Underground Storage Tank Bureau

Document Sample
Underground Storage Tank Bureau Powered By Docstoc
					                                State of New Mexico
                           ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
                        Underground Storage Tank Bureau
                                     2044 Galisteo Street
                                 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504
                                  Telephone (505) 984-1741
GARY E. JOHNSON                      Fax (505) 984-1738                        JOHN D’ANTONIO
   Governor                                                                       Secretary

                  Petroleum Storage Tank Regulations Advisory Group
                  Meeting, November 20, 2002, 9:00 am - 12:00 noon
             Albuquerque Eastside Animal Services, Large Conference Room
                          8920 Lomas NE, Albuquerque, NM

                           DRAFT Notes by Anna Richards

The meeting came to order at 9:05 am.

The following people attended the meeting: Maggie Anderson, Desert State Insurance;
George Biggs, NMCCA&W; David Strasser, Faith Eng.; Jessie Johnson, Duran Oil Co.;
Eileen Shannon, AEHD; Tyler Irwin, CDM; Chris Petty, Dam Site Marina; Cyndee
Biggers, Bowen Travel Centers; Douglas Bryant, NM State Parks; Frank Woffenden,
Sims Mesa Marina; Tim Littlewood, Giant Industries; Ruben Baca, NM Petroleum
Marketers, Association; Donna Brooks, City of Farmington; Steve Baker, Everready Oil
Co.; Stacy Sabol, INTERA; Gary Henderson, ERM; Gene Smith, Cannon AFB; Keith
Chavez, Joe Godwin, Tom Gray, Dan Lopez, Kalvin Martin’ Bob Miller, Pat Moore, Len
Murray, Anna Richards, Joseph Romero, Jerry Schoeppner, Joyce Shearer, NMED
Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau; Jennifer Pruett, attorney for NMED; Judy Flynn-
O’Brien, Institute of Public Law, for NMED.

Materials distributed:
• Latest drafts of parts 9, 10, 11, 16
• Draft responses by NMED to written comments on parts 4 through 8
• Wisconsin Department of Commerce web page, cleanup fund accounting status as of
• Sources of Pollution Liability Insurance for USTs and ASTs

The following agenda was set:
   • Discussion of parts 9, 10, 11 – Judy Flynn-O’Brien
   • Discussion of NMED responses to written comments on parts 4 through 8 –
       Jennifer Pruett and Kal Martin
   • Discussion of Part 16 – Joyce Shearer

February 27, 2002                         1
Tank advisory group
*Part 9, Financial Responsibility – Requirements are proposed to be the same for ASTs
and for USTs. That is, the state fund will be an approved financial responsibility
mechanism for AST releases. Owners must provide their own coverage for third-party
liability. “Aggregate” means maximum coverage per year per occurrence. The
Environmental Protection Agency has said that adding ASTs to a policy covering USTs
cannot be allowed to dilute the aggregate for the USTs.

A comment was made that fire insurance is more costly for ASTs and that theis increased
insurance cost results in a playing field that is not level. Is there any way to reduce
requirements in other areas to compensate AST owners for this increased cost? The
department responded that neither it nor the Environmental Improvement Board has been
given the authority to take all the costs of doing business into account in adopting even-
handed requirements to prevent and clean up pollution.

The department was asked if it has looked into what Colorado requirements are for
financial responsibility. Judy Flynn-O’Brien has looked at requirements of other state
regulations. She said there are few third-party insurance claims in New Mexico. About
one third of the cost of an insurance policy for petroleum storage tanks is for third-party
coverage and that policies just covering third party claims can be obtained for the lower

The department was asked if releases from tanks located on federal property but owned
by non-federal, private parties are covered by the Corrective Action Fund.

Part 10 Administrative Review – There were no questions or comments from

*Part 11, Lender Liability – The department is transcribing the federal language into part
11. That language proposed the same level of protection for lenders on facilities with
either ASTs or USTs.

One problem with adding a provision on fiduciary liability is that EPA has not provided
any guidance on it and doesn’t plan on issuing regulations.

NMED response to written comments on parts 4 through 8 – The department distributed
and went over its draft responses to comments. A copy of the final responses will be sent
to all stakeholders and will be part of the testimony at the public hearing. The following
are some highlight of the discussion that was stimulated by Jennifer Pruett’s presentation
of the draft responses.

   1. Upper limit on volume of regulated tank is proposed at 55,000 gallons.

   2. Effective dates will be same for all parts. No “grand fathering” except for a six-
      month phase-in period of interim certification to allow tank installers to meet the
      new requirements to become certified for work on ASTs..

November 20 meeting                          2
PSTB Stakeholders
*Copies of overheads used in the presentation are attached.

   3. Notification is not required in case of emergency repairs. For a definition of
      “emergency” – see part 2, Section 205.

   4. “Not operational” tanks. The department should edit the language on the
      registration form. The department continues to refine the form.

   5. Unlike USTs, owners need a tank identification number for an AST because
      ASTs are mobile. (see definition of “permanently installed.”) Registration
      certificates for USTs state the owner number and facility number but not the tank
      numbers. Someone suggested that stamp ID numbers similar to those used by the
      department of weights and measures would work.

   6. A demonstration of equivalent protection is an option for spill prevention and
      containment measures.

   7. No clay liners are permitted. All concrete must be lined or coated to achieve 10-7
      cm per second permeability.

   8. “Owner and operator” language will be clearly state that although both are
      responsible for meeting regulatory requirements, only one of the two needs to
      actually meet them.

   9. Requiring department approval of the use of codes and practice stated in
      regulations as permissible for installations seems burdensome. Aren’t all choices
      listed automatically OK? No. The chosen code or practice must be appropriate for
      the specific site and equipment.

Part 16, Contractor Certification – The department proposes to drop the test requirement
for certified scientists. It proposes to qualify firms by evaluating the education and
experience of who will be doing the corrective action at the time a work plan is
submitted. Some owners asked if there will be any way for a corrective action firm to
pre-qualify so that tank owners know before they hire a corrective action firm, if that
company does work that is eligible for payments from the Corrective Action Fund. The
department will consider this issue for site characterization. Procedures for selecting a
company for remediation must follow the competitive contractor selection process
defined in Part 17(20.5.17 NMAC).

There is an effort under way to have a Certified Professional Geologist program in New
Mexico. Talk to Stephen Reuter in the PSTB Albuquerque office for more details

Representatives from consulting firms in attendance said they get little or no feedback
from PSTB on how they are doing. Tank owners asked how they can tell if a firm is
performing well or minimally? PST Remedial Action project managers are getting out in

November 20 meeting                         3
PSTB Stakeholders
the field more to oversee work. Consultants prefer consistent requirements. Approval or
disapproval of a firm’s qualifications will be decided by a PSTB technical group, not just
one person.

Schedule of Upcoming Milestones:
• December 13, 2002- NMED requests a March 2003 public hearing before the
   Environmental Improvement Board on parts 4-8 and 16
• April 2003 – Likely month for the public hearing on parts 9-14
The department will set the same effective date for all parts

Next meeting:
Next meeting will be Wednesday, January 15,2003 at 2052 Galisteo, in the NMED
conference/training room in Santa Fe, 9am-12 noon.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m.

Thanks to Eileen Shannon and the City of Albuquerque for once again providing a very
nice meeting space for the stakeholder group, as well as a coffee pot. Thanks to Joyce
Shearer for bringing refreshments.

November 20 meeting                         4
PSTB Stakeholders

Shared By: