Arizona. UST Contamination How and Why. Presenter David Rabb 2015 ARIZONA STORAGE TANK CONFERENCE PHOENIX, AZ MAY 28, 2015

Transcription

1 Arizona UST Contamination How and Why Presenter David Rabb 2015 ARIZONA STORAGE TANK CONFERENCE PHOENIX, AZ MAY 28, 2015

2 Leak Detection Technologies LDT is made up of a team of technology and application experts Together we have developed and delivered the most sensitive leak detection methods currently available in the world PHDleak Pipeline Hydrostatic Diagnostic test method MDleak Minimum Detectible Chemical Marker/Tracer test method

3 Partial Customer s List Major Oil Chevron Texaco BP-Amoco-ARCO Exxon Mobil Shell Oil Retail TravelCenters of America QuikTrip Corporation Shell Mobil Environmental Weston Solutions Shaw Environmental Terracon Environmental Michael Baker Jr. Inc. Government Army Corp of Engineers Defense Logistics Agency Other Federal Divisions States and State Funds Pipeline Distributions TransCanada Boeing Aircraft Company Kinder Morgan Pipelines Utilities Pacific Gas & Electric Diablo Canyon Nuclear Division Independence Power & Light Railroads Burlington Northern Sante Fe Union Pacific Fueling Facilities Travel Centers of America Hertz Car Rental Shipping Companies Yellow Freight Roadway State Contracts Alabama Arizona Georgia Missouri New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Utah

4 MDleak Tracer Testing Chemical Marker Base Testing

5 Chemical Marker Base Tracer Testing MDleak Technology has been evaluated and approved by the EPA (NWGLDE). The MDleak method is approved for both liquid and vapor phase testing. The leak rate sensitivity of the test can be adjusted by changing the marker concentration within the product or containment. Sensitivity is determined by the client and can vary from 0.1gph to a 3ml leak rate per year when testing military biological containment.

6 MDleak Compatible Product List Aviation Fuel Jet fuel Gasoline Diesel Fuel/Heating Oil Solvents Biodiesel Biodiesel Blends Ethanol Ethanol Blends Blended Fuels Crude Oil Petroleum Distillates Water Nitrogen Helium Natural Gas Liquid Petroleum Methane CO2 Air Biological Liquids Radioactive Vapors & Liquids Acid and Base Solutions

7 Chemical Marker Tests AST UST Ullage and Liquid Tank Testing to Soil Primary and Secondary Pipelines Primary and/or Secondary Wall Testing Sump Testing Atmospheric containment

8 Introduction to Chemical Marker Base Testing Step 1: Sample Port Installation Ports are installed around the tanks and above the piping Sampling ports are installed utilizing 165 psi fittings, making the ports stronger than the concrete Removable Ports can also be used, then permanently repaired using standard construction practices Hundreds of thousands of sampling ports have been installed world wide with zero failures

9 Chemical Marker Base Testing Step 2: Product Inoculation MDleak testing begins by adding a chemical marker to the liquid and vapor phase of the tank As the customer pumps fuel, the chemical marker is moved throughout the product, and vapor piping system The process does not require the operation to be interrupted

10 Introduction to Chemical Base Tracer Testing Step 3: Leak Detection If a leak exists the fuel labeled with the marker will leak into the surrounding soil Once the fuel is exposed to the soil the marker will evaporate into the soil vapor space After sufficient time the marker will migrate from the leak to the nearest sampling port

11 Introduction to Chemical Base Tracer Soil vapor samples are taken above the pipelines and around the tanks and/or in the secondary containments If the chemical marker is found in either a secondary containment or in the soil vapor a primary leak is called, identified, and pinpointed for repair Testing Step 4: Sampling

12 Sump Testing and Exterior Tank Leaks Currently LDT is testing 300 plus coupons in sumps in several states. 60 coupons are scattered in AZ Chemical marker testing removes tank vapor leaks in sumps and tank penetrations along the top of the tank and eliminates corrosion: No corrosion is found in sumps No exterior corrosion in buried risers

13 LEAK DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES, Inc. David Rabb Presents

14 The Birth of UST Chemical Based Testing California required a testing method that could determine why California like other states had an unacceptable (>10%) amount of contaminated sites. The testing method needed to be able to detect both liquid and vapor releases. California chose a chemical marker based testing method for its sensitivity, leak location benefits and cost effectiveness. The California Field Based Research project was developed by several of our team members and implemented through the University at UC-Davis. See Handout

15 Field Base Research Summary In Santa Clara County, MTBE was so prevalent it could be tasted in the tape water motivating the research project. 182 systems were tested. 80% of the systems tested had at least one detection of tracer. Out of the 145 leaking system, there was only one liquid leak in a pipe joint. Statistically, there was no difference in number of leaks between a double-walled and single-walled UST system to soil.

16 Vapor Leaks 168-gallons of vapor equals 1-gallon of evaporated liquid gasoline Vapor leaks are greatest during fill events. Outside of California subsurface vapor leaks are not regulated (vapor leaks found underground). California s million dollar Field Base Research project proved that both subsurface vapor leaks and liquid leaks were the cause of California s groundwater contamination and the current 44 GPY legislation. Case studies show testing for vapor leaks is important. What is more harmful liquid or vapor leaks?

17 What Are The Components That Make Up Gasoline Vapor A one gallon liquid equivalent (168gal) vapor leak is a drastically greater contaminate to the soil vapor environment than a gallon of released liquid gasoline.

18 California Field Base Research Study Objectives What is a realistic leak rate threshold? What components needed to be regulated? EPA LDT Component Threshold Threshold Product Piping 876 Gallons Per Year 44GPY UST 876 Gallons Per Year 44GPY Vent Lines Non Regulated 44GPY LE Vapor Return Lines Non Regulated 44GPY LE Tank Top Fittings Non Regulated 44GPY LE Spill Buckets Non Regulated 44GPY LE New Construction Non Regulated 44GPY LE

19 What is a Liquid Leak? Federal guidelines state that a detection method must be an approved method which is capable of detecting an 876 Gallons Per Year leak (0.1gph) Because the EPA has not changed this leak rate in over 40 years most states are swimming in their number of Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites. Furthermore: Traditional testing methods divides the site into sections, then test each section separately. Each test section could leak as much as 876 GPY and would not be detected using traditional testing methods. With an average of 6 sections per facility, potentially thousands of gallons can be released annually at sites with multiple leaks.

20 LDT travels throughout North America detecting leaks at facilities that have never been out of regulatory compliance. Some States (see Iowa Executive summary) believe that 40% of their current sites have/had chronic leaks below traditional federal leak levels. The tank to the right equates to a 4 month long continuous leak at the current federal leak rate of 876 gals per year (0.1gph).

21 This Tank Represents a 0.1gph Leak After One Year (876 gallons)

22 The Liquid In This Tank Represents The Federal Leak Threshold From Just One Leak 10 YEAR Leak (8,760 gallons)

23 1,752-5gal buckets equal a 0.1gph leak over 10 years Let s picture your own backyard: A traditional 0.1gph leak is equivalent to pouring a 5 gal bucket of fuel in your backyard every-other-day or 17 gallons every week A 876gpy leak is 20 times more contamination than can be self-remediated by microbes naturally found in the soil. A 50 gpy leak will self remediate biologically 5 gallon buckets of contamination over 10 years 5 gallon buckets below the 50gpy level

24 Arizona Adds 85 New Systems Each Year to the LUST List The majority of these 85 systems did not have a recordable spill. Additionally, many of the 85 systems were never out of compliance over the tank s life span. QUESTION: How does a facility that has never been out of compliance and has never had a recorded release find itself on the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Data Base?

25 Cost to the State, Owners, and In the last 30 years, Arizona alone has registered 8,834 tanks into the LUST data base. If 8,834 tanks averaged $25K to repair/remove the tank it would cost a ¼ of a billon dollars over 30 years.. Currently 709 LUST tanks are under investigation. Insurance Company s Good testing would remove about half of these from the LUST database. 5 gallon buckets of contamination over 10 years 5 gallon buckets below the 50gpy level

26 QUESTIONS? EPA s Acceptable Leak Rate Over 10 Year Period Environmentally Acceptable Leak Rate Threshold