Unattended Gasoline Deliveries

The National Transportation Safety Board report on the August 1998 gasoline delivery overfill, fire and multiple fatalities is of interest to motor fuel transport and dispensing facility owners and operators.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report on the August 1998 gasoline delivery overfill, fire and multiple fatalities is of interest to motor fuel transport and dispensing facility owners and operators. NTSB is a federal agency established to investigate transportation accidents and evaluate the safety effectiveness of government agencies involved in transportation.

On the Internet at http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1999/HZM9902.htm, the NTSB report faulted the hiring and training procedures of the transport company, as well as written unloading procedures, driver-trainer materials, driver routing verification, supervisory oversight and management practices. However, although the C-store operator was following industry gasoline delivery practices, the report purported that the C-store operator failed “to have adequate safety procedures for accepting product offered for delivery at its...stations.” Also, while the EPA UST rule has been in effect for over 10 years, the report stated that the “Environmental Protection Agency’s program for preventing underground storage tank releases has not adequately addressed the requirements in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 280.30 for preventing [these] overfills.”

It appears to me that the National Transportation Safety Board has identified the difficulty of establishing responsibility for transportation spills or overfills when they say that the EPA has not adequately addressed the issue in 40 CFR.

Industry practice
Unattended bulk petroleum loading and unloading has been a petroleum industry practice for more than 40 years. This includes heating oil deliveries to residents, aviation gasoline and turbo fuels to airports, fuels and solvents to industrial facilities and retail motor fuel to dispensing facilities.

Of significance, since the early 1960’s major oil companies have made unattended night and Sunday deliveries to retail motor fuel dispensing facilities. Typically, truck fleet dispatchers manually calculated when product was needed and scheduled unattended deliveries. Overfill prevention devices were not in place and the truck driver was relied upon to ensure that the storage tank would accommodate the delivery quantity. The industry also relied upon Department of Transportation (DOT) Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and Hazardous Materials Regulations that required drivers to follow proper unloading delivery procedures.

In the 1980s, new technology in the form of remote tank gauging equipment, data communications with remote location and software programs assisted personnel in dispatching unattended deliveries. As a result, it is common industry practice for major oil companies, independents and distributor UST owners/operators to use in-house and contract carrier dispatchers to monitor UST locations and schedule deliveries when appropriate.

In 1988, the EPA promulgated 40 CFR 280, which is the regulation for underground storage tanks. The preamble in this regulation addressed deliveries and acknowledged that EPA did not have jurisdiction over transport carriers. But EPA has jurisdiction over the UST owner/operator, and it required tank fill pipe spill containment and overfill warning devices. Further, it was purported that the EPA still held the UST owner/operator responsible in the event of a transportation delivery spill or overfill by promulgating 40 CFR 280.30 (a) “Spill and Overfill Control” and 280.53 “Reporting of Spills and Overfills.” Of significance, 40 CFR 280.30 states “The transfer procedures described in National Fire Protection Association Publication 385 may be used to comply with paragraph (a) of this section.” NFPA 385 Tank Vehicles for Flammable and Combustible Liquids contains Chapter 6 “Operation of Tank Vehicles.” Section 6-1.1 states “Drivers shall be thoroughly trained in the proper method of operating tank vehicles and in the proper procedures for loading and unloading tank vehicles.” However, this EPA reference publication does not address UST owner or operator responsibility.

In 1992, EPA produced the video Keeping it Clean: Making Safe and Spill-free Motor Fuel Deliveries. The video was “designed to familiarize delivery and facility owners/operators with the equipment required to prevent air pollution, as well as soil and water contamination. Safe, clean, error-free deliveries require well-maintained, clearly labeled equipment and proper delivery procedures.” The American Petroleum Institute, the Petroleum Equipment Institute, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, the Fiberglass Petroleum Tank & Pipe Institute and the Steel Tank Institute cooperated with the EPA to produce this video. The video describes driver delivery procedures and if a problem develops, the video instructs the driver to contact the carrier dispatcher. This EPA video on proper driver procedures does not involve the UST owner/operator in the delivery operation. In 1996, the American Petroleum Institute updated API #2005 Service Station Safety and addressed fuel deliveries to service station storage tanks. This industry publication lists the proper delivery procedures, but does not identify the owner or operator as the entity that should perform part of or all of the procedure. NFPA 385 is listed in this API document as a reference publication.

Clouding the issue?
In summary, DOT, not EPA, has jurisdiction over the transport carrier delivery operation. However, EPA now requires underground storage tank fill pipe spill-containment and overfill-protection devices as an additional means to prevent delivery spills at regulated facilities. However, this excludes most heating, aviation, standby power, industrial and aboveground storage tanks. Moreover, these devices may be deluding drivers to rely on them rather than follow long-standing DOT delivery safeguards. When they say that the EPA has not adequately addressed the issue in 40 CFR 280, it appears to me that NTSB has identified the difficulty of establishing responsibility for transportation spills or overfills. In my opinion, 40 CFR 280 has simply clouded the issue of delivery responsibility and should have confirmed DOT jurisdiction over transportation issues.

Discuss