I would like to see if you would revisit the requirement to remove the ball floats when they fail and we install another form of overfill protection. Can you consider going with a rule similar to NC that allows you to leave the ball float in as long as the overfill valve is below the ball float. I trust the ball float over an overfill valve any day of the week as the overfill valves are more likely to fail and also drivers tend to bypass the overfill valves. The only time I have seen a ball float fail was when it was stuck in the closed position which that prevented the site from getting a delivery. All of the ball floats we have tested have failed due to the 90% rule, not that anything was wrong with them.

Thanks for your time and consideration

Spill buckets: A dry interstice is not permitted because it does not always allow monitoring of the outer wall. An interstice monitored by a sensor only, must contain brine solution. – I have checked with suppliers and other industry personnel and have been unable to locate a spill bucket with a 'brine' solution.  Double walled spill buckets are either dry with no sensor or dry with an interstitial sensor. 

. . . If the sump is capable of being used for interstitial monitoring then it must be tested, unless the tank owner/operator can clearly demonstrate that they are not using the sump for interstitial monitoring. Regardless of whether other methods are also being performed, if interstitial monitoring is being used, these sumps must be tested.  – I am concerned about how field personnel will interpret this guidance.  I interpret as . . . you originally registered using IM, however changed to annual line and leak detector testing b/c you didn’t want to complete secondary containment testing. 

I'm concerned that if sensors are installed w/ DWL pipe, regardless of install date, some personnel may 'require' interstitial monitoring/secondary containment testing.  It is highly probable that multiple sites have sensors installed at locations with install dates prior to 9/15/2010.  Will it be necessary to remove sump/UDC sensors to ensure secondary containment testing will not be required?

 VTCA Aggregate Producer Members account for 91% of all metal/nonmetal mineral production in the Commonwealth. Amendments to the General Permit for Nonmetallic Mineral Mining [9 VAC 5-510] (NMPGP) will have a widespread impact on Virginia’s aggregate producers.

As identified within section 3.3 of the UST guidance document, 

"...Containment sumps used for interstitial monitoring installed on or after January 1, 2018 must be tightness

tested at the time of installation and every three years thereafter unless the tanks are temporarily closed and empty. All other containment sumps used for interstitial monitoring must be tightness tested prior to January 1, 2021 and every three years thereafter. Containment sumps that were installed prior to September 15, 2010 that are not used for interstitial monitoring do not need to be tested every three years..."

This language essentially states that those older tanks that have necessary precautions installed to assist in detecting a leak, i.e. installed a sump fill sensor, need to perform hydrostatic testing on their sump while older tanks who have no additional interstitial leak detection equipment are not required to perform hydrostatic testing at all.  This seems incorrect - why wouldn’t facilities simply remove their sensors, amend their UST notification, and thus eliminate their need to perform hydrostatic testing every 3 years?  This guidance is confusing and seems counterintuitive.  Please confirm this guidance is correct.

Today we were contacted by a petroleum marketer with a concern about the proposed UST Guidance regulations.  While I have not been able to independently verify their concern, it would be concerning to our association members that own and operate the vast majority of UST systems in the Commonwealth, whether this provision is in fact more stringent than required by the federal government.  Therefore we would like clarification as to whether that is the case and if so, would suggest that the words “capable of “ be deleted from the guidance. 

Thank you for your consideration

The Federal requirements is to hydro test sumps that are used for interstitial monitoring. This (Virginia) regulation says that you need to hydro tests any sumps that are capable of interstitial regardless of whether you are using them for interstitial monitoring or not. This is the part that is more stringent than the feds.

Multiple (redundant) release detection:

??Facilities with piping installed on or after September 15, 2010 are required to perform interstitial monitoring. As such, the sumps need to be tested.

??For facilities with piping installed before September 15, 2010, DEQ staff will review release detection records provided by the owner/operator, UST registration information, and any other indications (sump sensors, sump sensor tests) that interstitial monitoring is being used. If the sump is capable of being used for interstitial monitoring then it must be tested, unless the tank owner/operator can clearly demonstrate that they are not using the sump for interstitial monitoring. Regardless of whether other methods are also being performed, if interstitial monitoring is being used, these sumps must be tested.

Comment for Section 3.3 Sump and Under-Dispenser Containment (UDC) Testing:

Multiple (redundant) release detection:

For facilities with piping installed before September 15, 2010, DEQ staff will review release detection records provided by the owner/operator, UST registration information, and any other indications (sump sensors, sump sensor tests) that interstitial monitoring is being used. If the sump is capable of being used for interstitial monitoring then it must be tested, unless the tank owner/operator can clearly demonstrate that they are not using the sump for interstitial monitoring.

Comment:

The 2015 Federal Regulations were adopted in January 2018 giving three years for implementation due by 2021 for sump tightness testing of facilities built after September 15, 2010.  There was no mention of requiring facilities built prior to September 15, 2010 that are capable of interstitial monitoring being required for sump tightness testing.  Consideration is requested to remove this requirement all together due to the undue burden and unexpected cost to owner/operators along with shorter timeframe to comply than facilities that were built after September 15, 2010. 

If the requirement will not be removed, an extension is requested in order to properly budget, test, and upgrade containment sumps to comply with this requirement.  Facilities built prior to September 15, 2010 were given three years to comply with sump testing requirements with facilities built prior to September 15, 2010 only allowed five months to comply with the same requirements. 

The proposed rule does not provide adequate clarification how owners/operators can clearly demonstrate that the sump is not being used for interstitial monitoring.  If the sump sensor is the single mechanism capable of interstitial monitoring, are owner/operators allowed to remove the sensors from the sump and programming thereby making the sump not capable for interstitial monitoring?

This modification to testing requirements force owner/operators to effectively choose between costly upgrades to containment sumps or eliminating an additional form of release detection from the fuel system in order to comply.  This rule appears to place more burdens and costs on owners/operators that conduct their required piping release detection while simultaneously performing a secondary or tertiary form of release detection, using technology that was not required at the time of installation, in order to have quick reaction to prevent releases.  Given the short timeframe and the potential substantial costs of complying with this requirement, there is the possibility that many owners/operators throughout the state will be forced to reduce their leak detection technology due to insufficient funding and the short timeframe to comply.