Compatibility of Underground Storage Tank Systems With Biofuel Blends, 70241-70246 [2010-28968]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
compelling and extraordinary
conditions.
C. Consistency with Section 202(a) of
the Clean Air Act
EPA has stated in the past that
California standards and accompanying
test procedures would be inconsistent
with section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act
if: (1) There is inadequate lead time to
permit the development of technology
necessary to meet those requirements,
giving appropriate consideration to cost
of compliance within the lead time
provided, or (2) the federal and
California test procedures impose
inconsistent certification
requirements.38
The first prong of EPA’s inquiry into
consistency with section 202(a) of the
Act depends upon technological
feasibility. This requires EPA to
determine whether adequate technology
already exists; or if it does not, whether
there is adequate time to develop and
apply the technology before the
standards go into effect. CARB noted
during its rulemakings that the methods
that can be used to meet the 2004–2005
standards consist of technologies that
have already been developed in
response to federal emission standards.
The technology changes that were
expected to occur as a result of the new
regulations include: Improved
durability catalysts with increased
precious metal loading, optimization of
the catalyst and fuel metering systems
(including improved fuel injection and
heated oxygen sensors), increased use of
air injection and retarded spark ignition
to control cold start emissions, and
improved exhaust gas recirculation for
better NOX control.39 Additionally,
CARB notes that the technological
feasibility demonstrations for the
exhaust emission standards reflect the
technological feasibility in EPA’s own
analysis for the federal standards.40
CARB also relied on the federal findings
of technological feasibility for
technologies that can be used to meet
the 2008 and beyond standards.41 EPA
finds that CARB employed appropriate
projections of the feasibility of the
technologies necessary to meet both the
2004–2005 standards and the 2008
standards. CARB’s examination of the
technological feasibility findings made
by EPA in the federal rulemaking along
with subsequent technology
developments provide no basis upon
which to find that CARB’s standards are
38 See, e.g., 75 FR 8056 (February 23, 2010); 70
FR 22034 (April 28, 2005).
39 CARB Item 2 at 7–8.
40 65 FR 59896 (October 6, 2000).
41 66 FR 5002 (January 18, 2001), at pp. 5053 to
5055.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Nov 16, 2010
Jkt 223001
not consistent with section 202(a) of the
Act.
The second prong of EPA’s inquiry
into consistency with section 202(a) of
the Act depends on the compatibility of
the federal and California test
procedures. CARB points out that its
certification requirements are nearly
identical to those adopted by EPA.42 In
fact, CARB found that beginning with
the 2008 model year, California’s test
procedures are identical to the federal
test procedures for heavy-duty gasoline
engines and incomplete vehicles.43 EPA
agrees with this analysis and finds that
one set of tests for a heavy-duty engine
or vehicle could be used to determine
compliance with both California and
federal requirements. Therefore, we
cannot find California’s test procedures
to be inconsistent with our own.
For these reasons, I cannot deny the
waiver based on a finding that the 2000
and 2002 amendments are inconsistent
with section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
70241
for purposes of section 307(b) (1) of the
Act.
Pursuant to section 307(b) (1) of the
Act, judicial review of this final action
may be sought only in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review
must be filed by January 18, 2011.
Judicial review of this final action may
not be obtained in subsequent
enforcement proceedings, pursuant to
section 307(b) (2) of the Act.
In addition, this action is not a rule
as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has
not prepared a supporting regulatory
flexibility analysis addressing the
impact of this action on small business
entities.
Dated: November 10, 2010.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2010–28971 Filed 11–16–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
III. Decision
EPA’s analysis finds the criteria for
granting a waiver of preemption to be
satisfied. The amendments require a
new waiver of preemption because ‘‘new
issues’’ are presented by the
establishment of more stringent
numerical standards in efforts to
harmonize California standards with
federal standards. Upon evaluation, EPA
has determined that CARB has met the
criteria for a waiver of preemption for
the 2000 and 2002 amendments.
The Administrator has delegated the
authority to grant California a section
209(b) waiver to enforce its own
emission standards for on-road engines
to the Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation. Having given
consideration to all the material
submitted for this record, and other
relevant information, I find that I cannot
make the determinations required for a
denial of a waiver pursuant to section
209(b) of the Act. Therefore, I grant a
waiver of Clean Air Act preemption to
the State of California with respect to its
heavy-duty Otto-cycle engine and
vehicle requirements as set forth above.
My decision will affect not only
persons in California but also
manufacturers outside the State who
must comply with California’s
requirements in order to produce
engines for sale in California. For this
reason, I determine and find that this is
a final action of national applicability
42 Id.
And Item 2 at pp. 7–8.
Request for Confirmation that
Amendments Are Within the Scope of Previous
Waivers of Preemption Under Clean Air Act Section
209(b), December 7, 2005 at 14.
43 CARB
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–UST–2010–0651; FRL–9227–8]
Compatibility of Underground Storage
Tank Systems With Biofuel Blends
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed guidance
and request for comments.
AGENCY:
EPA’s Office of Underground
Storage Tanks intends to issue guidance
that would clarify EPA’s underground
storage tank (UST) compatibility
requirement as it applies to UST
systems storing gasoline containing
greater than 10 percent ethanol and
diesel containing an amount of biodiesel
yet to be determined. Today’s Federal
Register notice solicits comment on the
proposed guidance, which provides
owners and operators of underground
storage tank systems greater clarity in
demonstrating compatibility of their
tank systems with these fuels.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 17, 2010, 30 days
after publication in the Federal
Register.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
UST–2010–0651, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: rcra-docket@epa.gov.
• Mail: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17NON1.SGM
17NON1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
70242
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Notices
Underground Storage Tank (UST)
Docket, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–UST–2010–
0651. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the UST Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Nov 16, 2010
Jkt 223001
number for the UST Docket is (202)
566–0270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrea Barbery, Office of Underground
Storage Tanks, Mail Code 5402P,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number: (703)
603–7137; e-mail address:
barbery.andrea@epa.gov.
• Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Statutory Authority
I. General Information
This proposed guidance discusses
EPA’s underground storage tank (UST)
compatibility requirement that was
promulgated under the authority of
Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act (SWDA), as amended. 42 U.S.C.
6991b et seq. This requirement, which
is referenced and discussed in the
guidance, is found in 40 CFR 280.32.
A. Does this action apply to me?
This action applies to owners and
operators of underground storage tank
systems regulated by 40 CFR Part 280,
who intend to store gasoline blended
with greater than 10 percent ethanol. It
may also apply to owners and operators
storing a to-be-determined percentage of
biodiesel blended with diesel fuel.
B. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD–ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD–ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI). In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
• Follow directions—The agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
II. Background
B. Underground Storage Tank
Compatibility Requirement
To protect groundwater, a source of
drinking water for nearly half of all
Americans, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) regulates UST
systems storing petroleum or hazardous
substances under authority of Subtitle I
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended. Ethanol and biodiesel are not
regulated substances under EPA’s UST
program; however, tanks storing
gasoline or diesel mixed with ethanol or
biodiesel are regulated by EPA. For the
purposes of this guidance, EPA
considers an ‘‘ethanol blend’’ to be any
amount of ethanol mixed with
petroleum gasoline, and a ‘‘biodiesel
blend’’ to be any amount of biodiesel
mixed with petroleum diesel.
EPA regulations address the
prevention and detection of releases
from UST systems; one particular
provision in the federal UST regulations
that aims to prevent releases specifically
requires compatibility of stored
substances with UST system
components. As the U.S. moves toward
an increased use of biofuels, such as
ethanol and biodiesel, compliance with
the UST compatibility requirement
becomes even more important, since
ethanol and biodiesel blends can
compromise the integrity of some UST
system materials. Today’s Federal
Register notice solicits comment on
proposed guidance and associated
issues that will clarify how owners/
operators of UST systems storing fuels
containing greater than 10 percent
ethanol or a to be determined percent of
biodiesel can demonstrate compliance
with the UST compatibility
requirement.
As of March 2010, there are
approximately 607,000 regulated USTs
E:\FR\FM\17NON1.SGM
17NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Notices
at 221,000 facilities nationwide. States
and territories (hereafter referred to as
states) are the primary implementers of
the UST program because they are in the
best position to implement UST
program requirements, based on the size
and diversity of the regulated
community. In order for EPA to approve
a State’s program, that state’s
regulations must be at least as stringent
as the Federal UST regulations.
An UST system includes the
underground storage tank, connected
underground piping, underground
ancillary equipment, and any
containment systems. Fuel dispensers
are not part of the UST system, and
therefore this guidance does not apply
to dispensers.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
C. Discussion
The federal UST regulations require
that ‘‘[o]wners and operators must use
an UST system made of or lined with
materials that are compatible with the
substance stored in the UST system’’ (40
CFR § 280.32). Because the chemical
and physical properties of ethanol and
biodiesel can make these fuel blends
containing them more degrading to
certain UST system materials than
petroleum, it is important to ensure that
all UST system components in contact
with the biofuel blend are materially
compatible with that fuel. Industry
practice has been for owners and
operators to demonstrate compatibility
by using equipment certified by an
independent testing laboratory, such as
Underwriters Laboratories (UL).
However, many UST system
components in use today, with the
exception of most tanks and piping,
have not been tested by UL for
compatibility. Without certification
from a third party that these equipment
are compatible with anything beyond
conventional fuels, the suitability of
these particular components for use
with ethanol and biodiesel blends
comes into question.
Compatibility of Ethanol-Blended Fuel
Gasoline containing low percentages
(10 percent or less) of ethanol has been
used in parts of the country for many
years. Many tanks and piping have been
tested and are listed by UL for
compatibility with higher-level ethanol
blends. Many other components of the
UST system, including leak detection
devices, seals, and containment sumps
(for example) may not be listed by UL
for compatibility with ethanol blends.
EPA expects recent federal and state
laws encouraging increased use of
biofuels to translate into a greater
number of UST systems storing biofuels,
as well as a greater number of UST
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Nov 16, 2010
Jkt 223001
systems storing higher percentages of
biofuel blends. EPA is aware of material
compatibility concerns associated with
some UST system equipment storing
higher ethanol blends, such as E85
(gasoline containing up to 85 percent
ethanol), which is an alternative fuel
used in flexible fuel vehicles. EPA
understands that in order to avoid
compatibility issues with E85, many
tank owners who currently store E85
either installed all new equipment
designed to store high level ethanol
blends or upgraded certain components
to handle the higher ethanol content.
Because the typical lifespan of an
underground storage tank is about 30
years, most UST systems currently in
use are likely to contain components
that were not designed to store ethanol
blends beyond 10 percent. These older
systems may not be certified by UL or
another independent testing laboratory
for use with these blends.
Although very little data exists
pertaining to the compatibility of UST
equipment with ethanol blends,
literature suggests that mid-level
ethanol blends may have the most
degrading effect on some UST system
materials. For example, ‘‘Underwriters
Laboratories Research Program on
Material Compatibility and Test
Protocols for E85 Dispensing
Equipment,’’ which evaluated the effect
of 85 percent ethanol and 25 percent
ethanol blends, indicates that some
materials used in the manufacture of
seals were degraded more when
exposed to the 25 percent ethanol test
fluid than when exposed to the 85
percent ethanol test fluid (Underwriters
Laboratories, 2007). Further,
‘‘Compatibility and Permeability of
Oxygenated Fuels to Materials in
Underground Storage and Dispensing
Equipment’’ (State Water Resources
Control Board’s Advisory Panel, 1999)
confirms that alcohol fuel blends are
‘‘more aggressive toward polymers than
any of the neat constituents in the fuel,’’
and points specifically to 15 percent
ethanol in gasoline as being the blend at
which the maximum swelling occurs in
polymeric materials. Both of these
documents are available in the UST
Docket under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
UST–2010–0651.
In March 2009, EPA received a Clean
Air Act (CAA) waiver application to
increase the allowable ethanol content
of a gasoline-ethanol blended fuel from
10 volume percent ethanol to 15 volume
percent ethanol.1 Please note that this
action under the CAA has no bearing on
an UST owner or operator’s requirement
to comply with all applicable EPA UST
1 See
PO 00000
74 FR 18228 (April 21, 2009).
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
70243
regulations, including the UST
compatibility requirement in 40 CFR
280.32. Specifically, in order to ensure
the safe storage of higher ethanol and
biodiesel blends under EPA’s UST
program, owners and operators must
meet the compatibility requirement for
UST systems. Recently, EPA
conditionally granted a partial waiver
that allows gasoline-ethanol blends that
contain greater than 10 volume percent
ethanol up to 15 volume percent ethanol
(E15) to be introduced into commerce
for use in 2007 and newer model year
light-duty motor vehicles, which
includes passenger cars, light-duty
trucks and medium-duty passenger
vehicles such as some sport utility
vehicles (SUVs).2 If other State, Federal,
and industry practices also support such
introduction, E15 may become available
in the marketplace. Thus, EPA
anticipates that some UST system
owners and operators may choose to
store higher percentages of ethanol in
their UST systems. For those who
intend to store E15 or other amounts of
ethanol greater than 10 volume percent,
EPA is proposing this guidance to
clarify the compatibility requirement
with regard to these blends and provide
greater flexibility for owners and
operators who intend to store E15,
including those whose equipment may
not be certified as compatible by an
independent testing laboratory.
Compatibility of Biodiesel-Blended Fuel
In addition to ethanol, biodiesel is
becoming increasingly available across
the U.S., though its total use is
significantly less compared to that of
ethanol-blended gasoline. EPA
understands that owners and operators
are storing biodiesel/petroleum diesel
blends in UST systems, ranging from
two percent biodiesel (B2) to 99 percent
biodiesel (B99). In this guidance, EPA
proposes to include biodiesel blends,
based on the fact that many states that
already have compatibility policies in
place address both ethanol blends and
biodiesel blends. At least one state
developed a compatibility policy to
apply to biodiesel blends greater than
B5, meaning owners and operators of
UST systems containing biodiesel/
petroleum diesel blends greater than 5
percent biodiesel must meet the
requirements in the state’s guidance.
Other states have selected to use B20 as
the threshold, since B20 is commonly
used in government and military fleets.
EPA is aware that there may be
material compatibility issues with some
UST system equipment in biodiesel
service, but the Agency lacks sufficient
2 See
E:\FR\FM\17NON1.SGM
75 FR 68043 (November 4, 2010).
17NON1
70244
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Notices
data on the compatibility of various
biodiesel blends with UST system
equipment currently in use across the
country. EPA also acknowledges that no
UST equipment has a UL-listing for use
with biodiesel blends. UL has issued a
statement indicating that biodiesel
blends up to B5 will not require special
investigation by UL, meaning that these
fuels may be considered the same as
conventional petroleum fuels.
According to UL, biodiesel blends
greater than 5 percent may have a
significant effect on materials. For these
reasons, EPA is seeking comment on
what percentage of biodiesel in
biodiesel blends should be used for
including these fuels in the scope of
today’s proposed guidance.
Testing on Ethanol and Biodiesel Blends
The U.S. Department of Energy is
currently performing testing on the
compatibility of some UST system
materials with mid-level ethanol blends.
Depending on results of DOE’s research,
EPA may change its guidance. EPA is
not aware of a testing program to
evaluate the compatibility of UST
system equipment with biodiesel
blends.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Applicability of Proposed Guidance
This guidance clarifies how owners
and operators of underground storage
tanks (USTs) can comply with EPA’s
compatibility requirement (40 CFR
280.32) when storing certain biofuels
(ethanol-blended fuels greater than 10
percent and biodiesel-blended fuels
greater than [TBD] percent). UST
owners and operators, as well as other
affected stakeholders should be aware
that, when final, EPA’s proposed
guidance will apply in Indian country
and in States that do not have State
program approval (SPA). States that
have SPA must, in 40 CFR 281.32, have
a compatibility requirement that is
similar to the Federal requirement.
Therefore, SPA states could also find
this guidance to be relevant and useful
to them as well.
Owner and Operator Demonstration of
Compatibility
EPA considers the following three
methods as effective options for
demonstrating compatibility:
• Certification or listing by an
independent test laboratory;
• Equipment manufacturer approval;
or
• Another method determined by the
implementing agency to sufficiently
protect human health and the
environment.
Implementing agencies may
determine there are other acceptable
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Nov 16, 2010
Jkt 223001
methods for demonstrating compliance
with the compatibility requirement, as
long as they sufficiently protect human
health and the environment. EPA will
work with states as they evaluate other
acceptable methods.
Some states have developed policies
similar to EPA’s proposal published
today. Some examples of state policies
regarding compatibility of UST
equipment with biofuels include:
Iowa: https://www.iowadnr.gov/land/ust/
technicalresources/ethanol.html.
Wisconsin: https://test.commerce.wi.gov/
ER/pdf/bst/Forms_FM/ER-BST-FM-9AlternativeFuels.pdf.
South Carolina:https://www.scdhec.gov/
environment/lwm/forms/d-3885.pdf.
Colorado: https://www.colorado.gov/cs/
Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blob
header=application%2Fpdf&blob
key=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blob
where=1251616370465&
ssbinary=true.
These documents are also available in
the UST Docket under Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–UST–2010–0651.
Currently, a note in the Federal UST
regulations allows owners and operators
to use the American Petroleum
Institute’s (API) Recommended Practice
1626, an industry code of practice, to
meet the compatibility requirement for
ethanol-blended fuels. The original
version of API 1626 (1st ed. 1985,
reaffirmed in 2000) applies to up to 10
percent ethanol blended with gasoline
and is not applicable to meet the
compatibility requirement for ethanol
blends greater than 10 percent. In
August, 2010, API published a second
edition of API 1626. The second edition
does address ethanol blends greater than
10 percent, and may also be used as a
method for demonstrating compatibility.
D. Request for Comments
EPA requests public comment on the
following issues as well as the proposed
guidance that immediately follows:
1—UST Components That May Be
Affected by Biofuel Blends—A UST
system comprises many components
that can be affected by the fuel stored.
Some of these components may or may
not come into contact with fuel or lead
directly to a release. However, the
failure of these components could either
directly or indirectly lead to a release if
they are not compatible. To help owners
ensure compatibility, EPA proposes
listing the following equipment, at a
minimum, to be included in today’s
proposed guidance to clarify what UST
system components may be affected by
biofuel blends:
• Tank or internal tank lining;
• Piping;
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
• Pipe adhesives and glues;
• Line leak detectors;
• Flexible connectors;
• Fill pipe;
• Spill and overfill prevention
equipment;
• Submersible turbine pump and
components;
• Fittings, gaskets, bushings,
couplings, and boots;
• Containment sumps (including
submersible turbine sumps and under
dispenser containment);
• Release detection floats, sensors,
and probes.
This list of components is consistent
with lists used by states with
compatibility policies, though it is
somewhat less inclusive, since the
federal UST program does not have
authority to regulate dispensers or fuel
quality.
Although release detection equipment
and overfill prevention equipment do
not contain product and failure of these
components will not directly lead to a
release, EPA proposes including these
categories because failure of these
equipment may lead indirectly to
releases. For example, a failed leak
detection device may not detect a
release that has occurred; similarly, a
malfunctioning overfill prevention
device may lead to overfilling of a tank.
Questions for commenters:
• Are there components that should
be added to or removed from the list?
• Is it possible to demonstrate
compatibility for these components?
2—Methods To Demonstrate
Compatibility—Many tanks and piping
have been tested and are listed by UL
for compatibility with ethanol blends.
EPA considers this to be an effective
method for demonstrating compatibility.
However, many other components of the
UST system may not have been tested
with ethanol and are not listed by UL
for compatibility with ethanol blends. In
addition, no UST equipment is ULlisted for use with biodiesel blends.
Some existing UST system components
might be compatible with ethanol or
biodiesel blends, although the
equipment may not have a certification
or listing from an independent testing
laboratory specific to the fuel blend. As
a result, EPA is proposing manufacturer
approval as another acceptable method
for demonstrating compatibility. Also,
states may believe that there are other
reasonable ways to demonstrate
compatibility. With that in mind, EPA is
considering providing flexibility for
states who wish to take a different
approach for demonstrating
compatibility, as long as that approach
sufficiently protects human health and
E:\FR\FM\17NON1.SGM
17NON1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Notices
the environment. EPA proposes to
recommend the following methods for
demonstrating compatibility:
• Certification or listing by an
independent test laboratory;
• Equipment manufacturer approval;
or
• Another method determined by the
implementing agency to sufficiently
protect human health and the
environment. EPA will work with states
as they evaluate other acceptable
methods.
Although some states allow a
professional engineer (P.E.) to make a
compatibility determination, EPA does
not believe a blanket acceptance of P.E.
certification is a good approach. There
are numerous types of P.E.s, any one of
which is not likely to cover all aspects
of materials science and UST equipment
compatibility. Further, states that allow
this option indicated that it is not being
used. If additional states consider
allowing a P.E. to make a compatibility
determination for UST equipment, EPA
will discuss that option with those
states.
Questions for commenters:
• Are the methods for demonstrating
compatibility, as described above,
appropriate?
• Are these options feasible for UST
owners?
• Are there other reasonable methods
EPA should include?
3—Criteria for Equipment
Manufacturer Approval as a
Compatibility Method—EPA
understands that an independent testing
laboratory certification may be the most
standardized, consistent, and
recognizable way to demonstrate
compatibility. However, EPA wants to
provide flexibility and is also
considering relying on a statement of
compatibility by the manufacturer as a
secondary method for owners and
operators, and to demonstrate
compatibility of their UST equipment.
EPA is considering numerous forms for
manufacturer approvals. For example,
EPA is considering items such as
product warranties, brochures, or letters
from manufacturers as acceptable
equipment manufacturer approvals.
EPA believes manufacturer approvals
should include these three criteria in
order to adequately demonstrate
compatibility:
• Be in writing;
• Indicate affirmative statements of
compatibility; and
• Be from the equipment
manufacturer, not another entity (such
as the installer or distributor).
Questions for commenters:
• Are these three criteria appropriate?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Nov 16, 2010
Jkt 223001
• Are manufacturers willing and able
to produce this approval?
• Are there other tools which might
assist UST owners to obtain this
information?
4—Applicability to Biodiesel Blends—
EPA proposes to include biodiesel
blends in its guidance because of the
increased use of biodiesel across the
U.S., as well as the fact that many states
already address biodiesel blends in their
compatibility policies. EPA understands
compatibility issues with biodieselblended fuels may be different than
those experienced with ethanol-blended
fuels and acknowledges that
determining a percentage threshold in
the absence of compatibility data may
be either unnecessarily stringent or not
sufficiently protective. However, lack of
compatibility information for biodiesel
and biodiesel blends makes it difficult
to determine whether UST system
materials and equipment are
compromised by storing biodiesel
blends and at what approximate blend
percentage compatibility problems
occur. EPA seeks input about the
percentage of biodiesel where
compatibility becomes a potential
concern.
Questions for commenters:
• Should EPA include biodiesel
blends in the guidance?
• What biodiesel blend percentage
should EPA use in the guidance? Please
provide data to support the percentage.
5—Ability To Demonstrate
Compatibility Using the Proposed
Guidance—Due to the long expected
lifetime of USTs and the high turnover
rate of owners and operators, EPA
understands it will be difficult for many
owners and operators to locate
documentation for much of their
equipment. Without knowing what
equipment is installed at the site,
demonstrating compatibility may be
difficult for those who wish to store and
sell biofuel blends. In addition, some
equipment may simply not be
compatible with some biofuel blends.
Based on the list of UST components
and methods described above in issues
1 and 2, respectively, EPA requests
comment on the following:
• How difficult will it be for owners
and operators to demonstrate
compatibility for each of these
components?
• How many UST facilities will not
be able to demonstrate compatibility
based on these criteria?
• What would be necessary for these
facilities to come into compliance (for
example, replace seals, replace release
detection probes, replace the entire UST
system, etc.)?
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
70245
6—Other Options That Sufficiently
Protect Human Health and the
Environment—In light of the discussion
under issue 5 above, EPA recognizes
that some owners and operators of UST
system components may not be able to
demonstrate compatibility or may find it
difficult to do so. Because of this, EPA
is seeking input on alternatives that
would sufficiently protect human health
and the environment, even though they
are outside the scope of the proposed
guidance. For example, there might be
additional activities owners and
operators could perform in the absence
of being able to demonstrate
compatibility that would result in
sufficient protection of human health
and the environment.
Question for commenters:
• Without documentation, are there
alternative methods UST owners and
operators could rely on or activities they
could perform that would sufficiently
protect human health and the
environment? Please be specific and
provide data to support your alternative.
Proposed Guidance
Guidance on the Compatibility of
Underground Storage Tank Systems
With Ethanol Blends Greater Than Ten
Percent and Biodiesel Blends Greater
Than [To Be Determined (TBD)] Percent
[Insert Date]
This guidance clarifies how owners
and operators of underground storage
tanks (USTs) can comply with EPA’s
compatibility requirement (40 CFR
280.32) when storing certain biofuels
(ethanol-blended fuels greater than 10
percent and biodiesel-blended fuels
greater than [TBD] percent). EPA
promulgated this requirement (and all
other UST requirements) under the
authority of Subtitle I of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended.
In March 2009, EPA received a Clean
Air Act (CAA) waiver application to
increase the allowable ethanol content
of a gasoline-ethanol blended fuel from
10 volume percent ethanol to 15 volume
percent ethanol.3 EPA recently
conditionally granted a partial waiver
that allows gasoline-ethanol blends that
contain greater than 10 volume percent
ethanol up to 15 volume percent ethanol
(E15) to be introduced into commerce
for use in 2007 and newer model year
light-duty motor vehicles, which
includes passenger cars, light-duty
trucks and medium-duty passenger
vehicles such as some sport utility
vehicles (SUVs).4 If other state, federal,
and industry practices also support such
3 See
4 See
E:\FR\FM\17NON1.SGM
74FR18228 (April 21, 2009).
75FR68043 (November 4, 2010).
17NON1
70246
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Notices
introduction, E15 may become available
in the marketplace. Thus, EPA
anticipates that some UST system
owners and operators may choose to
store higher percentages of ethanol in
their UST systems.
Please note that this action under the
CAA has no bearing on an UST owner
or operator’s requirement to comply
with all applicable EPA UST
regulations, including the UST
compatibility requirement in 40 CFR
280.32. Specifically, in order to ensure
the safe storage of higher ethanol and
biodiesel blends under EPA’s UST
program, owners and operators must
meet the compatibility requirement for
UST systems.
40 CFR 280.32 states that ‘‘[o]wners
and operators must use an UST system
made of or lined with materials that are
compatible with the substance stored in
the UST system.’’ Because the chemical
and physical properties of ethanol and
biodiesel blends may make them more
aggressive to certain UST system
materials than petroleum, it is important
to ensure that all UST system
components in contact with biofuels are
materially compatible with that fuel.
UST System Components That May Be
Affected by Biofuel Blends
To meet § 280.32, owners and
operators of UST systems storing
ethanol-blended fuels greater than 10
percent ethanol or greater than [TBD]
percent biodiesel must use compatible
equipment. At a minimum, the
following UST system equipment must
be compatible:
• Tank or internal tank lining;
• Piping;
• Pipe adhesives and glues;
• Line leak detectors;
• Flexible connectors;
• Fill pipe;
• Spill and overfill prevention
equipment;
• Submersible turbine pump and
components;
• Fittings, gaskets, bushings,
couplings, and boots;
• Containment sumps (including
submersible turbine sumps and under
dispenser containment);
• Release detection floats, sensors,
and probes.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Options for Meeting the Compatibility
Requirement
Currently, EPA believes that the most
effective options for owners and
operators of UST systems storing
ethanol-blended fuels greater than 10
percent ethanol and biodiesel-blended
fuels greater than [TBD] percent
biodiesel to ensure compatibility under
this requirement are:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Nov 16, 2010
Jkt 223001
• Use components that are certified or
listed by an independent test laboratory
for use with the fuel stored (for
example, Underwriters Laboratories);
• Use components approved by the
manufacturer to be compatible with the
fuel stored. EPA considers acceptable
forms of manufacturer approvals to be:
Æ Be in writing;
Æ Indicate an affirmative statement of
compatibility; and
Æ Be from the equipment
manufacturer, not another entity (such
as the installer or distributor); or
• Use another method determined by
the implementing agency to sufficiently
protect human health and the
environment. EPA will work with states
as they evaluate other acceptable
methods.
Note About Using API 1626 To Meet the
Compatibility Requirement
Currently, a note in the federal UST
regulations allows owners and operators
to use the American Petroleum
Institute’s (API) Recommended Practice
1626, an industry code of practice, to
meet the compatibility requirement for
ethanol blended fuels. The original
version of API 1626 (1st ed. 1985,
reaffirmed in 2000) applies to up to 10
percent ethanol blended with gasoline
and is not applicable to meet the
compatibility requirement for ethanol
blends greater than 10 percent. In
August 2010, API published a second
edition of API 1626. The second edition
does address ethanol blends greater than
10 percent, and may also be used as a
method for demonstrating compatibility.
Please note that state underground
storage tank program regulations may be
more stringent than the federal UST
regulations, so owners and operators
should always check with their states
about state program requirements. Also,
this guidance will apply in Indian
country and in states that do not have
state program approval (SPA). Because
states with SPA must have a
compatibility requirement that is similar
to the federal compatibility requirement,
SPA states could find this guidance
relevant and useful to them as well.
If you have questions about this
guidance, please contact Andrea
Barbery at barbery.andrea@epa.gov or
(703) 603–7137.
Dated: November 8, 2010.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 2010–28968 Filed 11–16–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0681; FRL–8850–6]
Lead Fishing Sinkers; Disposition of
TSCA Section 21 Petition
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
On August 3, 2010, several
groups filed a petition under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) section
21 requesting that EPA prohibit under
TSCA section 6(a) the manufacture,
processing, and distribution in
commerce of (1) lead bullets and shot;
and (2) lead fishing sinkers. On August
27, 2010, EPA denied the first request
due to a lack of authority to regulate
lead in bullets and shot under TSCA.
EPA’s decision was based on the
exclusion of shells and cartridges from
the definition of ‘‘chemical substance’’
in TSCA section 3(2)(B)(v). On
November 4, 2010, EPA denied the
second request. This notice explains
EPA’s reasons for the denial of the
request specific to fishing sinkers.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical information contact: Christina
Wadlington, National Program
Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(202) 566–1859; e-mail address:
wadlington.christina.@epa.gov.
For general information contact: The
TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422
South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY
14620; telephone number: (202) 554–
1404; e-mail address: TSCAHotline@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
This action is directed to the public
in general. This action may, however, be
of interest to you if you manufacture,
process, import, or distribute in
commerce lead fishing sinkers or lead
fishing tackle. If you have any questions
regarding this action, consult the
technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How can I get copies of this document
and other related information?
EPA has established a docket for this
action under docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0681.
All documents in the docket are listed
in the docket index available at https://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in
E:\FR\FM\17NON1.SGM
17NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70241-70246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28968]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651; FRL-9227-8]
Compatibility of Underground Storage Tank Systems With Biofuel
Blends
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed guidance and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks intends to issue
guidance that would clarify EPA's underground storage tank (UST)
compatibility requirement as it applies to UST systems storing gasoline
containing greater than 10 percent ethanol and diesel containing an
amount of biodiesel yet to be determined. Today's Federal Register
notice solicits comment on the proposed guidance, which provides owners
and operators of underground storage tank systems greater clarity in
demonstrating compatibility of their tank systems with these fuels.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 17, 2010, 30
days after publication in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
UST-2010-0651, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: rcra-docket@epa.gov.
Mail: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency,
[[Page 70242]]
Underground Storage Tank (UST) Docket, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-
2010-0651. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the UST Docket, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
UST Docket is (202) 566-0270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Barbery, Office of Underground
Storage Tanks, Mail Code 5402P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703)
603-7137; e-mail address: barbery.andrea@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
This action applies to owners and operators of underground storage
tank systems regulated by 40 CFR Part 280, who intend to store gasoline
blended with greater than 10 percent ethanol. It may also apply to
owners and operators storing a to-be-determined percentage of biodiesel
blended with diesel fuel.
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Background
A. Statutory Authority
This proposed guidance discusses EPA's underground storage tank
(UST) compatibility requirement that was promulgated under the
authority of Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), as
amended. 42 U.S.C. 6991b et seq. This requirement, which is referenced
and discussed in the guidance, is found in 40 CFR 280.32.
B. Underground Storage Tank Compatibility Requirement
To protect groundwater, a source of drinking water for nearly half
of all Americans, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
regulates UST systems storing petroleum or hazardous substances under
authority of Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended.
Ethanol and biodiesel are not regulated substances under EPA's UST
program; however, tanks storing gasoline or diesel mixed with ethanol
or biodiesel are regulated by EPA. For the purposes of this guidance,
EPA considers an ``ethanol blend'' to be any amount of ethanol mixed
with petroleum gasoline, and a ``biodiesel blend'' to be any amount of
biodiesel mixed with petroleum diesel.
EPA regulations address the prevention and detection of releases
from UST systems; one particular provision in the federal UST
regulations that aims to prevent releases specifically requires
compatibility of stored substances with UST system components. As the
U.S. moves toward an increased use of biofuels, such as ethanol and
biodiesel, compliance with the UST compatibility requirement becomes
even more important, since ethanol and biodiesel blends can compromise
the integrity of some UST system materials. Today's Federal Register
notice solicits comment on proposed guidance and associated issues that
will clarify how owners/operators of UST systems storing fuels
containing greater than 10 percent ethanol or a to be determined
percent of biodiesel can demonstrate compliance with the UST
compatibility requirement.
As of March 2010, there are approximately 607,000 regulated USTs
[[Page 70243]]
at 221,000 facilities nationwide. States and territories (hereafter
referred to as states) are the primary implementers of the UST program
because they are in the best position to implement UST program
requirements, based on the size and diversity of the regulated
community. In order for EPA to approve a State's program, that state's
regulations must be at least as stringent as the Federal UST
regulations.
An UST system includes the underground storage tank, connected
underground piping, underground ancillary equipment, and any
containment systems. Fuel dispensers are not part of the UST system,
and therefore this guidance does not apply to dispensers.
C. Discussion
The federal UST regulations require that ``[o]wners and operators
must use an UST system made of or lined with materials that are
compatible with the substance stored in the UST system'' (40 CFR Sec.
280.32). Because the chemical and physical properties of ethanol and
biodiesel can make these fuel blends containing them more degrading to
certain UST system materials than petroleum, it is important to ensure
that all UST system components in contact with the biofuel blend are
materially compatible with that fuel. Industry practice has been for
owners and operators to demonstrate compatibility by using equipment
certified by an independent testing laboratory, such as Underwriters
Laboratories (UL). However, many UST system components in use today,
with the exception of most tanks and piping, have not been tested by UL
for compatibility. Without certification from a third party that these
equipment are compatible with anything beyond conventional fuels, the
suitability of these particular components for use with ethanol and
biodiesel blends comes into question.
Compatibility of Ethanol-Blended Fuel
Gasoline containing low percentages (10 percent or less) of ethanol
has been used in parts of the country for many years. Many tanks and
piping have been tested and are listed by UL for compatibility with
higher-level ethanol blends. Many other components of the UST system,
including leak detection devices, seals, and containment sumps (for
example) may not be listed by UL for compatibility with ethanol blends.
EPA expects recent federal and state laws encouraging increased use of
biofuels to translate into a greater number of UST systems storing
biofuels, as well as a greater number of UST systems storing higher
percentages of biofuel blends. EPA is aware of material compatibility
concerns associated with some UST system equipment storing higher
ethanol blends, such as E85 (gasoline containing up to 85 percent
ethanol), which is an alternative fuel used in flexible fuel vehicles.
EPA understands that in order to avoid compatibility issues with E85,
many tank owners who currently store E85 either installed all new
equipment designed to store high level ethanol blends or upgraded
certain components to handle the higher ethanol content. Because the
typical lifespan of an underground storage tank is about 30 years, most
UST systems currently in use are likely to contain components that were
not designed to store ethanol blends beyond 10 percent. These older
systems may not be certified by UL or another independent testing
laboratory for use with these blends.
Although very little data exists pertaining to the compatibility of
UST equipment with ethanol blends, literature suggests that mid-level
ethanol blends may have the most degrading effect on some UST system
materials. For example, ``Underwriters Laboratories Research Program on
Material Compatibility and Test Protocols for E85 Dispensing
Equipment,'' which evaluated the effect of 85 percent ethanol and 25
percent ethanol blends, indicates that some materials used in the
manufacture of seals were degraded more when exposed to the 25 percent
ethanol test fluid than when exposed to the 85 percent ethanol test
fluid (Underwriters Laboratories, 2007). Further, ``Compatibility and
Permeability of Oxygenated Fuels to Materials in Underground Storage
and Dispensing Equipment'' (State Water Resources Control Board's
Advisory Panel, 1999) confirms that alcohol fuel blends are ``more
aggressive toward polymers than any of the neat constituents in the
fuel,'' and points specifically to 15 percent ethanol in gasoline as
being the blend at which the maximum swelling occurs in polymeric
materials. Both of these documents are available in the UST Docket
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651.
In March 2009, EPA received a Clean Air Act (CAA) waiver
application to increase the allowable ethanol content of a gasoline-
ethanol blended fuel from 10 volume percent ethanol to 15 volume
percent ethanol.\1\ Please note that this action under the CAA has no
bearing on an UST owner or operator's requirement to comply with all
applicable EPA UST regulations, including the UST compatibility
requirement in 40 CFR 280.32. Specifically, in order to ensure the safe
storage of higher ethanol and biodiesel blends under EPA's UST program,
owners and operators must meet the compatibility requirement for UST
systems. Recently, EPA conditionally granted a partial waiver that
allows gasoline-ethanol blends that contain greater than 10 volume
percent ethanol up to 15 volume percent ethanol (E15) to be introduced
into commerce for use in 2007 and newer model year light-duty motor
vehicles, which includes passenger cars, light-duty trucks and medium-
duty passenger vehicles such as some sport utility vehicles (SUVs).\2\
If other State, Federal, and industry practices also support such
introduction, E15 may become available in the marketplace. Thus, EPA
anticipates that some UST system owners and operators may choose to
store higher percentages of ethanol in their UST systems. For those who
intend to store E15 or other amounts of ethanol greater than 10 volume
percent, EPA is proposing this guidance to clarify the compatibility
requirement with regard to these blends and provide greater flexibility
for owners and operators who intend to store E15, including those whose
equipment may not be certified as compatible by an independent testing
laboratory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 74 FR 18228 (April 21, 2009).
\2\ See 75 FR 68043 (November 4, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compatibility of Biodiesel-Blended Fuel
In addition to ethanol, biodiesel is becoming increasingly
available across the U.S., though its total use is significantly less
compared to that of ethanol-blended gasoline. EPA understands that
owners and operators are storing biodiesel/petroleum diesel blends in
UST systems, ranging from two percent biodiesel (B2) to 99 percent
biodiesel (B99). In this guidance, EPA proposes to include biodiesel
blends, based on the fact that many states that already have
compatibility policies in place address both ethanol blends and
biodiesel blends. At least one state developed a compatibility policy
to apply to biodiesel blends greater than B5, meaning owners and
operators of UST systems containing biodiesel/petroleum diesel blends
greater than 5 percent biodiesel must meet the requirements in the
state's guidance. Other states have selected to use B20 as the
threshold, since B20 is commonly used in government and military
fleets.
EPA is aware that there may be material compatibility issues with
some UST system equipment in biodiesel service, but the Agency lacks
sufficient
[[Page 70244]]
data on the compatibility of various biodiesel blends with UST system
equipment currently in use across the country. EPA also acknowledges
that no UST equipment has a UL-listing for use with biodiesel blends.
UL has issued a statement indicating that biodiesel blends up to B5
will not require special investigation by UL, meaning that these fuels
may be considered the same as conventional petroleum fuels. According
to UL, biodiesel blends greater than 5 percent may have a significant
effect on materials. For these reasons, EPA is seeking comment on what
percentage of biodiesel in biodiesel blends should be used for
including these fuels in the scope of today's proposed guidance.
Testing on Ethanol and Biodiesel Blends
The U.S. Department of Energy is currently performing testing on
the compatibility of some UST system materials with mid-level ethanol
blends. Depending on results of DOE's research, EPA may change its
guidance. EPA is not aware of a testing program to evaluate the
compatibility of UST system equipment with biodiesel blends.
Applicability of Proposed Guidance
This guidance clarifies how owners and operators of underground
storage tanks (USTs) can comply with EPA's compatibility requirement
(40 CFR 280.32) when storing certain biofuels (ethanol-blended fuels
greater than 10 percent and biodiesel-blended fuels greater than [TBD]
percent). UST owners and operators, as well as other affected
stakeholders should be aware that, when final, EPA's proposed guidance
will apply in Indian country and in States that do not have State
program approval (SPA). States that have SPA must, in 40 CFR 281.32,
have a compatibility requirement that is similar to the Federal
requirement. Therefore, SPA states could also find this guidance to be
relevant and useful to them as well.
Owner and Operator Demonstration of Compatibility
EPA considers the following three methods as effective options for
demonstrating compatibility:
Certification or listing by an independent test
laboratory;
Equipment manufacturer approval; or
Another method determined by the implementing agency to
sufficiently protect human health and the environment.
Implementing agencies may determine there are other acceptable
methods for demonstrating compliance with the compatibility
requirement, as long as they sufficiently protect human health and the
environment. EPA will work with states as they evaluate other
acceptable methods.
Some states have developed policies similar to EPA's proposal
published today. Some examples of state policies regarding
compatibility of UST equipment with biofuels include:
Iowa: https://www.iowadnr.gov/land/ust/technicalresources/ethanol.html.
Wisconsin: https://test.commerce.wi.gov/ER/pdf/bst/Forms_FM/ER-BST-FM-9-AlternativeFuels.pdf.
South Carolina:https://www.scdhec.gov/environment/lwm/forms/d-3885.pdf.
Colorado: https://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1251616370465&ssbinary=true.
These documents are also available in the UST Docket under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651.
Currently, a note in the Federal UST regulations allows owners and
operators to use the American Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended
Practice 1626, an industry code of practice, to meet the compatibility
requirement for ethanol-blended fuels. The original version of API 1626
(1st ed. 1985, reaffirmed in 2000) applies to up to 10 percent ethanol
blended with gasoline and is not applicable to meet the compatibility
requirement for ethanol blends greater than 10 percent. In August,
2010, API published a second edition of API 1626. The second edition
does address ethanol blends greater than 10 percent, and may also be
used as a method for demonstrating compatibility.
D. Request for Comments
EPA requests public comment on the following issues as well as the
proposed guidance that immediately follows:
1--UST Components That May Be Affected by Biofuel Blends--A UST
system comprises many components that can be affected by the fuel
stored. Some of these components may or may not come into contact with
fuel or lead directly to a release. However, the failure of these
components could either directly or indirectly lead to a release if
they are not compatible. To help owners ensure compatibility, EPA
proposes listing the following equipment, at a minimum, to be included
in today's proposed guidance to clarify what UST system components may
be affected by biofuel blends:
Tank or internal tank lining;
Piping;
Pipe adhesives and glues;
Line leak detectors;
Flexible connectors;
Fill pipe;
Spill and overfill prevention equipment;
Submersible turbine pump and components;
Fittings, gaskets, bushings, couplings, and boots;
Containment sumps (including submersible turbine sumps and
under dispenser containment);
Release detection floats, sensors, and probes.
This list of components is consistent with lists used by states with
compatibility policies, though it is somewhat less inclusive, since the
federal UST program does not have authority to regulate dispensers or
fuel quality.
Although release detection equipment and overfill prevention
equipment do not contain product and failure of these components will
not directly lead to a release, EPA proposes including these categories
because failure of these equipment may lead indirectly to releases. For
example, a failed leak detection device may not detect a release that
has occurred; similarly, a malfunctioning overfill prevention device
may lead to overfilling of a tank.
Questions for commenters:
Are there components that should be added to or removed
from the list?
Is it possible to demonstrate compatibility for these
components?
2--Methods To Demonstrate Compatibility--Many tanks and piping have
been tested and are listed by UL for compatibility with ethanol blends.
EPA considers this to be an effective method for demonstrating
compatibility. However, many other components of the UST system may not
have been tested with ethanol and are not listed by UL for
compatibility with ethanol blends. In addition, no UST equipment is UL-
listed for use with biodiesel blends. Some existing UST system
components might be compatible with ethanol or biodiesel blends,
although the equipment may not have a certification or listing from an
independent testing laboratory specific to the fuel blend. As a result,
EPA is proposing manufacturer approval as another acceptable method for
demonstrating compatibility. Also, states may believe that there are
other reasonable ways to demonstrate compatibility. With that in mind,
EPA is considering providing flexibility for states who wish to take a
different approach for demonstrating compatibility, as long as that
approach sufficiently protects human health and
[[Page 70245]]
the environment. EPA proposes to recommend the following methods for
demonstrating compatibility:
Certification or listing by an independent test
laboratory;
Equipment manufacturer approval; or
Another method determined by the implementing agency to
sufficiently protect human health and the environment. EPA will work
with states as they evaluate other acceptable methods.
Although some states allow a professional engineer (P.E.) to make a
compatibility determination, EPA does not believe a blanket acceptance
of P.E. certification is a good approach. There are numerous types of
P.E.s, any one of which is not likely to cover all aspects of materials
science and UST equipment compatibility. Further, states that allow
this option indicated that it is not being used. If additional states
consider allowing a P.E. to make a compatibility determination for UST
equipment, EPA will discuss that option with those states.
Questions for commenters:
Are the methods for demonstrating compatibility, as
described above, appropriate?
Are these options feasible for UST owners?
Are there other reasonable methods EPA should include?
3--Criteria for Equipment Manufacturer Approval as a Compatibility
Method--EPA understands that an independent testing laboratory
certification may be the most standardized, consistent, and
recognizable way to demonstrate compatibility. However, EPA wants to
provide flexibility and is also considering relying on a statement of
compatibility by the manufacturer as a secondary method for owners and
operators, and to demonstrate compatibility of their UST equipment. EPA
is considering numerous forms for manufacturer approvals. For example,
EPA is considering items such as product warranties, brochures, or
letters from manufacturers as acceptable equipment manufacturer
approvals. EPA believes manufacturer approvals should include these
three criteria in order to adequately demonstrate compatibility:
Be in writing;
Indicate affirmative statements of compatibility; and
Be from the equipment manufacturer, not another entity
(such as the installer or distributor).
Questions for commenters:
Are these three criteria appropriate?
Are manufacturers willing and able to produce this
approval?
Are there other tools which might assist UST owners to
obtain this information?
4--Applicability to Biodiesel Blends--EPA proposes to include
biodiesel blends in its guidance because of the increased use of
biodiesel across the U.S., as well as the fact that many states already
address biodiesel blends in their compatibility policies. EPA
understands compatibility issues with biodiesel-blended fuels may be
different than those experienced with ethanol-blended fuels and
acknowledges that determining a percentage threshold in the absence of
compatibility data may be either unnecessarily stringent or not
sufficiently protective. However, lack of compatibility information for
biodiesel and biodiesel blends makes it difficult to determine whether
UST system materials and equipment are compromised by storing biodiesel
blends and at what approximate blend percentage compatibility problems
occur. EPA seeks input about the percentage of biodiesel where
compatibility becomes a potential concern.
Questions for commenters:
Should EPA include biodiesel blends in the guidance?
What biodiesel blend percentage should EPA use in the
guidance? Please provide data to support the percentage.
5--Ability To Demonstrate Compatibility Using the Proposed
Guidance--Due to the long expected lifetime of USTs and the high
turnover rate of owners and operators, EPA understands it will be
difficult for many owners and operators to locate documentation for
much of their equipment. Without knowing what equipment is installed at
the site, demonstrating compatibility may be difficult for those who
wish to store and sell biofuel blends. In addition, some equipment may
simply not be compatible with some biofuel blends.
Based on the list of UST components and methods described above in
issues 1 and 2, respectively, EPA requests comment on the following:
How difficult will it be for owners and operators to
demonstrate compatibility for each of these components?
How many UST facilities will not be able to demonstrate
compatibility based on these criteria?
What would be necessary for these facilities to come into
compliance (for example, replace seals, replace release detection
probes, replace the entire UST system, etc.)?
6--Other Options That Sufficiently Protect Human Health and the
Environment--In light of the discussion under issue 5 above, EPA
recognizes that some owners and operators of UST system components may
not be able to demonstrate compatibility or may find it difficult to do
so. Because of this, EPA is seeking input on alternatives that would
sufficiently protect human health and the environment, even though they
are outside the scope of the proposed guidance. For example, there
might be additional activities owners and operators could perform in
the absence of being able to demonstrate compatibility that would
result in sufficient protection of human health and the environment.
Question for commenters:
Without documentation, are there alternative methods UST
owners and operators could rely on or activities they could perform
that would sufficiently protect human health and the environment?
Please be specific and provide data to support your alternative.
Proposed Guidance
Guidance on the Compatibility of Underground Storage Tank Systems With
Ethanol Blends Greater Than Ten Percent and Biodiesel Blends Greater
Than [To Be Determined (TBD)] Percent [Insert Date]
This guidance clarifies how owners and operators of underground
storage tanks (USTs) can comply with EPA's compatibility requirement
(40 CFR 280.32) when storing certain biofuels (ethanol-blended fuels
greater than 10 percent and biodiesel-blended fuels greater than [TBD]
percent). EPA promulgated this requirement (and all other UST
requirements) under the authority of Subtitle I of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended.
In March 2009, EPA received a Clean Air Act (CAA) waiver
application to increase the allowable ethanol content of a gasoline-
ethanol blended fuel from 10 volume percent ethanol to 15 volume
percent ethanol.\3\ EPA recently conditionally granted a partial waiver
that allows gasoline-ethanol blends that contain greater than 10 volume
percent ethanol up to 15 volume percent ethanol (E15) to be introduced
into commerce for use in 2007 and newer model year light-duty motor
vehicles, which includes passenger cars, light-duty trucks and medium-
duty passenger vehicles such as some sport utility vehicles (SUVs).\4\
If other state, federal, and industry practices also support such
[[Page 70246]]
introduction, E15 may become available in the marketplace. Thus, EPA
anticipates that some UST system owners and operators may choose to
store higher percentages of ethanol in their UST systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 74FR18228 (April 21, 2009).
\4\ See 75FR68043 (November 4, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that this action under the CAA has no bearing on an UST
owner or operator's requirement to comply with all applicable EPA UST
regulations, including the UST compatibility requirement in 40 CFR
280.32. Specifically, in order to ensure the safe storage of higher
ethanol and biodiesel blends under EPA's UST program, owners and
operators must meet the compatibility requirement for UST systems.
40 CFR 280.32 states that ``[o]wners and operators must use an UST
system made of or lined with materials that are compatible with the
substance stored in the UST system.'' Because the chemical and physical
properties of ethanol and biodiesel blends may make them more
aggressive to certain UST system materials than petroleum, it is
important to ensure that all UST system components in contact with
biofuels are materially compatible with that fuel.
UST System Components That May Be Affected by Biofuel Blends
To meet Sec. 280.32, owners and operators of UST systems storing
ethanol-blended fuels greater than 10 percent ethanol or greater than
[TBD] percent biodiesel must use compatible equipment. At a minimum,
the following UST system equipment must be compatible:
Tank or internal tank lining;
Piping;
Pipe adhesives and glues;
Line leak detectors;
Flexible connectors;
Fill pipe;
Spill and overfill prevention equipment;
Submersible turbine pump and components;
Fittings, gaskets, bushings, couplings, and boots;
Containment sumps (including submersible turbine sumps and
under dispenser containment);
Release detection floats, sensors, and probes.
Options for Meeting the Compatibility Requirement
Currently, EPA believes that the most effective options for owners
and operators of UST systems storing ethanol-blended fuels greater than
10 percent ethanol and biodiesel-blended fuels greater than [TBD]
percent biodiesel to ensure compatibility under this requirement are:
Use components that are certified or listed by an
independent test laboratory for use with the fuel stored (for example,
Underwriters Laboratories);
Use components approved by the manufacturer to be
compatible with the fuel stored. EPA considers acceptable forms of
manufacturer approvals to be:
[cir] Be in writing;
[cir] Indicate an affirmative statement of compatibility; and
[cir] Be from the equipment manufacturer, not another entity (such
as the installer or distributor); or
Use another method determined by the implementing agency
to sufficiently protect human health and the environment. EPA will work
with states as they evaluate other acceptable methods.
Note About Using API 1626 To Meet the Compatibility Requirement
Currently, a note in the federal UST regulations allows owners and
operators to use the American Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended
Practice 1626, an industry code of practice, to meet the compatibility
requirement for ethanol blended fuels. The original version of API 1626
(1st ed. 1985, reaffirmed in 2000) applies to up to 10 percent ethanol
blended with gasoline and is not applicable to meet the compatibility
requirement for ethanol blends greater than 10 percent. In August 2010,
API published a second edition of API 1626. The second edition does
address ethanol blends greater than 10 percent, and may also be used as
a method for demonstrating compatibility.
Please note that state underground storage tank program regulations
may be more stringent than the federal UST regulations, so owners and
operators should always check with their states about state program
requirements. Also, this guidance will apply in Indian country and in
states that do not have state program approval (SPA). Because states
with SPA must have a compatibility requirement that is similar to the
federal compatibility requirement, SPA states could find this guidance
relevant and useful to them as well.
If you have questions about this guidance, please contact Andrea
Barbery at barbery.andrea@epa.gov or (703) 603-7137.
Dated: November 8, 2010.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 2010-28968 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
