The following PR release was issued by the US EPA today, and concerns Morris, Essex and Sussex county superfund sites.

Contact: Elias Rodriguez, (212) 637-3664, rodriguez.elias@epa.gov or John Martin, (212) 637-3662, martin.johnj@epa.gov

(New York, N.Y. – Sept. 13, 2013) On Monday, Sept. 16, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator Judith A. Enck and Congressmember Rodney Frelinghuysen and State and local officials will announce the removal of rusting and leaking drums and containers found on-site at the Radiation Technology, Inc. Superfund site located in Rockaway Township. They will also travel throughout Morris, Essex and Sussex Counties to review and assess progress on Superfund cleanups at four other hazardous waste sites. The other sites on the tour are the Mansfield Trail Dump (Byram Township), the Rockaway Borough Wellfield (Rockaway Borough), the Rockaway Township Wells (Rockaway Township) and the Caldwell Trucking Co. (Fairfield Township).

Superfund is the federal cleanup program established by Congress in 1980 to investigate and clean up the country’s most hazardous waste sites. The program was enacted in the wake of the discovery of toxic waste dumps such as Love Canal in the 1970s. It allows the EPA to clean up such sites and to compel parties responsible for the pollution to perform cleanups or reimburse the government for EPA-lead cleanups.

What: Announcement of cleanup, tour of Superfund sites with EPA Regional Administrator, member of Congress, state and local officials and subject matter experts, photo opportunities and interviews.

Who: Judith A. Enck, EPA Regional Administrator, Rodney Frelinghuysen, U.S. Congressman

When: 10:00 a.m. Monday, Sept. 16, 2013
Where: Radiation Technology, Inc. Superfund Site, Rockaway Township, NJ.

Attendees gather across the road from “Sterigenics”: 108 Lake Denmark Road, Rockaway Township, NJ 07866

Note: For the day’s full itinerary, please email: rodriguez.elias@epa.gov

Now that the public comment period is closed, Robert Renkes discusses what he believes the EPA will do regarding proposed revisions to strengthen the 1988 Federal Underground Storate Tank (UST) regulations. In his article which appeared in the 3rd quarter 2012 edition of the PEI Journal, Renkes provides his personal opinions based on the comments that appeared to have merit and were well supported. Comments ranged from a few sentences to 70 pages or more. The 191 public comments were submitted by UST owners/operators, manufacturers, trade associations, insurance companies, implementing agencies and other interested parties. See his entire article here.

WASHINGTON — The EPA has determined that the systems used at gas station pumps to capture harmful gasoline vapors while refueling cars can be phased out. Since 2006, vehicles are equipped to capture those emissions. This final rule is part of the Obama Administration’s initiative to ensure that regulations protect public health and the environment without being unnecessarily burdensome to American businesses, it said. Onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) for capturing gasoline vapor when gasoline-powered vehicles are refueled is in widespread use throughout the highway motor vehicle fleet.

NOTE: ORVR only covers about 70% of all vehicles on the road today, meaning that fully 1/3 of all vehicles on the road do NOT have ORVR capability, and will therefore release gasoline vapors while refueling.

See the full article here.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has extended the public comment period for the agency’s proposed changes to the underground storage tank (UST) requirements from February 16 to April 16, 2012. The proposed changes were published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2011.

EPA said its decision to extend the comment period was the result of requests made by several organizations for additional time. Many of the requests focused on previously deferred tanks, including wastewater treatment tanks and airport hydrant systems at commercial airports, and the need to understand the potential impacts of the proposal on these systems.

Stakeholders also requested additional time to review PEI’s Recommended Practices for the Testing and Verification of Spill, Overfill, Leak Detection and Secondary Containment Equipment at UST Facilities (PEI/RP1200). PEI’s RP1200 is available for download and public comment through March 26.

EPA said its decision to extend the comment period another 60 days was influenced by the issues identified above and would “ensure robust public involvement.”

Want some surprises? Read the proposed rule changes 40 CFR 280, the federal UST rules. If passed, states would have to modify their own rules, and, to be fair, there are some much needed improvements in the proposal such as sun-setting internal lining, vapor monitoring, and ball float valves.

Comments are due SOON! Want some surprises? Read the proposed rule changes 40 CFR 280, the federal UST rules. Click here to read the entire proposal. It’s 88 pages and takes a few intense hours and some perseverance to read through, but stick with it because it is all very interesting. For the most part, it all seems good, however, we believe that the entire topic really should have more open conversation.

For additional information and insight from the US EPA, click here to read the full text of their Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Proposed Revisions to EPA’s Underground Storage Tank Regulations

This is your opportunity to make your thoughts known!

HURRY! Open Comment period ends February 16, 2012!

The October 31, 2011 edition of PEI’s TulsaLetter discusses the forthcoming Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) changes for Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) that were signed by EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson on October 25.

Click for a draft copy of the 414-page document that contains the proposed changes to the Federal UST regulations.  Information at that link also provides a summary comparison of the 1988 UST regulations and key changes to the proposed regulations as well as additional resources to help understand what the proposed changes mean to petroleum contractors and UST owners.

here to edit.

Baker and O’Brien Incorporated recently published a study about the proposed EPA gasoline regulations slated to go into effect later this year.   As this stalled economy struggles to keep any forward momentum, there is a strong likelihood that these new requirements would have a devastating effect on consumers and communities across the country.  The cost of manufacturing gasoline would rise dramatically, necessitating the closing of several refineries nationwide, thereby compelling the US to increase fuel imports while continuing to increase carbon monoxide emissions.  Sounds like win-win, eh?

You be the judge.  Here is the abstract from the study: 

“A proposal has been made by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers for a single national (excluding California) summertime gasoline specification that they referred to as National Clean Gasoline (NCG).  NCG, as proposed, would require significantly lower sulfur limits on Reid vapor pressure (RVP).

This report examines four potential scenarios with lower sulfer and lower RVP requierments than current gasoline specifications.  in two, summertime RVP is reduced nationwide (excluding California) to 7 pounds per square inch absolute (psia).  In the other two, summer time RVP’s are limited to 7.8 psia and 8.8 psia (including a 1 psia vaiver for ethanol blending) in regions that currently allow the waiver for conventional gasoline.  Reformulated gasoline (RFG) maintains an RVP of 7.0 psia.  In three of the cases, sulfer in individual batches is limited to 20 parts per million (ppm) with a company annual average limit of 10 ppm.  In one case, the sulfur limits are 10 and 5 ppm, respectively.

The resuls of the analysis show that four to seven refineries are likely to shut down rather than make the necessary investments to produce gasloline with lower sulfer and lower RVP specifications.  A substantial volume of domestically-produced light hydrocarbon currently blended into gasoline would be removed from gasoline and would be sold into other markets.  Total domestically-produced gasoline (excluding ethanol) is estimated to decrease by 0.6 to 1.3 million barrels per day during the summer.  If gasoline consumption remains at Base Case levels, gasoline imports would more than double in three of the cases, leaving the US more exposed to supply disruptions.  Annualized marginal compliance costs for US refineries are estimated in the range of 12 to 25 cents per gallon.  Summer-only costs are nearly double that of annualized costs.  Additional hydrotreating and fractionation required to comply would result in an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) emission from refineries that continue to operate.  On an annual average basis, the total increase in CO2 emissions at domestic and foreign refineries is estimated at 2.9 to 7.4 million tonnes per year.”

Read the full story here, including a link to the full study.

Proper labeling of E15 gasoline at the pumps was lauded by the White House as a means of clarifying to motorists when they are about to dispense gasoline containing a higher rate of ethanol. Hailed by farmers and ethanol industry insiders who lobbied heavily to raise the amount of ethanol in gasoline motor fuel from 10 percent to 15 percent – this new fuel formulation had been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) five months earlier, according to Reuters.

The impact of this new gasoline formulation is far reaching: dubbed E15, it is a major concern for gasoline retailers and petroleum marketers since it will require all new dispensing equipment, underground storage tanks and piping that will be compatible. Underwriters Laboratory (UL) will not recertify existing equipment.

Additionally, E15 is not approved to be used in vehicles built before 2001. Older lawnmowers, chainsaws, snowblowers, weed wackers, boats and other small engine devices will also be affected.   Motorsport and motorcross teams as well as vintage car owners:   be forewarned!

Another concern is liability: when a motorist in a self-serve state pumps the wrong fuel into their vehicle, who is responsible for damages?

We’ll continue this discussion as events unfold, and you can read the entire article here:

http://www.csnews.com/top-story-e15_gas_pump_labels_get_white_house_ok-58883.html

We invite you to leave your thoughts, comments, concerns?  How will this effect your service station and how can we help keep things clearly identified to the motoring public?