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.