2018 UST Regulation Revision Comment Worksheet

Transcription

1 Comment # Commenter Section Comment DEM Response 1 Overall NECSEMA requests that UST system compliance or installation testing that results in an inconclusive finding be given period of time for investigation of the result. In response to the comments received, the Department has removed all instances of the word "inconclusive" from the regulations, and all test results shall be considered either "fail" or "pass" in order clarify test requirements Definitions 66. Line leak detector NECSEMA recommends removing the word interrupting and replacing it with restricting as mechanical line leak detectors do not stop the flow of product in product piping. In response to the comment received, the Department has modified the language so the sentence now reads : Line leak detector means a device installed on the discharge side of a remote pump which is capable of interrupting or restricting product flow if there is a leak greater than or equal to three gallons per hour at 10 pounds per square inch of line pressure". Because some electronic line leak detectors may be configured to interrupt the flow, the Department believes it is necessary to keep the word "interrupting" in addition to "restricting" 3 B.2. As Class A and B operators can change more frequently, NECSEMA requests that the following language be included, current contact information for the Class A and B operator or 24 hour call center or spill hotline. In response to the comment received, the Department has modified the language so the sentence now reads "Facilities subject to leak detection requirements shall prominently post or provide in a location readily accessible to the facility staff emergency response procedures, including instructions on responding to alarms, releases, spills, and other abnormal events, and include current contact information for the Class A and B operator or 24 hour call center or spill response hotline". 4 B.6.a.3. NECSEMA does not believe there is anecdotal evidence of problems occurring with breakaway devices after the manufacturer s expiration date. As such, we request that breakaway devices be removed from this section. In response to the comment received, the Department has removed the breakaway device expiration date replacement requirement 5 E.4.a. NECSEMA requests that the area around an impressed current cathodic protection system be defined. For example, other States require that work within 10 feet of an impressed current cathodic protection system be performed by a trained technician. This will clarify a defined work area. In response to the comment received, the Department has modified the language to clarify the work area as followed: "All impressed current cathodic protection systems must be surveyed within six months of installation or repair, at least every two years following the installation date, and whenever construction or maintenance within 10 feet of any UST component, structure, or impressed current component or cabling occurs" 6 7 E.7 NECSEMA requests the clarification of this rule to differentiate between the 24 hour and seven day reporting requirements. As it is written, the rule is confusing as to which deadline to follow when reporting Any survey which shows that components are not receiving adequate corrosion protection. F.1.b. NECSEMA request that this rule be revised to indicate that a change in brine or inert fluid which causes an alarm be immediately investigated and resolved. Any alarm which subsequently cannot be determined to be the result of an error or defect in the tank monitoring equipment and repaired must be reported to the DEM within 72 hours. This change will allow normal fluctuations in brine or inert fluid levels (e.g. during a delivery) to avoid the unnecessary action of being report to RIDEM. In response to the comment received, the Department has modified and restructured the language to clarify the requirements as followed: "All data collected during the cathodic protection survey, as well as the final result must be submitted by the tester and/or the testing company within 30 calendar days of completion of a passing test and seven calendar days for failed tests. Any survey which shows that components are not receiving adequate corrosion protection must be reported to DEM within 24 hours. Submittals containing missing, incorrect, or falsified information, or results which do not follow the correct methods, will not be accepted and will invalidate the results of the test". The Department would like to note that after conferring with several tank manufacturers, it is our opinion that a brine alarm should not be routinely occuring unless there is an issue with the UST system. However, in recognition that some alarms may occur that are not attributable to an actual release, the Department has modified the language to to require only abnormal brine alarms to be reported. The rule now reads: "Double walled USTs with a brine solution or other inert liquid in the interstitial space are not required to be routinely tested for tightness and instead shall be continuously monitored for a change in fluid level in the reservoir and interstice. Any abnormal change in the brine or inert fluid in the interstitial and/or annular space shall must be immediately investigated and resolved. Any unresolved changes to the brine or inert fluid must be reported to DEM immediately by calling (401) " 8 F.1.c. NECSEMA recommends updating this rule to 30 years which is in line with most manufacturers warranties on USTs. Testing USTs after 20 years and every two years after that is financially burdensome to small businesses. Your comment has been noted. This comment refers to an existing regulation that has been in place since 2005 and the Department does not believe 9 F.1f.1 NECSEMA requests that this rule be revised to indicate that the requirement that Any product remaining in the tank must be consumed or removed within 30 days, and no additional product may be added applies only if repairs are not made within that timeframe. In response to the comment received, the sentence was clarified to clearly show that the 30 days no longer applies once the tank has been repaired and tested tight. The language was changes as followed: "If the primary tank is demonstrated as being tight, any product remaining in the tank may be consumed for up to 30 days, and no additional product may be added until the tank has been repaired and passed a final tightness test" 10 F.2.b. NECSEMA requests that leak test results be available upon request and not required to be kept onsite. Many marketers maintain testing results in offsite data storage warehouses. Your comment has been noted. The Department would like to note there is an existing mechanism in Rule 1.13(B)(1) that would allow for off site storage. As such, the department doesn't believe any changes are necessary. 11 F.2.c. The EPA exempts single walled USTs with continuous electronic in tank leak detection from having to maintain inventory reconciliation records. NECSEMA recommends that RIDEM include this provision in the proposed rules. Your comment has been noted. This comment refers to an existing regulation that has been in place since 2001 and the Department does not believe

2 12 G.2.b.1. NECSEMA recommends updating this rule to 30 years to coincide with Rule F.1.c. above. Testing USTs after 20 years and every two years after that is financially burdensome to small businesses. Your comment has been noted. This comment refers to an existing regulation that has been in place since 2005 and the Department does not believe G.2.d. NECSEMA recommends increasing the time in which to test the primary line to 72 hours in order to ensure testing can be completed. Depending on the time of day and day of the week, it may be difficult to perform primary line testing within the specified 24 hour deadline. G.2.d.1. NECSEMA requests that UST system be replaced with the specific product associated with the primary piping wall failure? This rule is confusing and may cause the unnecessary removal of product from tight UST system components. G.2.d.1. NECESMA requests that the department revise this requirement to remove or consume only product remaining in the affected primary product pipeline if repairs are not made. The need to remove product from the entire UST system would be costly, onerous, and offer no additional protection to the environment if the tank s containment monitoring offers no indication of a release. G.2.d.4. Same comment as Rule G.2.d.1. above. In response to the comments received, the Department has increased the time to perform a follow up primary wall tightness test to 48 hours and clarified that product in the failed product pipeline must be removed only if it fails a primary wall tightness test. There is no longer a requirement to empty unassociated USTs or take unassociated product pipelines out of service in the event of a single product line failure, however, in the event the product pipeline is not repaired within the timeframe noted, the UST system may be required to be put into temporary closure. The The modified language now reads: "If the results of an interstitial space tightness test are fail then the owner must have the primary product pipeline wall tested for tightness within 48 hours." The Department would also like to clarify that if the primary wall of a double walled pipe passes tightness test, it may continue to operate for up to 30 days, however, if the primary wall fails or is unable to be tested, it must be immediately be taken out of service. The Rule now reads: "If the results of an interstitial space tightness test are fail, however there is no evidence of a release, the owner shall have the primary product pipeline wall tested for tightness within 48 hours; (1) If the primary product pipeline wall is demonstrated as being tight, any product remaining in the failed product pipeline and all directly connected USTs that the product pipeline services may be consumed for no more than 30 days. Additional product may not be added to any UST which services the failed product pipeline until the pipeline has been repaired or replaced in accordance with 1.12 of this Part and passed a final tightness test and demonstrated to be tight. If the primary wall of the product pipeline is unable to be tested or fails tightness testing, the tester must immediately notify DEM and the owner shall immediately take the failed product line out of service and evacuate its contents. Additional product may not be added to any UST which services the failed product pipeline until the pipeline has been repaired or replaced in accordance with 1.12 of this Part and passed a final tightness test and demonstrated to be tight. (5) All failed product pipelines must be repaired or replaced within 60 days in accordance with 1.12 of this Part or placed into temporary closure in accordance with 1.15(C) of this Part For consistency, the companion rule for USTs in 1.10(F) was modified to reflect the same deadlines and language G.2.d.5. Depending on the time of year and contractor availability, product pipeline repair within 30 days may be difficult. To permanently close a line that could be easily repaired will be financially burdensome to marketers. NECSEMA recommends allowing variances be allowed for justified circumstances. G.3.a NECSEMA recommends removing European suction piping systems from this rule. European suction piping systems do not continuously contain a regulated substance. G.3.c NECSEMA requests the department consider revising the requirement to immediately report All failed or inconclusive tests to allow for a period during which a re test can be performed and passing results obtained. Electronic LLDs frequently generate inconclusive and failing test results under normal operating conditions. The period to obtain passing LLD test results should also account for LLD test failures which are not indicative of a potential release such as failures due to low product levels, LLD equipment malfunctions, etc. which may take several days\weeks to obtain parts and schedule repairs. In response to the comment, the Department has extended the time to perform the repair to 60 days. The department would like to note that a variance mechanism already exists in Rule For consistency, this change was also applied to the companion rule governing USTs, Rule 1.10(F) Your comment has been noted. This comment refers to an existing regulation that has been in place since 2001 and the Department does not believe As previously noted, all instances of "Inconclusive" have been removed from the Regulations and as a result only "failed" tests are required to be reported. However, your comment has been noted. This comment refers to an existing regulation that has been in place since 2001 and the Department does not believe that any changes are necessary as this section is specifically for single wall product pipeline for which the line leak detector is the only form of product line leak detection, and operation without one is prohibited. 20 H.4. As some testing companies have a two week QA/QC procedure, NECSEMA requests that the deadline to submit hardcopy reports to RIDEM be increased to 30 days. In response to the comment, the Department has increased the time to submit passing test results to 30 days. The modified language now reads: "The test data and final results must be recorded on the DEM provided form and submitted by the tester and/or the testing company within 30 calendar days of completion of a passing test and seven calendar days for failed tests. This form must be completed in its entirety and results submitted on other forms or in other formats, or results missing information, will be deemed a violation of these regulations." The time provided to submit test results to DEM was extended to 30 days globally throughout the regulations H.6. NESCEMA believes that completing a release characterization report for an inconclusive test will be financially burdensome to small businesses. NECSEMA requests that inconclusive be removed from this rule. H.9. NECSEMA requests that tightness testing results be available upon request and not required to be kept onsite. Many marketers maintain testing results in offsite data storage warehouses. M.2. As 15 days may be difficult to make repairs to a leak monitoring device if parts need to be ordered, NECSEMA recommends including in this rule that variance requests approved by RIDEM are allowed. As previously noted, all instances of "Inconclusive" have been removed from the Regulations and only "Failed" tests will require a release characterization report. Your comment has been noted. The Department would like to note there is an existing mechanism in Rule 1.13(B)(1) that would allow for off site storage. As such, the department doesn't believe any changes are necessary. Your comment has been noted. The department would like to point out that a variance mechanism already exists in Rule 1.20, and does not believe that additional changes are needed

3 M.5. NECSEMA recommends clarifying that the Class B operator can utilize the alarm test button on the automatic tank gauge monitor and does not have to physically test the alarm sensors within the UST system. This will avoid any confusion regarding the intent of the rule. M.7. NECSEMA recommends adding the words components (i.e. probes, sensors, etc.) following automatic tank gauge (ATG) in this rule to avoid confusion. N.1.b. NECSEMA understands that RIDEM is still evaluating spill bucket integrity testing methods. We would greatly appreciate being a part of the process once it is initiated. N.1.b.1. NESCEMA requests that RIDEM follow the EPA guidelines which allow for 30 days to repair spill buckets. In response to the comment, the rule was clarified by adding the word "console" to better distinguish between the entire monitoring system and the alarm console. The rule now reads: "All continuous monitoring systems and alarms (e.g., console) shall be checked for proper operation by the designated Class A or B UST facility operator on a monthly basis to ensure that they are operating as designed. Records of such tests shall be maintained by the owner/operator in accordance with 1.10(U)(5)(k) and 1.13(B)(1)(b) of this Part. If the continuous monitoring system has a battery backup, it must be tested for proper operation on an annual basis". In response to the comment, the Department added the words "probe" and "sensor" to the rule for clarification. The Rule now reads: "The automatic tank gauge (ATG) probe and sensors shall be removed and inspected for proper configuration and operation annually by a qualified 3rd party contractor". Your comment has been noted. In response to the comment, the rule was modified to allow single walled spill containment basins to be repaired using manufacturer approved and provided repair materials only. This rule now reads: "Any single walled spill containment basin which has failed tightness testing must repaired or replaced within 30 days. Single walled spill containment basins shall not be repaired unless the manufacturer explicitly allows it, has an established procedure, and makes the repair materials and/or parts available. Ad hoc, repairs using unapproved components or materials, and other unauthorized repairs not explicitly allowed by the manufacturer are prohibited" 28 N.1.c.2. NESCEMA requests that RIDEM follow the EPA guidelines which allow for 30 days to repair spill buckets. Your comment has been received. The department has modified this rule to allow 30 days for this to occur, and eliminated the language that prohibited use of this fill point until the replacement has occured. This rule now reads: "If the monitoring device or 3rd party testing indicates the interstitial space is no longer liquid tight, the spill containment basin shall be considered single walled and subject to the requirements of 1.10(N)(b)" 29 N.1.c.3. NECSEMA requests that this rule be reworded to indicate that if the interstitial monitoring device or additional testing indicates a failure, double walled spill containment may be repaired or replaced within 180 days. Replacement of spill buckets when repair can be easily accomplished is financially burdensome to marketers. In response to the comment, the Department has modified 1.10(C )(2) and eliminated the requirement to immediately take the fill point out of service. After consultation with manufucturers, the Department has decided to allow repairs on double walled spill buckets as long as they are peformed using approved manufacturer methods and materials. The revised rules now read: If the monitoring device or 3rd party testing indicates the interstitial space is no longer liquid tight, the spill containment basin shall be considered single walled and subject to the requirements of 1.10(N)(b) (3) If the interstitial monitoring device or additional testing indicates a failure, but either the primary or secondary wall remains liquidtight, the spill containment basin may be regulated as single walled and subject to the requirements of 1.10(N)(1)(b) of this Part. The spill containment basin must be repaired in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations, or replaced, within 180 days. 30 N.1.c.4 NECSEMA requests that the Department consider revising this rule to include a reasonable timeframe to repair or replace affected spill buckets prior to requiring affected systems\facilities to report the incident to the department. In many cases liquid is indicated in the interstice of a doublewalled spill bucket due to water intrusion through the gauge port and not due to a failure of either the primary or secondary walls. NECESMA believes that operators, in these instances, should be allowed to remove these liquids and leave the spill buckets in service. Your comment has been received, however, Rule 1.10(N)(c )(4) refers to reporting requirements, not replacement timelines as your comment indicates. 31 N.2.b.2. NECSEMA requests that this rule be reworded to reflect how flapper valves actually work (i.e. product flow is stopped at 95% capacity). In response to the comment, the Department has removed the word "restricted" and replaced it with "completely stops" to reflect how flapper valves typically respond. The Rule now reads: "If a fill tube overfill prevention device (e.g., Flapper Valve ) is present, it must be removed annually and inspected to ensure it is free from obstructions and that the float moves freely. The tube length and installation depth must be verified as correct such that it completely stops fuel flow when product level reaches 95% of tank capacity". 32 N.3.d. NECSEMA understands that RIDEM is still evaluating submersible turbine pump (STP) sump and under dispenser containment (UDC) sump integrity testing methods. We would greatly appreciate being a part of the process once it is initiated. Your comment has been noted. 33 N.3.d.1. NESCEMA requests that RIDEM follow the EPA guidelines which allow for 30 days to repair STP and UDC sumps. Your comment has been noted. The Department would like to note that there are no repair timeline requirements in this Rule and as such we do not believe adding one is necessary.

4 34 N.3.f.1 NECSEMA requests the Department consider removing the requirement to install liquidtight UDC if Any modification to product piping, repairs or modifications to the shear/crash valve anchoring system are made. The proposed rule, as written, would immediately trigger a requirement to install a UDC following many common non invasive repairs to crash valves and their anchoring systems. Given the department s requirement install UDCs at all facilities by 2024, NECSEMA feels this additional trigger to install UDCs costly, onerous, and likely to have a significantly negative impact on the State s many small business operators. Additionally, this is more stringent than the EPA rules regarding the required installation of UDC s. Your comment has been noted. The Department would like to note that this rule has been in effect since 2005 and is consistent with 40 CFR Part 280 which states "EPA considers a dispenser system new when owners and operators install both the dispenser and equipment needed to connect the dispenser to an UST system. EPA includes check valves, shear valves, unburied risers or flexible connectors, and other transitional components as equipment that connects a dispenser to an UST system". To provide clarification and address the concerns about non invasive repairs to shear vavles, the Department has modified the rule so that shear valve mounting equipment is excluded, however, due to the frequency and severity of dispenser related releases, the Department feels that maintaining this requirement is in the best interest of the State. The modified rule reads "All new and replacement UST systems subject to leak detection requirements must be equipped with liquid tight under dispenser containment at every dispenser connected to the UST system if not already present. Replacement or removal of the dispenser, replacement or repair of the product pipeline, UST, as well as the equipment necessary to connect the dispenser to the UST system, including, check valves, shear valves, swing joints, flexible connectors, or other transitional components beneath the dispenser and connect the dispenser to the underground piping, shall also require installation of liquid tight under dispenser containment at every dispenser if not already present. Such containment must allow for visual inspection and access to the components in the containment system and/or be monitored." 35 S.1. NECSEMA understands that RIDEM is still evaluating how to deal with testing fluid used in hydrostatic testing. We would greatly appreciate being a part of the process once it is initiated. Your comment has been noted. 36 U.6.f. As Class B operators may not be available to respond to the site within 4 hours, NECSEMA recommends that they respond or be available by telephone. In response to your comment, the Department has eliminated the requirement to be on site within 4 hours and replaced it with the ability to be available within 4 hours. The rule now reads: "Be available within four hours of a request to respond to the facility by emergency response personnel or the Department, or within a timeframe approved by the Department" U.9. NESCEMA requests that RIDEM allow monthly on site inspections be performed by or under the direction of the Class A or Class B Operator as is consistent with current EPA guidelines and Regulations in numerous surrounding States. C.7 NECSEMA requests that the Department provide clarification to indicate that secondary containment systems may Be checked for evidence of a release at least every 30 days by verifying the status of the liquid containment sensor and that STP or piping sumps and containments do not need to be opened manually once a month if sensors are present. This is consistent with numerous surrounding States and the EPA. L.1.e. As it is not always physically possible to install a double walled spill bucket where a singlewalled spill bucket was formerly, NESCEMA recommends allowing variances in these instances. Your comment has been noted, however, this regulation has been in effect since 2011 and the Department does not believe changes are necessary. Your comment has been noted, however, as Section 1.11 deals specifically with installations and replacements, the regulation 1.11(C )(7) states that the secondary containment must be DESIGNED to allow it to be checked, it does not state that it must be checked, as that is part of Rule Therefore, the Department does not believe any changes are required Your comment has been noted, however the Department does not believe a change is necessary as an existing mechanism to address this problem exists in Rule M.4. EPA has determined that installation of UDC s are only required when 100% of the equipment necessary to connect the dispenser to the tank top is replaced (i.e. crash valve to tank top). NESCEMA recommends RIDEM follow EPA regulations. Your comment has been noted, however, Section 1.11 deals specifically with new installations and replacements. The situation you describe in the comment is not a new installation or replacement, therefore, it does not have anything to do with the cited Rule. 41 M.5. Same comment as Rule M.4. above. Your comment has been noted, however, Section 1.11 deals specifically with new installations and replacements. The situation you describe in the comment is not a new installation or replacement, therefore, it does not have anything to do with the cited Rule M.6. NECSEMA recommend that this rule be revised to indicate that this is for new installations and is not retroactive. This will avoid confusion and unnecessary and costly equipment installations. O.7. NECSEMA recommend that this rule be revised to indicate that this is for new installations and is not retroactive. This will avoid confusion and unnecessary and costly equipment installations. Your comment has been noted, however, as this Rule is in Section 1.11 which deals exclusively with new and replacement installations only, we do not believe there is any confusion as there is no language that indicates it may be retroactive. Your comment has been noted, however, as this Rule is in Section 1.11 which deals exclusively with new and replacement installations only, we do not believe there is any confusion as there is no language that indicates it may be retroactive.

5 44 O.8. NECSEMA recommend that this rule be revised to indicate that this is for new installations and is not retroactive. This will avoid confusion and unnecessary and costly equipment installations. Your comment has been noted, however, as this Rule is in Section 1.11 which deals exclusively with new and replacement installations only, we do not believe there is any confusion as there is no language that indicates it may be retroactive Facility Modifications or Repairs D.1.d.2. As odor is a very subjective sense, NECSEMA recommends removing the word odor from this rule. Your comment has been noted, however, as EPA recognizes odor as an potential indicator of a release and RI DEM uses odor as an indicator for several programs, and is also used in Rule 1.15(C )(10)(B)(8). For consistency, this rule was modified to match the existing rule Rule 1.15(C )(10)(B)(8). The word "odor" was replaced with "olfactory" and the words "if noted" were added to the rule for clarification purposes. The Rule now reads: "Observations of contamination (including olfactory, if noted, from the excavation and discoloration in the concrete or peastone or soil);" Maintaining Records C.1.g. The EPA exempts single walled USTs with continuous electronic in tank leak detection from having to maintain inventory reconciliation records. NECSEMA recommends that RIDEM include this provision in the proposed rules. Your comment has been noted, however, this regulation has been in effect since 2005 and the Department does not believe changes are necessary Leak and Spill Response D.2.c. This requirement seems overly burdensome and may cause alarm at agencies that are not used to getting these reports. NECSEMA recommends removal of this rule. Your comment has been noted, however, as this rule has been in place since 2002 without problem, the Department does not believe changes are necessary Leak and Spill Response E.1.a. NECSEMA recommends adding language to this rule to clarify that following confirmation of a release removal of all contents of the UST, UST system, and/or product piping within 24 hours is not required if a UST, UST system, and/or product piping was not the source of the release. This will remove confusion as to when the contents of a UST, UST system, and/or product piping must be removed. In response to the comment, the Department has clarified that the release must confirmed to be associated with the UST system. The Rule 1.14(E )(1) was modified to read "Unless directed by the Director to do otherwise, when a confirmed release from a UST system occurs, the owner/operator shall take the following actions:" Leak and Spill Response H.3.a. NECSEMA recommends removal of the term could result in this rule. This rule will be financially burdensome to small businesses when no release to the environment has occurred. In response to the comment, the word "could" was deleted and replaced with "resulted in". The Rule now reads as: "An inspection of a UST system or facility revealed violations of this Part which resulted in the release of the contained substances; or" Closure C.6.a.1. This rule appears to indicate that a Site Investigation and Site Investigation Report (SIR) is required prior to re opening a UST system in temporary closure. NECSEMA recommends adding language to this rule which indicates that an SIR is required when requesting a temporary closure extension after a UST system has been closed for 1 year. In response to this comment, the Department eliminated the requirement to perform a SIR when entering temporary closure. 51 Hank LaMountain Section 1.11(K)(5) is referencing standards for remote fill piping to be double walled and contained within a sump. Is remote fill piping going to be considered routinely containing fuel or is RI DEM going to use the EPAs stance on this piping as being determined to not routinely contain fuel? I can see the necessity to have access to the piping where it connects to the tank and having this access in a monitored sump but feel the wording could cause confusion as to the need for secondary containment or not. It is the Departments belief that remote fill piping does not routinely contain product, however, new and replacement remote fill piping is still required to be double walled and continuously monitored. 52 Hank LaMountain 53 Hank LaMountain Section 1.11(K)(6) states all portions of vent piping shall be FRP listed by UL or cathodically protected steel. Can this sections be changed to allow all approved methods of piping that are designed for fuel and allowable as vent piping? For instance NUPI or UPP semi rigid piping products. Section 1.11(M)(3) states that all flexible underground piping runs shall be continuous. Again with piping like NUPI and UPP we run into some confusion. These types of fusion welded pipes are commonly referred to as "semi rigid" but come on spools and are laid out like most other flexible pipes. The big difference as that these products are designed and allow for joints to be made anywhere in the piping system without the need to be contained within a sump. Can we change this wording to allow product piping like this or clearly define the difference between flexible and semi rigid piping to avoid any potential issues or would this be better suited as handled as review when it comes up? In response to this comment, the Department changed the wording to better reflect advancements in product piping by changing the wording to "non metallic UL listed piping or cathodically protected coated metal piping". The Rule now reads: "All underground portions of vent piping shall be made of non metallic UL listed piping or cathodically protected and coated steel, and shall be installed in accordance with RI DEM Office of Air Resources Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 11, Petroleum Liquids Marketing and Storage. In response to this comment and advancements in product piping technology,the Department has modified this rule to allow components UL listed for direct burial to be installed as continous runs without the sump requirement. The Rule now reads: "All flexible underground piping runs shall be continuous whereby all connections for both the primary and secondary piping are made in accessible sumps as described in 1.11(M)(1) of this Part unless the product piping, fittings, adhesives, and sealants are approved by the manufacturer and UL listed for direct burial"

6 54 Hank LaMountain Section 1.11 (M)(5) lists the EPA wording on the requirements to install UDCs but conflicts with section 1.10(n)(3)(f). The way it is written now does not clearly convey what triggers any required upgrades. In response to this comment, the Department has clarified the language to better match Rule 1.10(N)(3)(f). However, the Department would like to note that Section 1.11 specifically refers to New and Replacement installations. The modified rule now reads "All new and replacement UST systems subject to leak detection requirements must be equipped with liquid tight under dispenser containment at every dispenser connected to the UST system if not already present. Replacement or removal of the dispenser, replacement or repair of the product pipeline, UST shall also require installation of liquid tight under dispenser containment at every dispenser if not already present. Such containment must allow for visual inspection and access to the components in the containment system and/or be monitored". For consistency, Rule 1.10(N)(3)(f)(4) was removed as it conflicted with Rule 1.10(N)(3)(f)(2). This change does not change the meaning or intent of the regulation, however clarifies the language to better convey when an upgrade is required. 56 Edward Kontos 1.5 Definitions Taking a look at the proposed changes and one thing that jumped out at me was the definition of Environmental Consultant (highlighted language has been removed from the regulations). The proposed regulation change to the definition seem to imply that all onsite work needs to be performed by a PG or PE, and does not allow for other environmental professionals to perform the oversight under the supervision of the registered professional. Is this the intent of the change? The Department would note that the modification to the definition of consultant does not change the role of a consultant, or who may assist the consultant in data collection. As noted in 1.14(H)(5) and 1.15(D)(10)(c)(1), on site work may be conducted by anyone as long they are under the direction of a consultant. The Department does not believe any further changes are required to this Rule.