Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Department of Environmental Quality
State Water Control Board
Underground Storage Tanks: Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements [9 VAC 25 ‑ 580]


All comments for this forum
Back to List of Comments
5/8/23  9:07 am
Commenter: Josh Worth, Wawa, Inc.

Overfill Prevention testing requirements

9VAC25-580-50(3)(a)(2) only requires a tank owner to install and operate one form of overfill prevention equipment, but DEQ is mandating that all equipment needs to be tested if more than one is installed. This makes sense if the 2 forms are a ball float and a flapper valve on a drop tube due to compatibility issues, but there is no rational for testing both an electronic overfill alarm and a mechanical flapper valve on a drop tube. Only the primary equipment should need to be tested. There are no compatibility issues with an overfill alarm and the flapper valve on a drop tube.

This requirement to test all equipment punishes the tank owner that went over and above the regulations by installing a primary method at 90% and a secondary method at 95%. The cost to remove a single drop tube that is seized due to ethanol is ~ $4000. This is a significant financial impact for equipment that is not even required. This incentivises tank owners to just meet the bare minimum of the regulations and not to go over and above for additional protection.

CommentID: 216877

5/9/23  2:15 pm
Commenter: John Sieger, Sheetz, Inc.

Periodic Walkthrough Inspections and months with 31 days


Lists the requirements for periodic O&M walkthrough inspections to be conducted on a 30-day cycle. The fact that EPA set a 30-day requirement for what was supposed to be a "monthly" walkthrough inspection is cumbersome to the regulated UST community/Owner-Operators, considering that there are 7 months in the year with 31 days in them. We strongly urge VADEQ to consider mimicking what Florida did (as a suggestion) with this requirement in their state and change the language of this statute to mandate it be known as a "Monthly" inspection, and set the limit on the maximum # of days to elapse between each inspection to be no more than 35 (or a number VADEQ is comfortable with) days. The resulting statute will permit one inspection to occur for each "month" of the year, avoid O/O from paying for 13 inspections, and provide for inclement weather delays, manpower issues and other routine negative factors to not affect compliance. We would also be in favor of retaining the language in the current statute, requiring spill prevention equipment receiving deliveries at intervals of longer than 30 days to receive an inspection prior to each delivery.

CommentID: 216929