spills from aboveground storage
tanks, industry representatives serving on API committees devel-
oped a comprehensive standard addressing the design, construc-
tion, maintenance, and inspection of all petroleum terminals and
tank facilities associated with refining, marketing, and transpor-
tation activities.

Standard 2610, which became available for use this year, up-
dated and assembled all terminal and tank-related standards
which used to be separately developed into one document, thereby
providing industry and government with a single source for com-
prehensive guidance. Copies of API Standard 2610, which is this
document, have been made available to the subcommittee and I ask
that it be made part of the record.

The information in the standard ranges from pollution preven-
tion and safe operating practices at facilities to removal and decom-
mission of tanks. Besides providing a comprehensive, holistic ap-
proach to safe and environmentally sound management of tank and
terminal facilities. Standard 2610 is written to be consistent with
applicable local State and Federal regulation.

In addition to developing this standard, API conducted at EPA's
request a groundwater survey of the industry's refining marketing
and transportation activities or sectors. The survey was designed
to determine the prevalence of groundwater contamination, rank
the sources of contamination, docum.ent facility improvements, and
determine the status of remedial activities. The evaluation of the
source of contamination was important to determine the effective-
ness of existing practices and standards to identify areas for im-
provement.

The results indicate that some level of groundwater contamina-
tion exists at a number of the facilities surveyed, primarily because
of past operating practices.

In virtually all cases where contamination was identified, it is
being treated or remediated. Govemment agencies are overseeing
this remediation in all but a few cases. The industry's current envi-
ronmental performance has improved significantly because of up-
graded equipment and revised operating standards.

The data also show that during the past 5 years groundwater
contamination has been caused by a variety of sources, although
pressurized buried piping has been the most significant source of
contamination. In response to this finding and in keeping with its
role of standard setting for the industry, API modified the new ter-
minal and tank standard to address piping integrity. Adherence to
the standard now requires that operators ensure the integrity of
buried piping on a regular basis.

Overall, the survey indicates that continued emphasis on existing
and newly adopted industry operating procedures and standards
provides the greatest opportunity for environmental improvement.
And I am not here trying to say that we have solved all the prob-
lems, Mr. Chairman. We know we have problems, but we think
these are steps in the right direction. I just want to make that
point clear.

Existing law gives EPA and the States authority to ensure that
this happens. A^d I want to assure you that this industry intends
to act responsibly to prevent and respond to releases and to work
with EPA in the regulatory arena. Consequently, we believe that
H.R. 1360 is unnecessary. Moreover, it takes what we believe is an
overly prescriptive approach to regulating aboveground storage fa-
cilities with inadequate recognition of the diversity that exists
among company facilities.

And much of the points made by EPA in the previous testimony
are things that we would agree with about the specifics of that; the
need for perhaps some additional authorities, but those are not the
ones contained in this particular piece of legislation. And we would
be, you know, happy to look at and review an3rthing that they may
have ongoing, but the basic points they made about trying to let
States carry this out and to rely as much as they can on some of
these other authorities, and to use our new standard as a basis for
some of that additional regulation, as we understand the State of
Florida is doing, makes a lot of sense.

Many of API's standards have been incorporated or referenced in
laws in many areas. And that provides a kind of flexible way of en-
suring that the newest developments are then incorporated in revi-
sions of the standards. And it is a positive, workable way of han-
dling many of these complex problems.

And what we are interested in is making something that works,
just as I think everyone in this room is. And we want to work with
them.

So we believe that the steps that we have taken and that we will
take, and the existing EPA and State authority should be given a
chance to work. And we believe that this approach can succeed at
the lowest cost to the consuming public while ensuring a high level
of environmental performance and improvement in what histori-
cally has been a mixed performance.

[The prepared statement of Charles J. DiBona folk-ws:]

;i'. ^i?i

Testimony of the American Petroleum Institute

for the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials

of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

U.S. House of Representatives

on Aboveground Storage Tanks

September 14, 1994

The American Petroleum Institute (API) appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony
on aboveground storage tanks. API represents approximately 300 member companies involved
in the exploration, production, refining, transportation, and marketing of petroleum and petroleum
products. At every stage, crude oil and its many products are stored in aboveground storage
tanks. API members are seriously committed to the proper operation and maintenance of these
tanks and could be greatly affected should Congress elect to change the laws that govern terminal
and tank operations.

API members believe that no additional federal authority is needed to adequately regulate
aboveground storage tanks and terminals. The current federal regulatory program, implemented
under the Clean Water Act, addresses both prevention and cleanup of releases from aboveground
storage facilities. Additionally, API members have been involved in activities in recent years to
improve aboveground tank facility operations and achieve a greater degree of environmental
protection. This testimony addresses the results of the actions taken by API members and
summarizes our views on H.R. 1360, the "Safe Aboveground Storage Tank Act of 1993."
API Standards for Aboveground Storage Tanks

For most of this century. API has played a leadership role in the development of standards
for the petroleum industry in the U.S. and around the world. Today, API administers an
extensive program of technical standards that cover all phases of the industry's operations,
including the storage of crude oil and refined products. These standards are designed to maintain
safe operations and prevent releases and are regularly reviewed and revised by industry experts.
The primary aboveground tank standards, listed below, specify design, construction,
operation and inspection requirements at petroleum storage facilities in the refining, marketing,
and transportation sectors. The standards reflect improvements in technology and operating
practices that resulted from increased environmental awareness. The list also reflects the breadth
of operational features addressed, and the publication dates reflect the ongoing revisions to these
documents. Recent activity has included:

Publication of API Recommended Practice 2350, Overfill Protection for Petroleum
Storage Tanks, 1st edition, March 1987, which provides guidance on the
development of an overfill prevention program. The second edition of this
recommended practice is under development.

• Publication of API Standard 651, Cathodic Protection of Above ground Storage
Tanks, 1st edition, April 1991, which gives details of cathodic protection systems
for corrosion control.

J • n; • .. -ni , .J " . ■ .

• Publication of API Recommended Practice 652, Lining ofAboveground Petroleum
Storage Tank Bottoms, 1st edition, April 1991, which gives details of interior
bottom lining systems to control corrosion and other causes of leaks.

• Publication of API Standard 653. Tank Inspection, Repair. Alteration and
'■■■•■ Reconstruction, 1st edition, January 1991. Among other requirements, this

standard specifies an internal inspection frequency, based on a calculated corrosion
rate. Currently, Standard 653 is referenced in regulation by six states.'

• Establishment in 1991 of the Aboveground Storage Tank Inspector Certification
Program (ASTICP), which insures qualified inspectors.

Publication of API Standard 650, Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage, 9th edition,

' - May 1993, which covers material design, fabrication, erection, and testing of tanks

and gives guidance for the installation of release prevention barriers under ASTs.

Publication of API Standard 2015. Safe Entry and Cleaning of Petroleum Storage
Tanks: Planning and Managing Tank Entry from Decommissioning Through
Recommissioning, 5th edition. May 1994, which provides procedures for taking
a tank out of service and safely entering it for cleaning, inspection, and other
. .,_ purposes.

• Publication of API Standard 2610, Design. Construction. Operation, Maintenance
and Inspection of Terminal and Tank Facilities, 1st edition. July 1994, which
provides a comprehensive guide to the best industry practices for terminal design,
construction, inspection, maintenance, repair, and environmental protection.
(Development of this standard is discussed below.)

In addition to maintaining industry standards, API established a program for improved
environmental performance in 1990. Known as Strategies for Today's Environmental Partnership,
or STEP, the program established seven sets of management practices including a set on pollution
prevention. API members support and participate in this program. [Note: Additional
information on the STEP program is attached.]
Evaluation of Aboveground Storage Tank Operations , ,■

In 1992, API formed a Terminal and Tank Steering Group, to evaluate the industry's and
API's approach to aboveground storage tank facility operation. The group decided on two
courses of action. The first involved a reassessment of the adequacy of API standards for
terminal and tank operations. The second involved a survey of API members to evaluate the
current status of facility operations and determine the frequency of groundwater contamination.

• Development of a Comprehensive Standard for Terminals and Tanks

Under the Steering Group's direction, approximately 60 API standards and recommended
practices were reviewed. This resulted in the revision of several existing standards and
development of new ones. Most importantly, API members developed a comprehensive new
standard (Standard 2610), which addresses the design, construction, operation, maintenance, and
inspection of all petroleum terminal and tank facilities associated with marketing, refining, and
transportation activities. The standard was designed to fill a need to combine terminal- and tank-
related standards and good operating practices into one document, which industry and government
alike can turn to for guidance.

The new standard provides a comprehensive, holistic approach to safe, environmentally
sound management of tank and terminal facilities and is intended to be consistent with applicable
local, state, or federal regulations. The standard covers such subjects as site selection and
spacing, pollution prevention, waste management, safe operating practices, fire protection, dikes
and berms, mechanical systems, product transfer, corrosion protection, utilities, as well as
removal and decommissioning of tanks. Overall, it stresses environmental protection.

In addition to receiving unanimous approval within API, Standard 2610 has been approved
by the American National Standards Institute, making it the recognized American National
Standard for terminal and tank operations. At least one state, Florida, is in the process of
incorporating the standard into its regulations.

API members believe that industry standards, such as the comprehensive terminal and tank
standard, as well as continuing industry action to improve design and operating practices mitigate
the need for further legislation. The industry wants to identify problems and correct them and
has strong economic incentive to do so.

• API Survey of Abovegruund Storage Tank Facilities

In an effort to further define operational problems at facilities and assess recent
improvements, API conducted a survey of its members' aboveground storage tank facilities. At
EPA's request, API members in the refining, marketing, and transportation sectors voluntarily
participated in a survey of these facilities.- The purposes of the survey were to assess recent
facility improvements, determine the frequency of groundwater contamination,' rank the relative
sources of groundwater contamination, and determine the status of remedial activities at API

member company facilities. The evaluation of the sources of contamination was particularly
important to determine the effectiveness of practices and standards used at facilities and to
identify areas for additional improvement .

The survey was sent to a random sample of 350 API member company facilities.''
Responses were received from 299, or 85 percent, of the sampled facilities. To achieve a high
rate of participation, names and locations of responding facilities were kept confidential by the
independent survey research firm that conducted the sampling and tabulated the data.

The data indicate that the contribution to groundwater contamination from almost all
sources has decreased. Respondents in all three industry sectors reported significant reductions
in releases within the past five years because of improved equipment and operating practices.
Improvements include:

• Application of upgraded or newly developed API operational standards;

• Implementation of more rigorous inspection programs (as specified by API
standards);

• Addition and enhancement of overfill protection systems;

• Installation of tank water-bottom collection systems; and

• Increased utilization of cathodic protection systems for buried piping.

The survey results for each industry sector are reported below:

'Refining Sector Results: An estimated 98 percent of refineries use subsurface
monitoring techniques to determine hydrocarbon contamination. Some level of
groundwater contamination was reported at 85 percent of refineries.* This
contamination is due in large part to past operating practices which have been
modified or eliminated within recent years. All of the refineries that reported
contamination also reported that remedial activities are taking place at the facility.
In virtually all cases, these remedial activities occur under the oversight of a
government agency.

•Marketing Sector Results: An estimated 80 percent of marketing terminals use
subsurface monitoring techniques to determine hydrocarbon contamination. Some
level of groundwater contamination was reported at 68 percent of marketing
terminals.* As in the refining sector, this contamination is due in large part to past
operating practices which have been modified or eliminated within recent years.
Remedial activities are taking place at an estimated 95% of marketing terminals that
have groundwater contamination.' In virtually all cases, these remedial activities
occur under the oversight of a government agency.

•Transportation Sector Results: An estimated 1 8 percent of transportation terminals
use subsurface monitoring techniques to determine hydrocarbon contamination.
Some level of groundwater contamination was reported at 10 percent of
transportation terminals.* As in the other two sectors, this contamination is due in
large part to past operating practices which have been modified or eliminated within
recent years. Remedial activities are taking place at an estimated 90 percent of
transportation terminals that have groundwater contamination. In virtually all cases,
these remedial activities occur under the oversight of a government agency.

[*Noie: The existence of groundwater contamination docs not necessarily mean that drinking water
has been affected.]

The survey data indicate that groundwater contamination exists; however, the data
also show that contamination at aboveground storage facilities can be primarily attributed to past
operating practices. Upgraded equipment, operating standards, and the management practices
included in the STEP program have improved the industry's environmental performance. In
virtually all cases, where contamination has been identified, it is, or has been, treated or
remediated. Such remediation is taking place, with few exceptions, under the oversight of a
government agency.'

According to the survey results, groundwater contamination appears to have been caused
by a variety of sources during the past five-year time period. The data indicate, however, that
pressurized buried piping has been the most significant source of contamination at facilities in
all three sectors over the past five years. In response to this survey finding, API modified its
new terminal and tank standard (Standard 2610) to address piping integrity. Adherence to the
standaid now requires that operators assure the integrity of buried piping on a regular basis.

The data also indicate that releases from aboveground storage tank bottoms are not a
primary source of contamination. Survey respondents indicated that less than 3.6 percent of tanks
(in all age categories) had confirmed bottom failures over the past five years. Furthermore, the
importance of tank bottoms as a source of contamination has significantly declined over the past
five years in all industry sectors, largely because of improved inspection procedures. Mandates
for the universal installation of liners underneath aboveground storage tanks and in secondary
containment areas would provide no significant additional protection at these facilities and would
be unnecessarily costly.

It i.s apparent from API's survey of aboveground storage tank facilities that some level
of contamination exists at many petroleum industry facilities primarily because of past operating
practices-practices that have been modified or eliminated in recent years. The potential
environmental impact of these practices was not well understood in the past. However, the
petroleum industry, like other industries and government, has learned from experience. Changes
have been made in operating practices, standards updated, and new equipment installed to reduce
future risk of groundwater contamination.

The survey results indicate that continued industry focus and emphasis on existing and

newly adopted industry operating procedures and standards has provided steady improvement in
facility operations. Moreover, the survey results demonstrate the petroleum industry's
commitment to making continued improvements in operating practices as well as the industry's
commitment to working closely with state and local governments.
API Position on Additional Federal Legislation

The Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) program, implemented under
authority of the Clean Water Act, gives EPA authority to issue regulations governing the cleanup
of spills and establishes methods for preventing discharges of oil and hazardous substances. EPA
has proposed revisions to the SPCC regulatory program that, once finalized and implemented,
will result in more stringent standards. Additionally, under authority of the Oil Pollution Act
of 1990. the Agency is currently conducting a study to determine whether liners should be used
to prevent releases from onshore petroleum storage facilities. The recommendations of this study
are to be implemented within six months of its submission to Congress. API believes that the

proposed revisions to the SPCC program should be implemented and the liner study finalized
before the need for additional legislative authority can be evaluated fairly.

Current laws require industry to prevent and respond to releases from aboveground storage
facilities, and authorize EPA to enforce these requirements. API members believe that they have
demonstrated their willingness both to prevent and respond to releases and to work with EPA to
periodically reassess the adequacy of existing regulations. A major reason that API undertook
its recent survey was to supply data for EPA's liner study.

In light of existing federal laws and ongoing EPA regulatory activities, API members
beheve that H.R. 1360 is unnecessary. Moreover, as currently written, the bill takes a rigid and
overly prescriptive approach to regulating aboveground storage tanks.' History demonstrates that
performance standards are preferable to engineering dictates, which can be uneconomic,
inappropriate, and curb technological development. The bill sets arbitrary mandates that ignore
the practical impact such requirements would have on facility operations. For example:

• Requiring existing tanks to meet new tank standards within ten years is

unrealistic in hght of the size and diversity of the tank universe.
The frequency of required tank inspections is excessive and unnecessary. The

' frequency of inspections should be based— as it is in API standard 653--on system

engineering considerations such as the site-specific corrosion rate.

• The bill mandates impervious, secondary containment. Such a mandate is clearly
premature as EPA's study on the use of liners and other means of secondary
containment has not been completed and unwarranted in light of the data

■.•f ' contained in API's aboveground storage tank facility survey. The data show that

tank bottoms are not a primary source of contamination at such facilities. A risk-
based approach should be employed to evaluate potential sources of release.

• The bill would allow closure of an entire facility in the event that a leak from a
V. single tank is discovered. Shutting down a large terminal is impractical and

unnecessary and could seriously affect availability of products. The disadvantages
of such action far outweigh any possible advantages.

• Requiring all tank-associated piping to be aboveground is not only impractical and
costiy, but can potentially create significant safety concerns.

• Requirements that standards be "no less stringent than" those for non-petroleum
tanks preempts the regulatory process. Stringency of standards should be
determined by EPA as part of a rulemaking process. Such a requirement is
arbitrary and fails to recognize the diversity of products stored at aboveground
tank facilities. Storage of pesticides and dry-cleaning fluids, for example, may
present entirely different concerns than storage of heating oil or other petroleum
products.

API members believe that solutions for effective operation of facilities must be risk-based
and target actual problems. There is an abundance of evidence demonstrating that government
should focus on performance outcomes and let the regulated community find the most efficient
and cost-effective method of achieving the desired results. A one-size-fits-all approach wastes
resources. For example, the Yorktown Pollution Prevention Study, jointly sponsored by EPA and
Amoco, showed that in order to comply with Clean Air Act regulations, Amoco was required to
spend $54 million over four years to reduce airborne hydrocarbon emissions from the refinery.
However, the Yorktown study showed that Amoco could have reduced those emissions by

virtually the same amount for only $10 miliion-if EPA had the latitude to allow the company
to implement scientifically sound alternatives.

It is important for industry and government to work together to achieve mutually
understood objectives. API members believe that cooperative processes lead to optimum results.
In July 1994, eleven Paw Creek terminal operators in North Carolina signed a pact with state and
local environmental officials, designed to address community concerns about operation of the
terminal complex, including groundwater remediation. API believes that the innovative process
used to develop the Paw Creek pact is an example of the success that can be achieved when
government and industry work together to solve difficult problems.
Conclusions , ,

API hopes that this testimony demonstrates the petroleum industry's concern for safe and
proper operation of aboveground storage facilities. API members voluntarily participated in the
recent survey not only to assess the frequency of groundwater contamination at such facilities,
but also to document the improvements that have occurred in recent years and to identify areas
for additional improvement. Moreover, in response to concerns about industry practices, API has
undertaken an effort to update existing standards and to develop a comprehensive new standard
addressing petroleum storage facilities. As a result, API members do not think that additional
authority is needed for regulation of aboveground storage tanks and terminals.

'Standard 653 is referenced by the states of Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington.

*rhe survey addressed only the tank farm portion of facilities in the three industry sectors. In the transportation
sector this involved pipeline bulk storage facihties. Exploration and production facilities were omitted because they
are small, remotely located, and are operated differently than large terminals.

"The survey results indicate only the presence of contamination; the data do not indicate the volume of
contamination at individual sites.

"Because of the random nature of the sample, survey results are estimates for the total population of API member
company facilities.

'There are a variety of reasons why the percent of facilities conducting remediation is not 100% for marketing
and transponation facilities with known groundwater contamination. The discovery may have been recently made,
the source may be outside the facility, or the source may not have been identified at the time of the survey.
Additionally, the contaminant concentration may be low enough that an agency has determined that no action is
needed.

'When groundwater contamination is identified at a storage facility, it is routinely reponed to the appropriate stale
regulatory agency. After receiving the initial report, the agency involved evaluates the nature of the contamination,
determines the urgency or need for further action, and determines the need to oversee any remedial action.
Currently, cleanup liability is established by statute in 44 states, and because of broad definitions within many state
water quality laws, 41 of those slates expressly extend liabihly to releases to groundwater.

'API submitted detailed written comments on H.R. 1360 in a letter dated May 26, 1993, to The Honorable James
P. Moran.

86-469 - 95 - 3

Mr. Swift. Thank you very much, Mr. DiBona.
Mr. Swift. I recognize now Lois Epstein.

STATEMENT OF LOIS N. EPSTEIN

Ms. Epstein. Good morning. My name is Lois Epstein, and I am
an engineer with the Environmental Defense Fund, a research and
advocacy organization with over 250,000 members nationwide. My
background includes extensive work on storage tank issues since
1985, first as a consultant for industry and later as a policy analyst
for EDF.

Since early 1988, when the first aboveground tank legislation
was introduced on Capitol Hill — ^this issue has been around for a
while — I have assisted House and Senate legislators and State
level lawmakers in developing aboveground tank legislation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important
hearing today. My comments follow three areas: First, the extent
of contamination caused by aboveground tank facilities and result-
ing environmental and safety hazards; second, what industry and
States are doing to address leaking aboveground tank facilities and
why these actions are currently insufficient; and third, what au-
thorities EPA lacks to address this national problem and how H.R.
1360 remedies these deficiencies, including how its fee structure
addresses the unfunded mandates issue. Please refer to my written
testimony for more details.

Let me begin with two remarkable statistics from the recent
American Petroleum Institute study. A full 85 percent of monitored
refineries and fuel marketing facilities, which are also known as
tank farms, show confirmed groundwater contamination. And just
as a footnote, the common sense initiative, which I am personally
involved in and very supportive of, will only address the refinery
tank problem. It will not address the problem of fuel marketing fa-
cilities.

The second statistic is that of the aboveground tank facilities
with groundwater contamination, at least 27 percent have contami-
nation affecting adjacent property owners, even while a large por-
tion of the facilities don't even know if their contamination has mi-
grated offsite. So despite some governmental oversight of these
cleanups, many facilities don't even know if their contamination
has affected their neighbors.

Another important fact to keep in mind is that facilities with un-
derground tanks are increasingly replacing these with aboveground
tanks. These are smaller aboveground tanks, because of the lack of
similar requirements for aboveground tanks.

What are the effects of these leaks and increasing amounts of
fuel and other hazardous materials being stored in aboveground
tanks? Leaking aboveground tank facilities can pose health or fire
hazards in structures such as sewers or basements when gaseous
components migrate to enclosed areas and concentrate to toxic or
combustible levels. Gasoline from a mobile fuel marketing facility
in Brooklyn caused a sewer line explosion in 1950. In 1992, much
more recently, several families in Fairfax, Virginia, were forced to
leave their homes during cleanup of oil releases from the Star En-
terprise facility.

Leaking aboveground tank facilities can adversely affect ground-
water and surface water ecosystems, since groundwater supplies
approximately 40 percent of surplus water flow nationwide. Tanks,
furthermore, can depreciate property values for adjacent property
owners when they leak.

As larger quantities of flammable products are stored above
ground, there is a greater hazard of fires at storage facilities and
not all States have adequate fire codes for smaller aboveground
tanks.

What has industry done to prevent leaks and why haven't they
done more? The short answer is that petroleum losses are rel-
atively cheap and infrastructure changes may be expensive, par-
ticularly over the short term. While the American Petroleum Insti-
tute has developed several standards addressing aboveground tank
design and operation, the standards are voluntary so existing prac-
tices are unlikely to have improved throughout the industry.

Moreover, industry consultants have informed me that there is
variability in how well these detailed standards are being followed
across the country, and in particular locations depending on who
the consultant is that is doing the inspections.

Additionally, an aboveground tank facility owner may wait with-
out fear of civil penalty until State regulators with limited re-
sources get around to overseeing cleanup at a particular site. And
the facility owner may only prevent migration at that time. So it
is a reactive posture, rather than a preventive, proactive posture.

Even though business forecasters predict that new aboveground
tank facility requirements are inevitable, and they are doing this
at industry conferences over and over again, many owners are re-
luctant to invest in infrastructure changes until they are certain
about what the new requirements will entail.

Currently, only five States have requirements to prevent above-
ground tank facility releases and off-site migration. Thirteen States
have some design and operational requirements. Five States have
registration requirements and 27 States have no requirements, in-
cluding the States where our members come from, the members
who are here today.

As the media highlight release incidents in particular States,
State legislators react by putting requirements in place that will
prevent future incidents, as has occurred in South Dakota, Vir-
ginia, and potentially will occur in North Carolina.

Less aggressive States wait to see what requirements Congress
and EPA enact to eliminate duplicative State-level efforts. There
are three deficiencies in EPA's ability to regulate aboveground tank
facilities that need to be addressed by legislation. And we have
heard about that from EPA today. And these deficiencies are ad-
dressed in H.R. 1360, and I think that is what EPA was referring
to when they said they need some legislative authorities, and what
I think I heard Mr. DiBona support in terms of EPA's increased
legislative authority and their needs.

The first deficiency is the authority to prevent underground re-
leases from aboveground tank facilities, including non-oil hazard-
ous substance facilities, through design and operational require-
ments. Second, EPA needs authority to require that the Federal
Government be notified of underground releases. And third, they

need some authority to address existing contamination and to en-
sure that when there is contamination that industry will act to pre-
vent it from migrating offsite.

Other desirable characteristics of this bill include its consolida-
tion of EPA's underground and aboveground tank programs and of-
fices, its fee structure and penalty provisions for noncompliance.
H.R 1360 is flexible enough that EPA can design a regulatory pro-
gram based on the environmental and safety risks posed by dif-
ferent facilities.

Congress also should examine the possibility of utilizing the
LUST Trust Fund and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund moneys
to develop and implement effective aboveground tank programs, in-
cluding at the State level.

In conclusion, aboveground tank facility releases are pervasive
and ongoing. There is no lack of data on this issue. There are more
data than when the Reagan administration EPA recommended to
Congress that it address underground tanks, and that has been a
relatively successful EPA program. It is not one that we have
heard challenged for the most part by industry or by States.

The Clinton administration and Congress should ensure passage
of similar proactive legislation for aboveground tank facilities to
prevent ongoing, not just past releases, and to assist States in de-
veloping effective regulatory programs.

Furthermore, legislation will provide certainty for businesses ei-
ther with aboveground tanks now or considering their purchase as
to what the requirements are likely to be.

EDF is anxious to work with Congress, EPA and industry to de-
velop an appropriate legislative and regulatory program that ad-
dresses current deficiencies which result in unnecessary under-
ground releases from aboveground tanks and off-site migration
from these facilities.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Swift. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Lois N. Epstein follows:]

TESTIMONY OF LOIS N. EPSTEIN. RE.

My name is Lois Epstein and I am an engineer with the Environmental
Defense Fund (EDF), a New York-based, non-profit environmental research
and advocacy organization with over 250.000 members nationwide. My
background Includes extensive work on groundwater protection and storage
tank issues since 1985, first as a technical consultant for government and
industry and later as a policy analyst for EDF. Since early 1988 when the
first aboveground tank legislation was introduced on Capitol Hill, 1 have
assisted House and Senate legislators and state-level lawmakers in developing
and promoting aboveground tank legislation.

EDFs comments fall Into three areas: first, the extent of contamination
caused by aboveground tank facilities and resulting environmental and safety
hazards; second, what Industry and states are doing to address leaking
aboveground tank facilities and why these actions are insufficient, and; third,
what authorities and appropriations U.S. EPA currently lacks to address this
national problem and how H.R 1360 remedies these deficiencies.

Background on Underground Releases from Aboveground Tank Facilities

According to 1994 American Petroleum Institute (API) survey data: 1) a
full 85% of monitored refineries and fuel marketing facilities (or "tank farms")
show confirmed groundwater contamination.' and; 2) of the refining,
marketing, and transportation-related aboveground tank facilities with
groundwater contam^inatlon, at least 27% have contamination affecting
adjacent property-owners, even while a large proportion of surveyed facilities
do not know if their contamination has migrated off-site.^ The first API
statistic was independently confirmed In Virginia using groundwater
characterization studies for facilities with greater than one million gallons of
storage capacity, with approximately 85% of the facilities showing
contamination.^ Similarly, in New York, 80% of the aboveground tank
facilities with over 400,000 gallons of storage capacity have confirmed
contamination."'

To place these numbers in perspective, there are approximately 180
operating refineries in the U.S., approximately 1.200 fuel marketing facilities
(not including service stations), and approximately 2,000 transportation-
related aboveground tank facilities. Also, chemical industry facilities have
approximately 200.000 abovegroimd tanks, and non-oil Industries store bulk
ftiel in 100.000-200,000 tanks. Attachment A lists some of the largest known
underground releases firom aboveground tank facilities in the U.S.

Another important background fact Is that facilities with underground
tanks for storage are increasingly replacing them with aboveground tanks
because of existing, national underground tank regulatory requirements and
the lack of similar requirements for aboveground tanks. A Steel Tank
Institute survey of 200 retail petroleiam marketing, government/ military;
industrial /commerical processing, commercial fleet fuel storage, and
commercial airports and chemical plant facilities found that most facility
owners or operators planned to buy an aboveground tank for their next tank
purchase -- over 50% said they would purchase am aboveground tank,
compared to less than 20% choosing an underground tank.^ Grace Specialty
Chemicals, a New York-based company with more than 90 plants across the
U.S. reported in 1990 that it was replacing Its 274 underground tanks with
aboveground tanks.^

What are the effects of aboveground tank facility leaks and increasing
amounts of fuel and other hazardous materials stored in aboveground tanks?
Leaking aboveground tank facilities can pose health or fire hazards in struc-
tures such as basements when gaseous components migrate into enclosed
areas and concentrate to toxic or combustible levels. Gasoline from a Mobil
fuel mcirketlng facility in Brooklyn. New York caused a sewer line explosion in
1950. More recently, in 1992 several families in Fairfax County, Virginia were
forced to leave their homes during cleanup of oil releases from the nearby Star
Enterprise aboveground tank facility.

Leaking aboveground tank facilities also may adversely affect
groundwater and surface water ecosystems, since groundwater supplies
approximately 40% of surface water flow nationwide. In Port Everglades,
Florida, underground contamination from aboveground tank facilities flowed
for years into the Intracoastal Waterway, a surface water body bordering many
protected natural areas. In Eaist Providence, Rhode Island, a major
underground oil release is currently migrating to the Runnins River.

Leaking aboveground tank facilities frequently depreciate property
values for nearby property owners. In Fairfax County, VA, as many as 450
families will be compensated approximately $150 miUion dollars for the drop
in value of their homes since the Star Enterprise release was discovered.^

As larger quantities of flammable products are stored aboveground,
there is a correspondingly greater likelihood of fires at storage facilities, and
not all states have adequate fire code requirements for small aboveground
tanks. Additionally, there is a need for state-level enforcement to ensure that
codes are implemented adequately at the local level.

Industry and State Responses to Underground Releases from
Aboveground Tank Facilities

Why doesn't industry act to prevent product leaks? The short answer is
that petroleum losses are relatively cheap and infrastructure changes may be
expensive, particularly over the short-term. The 1994 API survey shows that
a relatively small percentage of facilities employ existing technologies to
prevent or reduce groundwater contamination (see Table, below). ^

Percent of Abovegionnd Tank PacUitiea Employing
Improvements to Reduce Groundwater Contamination

Type of Facility

TvDe of Improvement

Reflnlne

Marketlne

TransDortatlon

Release prevention barriers
underneath tank bottoms

12%

17%

20%

Corrosion protection for tank
bottoms

45%

70%

81%

Overfill protection for tanks

64%

82%

88%

Corrosion protection for all
burled piping

15%

60%

96%

Aboveground piping (75% or
more at the facility)

78%

54%

11%

In fact, aboveground tank facility owners may wait without fear of ctvll

penalities, until state regulators with limited resources decide to oversee a
cleanup effort at their site, and only act to prevent migration at that time.
Additionally, even though business forecasters uniformly predict that new
aboveground tank facility upgrading requirements are inevitable, many aire
reluctant to invest in infrastructure changes until they are more certain zibout
what the new requirements will entail.

While API has developed several standcirds addressing aboveground
tank design and operation, e.g., API 650 and 653, these standards are -^
voluntary so existing practices are unlikely to have improved uniformly
throughout the industry. Additionally, consultants have informed EDF that
there Is extreme variability in how well API's rather detailed standards are
followed. Nevertheless, these standards cire valuable baselines, and EPA and
states should Incorporate them, as appropriate, into their regulatory
programs. In reality, certain companies are performing necessary
aboveground tank facility upgrades, but there are many industry laggards
(note that API member companies represent only about half of operating
refineries).

The 1994 API survey cited above did not provide useful information on
the extent of remediation activities occurring at aboveground tank facilities,
pautlcularly pre\'ention of off-site migration. As discussed In EDF's anedysis of
the survey's report.® it is not true (as API states) that "in virtually £dl cases
where contamination exists, remedial activities are taking place "'° — in fact,
EDF contends that in very few cases are remedial activities occurring, but API
nevertheless makes this statement because it classifies "monitoring " as a
remedial activity in its survey report. Additionally, the survey's report
mischaracterizes the extent to which federal, state, or local agencies oversee,
review, or supervise remedial activities -- If governmental agencies were
overseeing remedial activities at most petroleum storage facilities, it Is
extremely unlikely that 20% of the fuel marketing facilities with known
groundwater contamination would answer that they '"Don"t Know " if their
contamination had migrated off-site.

Currentiy, five states have extensive requirements to prevent
aboveground tank facility releases and off-site migration, thirteen states have
some design and operational requirements, five states have only registration
requirements, and twenty seven states have no requirements (see Attachment
B). As the media highlight aboveground tank facility release incidents In
particular states, state legislators react by putting requirements in place that
would prevent future incidents, as has occurred in South Dakota, Virginia,
and potentially in North Carolina. Less aggressive states generally choose to
wait and see what requirements Congress and EPA will enact, to eliminate
duplicative state-level efforts.

EPA Currently Lacks Authority and Appropriations to Address
Underground Releases from Aboveground Tank Facilities

There are three major deficiencies in EPA's ability to regulate
aboveground tank facilities that need to be addressed by federal legislation
and appropriations, as in H.R. 1360:

* authority to prevent underground releases from aboveground tank

facilities, including non-oil hazardous substance storage facilities,
through design and operational requirements:

• authority to require the federal government's National Response
Center to be notified of underground releases, and;

• authority to address existing contamination and ensure no off-site
migration.

Other desirable characteristics of H.R 1360 include its consolidation of EPA's
underground and aboveground tank programs, its penalty provisions for non-
compliance, its fee provisions to assist in implementation, and the General
Accounting Office study of transportation-related tanks and piping to
determine if they are adequately regulated by the U.S. Department of
Transportation for the purpose of environmental protection. H.R. 1360 is also
flexible enough that EPA can design a regulatory program based on the
environmental and safety risks posed by individual facilities.

To prevent releases from aboveground tank facilities, EPA must have the
authority, as in H.R. 1360. to require:

• state-of-the-art technology such as a double-bottom with
interstitial leak detection for new tanks and for existing tanks
within a reasonable timeframe (depending on site specific
conditions and tank usage, temporary tanks such as production
tanks, may not require this type of containment);"

• corrosion protection for tank bottoms and buried piping;

• spill and overfill prevention technology and containment of
releases during product transfers;

• moving piping aboveground to the maximum extent feasible;

• tank and piping installation and testing requirements;

• facility inspection requirements.

• tank closure requirements; and.

• enforcement provisions for violation of release prevention
standards. Including penalties and citizen suit provisions.

Desirable changes to H.R 1360 Include language that:

• requires EPA to consolidate Its aboveground tank-related
responsibilities In one office.

• requires EPA to base its aboveground tank facility regulations on
the risk of releases and accidents fi-om particular types of facilities
or types of tanks and piping.

• clarifies how the legislation relates to Section 311 under the Clean
Water Act which covers prevention and cleanup of releases ft-om
aboveground tank facilities to surface waters. The current lack of
federal resources devoted to the Section 311 Spill Prevention.
Control, and Countermeasures program has. however, greatiy
limited this program's effectiveness.

• allows EPA to levy penalities for oil and hazardous substance
releases.

• streajnlines the facility notification and inspection provisions, and

• permits access to the LUST Trust Fund for aboveground tank
programs in a manner similar to that used by EPA and state

underground storage tank programs.'^ Congress also should explore
utilizing funds from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, established under
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. to help develop and implement an effective
aboveground tank program.

Many of these recommendations address EPA's concerns with H.R. 1360. £is
stated in the Agency's May 2. 1994 letter to Chairman Swift.

In conclusion, aboveground tank facility releases are clearly pervasive
and ongoing. There is no lack of data on this issue -- In fact there are more
data than when the Reagan Administration EPA recommended to Congress
that it address underground tanks during the 1984 Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act reauthorization process. The Clinton Administration and
Congress should ensure passage of similar legislation for aboveground tank
facilities to prevent ongoing releases, to assist states in developing effective
regulatory programs, and to provide certainty for businesses either with
aboveground tanks now or considering their purchase. EDF is anxious to
work with Congress. EPA. and industry to develop an appropriate legislative
and regulatory program that addresses current deficiencies which result in
unnecessary underground releases and off-site migration from aboveground
tank facilities.

' American Petroleum Institute. "A Survey of API Members' Aboveground
Storage Tank Facilities. " Washington. DC. July 1994. Table III. p. 15.

2 Ibid., p. A12.

^ "Virginia Groundwater Studies: 40% More Contamination. " Aboveground
Tank Update. Volume 5. Number 1. January 1994, p. 10.

■* "Highlights of Forums on Aboveground Oil Storage Facilities." U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Aboveground Oil Storage Facilities
Workgroup. November 24. 1993. p. 2.

^ "Aboveground Storage Tank Boom -- Will the Trend Continue?", survey
conducted by Product Evaluation Inc., Chicago. IL for the Steel Tank Institute,
Lake Zurich, IL. January 1993. p. 1.

® "Grace Yanks Tanks Early." Chemicalweek, Chemical Week Associates.
New York. NY. Vol. 146. No. 18. May 9. 1990. p. 36.

^ Steve Bates. "Star to Pay $50 Million in Oil Leak: Officials Outiine Plan
to Compensate Affected Va. Families. ' Washington Post. September 5. 1992.
p. 1. ...

® American Petroleum Institute, op. cit.. pp. A9-10.

^ Lois N. Epstein. "A Survey of API Members' Aboveground Storage Tank
Facilities (July 1994): A Critical Analysis." Environmental Defense Fund, July
18. 1994. pp. 2-3.

'° American Petroleum Institute, op. cit.. p. 111.

' ' EPA already has this authority under Section 4 113 of the Oil Pollution
Act of lO'^O. Under this law, EPA's determination of whether liners should be
utilized underneath aboveground tanks should have been sent to Congress by
August 1 99 1 . with implementation of the recommendations six months later.

'^ Since its inception, the LUST Trust Fund established by Section 205 of
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 has not been
fully appropriated to EPA for the purpose for which it was set up with a tax at
gasoline pumps, i.e.. for leaking underground storage tank cleanup activities.

Attachment A

Summary of Major (Above 100,000 Gallons) Aboveground Tank
Facility Releases of Petroleum Products Underground

Location

Anchorage, Alaska
El Segundo, California
Martinez. California
Torrance, California
Deerfield Beach. Florida
Port EX'erglades, Florida
Hartford, Illinois
Granger, Indiana
Whiting. Indiana
Cattlettsburg, Kentucky
Plaquemlne. Louisiana
Sparks. Nevada
Paulsboro. New Jersey
Brooklyn, New York
Syracuse. New York
Greensboro. North Carolina
Ponca City. Oklahoma
Tulsa. Oklahoma
Philadelphia. Pennsylvania
East Providence. Rhode Island
Spartanburg. South Carolina
Austin. Texas
Fairfax, Virginia
Seattle. Washington
Tacoma. Washington

Facility Type

Air Force Tank Farm

Refinery

Oil Recycler/ Storage Facility

Trainsportatlon / Marketing

Refinery

Marketing

Refinery

Chemical Plant

Transportation

Marketing

Refinery

Marketing

Refinery

Marketing

Attachment B
Aboveground Tank Facility Requirements by State as of 9/94

No Regis.

Alabama

Arizona

Connecticut

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Maine

Michigan

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Mexico

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

South Carolina

Tennessee

Utah

Vermont

West Virginia

Wyoming

Only Registration Regis.

Arkansas
California
Kansas
Nevada
North Carolina

Some Reg ts.

Alaska

Colorado

Delaware

Louisiana

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

New Jersey

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

Texas

Washington

Wisconsin

Extensive Regis.

Florida
New York
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Virginia

Mr. Swift. Mr. Clark Houghton.

STATEMENT OF CLARK HOUGHTON

Mr. Houghton. My name is Clark Houghton, and I am president
of the Missouri Petroleum Marketers Association. I am here today
representing the Petroleum Marketers Association of America. I
also happen to be an engineer. I do have 42 years in this business.

PMAA is a federation of 43 State and regional associations which
represent more than 10,000 small, independent petroleum market-
ers. Collectively, these marketers sell more than 45 percent of the
gasoline and 60 percent of the diesel fuel and 75 percent of the
home heating fuel.

We commend the chairman for holding these hearings on this im-
portant topic and aboveground storage tank leaks. Let me say from
the outset we are against the bill. The problem with this legislation
is that it attempts to impose a comprehensive regulatory solution
to a problem that may not exist or is already covered by existing
regulations.

The truth of the matter is simply not enough current information
currently is available to define the AST universe, let alone suggest
any significant problems with AST's. Now, to my knowledge, which
is very limited I must admit as I live in the heart of Missouri,
there has never been a comprehensive study to gather this data.
I hear EPA has data. I hear that EPA is studying it. Being — like ,
I say, I am a little confused as to what is comprehensive.

So to relate to the location of the potential harm to the waters
of the United States, nor is there data available indicating how
many existing AST's are used exclusively for petroleum products,
what kind of tanks are leaking, field directed or plant fabricated,
how many are leaking, and how much product has been lost.

There have been two major notable events in the past couple of
years, which have been mentioned. I do think that the regulation
that came out in July of this year requiring certain facilities to
have more than just a simple paper cutter or word processor, the
SPCC plan would help identify this problem and prevent great
harm there. Would have reduced the harm, not prevented it; re-
duced it.

And I believe that existing technology reporting and response
regulations on both the Federal and State level are more adequate
to ensure that AST's operate safely. The Administrator of the EPA
seems to think so also as she came out against this legislation this
summer. Now I hear that they would like some other legislation.

Another important reason is that at this time there is an eco-
nomic burden that it would place on small, independent owners
and operators. And 89 percent of PMAA's members represent small
businessmen and women.

I am an operator of an 8 million gallon a year oil distributing
business. That is a small business. We employ a maximum of 50
people in convenience stores in tank wagon delivery and transport
delivery. We are beginning to suffer under all the regulations. More
than beginning to suffer.

Most of these operations are family owned and operated and
passed down from generation to generation. PMAA members do not
own or operate the large tank farms. That is obvious. More typi-

cally their facilities consist of one, two, or maybe four AST's, small-
er holding capacity, 20,000 gallons per tank or less, and are not
found on large farms.

They are already complying with extensive State and Federal
regulations. These include SPCC plans, engineering studies, site
assessments, employee certification and training, inspection, re-
porting, containment, and response activities, and other expenses.

The expense of a small marketer cleaning a tank bottom for in-
spection is very large. To remove two 55-gallon drums of water,
contaminated water, pumped out of the bottom of an underground
tank of one of my facilities is going to cost approximately $2,000
to dispose of.

That is because you have to have a consultant, and I am not
qualified as I am not an impartial consultant in my company, to
analyze the product and take care of getting rid of it. Two thousand
dollars to get rid of two 55-gallon drums of water contaminated
with some gasoline in gasoline storage tanks. Just imagine what it
would be to remove the bottoms where the pipe is 4 to 5 inches or
more from the bottom of the tank on a vertical tank. You are talk-
ing 300, 400, 500 gallons. Maybe more.

So I just want to say that it is a very expensive process, and it
should be considered.

Some of the regulations in the past have disrupted the delivery
of petroleum products to the rural areas they serve, and it is cer-
tainly not the intent of Congress or the sponsors of this bill that
such a result would follow such an action.

Before any legislation such as H.R. 1360 is considered, more data
needs to be collected, which is evident from this hearing. Existing
enforcement and regulation should be reviewed for adequacy and
a cost-benefit analysis be done on the effect that this legislation
would have on the small, independent marketer. And I urge this
committee to reject this legislation until the extent of the problem
sees the full light of day.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

[The prepared statement of Clark Houghton follows:]

Statement of Clark Houghton, State Executive, Petroleum Marketers of

America

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is
Clark Houghton, president of the Missouri Petroleum Marketers Association and di-
rector of Mid-Missouri Oil Co. I have served as regional vice president of the Petro-
leum Marketers Association of America (PMAA), and chaired that organizations Op-
erations and Engineering Committee for 6 years. I hold an engineering degree from
the University of Missouri at RoUa and consider myself knowledgeable in the field
of aboveground storage tank engineering.

I am appearing today in my capacity as engineering consultant for PMAA. PMAA
is a federation of 43 state and regional trade associations representing more than
10,000 small and independent petroleum marketers. Collectively, these marketers
sell more than 45 percent of the gasoline, 60 percent of the diesel fuel and 75 per-
cent of the home heating fuel consumed annually in the United States.

PMAA commends the chairman for holding these hearings on the very important
topic of aboveground storage tank legislation. Let me say from the outset, that
PMAA does not support H.R. 1360. The problem with this legislation, is that at-
tempts to impose a comprehensive regulatory solution to a problem that may not
even exist. The truth of the matter is that there is simply not enough information
currently available that defines the AST universe, let alone that suggests any sig-
nificant problems with AST's exist.

86-469 - 95 - 4

For example, there has never been a comprehensive study, to my knowledge, that
has gathered such basic data as the number, age, size and location of AST tanks
and facilities existing throughout the country. Nor is there any data available that
would indicate how many of the existing AST's are used exclusively for petroleum
products, which tanks are leaking or have leaked, and how much product has been
lost.

There have been in the recent past, one or two notable AST events that have
caused significant environmental harm. In Fairfax County, Virginia, an AST failed
and leaked thousand of gallons of gasoline, contaminating the environment and re-
quiring a residential evacuation. Truthfully, it was a mess and I would imagine the
reason why Congress is considering H.R. 1360 today. However, there are serious
questions as to whether the owner reported the leak at the outset when something
could have been done about it, thus exacerbating the problem. That particular leak
could have been mitigated considerably by acting quickly to remove the product
from the tank when the leak was discovered. Federal law requires this tj^e of re-
sponse action. In my view, had the operator followed existing Federal requirements
for reporting and responding to such leaks, the amount of product spilled and the
environmental damage caused by the leak would have been far, far, less than what
actually happened. Consequently, it is probably more appropriate to look at existing
enforcement measures rather than imposing a new and expansive regulatory burden
on all AST owners and operators.

In fact, I believe that existing technical, reporting and response regulations on
both the Federal and State level, are more than adequate to ensure that AST's oper-
ate safelv. The administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency thinks so too.
That's why she came out against this legislation earlier this summer.

Another important reason this legislation is a bad idea at this time is the eco-
nomic burden it would place on the small independent owner and operators. Eighty-
nine of PMAA's members represent small business men and women. More often
than not, the operation is family owned and operated and is passed down from gen-
eration to generation. PMAA's members do not own or operate the large tank farms
such as the one you see down on Route 95, south of Washington. More typically
their facilities consist of one or two AST's and much smaller holding capacity than
those found on large tank farms. Moreover, their business, are run like all small
businesses, on a limited operating margin.

These operators are already complying with expensive State and Federal regula-
tions. Engineering studies, site assessments, employee certification and training, in-
spection, reporting, containment and response activities represent a huge expense
for small petroleum marketers. The additional expense imposed by H.R. 1360 would
force many of PMAA's members out of business and disrupt the delivery of petro-
leum products to the rural areas they serve. Certainly it is not the intention of Con-
gress, or the sponsors of this bill, that such a result would follow fi"om enactment.

I would like to summarize by saying that before any legislation such as H.R. 1360
is considered, more data needs to be collected, existing enforcement and regulations
should be reviewed for adequacy and cost benefit analysis be done on the effect this
legislation would have on the small independent petroleum marketer. I urge this
committee to reject this legislation until the extent of the problem sees the full light
of day. Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for giving me this
opportunity to address you on this very important subject.

Mr. Swift, Thank you, Mr. Houghton. And forgive me for mis-
pronouncing your name.

Mr. Houghton. Oh, that is all right. I have been called a lot
worse than that.

Mr. Swift. Marshall T. Mott-Smith.

STATEMENT OF MARSHALL T. MOTT-SMITH

Mr. Mott-Smith. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of
the subcommittee. The Florida Department of Environmental Pro-
tection appreciates the opportunity to testify before the subcommit-
tee on the important issue of aboveground storage tank regulation.

My name is Marshall Mott-Smith, and I have been with Florida's
environmental agency for 17 years. And I have been administrator
of the storage tank program since 1986.

Florida has been regulating underground and aboveground stor-
age tank systems since 1983. Because the State relies on ground-
water for over 95 percent of its drinking water, it has regulations
that are more stringent than EPA's for preventing and cleaning up
contamination from storage tank systems.

In 1983, the Florida legislature passed laws that gave the De-
partment authority to adopt rules for underground and above-
ground tanks with storage capacities greater than 550 gallons that
contained petroleum products and other pollutants. Legislature
chose to regulate all storage tank systems because aboveground
tanks pose the same risk to State ground and surface waters as un-
derground tanks.

The State adopted its first storage tank rules in 1984 and later
revised them in 1991, to require secondary containment for all new
aboveground storage tanks and integral piping in contact with the
soil.

We are currently proposing additional rule changes and updating
and adding relevant industry standards, including the new API
Standard 2610.

Program statistics for the State's aboveground storage tank pro-
gram are attached in my appendices of my written statement. Flor-
ida has approximately 28,000 active aboveground tanks located at
11,500 facilities. Four thousand six hundred of these facilities have
underground tanks in addition to the aboveground tanks on site.

Fifty-four percent of the State's active tanks are under 1,100 gal-
lons. There are 1,500 bulk product tanks and 96 percent of all
product storage capacity in Florida is contained in these tanks.

Over 22,000 discharges have been reported since the program
began. Now that comes from both underground and aboveground
tanks. However, it is often hard to determine the cause of a leak
because many owners specify the cause as unknown when they file
a discharge report with the department.

Because aboveground tanks are co-located with underground
tanks at approximately 40 percent of Florida's registered facilities,
our statistics do not provide a clear picture of the number of leaks
from aboveground tanks. The percentage of open facilities with
aboveground tanks reporting releases is 22 percent; however, 66
percent of the bulk storage facilities and 54 percent of the retail
stations have reported a release.

The average cost of cleaning up a petroleum-contaminated site in
Florida is $275,000. Florida's Inland Protection Trust Fund gen-
erates $160 million a year and approximately $400 million has
been spent for site cleanup costs to date.

Most of the sites receiving money from the trust fund have un-
derground storage tank systems. Nevertheless, the most costly sites
are those with aboveground bulk storage tanks. The cost of clean-
ing up the Port Everglades terminal port facility near Ft. Lauder-
dale to meet State water quality standards could be as much as
$50 million. The Port Everglades facility has 264 aboveground
tanks, has been in operation since 1928, and currently ranks as one
of the largest ports in the Nation.

Reported releases from tank spills, pipeline leaks, and other
sources date back to the 1950's and several areas have over 5 feet
of free product thickness floating on the groundwater table. One

area has almost 8 feet of free product. An investigation is under
way to comprehensively address the problems and develop a site
remedial action plan.

Federal facilities are another example of problems associated
with aboveground tanks. Most of the facilities at Florida Air Force
and Navy bases have reported leaks from their aboveground tank
systems. Due to the large number of contaminated sites, base clo-
sures, and shrinking defense budgets, it has been difficult for many
military installations to obtain funding for upgrading existing
tanks and to clean up contaminated sites. Many of the military
bases have soil-covered, concrete cut and cover tanks from the
1940's that are similar to an aboveground field-erected steel tank
in construction and operation.

The U.S. Navy Cecil Field installation near Jacksonville has had
numerous petroleum releases, particularly from their cut and cover
tanks. One discharge was caused by vandalism but nevertheless it
allowed 1 million gallons to surface in groundwaters nearby. Sec-
ondary containment would have prevented any groundwater con-
tamination from the incident.

To verify the compliance status of registered tanks, our depart-
ment developed a compliance inspection program with local govern-
ments to perform inspections of all facilities. Over 130,000 inspec-
tions have been performed to date. That is both UST and AST.

Although most of the inspections have been with underground
tanks, department and county inspectors have performed over
28,000 inspections at facilities with only aboveground storage
tanks. The program has resulted in a significant increase in the
compliance rate of all storage tank facilities. For aboveground tank
facilities, the rate of compliance has increased from 15 percent in
1988 to 65 percent in 1993.

A Federal program for the regulation of aboveground storage
tank systems is needed. EPA has regulations for underground stor-
age tanks but does not have regulations that protect groundwater
resources from aboveground storage tank system leaks. A leak from
an aboveground storage tank system will cause the same environ-
mental damage as a leak from an underground storage tank sys-
tem. Aboveground bulk storage tanks especially should be regu-
lated due to their size and extensive potential to cause environ-
mental damage.

Florida's experience and statistics and recent incidents in Penn-
sylvania and Virginia provide ample justification for the regulation
of these tanks. The growing number of States developing their own
regulations highlights the need for Federal regulations.

Also, Florida and many other States have oil spill prevention pro-
grams that regulate aboveground tanks at coastal terminals. Flor-
ida has recently combined its two programs to reduce the costs of
AST regulation. Consequently, any Federal aboveground tank pro-
gram should be combined with the EPA underground program and
the oil spill prevention program.

A national regulatory program for aboveground tanks is needed
to better protect the health and safety of U.S. citizens and the
quality of ground and surface water; to provide consistent national
standard? for aboveground storage tanks and piping construction,
release detection, operation, and maintenance to prevent the re-

lease of petroleum products and hazardous substances; coordinate
the oil spill prevention and groundwater protection efforts of Fed-
eral and State agencies; to prevent future releases of petroleum
products that could result in costly cleanup programs at public ex-
pense; and to ease regulatory confusion for storage tank owners
that must comply with many different State and Federal regula-
tions and agencies.

In conclusion, the Florida Department of Environmental Protec-
tion supports legislation that would establish a Federal program
for the regulation of aboveground storage tank systems. A program
similar to the very successful EPA underground storage tank pro-
gram that provides financial and technical support to the States
while allowing flexibility for State-specific needs is recommended.
Thank you.

Mr. Swift. Thank you, very much. I recognize now Mr. Anthony
O'Neill.

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY R. O'NEILL

Mr. O'Neill. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Tony O'Neill,
vice president, government affairs of the National Fire Protection
Association, and it is my pleasure to present NFPA's position on
H.R. 1360.

The National Fire Protection Association, which represents some
60,000 members, is dedicated to reducing life loss and property
damage from destructive fire, and we are pleased to support H.R.
1360, the Safe Aboveground Storage Tank Act of 1993. And in par-
ticular we are pleased to support the incentives that are built into
the legislation to safeguard aboveground storage tanks from de-
structive fires.

Recognizing that this is primarily an environmental bill. Con-
gressman Moran is to be commended for providing incentives for
improved fire safety by specifying the adoption and proper enforce-
ment of state-of-the-art national consensus fire codes such as
NFPA 30 Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code and the Auto-
mobile and Marine Service Station Code, and the other model uni-
form fire codes that are used at the State and local level. Although
these are intended primarily for fire safety, they do indeed specify
important environmental protection safeguards.

Because H.R. 1360 recognizes that the fire safety of flammable
liquid storage tanks is generally the responsibility of State and
local governments, the legislation properly refers to various model
fire codes and channels a portion of the fees collected under section
4 to training programs for fire code inspection personnel to fund
costs of the agency in administering the notification program and,
as importantly, to fund certain research activities.

Now, why are these modem fire safety codes so important?
Aboveground storage tanks, AST's, for flammable and combustible
liquids, such as gasoline and fuel oil, can represent a major fire
hazard to our citizens, to firefighters, and indeed to communities,
property and businesses, whenever the tanks are not properly engi-
neered and protected in accordance with the modern fire codes.

To demonstrate the severe fire problems especially to firefighters
when tanks are not properly designed and installed, we have en-
closed examples and specifically the published reports on two inci-

dents that caused the death of eight firefighters and in addition
dozens of firefighter injuries in Gadsden, Alabama, in 1976, and
Kansas City, Kansas, in 1959.

These incidents, and similar cases, illustrate the need for the fol-
lowing basic safeguards, "' of which have been included in the
modem fire codes over the years: Overfill protection; spill control
(diking and containment); emergency venting; and minimum siting
requirements.

I have also provided for the subcommittee as part of our written
testimony statistics and case histories on tank farm fires in the
United States, service station fires, and those situations, and also
refinery fires from the national statistical bases that we work with
in conjunction with Federal Grovemment agencies.

Now, in our written statement we provide examples of what can
happen when these basic fire protection requirements are not in-
cluded and not managed mto the tank design and construction. I
won't get into those details right now in this oral statement, but
they are contained in the written statement.

And one point that needs to be emphasized, I think, is why is
there renewed interest in the safety of aboveground storage tanks?

For over 100 years, we have been developing the automobile and
in that period of time it has been accompanied with the need to
supply gasoline, often at remote locations; thus, in the early days
the advent of aboveground storage tanks, many of which are still
in service. But over the years many of these tanks became subject
to code requirements for emergency venting, spill control, overfill
prevention, et cetera, but not before some of the major incidents
that I referred to.

During the evolution of the gasoline marketing and distribution
industry, more and more of these storage tanks were put under-
ground where they are relatively safe from fire. Rarely do you see
today aboveground storage tanks at service stations in urban and
suburban areas.

In recent years, there has been a movement by gasoline market-
ers to once again utilize aboveground storage tanks at service sta-
tions for a variety of reasons, including some of the testimony that
you have heard today; the liability exposure, the cleanup costs as-
sociating with leaking underground storage tanks, and the ability
to visually inspect these aboveground storage tanks. So the code
groups, including those of the National Fire Protection Association,
have been responding to the fact that we anticipate that we are
going to see more aboveground storage tanks in our future.

And the current editions of our codes are reviewing such issues
as design and construction requirements so that tanks will stay to-
gether, will hold liquid without mechanical failure, spill control re-
quirements. The concept of secondary containment is being studied.
The code requires any tank taken out of service must be emptied,
cleaned and rendered vapor free. The code has special require-
ments for corrosion protection on underground tanks and piping,
and special provisions for flood-prone areas as well as requirements
to prevent overfilling of the tanks.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, NFPA supports H.R. 1360 because
it recognizes the fire hazards of aboveground storage tanks, pro-
vides incentives to ensure that these tanks are properly protected

through the adoption and enforcement of nationally recognized
model fire safety codes at the State and local level, and allocates
a portion of the funds collected in order to help fund these activi-
ties.

Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer any questions.

Mr. Swift. Thank you, Mr. O'Neill.

[The prepared statement of Anthony R. O'Neill follows:]

STATEMENT

of the

NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, I am Tony O'Neill, Vice President
-Government Affairs of the National Fire Protection Association and it
is my pleasure to present NFPA's position on HR 1360. I am
accompanied by Bob Benedetti, NFPA's Flammable Liquids Engineer
who is available to address any technical questions about our codes
that are referenced in HR 1360.

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), representing
some 60,000 members and dedicated to reducing life loss and
property damage from destructive fire is pleased to support HR 1360,
The Safe Aboveground Storage Tank Act of 1993," and in particular,
the incentives built into the legislation to safeguard aboveground
storage tanks from destructive fire.

Recognizing that this is primarily an environmental bill,
Congressman Moran is to be commended for providing incentives for
improved fire safety by specifying the adoption and proper
enforcement of state-of-the-art national consensus fire codes such as
NFPA 30 "Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code" and the
"Automotive and Marine Service Station Code," NFPA 30A. As we
point out later in this statement. NFPA 30 and 30A, although intended
primarily for fire safety, do indeed specify important environmental
protection safeguards. (Copies of these codes have been provided to
the Subcommittee).

Because HR 1360 recognizes that the fire safety of flammable
liquid storage tanks is generally the responsibility of state and local
govemments, the legislation property refers to various model fire
codes and channels a portion of the fees collected, under Section 4 of
the Act. "Notification," to training programs for fire code inspection
personnel, to fund costs of the agency in administering the notification
program, and to fund certain research activities.

WHY ARE MODERN RRE CODES SO IMPORTANT?

Simply stated, aboveground storage tanks (AST's) for
flammable and combustible liquids (such as gasoline and fuel oil) can
represent a major fire hazard to our citizens, to firefighters, and,
indeed, to communities, property and businesses, . ...whenever the
tanks are not properly engineered and protected in accordance with
modem fire codes.

To demonstrate the severe fire problems, especially to
firefighters, when tanks are not properly designed and installed, we
have enclosed as appendices to this statement, published reports on
two incidents that caused the death of 8 firefighters and. in addition,
dozens of firefighter injuhes (Gadsden, Alabama, August 31 , 1976
and Kansas City. Kansas, August 18, 1959).

These incidents and similar cases illustrate the need for the
following basic safeguards, all of which have been included in modem
fire codes over the years as a result of these and other incidents:

• Overfill protection

Spill control (diking and containment)

• Emergency venting

• Minimize siting requirements

as well as specially designed normal vent piping, adequate supports
and anchoring, and basic engineering design and construction
requirements for the tank itself.

WHAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN BASIC FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

ARE LACKING?

Here is a an example of fire that can occur when basic
safeguards at a service station are lacking; an aboveground gasoline
storage tank (AST) is overfilled by the delivery truck or, a connecting
pipe is broken by an automobile accident, and gasoline is flowing on
the ground to an ignition source (could be the delivery tmck, a heater,
someone smoking, etc.). Fire then flashes back to the tank causing a
huge spill fire that spreads to adjacent properties and/or a pool fire
that starts impinging on the AST, heating the tank like a tea kettle.
Pressure builds up and, if there is inadequate emergency venting, the
tank will mpture, spilling burning gasoline over a wide area and.
worse, can explode violently in a phenomenon known as a "BLEVE" qi
boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion. Unlike the tea kettle where
water in the form of steam ruptures the tank, a BLEVE allows flaming
gasoline or other flammable liquids to spread rapidly, almost
instantaneously, over a widespread area.

Fortunately, there is now general recognition of. and therefore
acceptance of, the fire safety principles contained in modem fire
codes so that very few incidents occur such as Gadsden, Alabama
and Kansas City, Kansas. However, as shown in the Gadsden case,
there is still the potential for someone to padlock the emergency vent
closed or to subvert other basic fire safety requirements. This is why
an active on-going code enforcement and inspection program is so
important for aboveground flammable liquids storage tanks.

WHY THE REKEWED INTEREST IN THE SAFETY OF
ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS?

The nearly 100 year history of motorized vehicular
transportation in America has been accompanied with a need to
supply the automobile with gasoline, often at remote locations; thus in
the early days the advent of aboveground storage tanks, many of
which are still in service. Over the years, many of these tanks beceime
subject to code requirements for emergency venting, spill control,
overfill prevention, etc. but not before major firefighter and civilian
tragedies occurred, such as Gadsden, Alabama and Kansas City
cited above.

During the evolution of the gasoline marketing and distribution
industry, more and more storage tanks were put underground where
they are relatively safe from fire. Rarely did you see aboveground
storage tanks at service stations in urt^n and suburban areas.

A review of fire experience in service stations, refineries, or tank
farms (attached as appendices to this testimony) demonstrates that
most reported fires in this group occur at service stations, but some of
the most severe fires have occurred at refineries and tank farms. This
is what one would expect with below ground tanks at service stations
and aboveground, larger tanks at refineries and tank farms. These
incidents also suggest that the most severe fires typically begin near
the tank. NFPA's analysis shows that in recent years only about 5% of
service station fires have begun in the area of the tank or any other
product storage area.

In recent years, there has been a movement by gasoline
marketers to once again utilize aboveground storage tanks (AST's) at
service stations for a variety of reasons; including the liability
exposure and clean-up costs associated with leaking underground
storage tanks, and the ability to visually inspect aboveground storage
tanks. These factors are offset by space limitations and other
considerations at service stations. Nonetheless, given the probability
that there is going to be an increase in the number of ASTs, fire
safety experts especially those in the fire services are concerned that
the lessons of the past may be forgotten.

RESPONSE OF THE NFPA FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE
LIQUIDS CODE COMMITTEES TO ENVIRONMENTAL NEEDS

Cun-ent editions of NFPA 30 and 30A (referenced above) reflect
a commitment by these nationsil consensus code development
committees to recognize both the traditional fire safety requirements
of AST's and the need for enhanced environmental protection
measures as follows:

Design and construction requirements for tanks ensure
that the tank is strong enough to hold the liquid without
mechanical failure and that the liquid will not corrode the
tank shell.

Spill control requirements include remote impounding
basins or a dike around the tank(s) or a combination of
both and these measures are intended to intercept and
retain any liquid released from an AST as a result of
overfilling or breaking of a pipe connected to it.

The concept of secondary containment originated with
underground tanks because of corrosion problems and is
also recognized in the codes but is not always spill control;
particularly if a pipe break or overfill spills liquids directly to
the ground.

• The code requires any tank taken out of service must be
emptied, cleaned and rendered vapor-free as both a
fire/explosion prevention measure and an important
environmental consideration.

The code has special requirements for corrosion
protection on underground tanks and piping, adequate
support to prevent uneven settling and the supports for
AST must be resistant to failure from fire exposure.

• There are special requirements for tanks in flood-prone
areas to prevent movement or shifting of the tanks.

• The code contains requirements to prevent overfilling the
tank which is both a fire safety and environmental
protection measure.

in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, NFPA supports HR 1360 because
it recognizes the fire hazards of aboveground storage tanks (ASTs),
provides incentives to assure that these tanks are properly protected

through the adoption and enforcement of nationally recognized
model fire safety codes and allocates a portion of the funds collected
under the "Notification" provisions of the bill to enhance code
enforcement at the state and local level.

Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer any questions you
might have about our position.

APPENDIX

A.) An NFPA Fire Study; Three Fire Fighters D/e.....(the
Gadsden, Alabama AST fire of August 31 , 1976)

B.) ra/7/c Blast Kills Six, Injures Sixty-Four! (the Kansas City,
Kansas AST fire of August 18, 1959)

C.) A Review of National Fire Incident Data Bases by NFPA
Fire Analysis and Research Division (1983-1992)

An NFPA Fire Study

APPOmXA

Three fire fighters die
when exposure hazard ignored

A leased gasoline station just out-
side the corporate limits of Gadsden,
/Mabama, became a funeral pyre for
three fire fighters last 31 August.

The gasoline station complex,
shown in the accompanying diagram,
included two 6000-gallon (22.7-m")
aboveground storage tanks, one for
regular-grade gasoline and one for
premium grade. The storage tanks
were set approximately 8 inches
(200 mm) off the ground, on con-
crete saddles.

Both tanks were arranged to
feed the dispensing units by gravity.
Fuel entered the tanks through a
2-inch (51 -mm) piping arrangement
that extended from the top of the
tank, down the tank head, to near
ground level. Each tank was pro-
vided with ' IVi-inch (32-mm) at-
mospheric vent and a second 2V^-
inch (64-mm) vent with a hinged
top that was padlocked closed. The
two welded tanks were labeled by a
nationally recognized testing labora-

Tbis article is based on a report pre-
pared by John A. Sharrr, NFPA life
Safety Specialist, who Tidted the
scene for the NFPA Fire Analysis De-
partment Mr. Sharry gratefully
acknowledges the assistance of Acting
diief Landis D. Glenn and Lt. Jinuny
Stewart of the Gadsden Fire Depart-
ment; Fire Mardial Ray Thomwell
and Deputy Fire Marsiial W. B.
Houston of the Alabama State Fire
Marshal's office; Jiromie B. Sutton,
Acddent Inrestigation Specialist of
(J.S. Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety;
and Tom Lasseigne, Hazardous Ma-
terials Specialist of the National
Transportation Safety Board.

tory as suitable for aboveground
storage of flammable liquids.

At the time of the fire, tank No. 1
is believed to have been nearly
empty of regular gasoline, while
tank No. 2 contained about 1200
gallons (4S40 liters) of premium-
grade gasoline.

Fire breaks out

At about 1:45 P.M. on 31 August,
a 10,000-gaUon (37.8-m') Unk truck
arrived to fill the two aboveground
storage tanks. The driver connected
his equipment in the usual fashion.
Because the tank truck was not
equipped with a pump, the driver
was provided with an electrically
driven pump to fill the aboveground
tanks. The pump was labeloi by a
nationally recognized testing labora-
tory for use in hazardous locations
(Qass 1, Group D; Qass H, Groups
F & G); however, the junction box
on the pump motor did not have a
cover, negating its suitability for
hazardous locations. Although the
pump was designed for permanent
installation, it was used as a por-
table pump in this situation.

The pump was set midway be-
tween the tank truck and storage
tank No. 2. A 3-pTong, twist-lock
plug connected the pump's power-
cord to an outdoor electrical re-
ceptacle located between tanks No.
1 and No. 2. A 3-inch (76-mm)
flexible hose extended from the
truck's discharge manifold to the
pump, where it was reduced to
2'/i inches for attachment to the in-
take side of the pump. A 2-inch
rigid pipe ran from the discharge

side of the pump to the filler line on
the tank.

The truck driver had been un-
loading premium gasoline for about
20 minutes when ignition occurred.
The station manager reported first
seeing fire near the ground in the
area of the pump. The fire quickly
became a fireball that enveloped
the driver. The driver ran from the
area, but the station manager stopped
him and helped to extinguish the fire
in his clothing. The driver then was
taken to a nearby hospital by a
passing motorist.

Alarm is sounded

The Gadsden Fire Department re-
ceived a telephone alarm at 2:20
P.M., and Engine 9, Engine 3, and
Fire Medic 1 responded. Arriving
fire fighters found the blaze from a
large gasoline spill engulfing the
rear of the tank truck. They initially
attacked with two I V^-inch hose lines
supplied by the water in the ap-
paratus tanks.

Shortly after Gadsden fire fighters
arrived on the scene, the Hokes
Bluff Fire Department and the
Glencoe Fire Department arrived
on the scene. Each had received a
telephone alarm for the fire, which
was not within the boundaries of
any of the responding departments,
but was in the unincorporated
Etawah County.

A tanker relay was set up to
supply the attack lines operating
from the Gadsden pumpers. The
total attack consisted of four, and at
times five, 1 '/i-inch hose lines.
Eventually, a supply line to provide

22 FIRE COMMAND January 1S77

additional water was laid from a
hydrant about 1800 feet (550 m)
away.

The attack had been underway
for about 35 minutes when, at 2:59
P.M., tank No. 2 BLEVEd. The head
piece of the tank separated at the
weld and traveled 107 feet (33 m)
east, striking a truck and a fire de-
partment pumper. The remainder
of the tank rocketed 240 feet (73 m)
through a pine grove, landing in a
field. The explosion dislodged tank
No. 1 from its saddle, and moved
it about 8 feet (2.4 m) from — and at
right angles to — its original location.

The BLEVE created a ground-
level fireball approximately 150 feet
(46 m) in diameter. It mushroomed
several hundred feet into the air,
igniting combustibles as far away as
600 feet (180 m). The firebaU kiUed
the Gadsden fire chief and two fire
fighters, and injured at least twenty-
eight others. The Gadsden Fire De-
partment treated many minor injuries
at the scene, and beUeves the number
of injuries to be much greater than it
recorded.

Although the fireball ignited
several large fires, including the
service station office, six trailers in-
side an adjacent fenced yard, two
mobfle homes, numerous vehicles in-
cluding Gadsden Engine 9, plus

several brush fires, the fire fighters
who survived the BLEVE quickly
brought these fires under control.

What happened?

It appears that the fire originated
at or near the electrically driven
transfer pump. An initial vapor fire
probably burned through the flex-
ible 3-inch hose from the tank truck,
resulting in a spill fire constantly fed
from the tank truck. This spiU fire
appears to have been about 20 feet
in diameter, and it engulfed the
rear of the aluminum-shelled tank
truck. Normally, fusible devices on
the tank truck would have shut
down the fuel flow; however, there
was no evidence of fusible devices
on the emergency flow controls of
this tank truck.

Fire fighting efforts apparently
concentrated on the spill fire and the
tanker, and the fire exposure to the
two storage tanks was ignored until
shortly before the BLEVE.

The storage tanks apparently
lacked adequate venting. Although
venting arrangements should be
tested to determine their actual
capacity, the amount of venting
specified in NFPA 30 Flammable &
Combustible Liquids Code for an
aboveground tank of this size would
require a free circular opening of

about 6>/i inches (160 mm). The
venting provided was only 1 '^
inches (32 mm), plus the additional
2V4 inches of capped vent. This
capped vent, of course, was of little
use since it was padlocked.

Why?

A series of human enors appears
to have been responsible for the
cause of this fire, for its spread, and
for the ultimate tragedy.

The fire first appeared in the
vicinity of a pump with an exposed
electrical junction box. This source
could well have ignited the gasoline
vapors.

The fire grew to its ultimate size
because it was fed by a steady flow
of gasoline from the tank truck. A
fusible linkage would have stopped
this flow, but it appears that no
such link was installed.

A second, larger safety vent was
provided on the tank that BLEVEd,
but someone padlocked it shut
Although the vent probably was
undersized, it might have been ade-
quate to prevent the BLEVE. Pad-
locked shut, it was an invitation to
disaster.

Finally, and most importantly,
attacking fire fighters concentrated
their efforts on extinguishing the
fire, and ignored the two gasoUne
tanks. When tanks of flammable
gases or liquids are exposed to fire,
it is essential that they be cooled
with hose streams to prevent them
from BLEVEing. +

Fwtfaer infonnation about fight-
ing fires where the possibUity of a
BLEVE exists may be fomid in two
recent Fire Command! articles: "Two
train BLEVEs: different dtuatioas
require dilTereiit strategies" (Fire
Command!, September 1976) includes
a list of references. "Volunteers pre-
pared when butane tank explodes"
{Fire Command!, June 1976) de-
soribes a no-attack dedsion and il-
lustrates the critical importance of
training.

Two damaged helmets are mute testimony to ttie intensity ol the lireball. The
leather helmet on the right belonged to the Gadsden chief who died in the
BI.EVE. the polycartMnate helmet on ttie left was worn by a fire fighter who was
injured. The hole in the crown Is a bum-through: it was not caused by impact.
A polycarbonate helmet worn by one of the slain fire fighters was desuoyed In
the IncidanL

NFfW"

24 FDtE COMMAND January 1877

v*>^

nucnw nwcM

^^r TANK No 2

MOUSE TWUUft

/ll

STATION mCOM

P«'»'«*'^-s wr— -• — ' ■

^ .ncncHTo —

o«r MLPMSi>cn>

/ w

/ TAMK tOCATISN KFOM ttiVC

me TiiuaiNo s

® LOC«T«N or TMORNTON ANO SfOt AT TSK OT llfVC

APPENDKB

.-s

.Tr

#^5 ^«

H«r« b Hm ■€•*!« tKown on this nonfh's CDv*r. So«i« of ttio ■♦n In Hi«
becfcgnMMid w«r« ongwlfad tn rti« rotKng wou of floM«. (Unilvcf frvu
lafwiMfjeao/ p6ofe.)

A«riol vi«w of fir* Kan«. Dotted box marks general oreo of bwlk
ploRf. Tank No. 4, at right of group, rocketed forward to street.
Dork area of ttreet ot lower rigM woi filled with burning gotofine
when Kontoi Cily, Mlttowrt, Fire Deportment responded. Wrth hose
streams, tt»e men puttted this burning most of'goioline bock to position
In front of tanks, just before ttie tanks began to rupture. Arrow at
lower right indicates position from which cover picture <top picture)
was tokert. Note burned oreo in roilrood yards at top center, showing
how ftoming gosoline burst from other horizontal tanks which stayed
on their supporis. (Pftele by Anderson Photo'Compony.)

TANK BLASlI
KILLS SIX,

INJURES SIXTY-POURi

by Miles E. Wood worth
NFPA Flammable Li<iui<ia Engineer

Another tn«ed7 In the hUtory of fire fighUnc *••
recorded in thU fire at Kanaaa Qty. Million, of
people perhape aatr the teleriaion nen film vbicli
captured that tarxible moment when a horiiontal
tank failed and burning gaaollne engulfed the fire
fighter*. Suboequent newa reporU told how other
member* of the fire department* at the eoenc threw
themaelve* on top of the burned victim*, or dragged
them from the fiaming area. The tragedy of this
fire, and the leaaon it preaented, ahould be memo-
rized by fire fighter* and everyone elae interealed
in the safety of fire fighters.

QN august 18, 1959 at 8i20 A.M. a fire started
^-^ at a loading rack of a combination bulk plant and
service station in Kansas City, Kansas. Subsequently,
five firemen and a civilian helping in the fire fitting
were killed and 64 firemen were injured when a hori-
zontal tank ruptured violently. The property loss from
the fire was approximately S30,000.

The bulk plant and service station are located on
property leased from the MKT Railroad and a portion
of the property is sub-leased to the Pyramid Oil Com-
pany. The property abuts the state hne separating
Kansas City, Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri
(See tketek, opposite page.) The plant was installed in
1927 in accordance with standards of that date. Hovr-
ever, as is true of many older plants, fire protection
design features were not in cbmpliance with modem
standards which are based on the accumulated fire ex-
periences of the past sixty years.

There were four 11 ft. by 30 ft. cylindrical horiiontal
tanks, each of 21,000 gallons capacity and each mounted
on four nine-foot high concrete saddles. The tanks
were the originals installed in 1927 but, for corrosion
prevention, had been rotated on the saddles and an
occasional new section had been installed. The tank*
were separated from the loading rack by a 13-in. brick
wall. A metal roof over the loading rack was supported
by this wall and the rear wall of the service station.
Both ends of the loading rack area were open.

The bulk plant area was separated from the service
station by a fence which surrounded the bulk plants of
both the Continental Oil Company and the Pyraiw^
Oil Company. (See photo at left.) Service station.windon's
into the loading area had been blocked up and the fence
had been installed at the request of the Fire Prevention
Division of the Kansas City, Kansas, Fire Department-

Kgidi el bUk plant ar*o ■fcowing locotion of tonla ond
r^— of Tank No. 4 aft«r H rvpturvd. ErvpHoa of
^^j goBoOn* foUow«d g«n*rally Ifc* pofti of tfc«
^•t •ovvMcnt. All during ftrc fighting octlon, hot* t(f»«f
■■--* tti« vertkol lank* of Pyromid Oil CoMpony ol
^|M. T)i« locotkm of thb Ar« ot rtt* stot* Hn* aod*
^^«M« fron bo*ft KoRsoi City flr* d«partiii«n*i proc-
^^ "roulina." Actwolly, th« burning ga»olin« flowed
^^n Sctfl^w«st ftovlavofd Into Miuowri.

a^jtmctr Txuars

sacTfmcJT Btyo

I'TTiree of the horizontal tanks contained gasoline and
^ held kerosene. Each tank was equipped with a
(TD-inch combination pressure-vacuum flame arrester
1^ vent. The Pyramid Oil Company tanks were
wtieal 10,000 gallon tanks and contained both gasoline
ad fuel oil A small 275 gallon diesel <m1 tank was
iKsted adjacent to the horizontal tanks. Flow from
fee horizontal tanks to the loading racks was by
^Tity. Valves were located in the two-inch piping
it the tanks and at the loading rack. In addition, a
gf^n""^ shut-off valve was installed in each fill line for
■e use of the man loading the tank vehicles.

Erenta Preceding tiie Far«

A compartmented tank vehicle was being loaded
■ith two different grades of gasoline with simultaneous
Uvery being made into two compartments by the
kirer. Bonding wires between the loading tack and
ie tank vehicle were in place and the whole system was
oimected to ground by means of grounding wires. On
fee previous day Tank No. 1 contained 6,628 gallons
i kerosene; Tank No. 2, 15,857 gallons of regular
paoline; Tank No. 3, approximately 3,000 gallons of
■pilar gasoline; and Tank No. 4, 15,655 gallons of
(renium gasoline. Delivery was being made from
links No. 2 and No. 4.

An off-duty company employee had stopped by the
phot and was climbing up to the loading platiorm,
•bich was approidmately four feet high constructed of
■ncrete, to show a new unfilled cigarette lighter to the
fciver. The temperature at 7i0 A.M. was 81 degrees,
'Both wind was blowing at 12H miles per hour and
hmidity was 71 per cent. At 9 :50 A.M. the temperature
■u 85, wind south southwest at 8 miles per hour and
fee humidity was 66 per cent.

Fir« Sequence

The cause of the fire was undetermined. It is known
*»t the off-duty employee was carrying the cigarette
'ibter in his outstretched hand to show to the driver
*w was in the process of simultaneously filling two
"■Dpartments of the tank vehicle. Both men noticed
"e flame originate at the dome covers but the flash of
•* was so rapid that the men were burned and fell off
•s loading platform. They managed to escape from
•f area. Only one of the two valves shut off when the
'"'er fell from the platform. As a result, gasoline con-
^tted to flow from Tank No. 4 through the open fill
**• The resultant fire quickly involved the tanks,
^<ling rack and filling station.

Fire Fighting

The yanRM City, TTaninui, Fire Department alarm
response was as follows: at 820 A.M. the alarm was re-
ceived; three pumpers, two ladder trucks, and two dis-
trict chiefs responded. At 835 two more pumpers were
called; at 8:45 other equipment requested included a
specially built deluge truck and foam; and at 920 two
more pumpers and the off shift were called.

Chief Grass of the 'K'an'Mm City, Missouri, Fire De-
partment noticed the fire from his office window. After
checking with his operator, and knowing that the
Kansas City, Kansas, Fire Department was already
there, he sent the closest district chief to investigate,
because it appeared that the fiire was close to the state
border.

The district chief upon arrival immediately requested
a first alarm assignment of companies. The deputy
chief of the 'K'a"g«« City, Missouri, Department was
sent to the fire and he reported burning gasoline flowing
down the street about one-half to two-thirds of a block
into Missouri. He, therefore, called for additional help.

Although the exact times of the tank failures are
unknown {fomt time near lOM) AM. — Ed.), it was
thought that the overpressure failure of the tanks was
progressive from Tanks No. 1 through No. 4. Tank
No. 1, holding 6,628 gallons of kerosene, and Tank
No. 2, containing 15,857 gallons of gasoline, both
failed at their ends facing the rtulroad tracks. The
heads of these tanks tore loose at the weld with some
violence, but the tanks moved only about one foot on
the concrete saddles. Tank No. 3, containing ap-
proximately 3,000 gallons of gasoline, tore loose at the
weld only for a short distance near the top of the tank.

Tank No. 4 was the last to fail, approximately two
hours after the fire originated. All tanks failed from
overpressure, mnoe the under-sized vents were unable
to relieve adequately the vapors generated from the
boiling liquid.

Table No. 3 of the Flammable Liquids Code, NFPA
No. 30, requires a vent for this capacity tank to have a
relief capacity of 166,000 cu. ft. of free air per hour.
For a tank capable of withstanding five pounds per
square inch internal pressure a four-inch free circular
opening would be required.

Tank No. 4 rocketed a distance of 94 ft. and landed
15 ft. into the street. En route it went through the
13-in. brick wall separating the loading rack from the
tanks and also knocked down one wall of the brick
service station building. The end of Tank No. 4 facing
the railroad track failed at the moment the tank

Frool «4«w of tonk ar«a sliewifig •nptY toddl* of Tonic No. 4 and fhe
roMohn of ttie cev«r«d (oodlng rock wlioro flro wot flrat obs«rv«d
n««r doM* covvr of v«hlct«. Th« tonk Mioiliod Ihrovgh o 13-)n. brick
««i, Mion knocked down woll of flIDng itoNon. <ffcofoi on thit pag»
by 4lidMiuii fhole Cewpony.)

Started its skyrocketing action. The other end of the
tank came off either en route or after landing. A large
ball of fire from the remaining liquid in the tank
covered the remaining 85 ft. of the 100 ft. wide street.
It was this ball of fire which cau^t the firemen in its
path.

Following the failure of Tank No. 4 at least one of
tbe vertical tanks located at the Pyramid Oil Company
was known to have been burning at the vents. Although
all the tanks at the Pjrramid Oil Company showed signs
of fire exposure, they did not appear to be severely
damaged.

Eileven fire companies from Kansas City, Missouri
were at the fire before Tank No. 4 failed. Following
this failure, six companies from the reserve were re-
quested and one of the two off shifts was called back.

"Hie district chief of the first alarm from the Kansas
City, Kansas, Department attempted to have the tank
valves shut off under the protection of water spray
from "fog" nozxles. Due to the intoise heat from the
fire this was not possible. An attempt was also made
to use foam to extinguish or control the fire which was,
of course, unsuccessful due to the nature of the fire
with its many obstructions and the limited amount of
foam ^lich could be applied from any available equip-
ment.

Typical of flammable liquid fires is the problem of
burning liquid flowing on the surface of liie water used
in the fire fighting. In this fire, hose lines covered the
front and two sides of the plant and were used to pro-
tect exposures as well as being played directly onto the
center of the fire. "Fog" nozzles were used to sweep
the burning gasoline back to the center of the fire as
a part of the procedure to protect exposures. lines
were also used to protect the tanks of the Pyramid Oil
Company by keeping them cool. The high temperar
tures and high humidity made the fire fighting ex-
tremely exhausting work.

As reported by a chief officer of the Kansas City,
Kansas, Department following the failure of Tank No. 4,
those firemen who were uninjured picked themselves
up and "fought as if they were mad" going in even
closer to the fire than before to fight it.

Five firemen from the Kansas City, Missouri, Departs
Blent and one civilian spectator, a friend of the men in
one of the engine companies, were killed by the sky-
rocketing of Tank No. 4. Thirty-four firemen from
Kansas City, Kansas and 30 firemen from the Kansas
City, Missouri Department, and the chiefs of both de-
partments were among those injured.

1. The ends of horizontal flammable liquid ta^^
are the weakest points. Normally, failure can be^
pected at the tank ends, either from overpressure or an
internal explosion. When one end of a tank fails ^
resultant jet action will cause a skyrocketing effect.
Accordingly, horizontal pressure vessels are sometimoi
referred to as "bullets" for this reason. So, fire fightl^
should always keep this basic rule in mind: S'JiVER
fight any horizontal tank fire from the endl

2. Cooling water streams should be played djrectlv
onto the tanks, if possible. Water so applied will teduw
the boiling of the liquid caused by the heat of the fire.
Keeping the metal cool above the liquid level also
maintain.s the strength of the steeL

3. Tanks should be equipped with emergency vents
to relieve the pressures built up under fire exposures.
Every provision for emergency vents contained within
Paragraph 2132 of NFPA No. 30, the Flammable
Liquids Code, 1959 edition, should be adhered to
rigidly. Existing tanks should be brought into com-
pliance with these emergency venting requirements.
Inadequate venting is a well proven, distinct hazard to
life and property and as such the venting requirements
can be made retroactive. Warning. Increasing tlic
size of openings in tanks in flammable liquid sen'irc
may in itself introduce a hazard. For further infonna-
tion see Cleaning of Small Tanks. NFPA No. 327.

4. Locating Class I and Class II flammable liquid
loading racks adjacent to tanks and buildings places
the potential point of fire origin near these exposures.
For this reason the Flammable Liquids Code calls for o
25 foot separation.

5. In this Kansas City incident, the concrete saddles
under the tanks remained in place imdamaged and
again proved their resistance to fire. The hazard of
the common practice of using unprotected steel sup-
ports is well proven, and this fire unquestionably
would have been much more severe if the concrete
saddles had not been provided.

Acluiowledcmenta

Tbe writer wjabes to expren hia *ppitci«tion to Chief FrmiKi>
Doherty and Antstuit Chief Georfe A. Cany of the Kjumh
CSty, Kaiuu, Fire Deputmect ud to Chief Edgar M. Graa of
the Kanaaa City, Miaeouii, F1r« Department for their complete
coopentioo. Alio appreciated 19 tbe coopeimtion of eeveial other
individuala who eootributed information to the prepaimtioo of
thia report.

fotlure of Tonks No. I ond 2, and Hi* irioht toporoHon of ••«*

olhor lank. All tonka folUd from o>«rprou»ra du* lo lnod«0<«*^
vvnting. Poriiopi Ht« foct fhol Htoi* tonki roaolnod In poiiHon «*•"
lh«y fotiod go«« Sr« AslOnri o folw ttw of HCwHty In ttioi' «"•*

RREMEN for November 1959

Tables

1,000 or less 23^

4.000 952

18.000

2S.O0O

595.

Total Fnnnn
B«U«f Capacity
(Co- Ft. of Tioo
^jzTvMamx}

25,300
69.500
139.000
166.000

OpasiV '«» Tailoaa I

r ta I»elMo of Tiao Ctomlar

zys

6)i

3»4

lO'/l

2132. EuEKCENCY Relief:

(a) Every aboveground storage tank shall have some
form of construction or device that will relieve excessive internal
pressure, caused by exposure fires, that might cause the rupture
of the tank shell or bottom.

«2i0.-T™ckLoadinfill^

/or pumps no?d2St,^^°° "^ "-r fiU «^r^?,/«'.
J«;d.ng r^ck. "^"^ "^ """l-ng per«,nid ma^^ n^i"*'^^

Some Comments on NFPA Standard No. 30 — "Flammable Liquids Ck)de"

A FTER the Kansas City fire tragedy, both industry
and the fire service are giving more attention
ti flammable liquid storage facilities. The NFPA
"wimsble Liquids Code presents basic recommenda-
faoa which will minimize fire hazards and the fire con-
W problem. The selected paragraphs shown above
forlain directly to bulk plant installations.

For fire departments, the Flammable Liquids Code
■particularly useful in pre-fire planning. When inspec-
tnis uncover some situation that does not meet the
•inimura standards of the Code, then the fire depart-
•oit should immediately modify its fire control
Wming to be prepared for the worst possible situation.
, For example, a tank with iiuulequate venting is apt

• fail if exposed directly to fire. A tank resting on
•protected steel supports can be expected to collapse
•d perhaps rupture. If loading racks are too close to
*nks or buildings, another hazard is presented.

Through the years the Code has been altered as fire
Jienence brought the need for such revision. Here,

* example, are some instances which brought such
**ision.

On Oetob«r 28, 1854 in PhilsdelphU, Pa., ten finmen were
killed when a pressure tank ruptured Tiolently. A j-K^wim^^I
reaction took place in the flammable Lquid in tiu tank and
because of a plugged, inadequate sixed vent the buildup of
pfesBuie from the reaction caused the tank to faiL

On May 18, 1956 two firemen were kiDed in Galena, Md.,
when a horizontal tank skyrocketed during a fire when one end
of the tank failed. This failure was caused by flame impinging
OD tile tank shell from burning vapors from the vent causing the
metal to soften. (Fire Loss Bulletin Series 1856-1.)

On July 19. 18SG nineteen firemen were IdUed fighting a fire in-
volving a spheroid type tank when it suddenly ruptured releasing
a huge ball of burning liquid. This failure also was caused by
flame impinging on the tank shell from the burning vapors at the
tank vent causing the metal to soften and the sudden rupture of
the tank. (NFPA Quarterly reprint ()S0-3.)

As a result of these fires Paragraph 2133 was in-
cluded in the Flammable Liquids Code, NFPA No. 30,
{price 60 cents) which reads as follows:

**2133. The outlet of all vents and vent drains on tanks de-
signed for 0.5 pounds per square inch or greater pressure shall be
arranged to discharge in such a way as to prevent localised
overheating of any part of the tank, in the event vapors from
such vents are ignited."

RREMEN for r4ovember 1959

APPENDIX C

Storage tanks for flammable liquids are commonly used In three of the
property classes identified in the nation's fire incident data bases - (1)
flammable or combustible liquid tank storage (including tank farms and bulk
plants), (2) petroleum refinery or natural gas plant, and (3) public service
station. With the incident coding now in use, it is not possible to distinguish fires
that involve storage tanks from fires that do not. nor to distinguish above-ground
tanks from below-ground tanks. Nevertheless, it is possible to make a couple of
pertinent observations about the fire experience in these proF>ertles where
storage tanks are found.

Reported fires in tank storage facilities and refineries are relatively rare, as
the table below shows, and the numbers have been declining in recent years.
Reported fires in public service stations are much more common than those in
tank storage facilities or refineries, but it is likely that few of these involve fire
exposure of storage tanks. Only a small fraction of public service station fires
begin in the tank area. Reported public service station fires have shown an
inconsistent trend, principally downward, in recent years.

Repoiied Structure Fires in Sdected Properties

PnUic Senrioe Station

Originated in Product

Tank Storage

Storage Area (includes

Year

FadMties

Refineries

Total

1963

125

1^18

1964

109

1,171

1965

1,424

119

1966

1.148

1967

1,001

19RR

107

935

1969

101

840

199U

102

1,000

1991

1,135

1992

1,196

When flammable liquid storage tanks are Involved, there is special
concern over the dangers to firefighters. National estimates of firefighter injuries
cannot be done with the same confidence for the full 10 years of 1983-1992, but
5-year figures for 1 988-1 992 are possible. During this period, there were an
estimated average of 77 reported firefighter injuries per year at public service
station structure fires, 27 per year at refinery structure fires, and 17 per year at
storage tank facility stmcture fires. The total of roughly 130 firefighter injuries
per year for the three property classes compares to an average of 57,050
firefighter injuries per year at fire scenes at all properties in the same period.

Each of these three property classes also has had two incidents involving
fire fighter fatalities in the most recent 10 years for which data is available
(1983-1992). The two incidents involving public service stations each involved
one fire fighter death due to heart attack at a fire where the victim had not been
involved in extended fire fighting and there was no tank involvement. Of the two
refinery incidents, one was a single-death incident involving a vehicle accident
on the way to the fire, while the other was the 1984 Romeoville incident in which
10 firefighters were killed. Of the two tank storage facility incidents, one was a
1991 North Dakota incident in which several fire fighters, withdrawing from a
worsening oil tank fire In their vehicle, lost their way in the smoke and were
caught in a flash of flame. Two firefighters died of their injuries. The other
incident was a 1984 Mesa, Arizona incident in which one firefighter was killed.

The two 1 984 Incidents are both discussed at length in NFPA reports
which are included in NFPA's preassembled packages (attached) of fire
statistics and selected incident narratives on these three property classes.
Many diverse lessons are reflected in the reports in these packages, including
(1 ) the importance of compliance with the provisions of NFPA 30; (2) the many
parts of the facility that may prove critical to fire development in a particular fire,
implying many options for improved fire safety engineering and the importance
of a systems approach in considering such options, as is embodied in NFPA 30;
and (3) the unique dangers involved in fire fighting in this environment and the
need for targeted training of fire fighters in the nature of these dangers and the
safe practices to deal with them.

Mr. Swift. And now I am happy to recognize Mr. J. L. Tidwell,
accompanied by Wayne Senter from Auburn, Washington.

STATEMENT OF J.L. TIDWELL

Mr. Tidwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for the op-
portunity to be here. I am Jim Tidwell, the fire marshal for the city
of Fort Worth and the chairman of the Uniform Fire Code Commit-
tee of the International Fire Code Institute. The Uniform Fire Code
is the most widely used code in the United States, currently adopt-
ed in about 35 States.

I bring with me today in my written testimony letters of support
for this bill from the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the
largest management organization in the fire service in this country,
along with support from the International Association of Fire-
fighters, which is the largest union or the largest labor group of the
fire service of this country. There is some widespread support in
the fire service for this bill.

I am here first and foremost as a firefighter. I have been with
the Fort Worth Fire Department for 20 years, the majority of that
time on the frontline fighting fires and providing emergency medi-
cal service to my community. And it is that experience that has
caused me to make this issue a priority.

As you know, and as Mr. O'Neill has already stated, our history
in the fire service is rife with disasters that have occurred from
aboveground storage tanks being exposed to fires. And typically
what would happen after one of these disasters would be that the
State and local fire service would mobilize to pass State or local
regulations prohibiting such things as unprotected aboveground
tanks.

A good example of this was an event that occurred in Kennedale,
Texas, just south of Fort Worth in 1968. As an aboveground tank
was being filled from a transport truck, it overflowed and was ig-
nited by a spark from the pump on the truck. The ensuing fire
belched black smoke and flames that could be seen for several
miles.

Responding firefighters, most of whom were volunteers, eventu-
ally mounted an aggressive attack on this fire and that was about
the time that this unprotected tank failed. The end of the tank
blew out from an overpressure, spraying the flaming gasoline
across the path of the firefighters and some of the civilians in the
area.

The fire chief of Kennedale, and one of his firefighters and a
newspaper reporter were killed in that incident, and in addition 28
other civilians and firefighters were injured to varying degrees.
This was the incident that caused the Texas Fire Service to mobi-
lize and get State legislation passed basically prohibiting the ma-
jority of these aboveground tanks.

Now, in the 1970's and 1980's, of course, we have heard about
the leaking underground tanks becoming a serious environmental
problem, and in 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency adopt-
ed the regulations to address these problems, primarily through
leak detection monitoring and remediation of contaminated sites.

I am not here to question the success or the intentions of the ef-
forts to solve the environmental problems of underground tanks. I

just need for you to understand that the effect of those regulation,
pushing these tanks aboveground, is presenting an enormous prob-
lem to the fire service in the United States.

Due to the cost of meeting the regulations for underground
tanks, we have seen a distinct move to install those tanks above-
ground. The members of the fire service quickly recognized this as
a legitimate need. The users of fuel needed a way to avoid expen-
sive and complicated requirements while at the same time protect-
ing the environment. Aboveground tanks seem a logical answer.
The problem was how to provide an equivalent level of safety to the
public and to firefighters.

A loose knit group of fire service and industry began to work on
the issue. The effort grew into a full-blown research and develop-
ment project with a great deal of input from all the interested par-
ties. The result of that effort is the Uniform Fire Code Appendix
II F, and the Uniform Fire Code Standard 79-7. These are the doc-
uments that present a safe and sane approach to the storage of
flammable and combustible liquids in aboveground tanks. These
regulations provide a safe way of accomplishing that mission.

The question keeps arising what does it cost? Let me tell you
that you can install an aboveground protected tank with all of the
safety requirements in place for approximately the same or less
than you can put in an underground storage tank system. We are
currently installing 35 of these systems in the city of Fort Worth
now. So I have got a fairly good handle of on what it costs.

The difference — probably a good comparison to point out when
we talk about protected versus nonprotected tanks, would be
maybe a high-rise condominium or an apartment complex where
you have fire ratings separating the units. Obviously, the reason
for that is so that a neighbor — you will be protected to some extent
from a fire in your neighbor's apartment.

I don't think anyone would move into such a facility if it was just
built out of plywood and two-by-fours the way single family homes
are currently allowed to be constructed. But all of this comes with
a price tag.

Another one of the questions that we get asked a lot and I heard
it earlier today, it had to do with unfunded mandates. The fire pro-
tection section of this bill is not an unfunded mandate. The funding
for implementation, as written, is coming from a $50 registration
fee. This is a minuscule amount of money when compared to the
overall cost of an installation.

A portion of this money would go toward training fire inspectors
to implement the provisions of the bill as they relate to the smaller
tanks.

How did firefighters get involved with this? Why are we using
firefighters to enforce Federal law? For that I want to take a quote
from an EPA report, which I happen to agree with. It states: "Local
officials such as fire marshals frequently include the inspection of
aboveground tanks in the enforcement of local code programs. Such
local safety inspections significantly complement the SPCC pro-
gram and for this reason the training of local officials through that
program should be considered." This is what we want to do. We
want to be a part of the solution.

Historically, the local fire department has been the lead agency
when it comes to regulating these installations and I see no reason
to change it. If you like, I would be happy to discuss the Fairfax
County incident, where the only government agency that took de-
finitive action to protect that neighborhood in a timely manner was
the fire department. Everyone else was taking a long time and
some of them never did show up.

I want to close by thanking you for the opportunity to be here
today. H.R. 1360 presents a landmark that the fire service can
point to Congress as being cognizant of our needs. It is the first
piece of environmental legislation that considers our safety and we
truly appreciate your consideration. This issue is one of survival for
our Nation's firefighters. Thank you.

Mr. Swift. Thank you, very much.

[The prepared statement of J.L. Tidwell follows:]

CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS -«^^^AiliSi£:^ 4^1^ ^'^^ *=^

FORT WORTH FIRE DEPARTMENT

FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU

1000 THROCKMORTON STREET

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102

(dl7) 871-6840

THE HONORABLE AL SWIFT, CHAIRMAN

AND THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

SIRS:

H R. 1 360, 'The Safe Aboveground Storage Tank Act", is primarily for the purpose of
protecting the environment from releases occurring from aboveground storage tanks.
Due to the increasing number of these facilities, and because of the threat they pose to
responding firefighters, a portion of the bill encourages certain aboveground storage
tanks to be insulated to provide two hour T'ire protection, along with other nationally
recognized safety standards

Aboveground storage tanks containing flammable liquids have been a nemesis to
firefighters. Our history is rife with accounts of firefighter deaths and injuries from fires
and explosions involving these devices. The typical scenario is a leak or overfill igniting,
exposing a bare steel tank to a high intensity pool fire. The unprotected tank fails
quickly, engulfing everything within the path of the escaping burning liquid including
firefighters.

In 1988, the U.S. EPA finalized regulations to address leaking underground storage
tanks (USTs) These regulations have had an extraordinary impact on the
environment, assuring the American public that insidious leaks, 'Much have a history of
polluting our drinking water, our recreational waterways, and our soil, will no longer be
tolerated. From an environmental standpoint, these regulations have been highly
successful

One of the problems associated with the UST regulations is the expense of compliance
Because of monitoring requirements, retrofit rules, and especially the financial
responsibility requirements, many small end users had to decide whether it was fiscally
feasible to remain in the fuel business if they had to maintain underground tanks. In
addition, larger entities realized that the costs associated with compliance would have a
devastating effect on their bottom line.

To deal with these problems, many users began exploring the option of above ground
tanks. What they found was a myriad of state and local regulations prohibiting the
storage of fuels above ground The reasons for these regulations can be found in the
annals of fire service history Firefighter deaths and injunes can be found time after
time throughout the early to middle 20th century. Each time disaster struck in the form
of an aboveground tank explosion resulting in firefighter death and injury, firefighters
mobilized to cause state and local regulatory changes prohibiting the practice By the
mid 1960's, fueling from above ground tanks was virtually nonexistent

By the late 1980's, the fire service realized that political and financial pressures were
gaining momentum, and it would be difficult, if not impossible to resist the trend to allow
above ground tanks.. Firefighters set out to find a way to allow these systems and still
provide an equivalent level of safety. Industry joined in the pursuit to facilitate the
acceptance of safe above ground tanks. The outcome of this joint effort was Uniform
Fire Code Appendix II F and Uniform Fire Code Standard 79-7. These regulations are
based on years of research and development which considered public safety, firefighter
safety and environmental concerns. The foundation of the regulations is a requirement
for each tank used for dispensing to be protected from fire by a method that will allow a
flammable liquid pool fire to burn adjacent to the tank for a period of two hours without
catastrophic failure of the tank. It is this requirement that would be codified into federal
law if H.R. 1360 were passed. In addition, the tanks would also meet one of the model
fire codes for general public and firefighter safely provisions.

Portions of the bill that are significant to the fire service include:

1 ) It will encourage tank owners to utilize new technology to protect their aboveground
tanks from fire exposure, (two hour fire protection), thereby allowing firefighters a
"window of opportunity" to address the emergency prior to tank failure;

2) It will provide funding for the purpose of training fire service personnel on inspection
criteria for these "protected tanks";

3) It will allow state and local authorities to maintain primary jurisdiction for these tanks.

Please note that the funding mechanism is a $50 registration fee on each tank This fee
is minuscule relative to the cost of any tank installation, protected or otherwise. It will
generate enough funds to carry out the training for fire inspectors so they can
implement the regulations while they conduct their normal permit inspections of these
facilities. Because there is currently a force of several thousand inspectors across the
country inspecting these facilities, there is no need to build a new bureaucracy to handle
this workload, a workload which will be insignificant if those now inspecting tanks (fire
inspectors) are granted primary jurisdiction.

Please remember the words of Thomas Jefferson: "The care of human life and
happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of
good government" This bill will, without a doubt, embrace those values It will save
numerous firefighter and civilian lives It is not "sexy" legislation, therefore it doesn't
command the headlines that a crime bill or health legislation will. Passage of this bill is,
however, a matter of survival for many firefighters. They and their families will truly
benefit, as will the American public if this bill passes. Please carefully consider our
nation's firefighters in your deliberations.

Thank you

/j L. Tidwell, Fire Marshal
Chairman, Uniform Fire Code Committee
International Fire Code Institute

International Association of Fire Chiefs

Telephone: 703-273-0911
FAX: 703-273-9363

ICHIEFS: lAFCHQ.

4025 Fair Ridge Drive • Fairfax, VA 22033-2«6«

June 14, 1993

The Honorable James P. Moran ^,;'

U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Moran:

The International Association of Fire Chiefs (lAFC) is pleased to support your
legislation, HR 1360, to regulate aboveground storage tanks of hazardous
substances. Representing 10,000 fire chiefs, and emergency service managers
throughout the world, the lAFC is committed to providing citizens with the
highest possible level of fire protection while reducing health and safety risks
for today's fire/rescue personnel. The Safe Aboveground Storage Tank Act of
1993 address both of these concerrxs.

As first responders, fire and EMS staff have been endangered and some killed
from fires involving substandard aboveground storage tanks. HR 1360
promotes not only fire prevention, but also life safety. It helps protect against
fires by ensuring aboveground storage tanks are managed in accordance with
Federal standards designed to prevent leaks and spills, and in the event of fire
or explosion, provides the nation's fire service with critical information to
handle the incident safely and effectively.

The Safe Aboveground Storage Tank Act of 1993 is fire safety legislation
which is long overdue. We applaud you for your leadership in sponsoring
thiSvlegislation. Please let me know what the Internationcil Association of Fire
lis can do to facilitate the successful passage of HR 1360.

(\^cK^

Chief Gary L. Nichols
President

y F. A ri » OF
i£ X c r I i_E tij:j^

Working for lifesaving soiutions...

Member. Inutnationil Technical Gsmmitiee fo/ ihe Prornuon u\d Fjsunciion of FirwG>mu< TocSnique inici-nationil De Pfevtnt;On E( D'Ejitincton Du Frj (CTIr

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS

ALFRED K. WHITEHEAD VINCENT J BOLLON

Ceneru PrtiWtni 0*n(rt: itvi\»rfTHuw*i

June 1, 1993

The Honorable Jim Moran
House of Representatives
Washir\gtorv, DC 20515

Dear Jim:

The International Association of Fire Fighters Is pleased to infonn you of our
strong support for HR 1360, the Safe Abovegroui\d Storage Tank Act of 1993.
Inaeasingly, owners of storage facilities are evading the federal regulations
/or underground tanks by storing hazardous materials in unregulated
abovegroui\d tanks. Regulating aboveground tanks would both prevent
dangerous leaks and protect against fire hazards at small storage facilities.

I would like to take this opportunity to suggest an addition to the legislation
to further advance the public safety goals of HR 1360. Ciurcntly, there is a
dire shortage of emergency response personnel who are adequately trained to
respond to hazmat incidents involving aboveground storage tanks. To fully
address the danger posed by aboveground tanks, the federal government
should promote and support specialized training of fire fighters and other
local emergency responders.

Specifically, we propose that EPA and/or NIOSH award grants to non-profit
organizatior\s for the training of emergency responders who protect facilities
with aboveground storage tanks. A grant should also be made available for the
development of a specialized cuniculum to be used in such training. The grant
program could utilize the procedures already in use under SARA Title HI.

The lAFP stands ready to work with you on this ei>hancement to the
legislation, and we offer our services in gairUng congressional support for this
iniportant public safety Initiative. On behalf of our organization's 195,000
emergency response persoiinel, I want to thank you for your commitment to
providing a safe and clean environment for all Americans.

Sincerely,

tetick H. Nesbitt
(rector of Governmental Affairs

)750 NEW YORK AVENUE. NW.. WASHINGTON. DC. 2000e33»5 • (202) 737 8^84 • fAX (202) 737-8419

International Fire Code Institute, Inc,

] SMOSouit, U.or*»non Mil/ Rood . WTiiiiler. Call/omla 90601 ♦ (310) 699-0124 ♦ Fax (310; 699-«031

March IS, 1993

CongressiTtan Moran •

900 Sfcond Street, N.E.

Suite US

Washington, D.C. 20002

SUBJECT: Safe Aboveground Fuel Storage Act of 1993
Dear Congressman Moran:

The International Fire Code Institute is encouraged by the introduction of the Safe
Aboveground Fuel Storage Act of 1993. As written, the proposed legislation ap-
pears to provide the environmental and fire protection necessary for regulating
aboveground fuel storage tanks. By addressing both environmental and fire protec-
tion concerns, the proposed legislation will better safeguard the community and the
fire service.

Charles Clawson

Chairman of the Board of Directors

/rss

cc: File

CC0042 ' - ;--^ ' V-

Publishers of the Uniform Fire Code™

National Fire Protection Association

Ex*cuUv« OlilcM

I BcUUryrnarch Park

P.O. Box 9101

Quiney, UcuKUhuuUt OSSU-9101 USA

nupSont (917) no-aooo

nUxWOtSO Ftu (817) rro-OTOO
Wmhliygton OtSot
SuiUS9O,sil0S.CM>4]to<id
^{<fy<on. VAMtOi
TtU}Aon4; (10*) Slt-mt
rax (70S) Slt-iSta

March 9, 1993

The HonoraJdle Jaaaa P. Mor&n

1523 Longworth House Office Ballding

H«ah£naton, D.C. 20515-460S

Doar Co&gresBnaa Koran,

We have had the opportunity to work with your staff and*
PTOvld* Input to your proposed Isglslatloa on ABOVX (2BOUN0
ST0RAG8 TAMCS. Va applaud your efforts to provide federal
govemaent support to state and local fire officials who are
confronted with the potential dangers of flaoMhle and
CODhustlhle liquids stored in ABOVX CROmiD STORAOS TANKS.

The NFPA technical coanlttces responsible for the national
consensus codes and standards applying to flaaaable and
coobustlhle liquids (KTPA 30 and 30A) haTe also been norklng to
address this proMea and we are pleased to note that the
legislation references these national consensus codas aiwl
standards as Blnlmua standards for state and local enforceaent
under the exceptions provided for In the legislation.

NFPA is pleased to support your efforts and the proposed
legislation. If wa can be of further assistance to you or your
staff please contact ee.

Sincerely,

Anthony R. O'Melll

Vice President, flovemnent Affairs

Publahera of the Nulotud Fire Code** »«1 N»tion»l Electric*] Co<J«*

A non prortt membership orj:»niz»tlon <3ed5c«t«d to promoUng e»/ety ftx>m fire, electricity, and reUted hutrdi
throu^ research, code* trA st«ndird», techrlci) advisory services, and pvblic education alnee \8eft.

.' ■'

WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS

605 E. nm. Suite 211 « P.O Box 7964 • 0«ynipa, Washington 96507-7964 • 206-352-0161 • PAX 206 586-5868

July 8. 1993

Slade Gonon
United States Senate
730 Hart Senate OfiBce Bidg
Washington, DC. 20510

D«ar Senator Gorton. :-">:' ■* r ."-

Senator Robb and Representative Moran have introduced a Wl entitled the "Safe Aboveground
Fuel Storage Aa of 1993" This bin creates a comprehensive regulatory scheme for the storage
of flammable and combustible liquids in aboveground storage tanks

This proposed legislation permits storage in specialty built aboveground tanks designed to
withstand external fire exposure for a minimum duration of two hours fire experts can attest to
the dajigers of unprotected aboveground storage tanks that, when exposed to high temperature*,
will fail vkith disastrous results Because of this hazard, fire codes were adopted to require
flaminable liquids to be stored in below ground tanks. Now, because of environmental concern*,
the trend is to put tanks aboveground once again.

The fire service of the State of Washington recognizes the need for aboveground storage and
supports the proposed legislation to aDow for such storage in approved two hour protected tanks
We ask that you support this legislation as it moves through the legislatKe process

OH'

Sincerely.

Ci'^'-

Otto Jensen. _^

Adrfunistrator

^ bcc: Lee Wheeler, Chief - Renton

OJ <lr/TANKS93(rmvy7/93

,♦■■.■, --O

lAFC Supports Arson Prevention Act, Safe
Aboveground Storage Tank Act of 1 993

The lAFC joined other fire service groups in suppon of two recent fire-related
legislation: the Arson Prevention Aci of 1993 and Safe Aboveground Storage Tank
Aa of 1993.

i Applauding the efforts of Senators Richard H. Bryan (D-NV) and Joseph R.
Biden (D-DE) and Congressmen Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Jack Brooks (D-TX)
for their leadership in introducing the arson legislation, LAFC had leners of support
hand delivered to each respective office.

Joined by the International Association of Arson Investigators, the National Fire
Protection Association, International Society of Fire Services Instructors, National
Volunteer Fire Council, Internationa] Association of Fire Fighters, Fire and Emer-
gency Manufacturers and Services Association, and the Volunteer Firemen's Insiu"-
ance Services, lAFC took pan in the suong imited force showing commitment to

j reducing arson throughout the United Sutes.

j TTie aa would provide competitive grants to be awarded to as many as ten sutes,

; which would assist in providing arson investigation training, boosting new initiatives
direacd at fi^ud as a cause of arson, developing new program to combat juvenile
arson, improving training resources for rural fire fighter, providing resources for the
formation of sjxcial arson task forces, and supporting research and new programs
direaed at dviJ imrest as a cause of arson.

TTie LAFC also applauds Congressman James Moran (D-VA) for his leadership

' in sponsoring HR 1360, the Safe Aboveground Storage Tanks Aa. The bill would
regulate storage tanks used to store ha2ardous substances.

As first responders, fire and EMS staffhave been endangered and killed from fires
involving substandard aboveground storage tanks. HR 1 360 promotes not only fire
prevention, but also life safety. It helps protea against fires by ensuring aboveground
storage tanks are managed in accordance with federal standards designed to prevent

; leaks and spills, and in the event of fire or explosion, provides the nation's fire service
with critical information to handle the incident safely and effectively.

A Senate version of this bill, S. 588, was also introduced into Congress in March.
For a copy of these bills, please contaa the LAFC Government Relations
Department at ICHIEFS: LAFCGOVT or (703) 273-9815 x. 308 or 309. *

New address, programs from International
Association of Fire Chiefs Foundation

TTie International Association of Fire Chiefi Foundation Board of Direaors met
recendy and formulated a plan of reorganization, which included moving the offices
out of the Medford Professional Center in York, Pennsylvania, to the new address at
1257 Wiltshire Road, York, PA 17403. The new telephone number is 717-854-
9083. NX^ith this move the board plans to cut operauonal expenses and direa more
of its resources toward programs and publications.

Applications are still being accepted for the Fire Service Scholarships that are
awarded each year in the fall. Direa inquiries to the scholarship comminee. TTiere
should he 2^ of tht'-;^ .i\\,ird« rhi'; \enr

UUZ:yL^l:j \::y WASHINGTON STATB ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS

605 E. 1 Itti. Soile 21 1 • P.O Bo» 7964 • Oyrripia, Washington 96507-7964 • 206-352-0161 • FAX 206 566-5868

July 8. 1993

Slide Gonon
United States Senate
730 Han Senate CfiBce BIdg
Washington, DC. 20510

Dear Senator Gorton,

Senator Robb and Representative Morafl have introduced a bill entitled the "Safe Aboveyound
Fuel Storage Act of 1993". This bill creates a comprehensive regulatory scheme for the storage
of flammable and combustible liqiuds in aboveground storage tanks

This proposed legislation permits storage in specially built aboveground tanks designed to
withstand external fire exposure for a minimum duration of tv/o hours Fire experts can »rtest to
the dangers of unprotected aboveground storage tanks that, when exposed to high tempeiatures,
will fail with disastrous resulu. Because of this hazard, fire codes were adopted to require
(lamiTiable liquids to be stored in below ground tanks. Now, because of environmental coiKems.
the trend is to put tanks aboveground once again.

The fire service of the State of Washington recognizes the need for aboveground storage and
supports the proposed legislation to allow for such storage in approved two hour protected tanka.
We ask that you support this legislation as it moves through the le^slative process

Sincerely,

Otto Tensen,
Adininistrator

"\ibcc: Lee Wheeler, Chief - Renton

OJ dr.TANKS93(mwy7/9J

STATE OF MONTANA

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES DIVISION

Joseph P. Mazurek
Allorney General

July 12, 1993

Scoll Han Building

303 Norlh Roberts, Third Floor

PO Box 201417

Helena, MT 59620-1417

FAX; (406) 444-2759

\dminislralion
(406l4«-3«74

Crimins)
Histor*
Records
Program
(4061 444-3«2S

.ninat
ln%f>tigalion
Bureau
(40<il 444-]>7S

Fl«

Pre*cntion

and

In^fslijtalion

Bureau

I4M) 444-20S0

Narcotics

In^esiigalion

Bureau

(4M) 444-](7S

The Honorable Senator Max Baucus
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Baucus:

As State Fire Marshal of Montana, I request your support of H.R.
1360, the "Safe Aboveground Storage Tank Act of 1993".

This legislation is the first federal legislation ever proposed,
regarding aboveground petroleum storage tanks, which takes into
consideration concerns of this nation's fire fighters.

The bill's provisions address specific standards regarding
construction, testing and other safety issues which have been of
concern to fire officials for years. It also includes methods of
secondary containment to be provided to protect human life as well
as the environment. These requirements are, in our opinion, of
extreme importance in attempting to satisfy our charge of
protecting the lives and property of the citizens of the state of
Montana.

As a result of many inspections, conducted over the years, at
petroleum storage facilities we can attest to the fact there are
many owners and operators who have not accepted their
responsibility to operate their facility in a safe and
conscientious manner. As Ms. Lois Epstein of the EDF has stated,
the "let 'em leak' mentality" prevails. This attitude must be
changed. H.R. 1360 will not only provide needed safety
requirements for the public but provide need protection for the
environment as well.

Please support H.R. 1360 for the citizens and the fire service of
Montana.

Sincerely,

Bruce Suenram, Chief

Fire Prevention and Investigation Bureau

cc: Dennis Taylor, Deputy Director
Mike Batista, Administrator
John Colburn, Executive Director NASFM

Washington

State - " ^

Fire Prevention

Officers

AL SWIFT June 14, 1993

1502 LONCWORTH HOUSE OFF. BLDG .
WASHINGTON D.C. 20515

Re: Th« Safe Aboveground Fuel Storage Act of 1993
HR 1360 S 588

Dear Representative Swift,

I am the Fire Marshal for the city of Auburn Fire
Department and I have been a firefighter for 14 years. I am
also the Chairman of the Washington State Pire Prevention
Officers Fire Code Committee. Over my career I have fought
many fires and have had to deal with those emergencies that
resulted in multiple deaths due to fire and explosions. Many
businesses have on site aboveground fuel storage tanks (AST) .
Some of these are potential bombs which lie in wait to kill
or maim innocent bystanders or our brave firefighters.

Americas fire record, in terms of lives lost and
property destroyed, is worse than just about any other
industrialized nation. This is not a proud banner to wave
and the time to reverse this horrible trend could start
today. One type of small AST known as a fire-protected tank,
provides excellent fire safety protection to the general
public and emergency care providers like firefighters and
police. These tanks are designed to resist the effects of
fire for two hours and prevent a harmful explosion. This
protection gives firefighters an opportunity to safely fight
the building fire.

On Tuesday, March 16, 1993, Senator Robb and
Representative Moran jointly introduced a bill entitled the
"Safe Aboveground Fuel Storage Act of 1993". This bill
creates a comprehensive regulatory scheme for aboveground
storage tanks. As a result of input from the fire-safety
industry, the bill recognizes the effective form of fire and
environmental protection provided by fire-protected tanks and
contains provisions to encourage their use.

Firefighters across the country risk their lives every
day to fight fires and save lives. An unprotected AST at a
fire site is avoidable at a reasonable cost. This bill
provides valuable environmental protection and it promotes
firefighter safety. On behalf of the Washington State Fire
Prevention Officers Code Committee, I urge you to support
"The Safe Aboveground Fuel Storage Act of 1993".

Sincerely,

Wayne S^ter, Fire Marshal
1101 "D" N.E. Auburn, WA. 98002
(206) 939-3100

A O'vision of THE WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS

City of Austin

Founded by Congress. Republic of Texas. I8J9

Muniapal BuUdlng. &ghih ai ColoraOo. P.O. Box 1088. Austin. Texas 78767 Telephone 51 j/499 2CXXi

Jvrae 15, 1993

Tbc Honorable Jake Piclcle

lOtii Congressional District

Uniied States House of Representatives

200 East 8th Street

ABstin, Texas 78701

Dear Congressman Pickle,

The Austin Fire Departnjent is seddng your support by asking you to vote for the passage of HJL
1360, known as the Sqfe Abcveground Storage Tank Aa of 1993. The proposed legislation will
provide environmental protection and protea the safety of firefighters by requiring the abovegioand
storage of flammable and combustible liquids to be inside of storage tanks which have a hirii degree
of fire-resistance. The impetus of many individuals is to remove underground storage tanks,
especially in areas like the Edwards Aquifer and the Banon Creek watershed. The Austin Fire
Depaitmeat has had strong reservations about such actions because most methods of abovegiooad
flammable liquid storage are very vulnerable to fires and large spills. This legislation resolves these
problems and provides for enhanced environmental protection. Further, the abiligr to retroactivdy
apply this legislation to existing sites, where abovegronnd storage is m less safe, unprotected tanks,
wfll provide public safety organizations with a means of resolving firefighter and public safe^ threats.

Given the impact this legislation will have to the safety of the public, the Austin Fire Dqiartmcnr
requests that you support and consider co-sponsoring this bill. Such efforts on your part win sorely
help expedite die passage of such important bill.

Please feel free to contact me in care of the letter closure if you have any questions concemii^ the
importance of this legislation.

Sincerely,

Fire Chief Bill Roberts
Austin Fire Department
1621 Festival Beach Road
Austin, Texas 78702
(512) 477-5784

BRR:SAS;sas

XC: The Honorable Cun Weldon. Congressional Fire Service Caucus

FIRE DEPARTMENT

''>oco\^'

AOAERT S. WILLIAMS

June 15. 1993

The Honorable Thomas S. Foley, Speaker

United States House of Representatives - ■ .

1201 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Foley:

I am Fire Marshal for the City of Spokane. It has recently come to my attention that
Congressman Moran and Senator Robb, both of Virginia, have introduced legislation that would
regulate above-ground storage tanks. The title of the bill is 'Safe Above-Oround Fuel Storage
Act of 1993.' This bill creates a comprehensive regulatory scheme for above-ground storage
tanks and focuses on both the environmental and fire safety concerns associated with the storage
of fuel above ground. As you are well aware, this is of particular importance to the City of
Spokane and the Spokane area in that we are serviced by a sole source aquifer.

As a result of input from the fire safety industry, the bill recognizes the uniquely effective form
of fire and environmental protection provided by flie protected tanks and contains provisions to
encourage their use.

I urge you to support the Safe Above-Ground Fuel Storage Act of 1993. Additionally^
representatives of a local industry group, including Gordy Lindstrom of the Gclfel Group, wish
to meet with you in your office on Thursday, June 17, to speak about the importance of this bill.

I look forward to your support of this endeavor.

ZJ^

Garry Kic Miller
Fire Marshal

cc: Washington State Fire Prevention Officers Assoc.

ai W. RivAntblit • Sookana.WA 99201-0189 • (S09) 029-7000

BULLINOHAM FIRh

Conituuniiy Haiardj Met
1800 Bro<sJM>y

Pon-H* 6f»nd lai Iransmillal memo 7671 ««te»8;

yp^jO^^UlNgH^Peyr ^ BfUiniham. WA 9S22S-
V y Tel: (206) 676-68J2 I

Ftre Marshal Robtrl A. Ntalt
June 14. 1993

The Honorible Congfewman Al Swift

lyvi Longworui nouse unice tfuiioing
Washington, D. C. 20S1S

RB: 'Sifc Abov» Ground Fuel Storage Act of 1993'

Dear Representadve Swift:

1 wanted 10 thank you again for visiting with <is recently to bear fire fighteta' concern*. I hope the
hamburger! suited youl

One istue that hat come up time and again Is thai of above ground storage of flammable and
COmbuMlble llquld.t. The very rea< environmental needs of getting these materials out of the ground ii
creating a potential public t»i<A, problem with which the fire service will have to deal.

The "Safe Above Oround Fuel Storage Act of 1993" sponsored by Rep. Jim Moran and Stn. Charlea
Robb has addressed many fire servlco concerns, ai»d follows closely our own Uniform Klre Code
r«julren>ents. I hope you will support this bill and re(|ue4sl 3 hearing so Its benefits can be discussed
|j> I public forum.

If I can be of any assistance discussing the Are safety aspects of storing flammable and combustible
liquids, please feel free to contact me at (206) 676-6832. "niank you for your support on thU matter.

Siiiceraly,

/^c^/^/^J

Robert A. Nealc, Fire Marshal
Community Hazards Management Division
BELLINOHAM FIRE DBPARTMBNT

P.S. Thank you for your continued support of the Congressional Fire Caucus and the National Pire
Academy, u well.

TO:
FROH:
DATE:
RBt

MEMORAMD D^

Fire Services Personnel
J. L. (Jim) Tidweil
April 14, 1993 "^

i;l^

1^'

Legislative Strategie|p - Moran/Robb Bills

(H.R. 1360/S.B. 588)

BaclcQround;

Fire regulatory authorities have been participating with
environmental and industry groups in shaping federal legislation
which culminated in the introduction on March 16, 1993, of
legislation by Congressman Jim Moran (D-Virginia) and Senator
Charles Robb (D-Virginia) . This proposed legislation provides the
first comprehensive federal effort to regulate aboveground storage
tanks storing petroleum products.

"* As introduced, the bill provides for a fee registration
program, including inspection for most petroleum storage tanXs
above 1,100 gallons in capacity. The bill distinguishes between
protected tanks (2-hour fire rating) and unprotected tanks,
applying different requirements to each. The upgrading to the
standards of this bill must be completed within ten (10) years.
The bill provides for jurisdiction over these smaller protected
tanks to be given to the states rather than EPA. Should the
legislation fail to pass, EPA will retain the jurisdictional
authority over all of these aboveground storage tanks under the
Clean Water Act. ^

The bill has received support from the Environmental Defense
Fund, the NFPA, the International Fire Code Institute, and several
state fire service associations. I believe that we also will enjoy

c^'o

very strong support from firefighters* unions. The reasons for
this widespread support are indicated below.

With environmental concerns over underground leaking petroleum
storage tanks increasing, more fuel is being stored above ground
which, if not properly stored, can lead to increased risks of
firefighter injuries resulting from exploding petroleum tanks.

Benefits;

1. These bills would assure a level of firefighter safety
commensurate with what we have come to expect from underground
tanks, i.e., 2-hour fire protection, impact protection, etc. They
recognize the environmental and fire safety features of protected
tanks and will codify jurisdictional authority over these protected
tanks in the states who are expected, in turn, to pass this
jurisdiction for inspection to fire regulatory officials since it

would be a simple addition to the duties of fire safety officials

r
who are normally permitting these tanks.

2. These bills provide for periodic registration fees for
aboveground tanks storing petroleum and for periodic inspection of
these tanks. These fees are to be used for the purpose of
education and for inspections and are to go to the agencies
carrying out these inspections.

3. Retaining jurisdiction in the states and, in turn, the
fire regulatory officials is important as it means the fire safety
concerns will at least be on equal footing with environmental
concerns in these inspections, unlike the existing circumstance
where EPA retains jurisdiction and the fire regulatory officials
have very little input into the EPA inspection and regulation
process.

4. In times of increasingly tight governmental budgets, the
fees being generated should provide revenue for inspection and
training funds for local fire departments conducting these
inspections.

Conclusions!

If we are to continue the downward trend in firefighter
injuries and fatalities, we must remain cognizant of the changing
environment we work in.

Efforts by other groups can and will impact our mission;
further, they may unwittingly place firefighters at greater risk.
The net effect of past environmental legislation has been to force
many facilities to place their fuels in aboveground tanks. If
these tanks are not provided with adequate protection, we may
expect a return to the disasters of the 1940 's and 50 's when
multiple firefighter fatalities were commonly caused by the failure
of these tanks in fire incidents.

The regulations proposed in H.R. 1360 (Moran) and S.B. 588
(Robb) provide a cost-effective solution to the safety issues
associated with aboveground storage tanks.

I would hope that every firefighter, company officer, chief
officer, and their respective associations understand that this is
an issue of survival. Letters and telephone calls to your
congressional representatives can make the difference.

If there are questions or concerns, please contact:

J. L. (Jim) Tidwell
Battalion Chief
Fort Worth Fire Department
1000 Throckmorton Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
(817) 871-6808

Mr. Swift. Mr. Oxley.

Mr. Oxley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DiBona, could you tell me in the real world what is the ad-
vantage of a comprehensive standard for terminals and tanks,
API's Standard 2610?

Mr. DiBONA. Well, what we are really trying to do here is pro-
vide practical, real-world, usable solutions to people who are trying
to operate and build these facilities. Many of them are not large
companies that have lots of legal and environmental expertise, but
often facilities of the kind that have been mentioned here.

And so we believe this document helps those people carry out
those jobs. This cites, just to show you the complexity of the thing,
149 different sets of regulations or standards. Fifty-seven of them
are API standards. But there are 23 other agencies. One of them
is the National Fire Protection Association. There is a chapter in
this book that deals with fire protection and prevention.

And this makes it possible for a person who is trying to manage
these — it also has the best operating practices. So we think it is a
very practical way and it is the first time, incidentally, that such
a comprehensive document on this has ever been put together, and
we think it is a practical way of making it possible for people who
operate these facilities to know what the law is, to find it, to search
their way through, and to make sure that they are doing the right
thing. That is the reason I think it is incorporated in the law in
Florida, in the regulations in Florida. And we hope that it is incor-
porated wider.

Let me just turn to one other point that Ms. Epstein referred to.
A couple of points. I think she misunderstood what I said about our
support or opposition of legislation for this bill. We do not think
that H.R. 1360 is necessary. We do not think that any new legisla-
tion should be passed at this time.

We think that you should let the efforts that are being made by
the petroleum industry, the new regulations in many States that
are in place, and being written, the current EPA authority, includ-
ing the SPCC authorities that are being put in place, and you
should let those work.

We believe that additional legislation will not be necessary if
that happens. But if after all of that activity, the point I was trying
to make is if after going through that we find that there are some
holes, we would certainly be willing to look at ways of filling those
and to work with EPA and the Congress. We don't think that will
be the case if you move forward in this way.

Let me say something else about the State authorities. Forty-four
States have liability regulations, assigned liability. The people in
the petroleum industry are acutely conscious of the potential liabil-
ity associated with having any kind of spill or contamination.

Mr. Oxley. Are most of those States strict liability standards?

Mr. DiBoNA. Most are strict liability standards. There are some
that are strict joint and several. The majority are strict.

Mr. Oxley. And those are State statutes as opposed to common
law?

Mr. DiBONA. I believe it is statute but I am not positive of that.
We can give you the citations on all of that.

The point I am making is

Mr. OXLEY. Let me ask you

Mr. DiBoNA [continuing], that given your knowledge or the
knowledge of the potential liabilities associated with any one of
these incidents, one of the strongest defenses you would have, a fa-
cility would have or an owner of a facility would have, would be
demonstrating that he complied with this standard. And so, there-
fore, we think that the impetus to use this, even though we cannot
as a trade association mandate its use, the States can, and
should — but the impetus to use it even in instances where it is not
mandated is very strong because it provides a powerful defense to
demonstrate that you have used the best practices. So we think it
is kind of an important step forward.

Let me finally make one other point about the fire prevention.
Most of the accidents that were cited are pretty ancient. They go
back to 1950, 1958, and 1976. I mean, we have put in place and
are continuing to put in place additional protections. Most of the
protected tanks are typically small tanks at service stations, not
large AST's at the terminals.

And one of the things that troubled us in this bill that I am sur-
prised the fire protection people did not say anything about, is that
the bill would require that all piping be put aboveground, except
where infeasible. There are reasons for keeping piping under-
ground that have to do with fire protection, that have to do with
access in the case of a fire, that would cause you to keep piping
underground, even though it would be feasible to put it above-
ground, and we are surprised that they fully support this bill, and
don't even comment on a problem like that in the bill.

Mr. OxLEY. Let's ask the gentleman exactly that question. Mr.
O'Neill?

Mr. O'Neill. Yes, we would certainly be concerned with that if,
in fact, that was a result of the type of regulations that we are
talking about here.

Mr. DiBoNA. It is very specific in the bill,

Mr. O'Neill. In cases where you would have installation where
piping would be exposed to damage from vehicles or other types of
incidents that would break the piping causing spills or fire.

However, in the larger installation of tank farms there is a lot
of piping aboveground now. When you get into the types of inci-
dents that we are most concerned about; namely retail gas stations
and that type of thing, you have to run the piping below ground.
And the bill would not require that piping to be aboveground. You
would have to run it below ground to the dispensing station,

I don't know if Jim wants to add anything to that. He is closer
to actual installations than I am.

Mr. TiDWELL. Yes, the portion of the bill that talks about run-
ning the piping aboveground, as I understand it, does have to do
with tank farms themselves. And that is currently the case in most
tank farms, in many tank farms. There is a great deal of piping
aboveground. There are ways even at service stations, and some of
the industry has done a lot of research in trying to figure out a way
to place piping below grade but not underground, and they do this
in concrete chases and things like that where they have the con-
tainment and they don't have to deal with the fire issue because
it is below grade and it is somewhat vaulted and they don't have

to deal with the liabilities associated with leaking piping. So there
are ways to accomplish what the bill sets out without creating a
larger fire safety problem.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Mott-Smith, Florida has had a regulatory pro-
gram since 1983 and a trust fund since 1986, I believe. Do you be-
lieve requirement for Federal approval oversight and enforcement
will help improve your program? And if so, why?

Mr. Mott-Smith. It wouldn't necessarily help our program, but
it would help adjacent States and keep, I guess, any contamination
coming from their State across State lines into our State, would be
one point.

Mr. OxLEY. Have you had problems to that effect?

Mr. Mott-Smith. Some minor ones with some smaller facilities.

Mr. OxLEY. Obviously, it would be from the northern part of the
State?

Mr. Mott-Smith. Alabama and Georgia. I think it would be more
helpful just to have nationwide, consistent regulations. If everyone
had— if the Federal Government has adopted API Standard 2610,
650, 651, 652, 653, and NFPA 30 and NFPA 30 (a), it would be
easier on the regulating community. They would know what they
have to comply with and there will be consistency statewide.

Mr. OxLEY. Do you think there may be a difference in application
and facilities in Ohio, for example, as opposed to Florida, or do you
think there could be a standard national requirement in each and
every one of these situations?

Mr. Mott-Smith. I think that is where a Federal program could
come in. For instance, with the underground storage program now,
that is one of the roles that the EPA carries out, providing some
consistent standards for the UST program so that they are all pret-
ty much doing things the same way. There are some things that
we do differently that we need to do differently in Florida than you
need to do differently in Arizona or other States, but in the above-
ground program, a similar EPA role would be helpful.

Mr. OxLEY. Would you encourage the States, as Mr. DiBona re-
quested, that they adopt the API Standard 2610?

Mr. Mott-Smith. Yes, as well as NFPA 30 (a) and other stand-
ards.

Mr. OxLEY. Has Florida done so?

Mr. Mott-Smith. Yes, actually on 2610 we are in the process of
changing our rule to adopt it. It is a relatively new standard, but
we proposed to adopt it and we have not received any opposition.

Mr. DiBONA. The NFPA is in our standard. It covers all kinds
of standards. This is an attempt to make it possible for someone
to, you know, bring together all of the applicable regulations.

Mr. OxLEY. Let me say, would this take an act by the Florida
legislature or the Ohio legislature or could it be enacted by the
State EPA?

Mr. Mott-Smith. The legislature, of course, gave us the author-
ity to write rules and we have adopted these standards in our rule-
making efforts.

Mr. OxLEY. Thank you.

Mr. Swift. Thank you.

Mr. DiBona, do you have a number of how many of your member
companies' facilities conduct groundwater monitoring?

Mr. DiBONA. No, we do not. We do not know how many conduct
groundwater.

But I should tell you something, a little bit about the lowest per-
centage of groundwater monitoring was in the transportation facili-
ties. That is the tank that is associated with transportation facili-
ties. There tends to be a lower level of groundwater to monitoring
for a number of reasons. Som^e of these facilities are quite small.
They are 27-barrel tanks. And some of these are just simply used
for surge protection in the tanks. That is, it relieves the pressure
in the pipelines so the oil is in there sometimes for short periods
of time and then reinjected into the pipeline.

Furthermore, pipelines — there is extensive regulation, another
set of regulations, that have nothing to do with the aboveground
tanks as unique, but affect underground tanks associated with

f)ipelines because they are regulated under another set of Federal
aws, and these require extensive cathodic protection. So these long
pipelines cross country lines as opposed to the kind of pipelines
that we are talking about here, the lines connecting tanks and con-
necting facilities within a compound, are — that cathodic protection
extends to the tanks that are associated with the pipeline.

There is almost no erosion or corrosion of these tanks from the
bottom. From the outside of the bottom. To the extent there is cor-
rosion, there is corrosion on the inside of the bottom, not the out-
side. And it is because of the sulfur or other acidic compounds in
the fuel that is being transported through the pipeline and occa-
sionally gets into the tank.

The degree of that corrosion is constantly monitored because
there are samples in the tank that are hung in the tank and are
frequently measured. So you can tell whether or not the tank is
getting thinner on the bottom. So in circumstances like that, and
particularly where there are small tanks that are occasionally
filled, they have no — they have no monitoring. And there is no rea-
son to believe you should have monitoring there or that it would
be a wise expenditure of money because you can quite accurately
determine whether there is any existence of any problem for the
reasons I have just noted.

For refineries, it is almost universal monitoring. And so it really
depends upon the circumstances of the — and the particular sur-
rounding conditions of the particular facility. And what it is used
for.

Mr. Swift. What percentage of the industry, do you think, are
members of API?

Mr. DiBoNA. Well, we — we believe that 98 percent of the refiner-
ies have monitoring, 80 percent of the marketing terminals and 18
Eercent of the transportation facilities, and those tend to be the
igger ones which are storing oil and may be even selling oil out
of the tankage.

Mr. Swift. That is helpful. What percentage of the whole indus-
try, you know, belongs to API and would, therefore, be responding
to your standards?

Mr. DiBONA. We certainly have as members of the API some-
thing on the order of 80 or 90 percent of the total fuels moved in
the United States. Even though there are many small members
who — people in the industry who are not members of the API. They

don't comprise a large fraction. There are a few large refiners, Coke
Oil, and Total, and others who are not members of the API, but by
and large, the bulk, and by that I mean 80 to 90 percent range of
the total capacity, is in the API.

Mr. Swift. Thank you. Ms. Epstein, have you — ^this is the same
question I asked the EPA. Have you done any studies or any esti-
mates on what the benefits of AST regulation would be? There
clearly are costs. What are the benefits?

Ms. Epstein. What I did was I looked at the information that
EPA developed in its draft liner study and extrapolated from that
what the cost of nationwide requirements according to the Moran
bill would be, and the benefits, what they would be if you took into
consideration the costs of cleanup and health studies and property
value depreciation. You find that the benefits are approximately
twice the costs. So it is a rough estimate. It is a tough calculation
to make.

Mr. Swift. Sure.

Ms. Epstein. I was surprised it was that high, and I am pleased.
I think it indicates the value of having this type of study. I do want
to clarify in your last question, I was looking at the API survey in-
formation. It does say that 95 of the 100 refineries across the coun-
try are American Petroleum Institute member companies. So there
are probably a lot of small companies that aren't members, as Mr.
DiBona said. But I think that is — that is an important number, as
well.

Mr. Swift. Mr. DiBona?

Mr. DiBona. Yes.

Mr. Swift. You wanted to comment?

Mr. DiBona. About the cost benefit. One aspect of this proposal
would be that all existing tanks over, I think, a 10-year period,
would be made double-bottom tanks or have release prevention
barriers put in. Our estimate of the cost of that is between $17 and
$31 billion. And both we and EPA have looked at whether it made
economic sense to retrofit, as opposed to putting in release preven-
tion barriers in new tanks, which is the API policy and will be in-
corporated in the standards in the future.

The conclusion of both EPA and the API is that it would make
no economic sense to automatically replace all of the — automati-
cally put release prevention barriers on all existing tankage, above-
ground tankage because there are other methods of ensuring the
little likelihood of a release, and that is through some of the stand-
ards which we have adopted here, which include frequent testing
of the tank, some of the expensive things that were mentioned here
but less expensive than a release prevention barrier, and the fact
that the actual history is, a very small fraction of the problem has
come from the tank bottom releases. Or at least in recent years
that is the case.

And the problems tend to be in some other areas, which we are
also working on, one of which is the releases from buried pipelines,
which we are now — ^which we have now incorporated new stand-
ards and methods for testing those into this document. So one of
the very specific things asked for in this law is clearly — what would
be required in this law is clearly not a thing which we believe
passes any kind of risk-benefit test.

Ms. Epstein. I wasn't actually aware that EPA had come to that
conclusion yet, since the liner study hadn't been released at this
point.

Mr. Swift. To be continued.

Ms. Epstein. Right.

Mr. DiBoNA. That was their conclusion at the draft study.

Ms. Epstein. Right. Released about 2 yr--= ago with lots of revi-
sions since.

Mr. Swift. Mr. Houghton, I didn't want to tar you with some
other brush, but as I listen to your testimony, I was reminded of
the tobacco industry saying there isn't any evidence and, therefore,
you shouldn't do anything. It seems to me that while you are accu-
rate in suggesting that there is a lot we don't know, I would even
concede that, therefore, we should be careful what we do.

It seems to me there is plenty of evidence that there is a problem
and we should do something. And I didn't — or maybe I wasn't lis-
tening carefully enough. I kind of heard you testifying on behalf of
your group that, basically, don't do anything. Did I misunderstand
you or

Mr. Houghton. Yes. -. ,.-, ;

Mr. Swift. I did?

Mr. Houghton. We would like to see some data that would sup-
port what you are doing.

I heard today that in the decade of the 1980's that more product
was released by leaking tanks, above-ground tanks, than was in
the Valdez incident.

Mr. Swift. Yes.

Mr. Houghton. And I am assuming that is correct.

I would like to point out a little thing. Statistics are a very inter-
esting thing. Unless I am sadly mistaken, there — it is a lot easier
to clean up a 100-gallon spill in an above-ground tank than it is
a 12-million-gallon spill from a tanker. And what I am trying to
point out is, this universe is very large and very diverse; and I
think the problem with many of these things that you have passed
is that, yes, you aim at the major, big problem, but in the mean-
time, there are all these little busy — businesses out there who don't
have fancy lawyers. They don't have excessive engineers. They
don't have a lot of payroll. They don't make a lot of money. But
they live pretty good in their small towns. They are on the school
boards. They are on the town council. They are civic-minded people.
They don't go out and deliberately try to contaminate things. But
they get hit with the regulations you are passing.

Double-bottom tanks sounds good on above-ground tanks. Excel-
lent. I don't see anjrthing wrong with it except for one thing. Who
is going to do it in today's market and stay in business, the little
bulk plant with four 18,000-gallon tanks? You are eliminating a
vital section of the industry if you are not very careful, if you don't
assign your priorities to the risk. You take— every region of the
EPA is not the same.

The gentleman was talking about Port Everglades. I am sure
that is a major problem. Springfield, Missouri doesn't have the
same problem — never will have the same problem, doesn't even
have a refinery, doesn't even have a terminal; has a few bulk

plants, not as many as they had 20 years ago. That, to me, is my
biggest concern with regulation.

The regulations that came out on July 1 have a certification, do
you need a response plan or do you not? It is a very simple thing.
It is so simple that almost anybody could understand it except for
people don't. We have had seven of those certifications mailed to
us to ask what to do with them. It says on the form what to do
with them. There are a lot of people out there so confused with so
much regulation, and they are limited. There are two-, three-, four-
person operations. They are limited. They cannot absorb. They are
just like a computer, they have only got so much RAM. And, unfor-
tunately, they have reached the limit of their RAM. And you have
got to stop, look and think, what is coming out of here? You have
got to use reason.

And I am not saying — I have been quoted, and I stand up and
I will still stand up; there are many environmental things that are
very good. I personally believe the State wouldn't pay for recov-
ery— and the EPA will kill me, and API will kill me for this. I per-
sonally think States want to pay for recovery, should be nation-
wide— ^bam, no question about it. It is economical, cost effective.
Over a period of time especially when gasoline gets up over $1,
$1.50 a gallon, which it is going to, it is very economical.

But there are other regulations out there.

John, I am sorry. I don't mean to be 100 percent negative, but
I will also add something else. My sister died of cancer from smok-
ing; I definitely am not a tobacco advocate.

Mr. Swift. Nor was I suggesting you were. I was suggesting
that—

Mr. Houghton. I realize.

Mr. Swift. The testimony was spurious. You clarified it for me.
Maybe I just didn't get it the first time through. And I have some
considerable sympathy for much of what you said in that you are
absolutely — I come from an essentially rural congressional district,
and I think your comment about we legislate around here for the
big and the little, one or two things, they either get swept up into
it, which is your case, or they get ignored, which is another thing
that occurs sometimes. And those of us from rural areas have to
watch out for that all the time.

I am not exactly sure how we do it, but I am sure we have not
found a decent way — or strike "decent"; we haven't found an effec-
tive way to try and make some distinctions on size and resources
that can be brought to bear.

In connection with what I said earlier about trying to find some
new models for all of this, if your point is that you and your mem-
bership just don't have the same resources as Mr. DiBona and his
membership might have, I think that is a point well taken. Wheth-
er that suggests you should not have any regulation, I am not sure
that is the conclusion. But it does seem to me some risk evaluation,
some other things may be useful.

Mr. Houghton. I would like to point out, I have been hearing
about the task force today. I would like to know how many PMAA
members are on the API task force.

Mr. DiBona comments that 90 percent of the product, they move
it. That is fine. And that is probably true. But is that the only

movement of the product? How about the 45 percent we sell? How
about the 65 percent diesel fuel? >i ; '•

What I am getting at is, over the years, we are ignored many
times. We aren't asked. We ask to come over to EPA, We are per-
fectly willing, and nobody pays our way to come to Washington
and — or go to the regulatory agencies. We are very thrilled to be
included. I served on the NFPA 30 committee. I know what it is
about. I just resigned from it about a year ago.

Things can really get confusing to me. They are talking about a
tank farm and a protected tank, and then they talk about the pres-
sure building up, which indicates immediately to me that there
wasn't a proper venting. The proper venting has been mandated
for, golly, I think since NFPA 30 was written and is now being en-
forced. I know the State of Missouri went back and retrofitted
proper venting on every tank in the State.

I see your point. We have got to get some controls on some of
these things. We have got to get it in all levels. But you have got
to include all levels in discussion.

Mr. Swift. I am very glad we had this, because it clarified for
me a lot of what you were saying.

I said before, in this hearing and before, we have got to find a
better model than the command and control kind of approach we
have used on environmental legislation all these years. That state-
ment is sometimes used as a great Trojan horse in which you drive
nonregulation or weaker regulation, and that is not what I am say-
ing. But I just don't think that this model we have got is going to
work very much longer. It doesn't get applied fairly. It is unneces-
sarily expensive, I think, in order the achieve certain policy goals;
and I think there are some other models around.

One of the things that you raise that I think needs to be included
as we think of how to do this better is, how do you distinguish be-
tween the large and the small? It is not that the large is bad.

Mr. Houghton. No, no.

Mr. Swift. It is just different. And it is not that the small doesn't
create pollution. It has got different resources that it can bring to
dealing with it, and we need to work out some way in a new model
to allow for all of those things. I think Mr. DiBona and I believe
Mr. Tidwell had a comment.

Why don't we go with you, Mr. Tidwell, first?

Mr. Tidwell. I wanted to respond to the technical issue that was
just brought up now regarding venting being a requirement of the
NFPA 30, and that is absolutely true. If the emergency venting is
in place on one of these tanks, that will prevent the overpressure
from happening and it will prevent failure.

The problem is that venting many times is defeated in the field,
either at the time of installation or at some time after installation,
many times by persons unknowledgeable about what they are actu-
ally doing. And when that venting is defeated, then you have built
a bomb for responding firefighters to deal with.

So we are not in favor of just providing that one safeguard. There
are other safeguards that need to be provided.

Mr. Swift. Mr. DiBona?

Mr. DiBONA. I would just like to make two quick points. One of
them is that — two quick points. One of them is that we did invite
PMAA to participate in our committees.

Mr. Houghton. I said the EPA.

Mr. DiBoNA. You meant EPA. And we had very much in mind
the problems of the smaller operator in producing this standard be-
cause we realized they have less legal and technical capability and
engineering capability. It was intended to make that part of the in-
dustry better able to respond to these problems and to — so that all
of us are keeping as clean a house as we can with a reasonable ef-
fort, and that was the purpose of this publication.

The second point I would like to raise, you did — ^you were making
an earlier statement about the — perhaps excessive law that is in
this area, excessive provisions of law; and earlier there was a dis-
cussion about the industries trying to work with other parties and
put together reasonable ways of going. And there are two things
that have happened to the petroleum industry that caused us to be
a little skeptical but still want to work with EPA.

One of them was that one of the API members, Amoco Corpora-
tion, did agree to — in fact, urged EPA to sit down with it and go
through one of its refineries and try and determine how best to reg-
ulate this refinery so that you achieved the goals of the various
laws but in the most efficient way. And both sets of engineers,
EPA's and the Amoco Corporation's engineers, agreed that there
was a way of doing that would cost $10 million. But to comply with
the way in which you have written the law was $53 million. In the
end, they could not do the $10 million job. And there was no dif-
ference in the environmental performance, no essential difference
in the environmental result. But $53 million was spent and had to
be spent. It was a problem associated with the fact that some rea-
sonable— as you said earlier, some reasonable things can't be done.

The second experience that we had is, we did sit down with all
the parties on the reformulated gasoline issue. We worked very
hard in doing that. We had some — we realized that we were the
only people that really had the basic technical information to write
the regulation, but we felt that it was more important that we sit
down with EPA, with the environmental community, with the
farmers and the ethanol people, the automakers, and lay out the
technical facts, because we believed in the end we would get a more
sensible regulation.

We all worked on that. We all made compromises. And in 1990,
I signed the agreement with all of those parties, a solemn agree-
ment, and then that was overturned by EPA on behalf of the etha-
nol producers. And so it is an attempt, a good-faith attempt to do
that by which we are left a bit skeptical.

Mr. Swift. I don't think there is going to be anything easy about
getting a new model. Our culture likes adversarial relationships
on — more so than any other culture that I am aware of. We are
comfortable with being able to duke everything out and we get un-
comfortable when we move into a cooperative mode. Regulators are
out to keep you from being bad, and as long as they have got that
mind-set, they are not — it is going to be very hard for them to move
into a mind-set of how do we help them comply? Totally different
mind-set.

Mr. DiBONA. I don't think that is right. '

Mr. Swift. You don't think what is right? "

Mr. DiBONA. No, sir. My experience with regulators has not been
of that kind. I think they are trying to make the laws you pass
work. And I think they have.

Mr. Swift. I do, too.

Mr. DiBONA. And I think they have a hell of a time doing it.

Mr. Swift. Whether I am right on that or not, it then backs up
from them, it seems to me, that the political process, the legislative
process and the political input that also sees the world in terms of
good guys and bad guys, and we got to go make the bad guys com-
ply-

Mr. DiBONA. Well, I agree with that.

Mr. DiBoNA. And in the process, it seems to me, we set up situa-
tions in which the model does not seek the least expensive way to
meet goals, but rather, it has a — it has this adversarial kind of
thing.

Now, it ain't just this side of the dais. You know perfectly well
you have got members where if government proposed that the sun
came up in the east in the morning, they would be against it.

Mr. DiBONA. I noticed that, too.

Mr. Swift. Yes. And you extend this to the environmental move-
ment, you extend it to organized labor.

We have all got strong adversarial ways we bring to this and
adopting new models that are more cooperative is going to be tough
on all of us. Your troglodj^es will say — they will cite the example
you just said and say, you cooperate with these people over at EPA
and they will nail you for sure, you know. And they are going to
have some record to point out.

But EPA can also show points where industry has done out-
rageous things and has had to really be hit upside the head in
order to comply. Not typical, but it has happened, and you can
point to it, and it is going to take risk on the part of everybody.

And we have seen some of that go on in how we developed
Superfund this year. The environmentalists have got their necks
stuck out. Lots of people in industry have got their necks stuck out.
And if we fail to pass that thing, everybody who stuck their necks
out

Mr. DiBONA. Will suffer.

Mr. Swift [continuing], is going to in the next Congress, going
to point and say, we tried it your way, and we are back to the mat-
tresses again on a major piece of environmental legislation.

So it is not going to be easy. But anybody who looks at the regu-
latory structure we have on environmental issues in this country
today has got to conclude it just can't go on that way, nor can we
retreat from the standards. The public's not going to let that hap-
pen. So there are all kinds of reasons for people to start taking
some risk.

It seems to me what API is doing is a very good thing. Wliether
it is the whole solution or not, you and I might disagree with that.
But the effort you are making which recognizes the problem and
addresses it is just excellent, and I think it is another indication
that there is some hope we can craft a new model.

And I repeat again, I think Carol Browner isn't given the credit
for coming with what is also a very risky thing politically and oth-
erwise, taking on some traditional constituencies in trying to work
new models.

I just have one last little set of questions I would like to go over
with Mr. Mott-Smith, just — most of these are just for information.

Does Florida's above-ground storage tank program have a fee
schedule for tank owners?

Mr. Mott-Smith. Yes, it does. There is a $50 initial registration
fee, a $25 annual renewal and then there are some minor late fees,
things like that. But that is — that generates — again, that is for
AST's and UST's. It generates maybe $2 million a year and that
goes back into the $160-million fund we have each year for clean-
ing up contaminated sites.

Mr. Swift. Does your program, too, differentiate between t3T)es
of tanks and different materials that are stored?

Mr, Mott-Smith. It does differentiate between the types of
tanks. For instance, we have separate regulations for field-erected
tanks than we do for shop-fabricated tanks.

Mr. Swift. What is the advantage of that?

Mr. Mott-Smith. It is pretty much an industry reality. Shop-fab-
ricated tanks are usually less than 50,000 gallons are commonly
used in agricultural and retail type of situations. And the field-
erected tanks are the larger ones that have to be constructed, the
plates welded in the field, and it is the larger bulk storage facilities
that have those.

What is stored in them, we just require in our rules that the
product stored has to be compatible — rather, the construction mate-
rials of the tank have to be compatible with the product that is
stored.

We have a lot of rotationally molded polyethylene tanks that are
used in the pool and spa industry that we regulate. We regulate
mineral acid tanks for storing phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid. They
need different types of storage materials, independent of what is in
there.

Mr. Swift. In your testimony, you said Florida's most costly sites
to clean up are the above-ground. Why?

Mr. Mott-Smith. It is the — as the gentleman from API sug-
gested, a lot of it is due to historical, but then a lot of it is new,
as well. It is just they are bigger tanks, so when you have a re-
lease, it is often more catastrophic. You have got large-diameter
piping that often has product stored up to 100, 150 PSI, so you
have a leak in the joint or a flange or a union, you are going to
be losing a lot of fuel in a short amount of time.

Of course, it was common industry practice years ago to drain
the consistency off the bottom of the tank, let it flow until they saw
product. Or they would use product for mosquito control in the con-
tainment area. All of those practices are no longer used anymore,
but there are still new and recent incidents of contamination from
these facilities.

Back in 1991, a large terminal at Port Everglades lost 20,000
gallons from an overfill. We had a military base lose 4,000 gallons
in the last 3 months from one of their tanks. It happens a lot.

But on the other hand, again because of our reliance on ground-
water for our drinking water supplies, we decided long ago to go
with secondary containment. It was a necessary — it paid dividends
recently with Hurricane Andrew. We had a large number of tanks,
I think it was over 100, above-ground tanks go down in the storm.
But we did not have any incidence of contamination because we,
back in 1990, required all our shop-fabricated tanks to have sec-
ondary containment. So the containment areas contained the prod-
uct that was spilled when the tanks blew over in the storm.

Mr. Swift. My last question is kind of a reformulation of the one
that Mr. Oxley asked you. You have got State programs. They have
got a document here and they differ. They are all over the place.
That is not to say that they are not good, that there aren't good
programs in there.

If we adopt a detailed Federal program, it is going to require lots
of changes at the State level. Do you think it is possible to write
Federal legislation that establishes goals, standards, if you will,
but doesn't necessarily dictate how you get there, that would in-
trude less into these States' programs than might otherwise occur?
And if it is possible, is that a good thing or do you think the uni-
formity is so important that we should just go ahead and do it at
a Federal level and dictate that to the States?

Mr. Mott-Smith. I think, again, a good example — and again, I
have been with the agency for 17 years, and I have worked in the
air program and the hazardous waste program where it was real
strict, as you say, command and control. Those were not very pleas-
ant experiences.

I really enjoyed, and have and do enjoy, working with EPA now
with their underground storage tank program because that is a
program that does provide more or less general guidelines. There
are some specific things as well, but you know, pretty much we all
think that is a good thing. But it does give the State some flexibil-
ity to meet their specific needs.

Again, for instance in Florida, we think second containment is a
real good thing. In other places, out west where the ground water
is real deep, maybe it is not needed. But there are — -I guess there
is enough of an umbrella there where we are all pretty much doing
everything the same way. And again I think that is important be-
cause particularly dealing with the petroleum industry, it is impor-
tant to be consistent.

As a program manager, I mentioned we contract with county gov-
ernments to do our inspections. I have got 150 people out there
doing inspections every day. And most of the complaints I get are
from people that perhaps might be over — exceeding their authority
or perhaps being too meek in the implementation of our regula-
tions. And you can't fine, say, a major oil company $1,000 in one
county and $100 for the very same violation in another county. I
think that same concept, carried over to the national level with
some consistency nationwide, would be helpful for AST's. And I
think if you were to pattern a Federal AST program like you have
the UST program, I think it would be very helpful.

Mr. Swift. Thank you.

One last thing, Mr. Houghton. I, too, heard you — I thought I
heard you say "API" rather than "EPA" in terms of including the

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY

94 3 9999 05982 367 2

small. And I am glad you said EPA. I am pretty high on that agen-
cy right now, but I am going to underi^ake to ask them if they
have — if they have got any input in this process from smaller folks
and suggest that if it is not too late in that process to do so, be-
cause I think it should be done.

Yes?

Mr. Houghton. Can I make another comment?

Mr. Swift. Certainly.

Mr. Houghton. I would like to comment on the regulations of
underground tanks. There was a factor that was very important;
that was the flexibility in methods of meeting the criteria. In other
words, as he mentioned, there is, you know, cathodic protection,
inert material for piping and a number of choices, a number of
methods of leak detecting. It is a good program and it had good
input, and that program did have the PMA input. We can live with
it and the State can live with it because it is variable.

I find the biggest problem is when you get into a rigid thing, and
that is a problem. Then that is what I mean. I don't see anjrthing
wrong with a program down the line that would give a lot of flexi-
bility to each area or — not area but each State to be able to imple-
ment it by various methods. And that is something that has to be
looked at. There are various methods of doing this.

Mr. Swift. Thank you.

Mr. Houghton. Thank you for allowing me to be here.

Mr. Swift. I want to thank all of you for being here. It has been
extremely helpful. I think this was a good hearing.

Obviously, no legislative action is going to be taken on this legis-
lation this year, but I am hopeful next year people will come back
and learn some of the lessons that I think have been taught here
today, because it seems to me we have laid the groundwork where,
working cooperatively, we can do something that is better than the
current system and not onerously so. We probably need to do that.

Thank you all very much. The subcommittee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

ISBN 0-16-046804-3

9 780160

468049

90000

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Safe aboveground storage tanks : hearing before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, second session, September 14, 1994"

See other formats