What Can You Do with Sump Test Water….?

 “So much water moving underneath the bridge

Let the water come and carry us away…”

(‘Wasted on the Way’ by Crosby, Stills & Nash)

Graham Nash was not writing about water, but the lyrics are reflective of the current level of containment sump hydrotesting. It is not the ‘water moving underneath the bridge’, but all the water that will be in the containment sumps required for the 2015 (adopted 2018) Federal EPA UST Containment Sump regulation. The water may not ‘carry us away’, but the disposal costs certainly could.

This is such an issue that the EPA estimates that performing new, required containment sump and spill bucket testing could take more than 12 million gallons of Petroleum Contact Water (PCW) annually and cost, at current methods, more than $245 million to dispose of the test PCW properly. 

Although there a several acceptable methods for testing containment sumps, the most common and realistic method is the hydrostatic test using water, since the sumps were originally designed to hold liquid materials.  Hydrostatic testing is logistically simple and easy to implement, however the most common complaint of this testing method is the disposal of the PCW.

The PCW at the completion of a hydrostatic test is assumed to be a hazardous media. But what would happen if the PCW could be classified as non-hazardous? What if the PCW disposal costs could be reduced and the process of handling simplified and made more flexible?

One promising solution to this current issue of water disposal costs is the Icon Portable TPH Filtration/Testing System.  

First, a little background on generation of Hazardous Waste

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Subtitle C, governs the re-use and disposal options for the test water. In most states, the PCW is not a waste until it is no longer being used (also most states allow the PCW to be transported from site to site without having to comply to DOT regulations on hazardous transport). Therefore, if the water is transferred from one facility to another and continues to be used for testing containment sumps it is not a waste. Once the determination is made that the water will no longer be used for testing and it must be disposed of, then this PCW is a generated waste and some RCRA determinations must be made*. 

USEPA indicates that if the test water is used just once prior to being disposed, then the facility where the test is conducted is the generation site. Under the RCRA hazardous waste generator requirements, where more than one party’s actions contribute to a waste being generated, all parties are subject to joint and several liability as generators—they are co-generators. For example, the testing contractor is a generator under 40 CFR 262.10 because his actions produce the waste PCW; the owner/ operator of the facility is a generator because he/she owns the equipment from which the waste is generated. In this article, it is explained why the Contractor / Tester can have a tremendous advantage when designated as the waste generator.

Hazardous vs. Non-Hazardous Test Water

So how does a petroleum contractor determine if the PCW is hazardous or not? 

40 CFR Section 262.11, Standards Applicable to Generators of hazardous waste, requires generators to employ one of two procedures to determine whether a solid waste is a hazardous waste: Analytical testing and generator knowledge. There is numerous information on analytical testing available, but the solution to affordable test fluid disposal is based in generator knowledge.

In determining whether the PCW is hazardous or non-hazardous, generators may apply knowledge of the hazard characteristics of the waste considering the materials or the process used to generate the waste, including the Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) present. The four hydrocarbon chemicals inside TPH are Benzene, Toluene, EthylBenzene and Xylene (BTEX).

The key to using a “knowledgeable determination” process is that it should be scientifically defensible and capable of reliably and accurately determining whether the waste is hazardous, particularly for non-hazardous determinations. Making a knowledge of process determination also includes: observation of visible free petroleum in the test water (since the test water is likely to fail analytical testing if visible petroleum is present), past sampling results of prior test water generated under similar conditions, and basic physical and chemical knowledge about likely waste constituents. The generator is allowed use of PCW experiences and observations along with a testing system as scientific evidence in a hazardous waste determination.

How is this accomplished through the Icon TPH Filtration and Test System?

The Icon TPH Filtration/Testing System is composed of a specialized Carbon Filtration System and the Hanby Environmental Colormetric TPH Test. The Hanby Test is what brings the science into the self-determination of the hazardous waste.  Before the PCW is pumped out of the containment sumps, the installer places several oleophilic / hydrophobic absorbent mats on the surface of the water sheen (PCW has typically been sitting for 45 minutes). This is a critical step in

        ( Figure 1. Icon TPH Filter and Test System summary process )

the process and will greatly reduce any TPH content as the mats will only soak up the hydrocarbon sheen and can be simply disposed of in the local hazardous waste bin. 

As the water is pumped through the Filtration System (see youtube video) into a clean vessel / tote, the technician will take three samples (beginning, middle, and end) for a total of 500ml (16.9oz) of sample PCW.  

With the proper use of the oleophilic mats to take the sheen off the top of the PCW, the Hanby Colormetric Testing process (including the Hanby Mobile App)

can accurately determine the TPH content of BTEX to be less the .5 ppm TPH (below the federal hazardous threshold) and thereby the PCW can be declared as non-hazardous.

(see youtube video)

How is the PCW test fluid disposed of?

Once the PCW is declared non-hazardous, there are a few disposal scenarios possible. However, it should be noted here that transportation of the PCW is less problematic as the technician will not be hauling hazardous waste, but non-hazardous PCW, thereby avoiding many DOT requirements.

It is highly recommended that your state, tribal, and local authorities be contacted for rules or other restrictions regarding disposal methods. However, one of the simplest disposal options is through the sanitary sewer, or local POTW (public operated treatment works; also known as the wastewater treatment plant). The POTW Pre-Treatment specialist can be contacted for permission and the appropriate location for a sanitary connection. The PDF file from the mobile app can be forwarded via email as documentation and for custody transfer purposes.

At the first contact, the Pre-Treatment specialist may not be aware of the Colormetric test method (even though the methodology has been around for over 100 years). It is recommended that a copy be sent to the end user and technician’s office for future substantiation and backup.

If the Sanitary Sewer is not an available option, certain states and local jurisdictions will allow non-hazardous disposal in landfills or on land that has no bordering waterway / storm drain. These options can be explored through the state or local wastewater jurisdiction, which may entail an annual permit (however some permits are site specific and can involve a laborious administrative process).

Another option is disposal the stormwater drain (the same place the rain washes away the forecourt residue off). This is problematic in many ways as it may require additional laboratory testing, expensive permits that are mostly site specific, and very stringent (in some states drinking water standards) water quality before discharge into the stormwater drain.

The last two options are more obvious: a local Oil Water Separator (at some truck stops) or through an environmental company. With the local environmental company, the technician or end user has a stronger negotiating position for specialized pricing if the PCW is declared non-hazardous.

To conclude, there is available to the UST market an affordable and efficient way for PCW disposal. For more information of this and other Containment Sump Leak Solutions, please see our website at www.icontainment.com.

* With the containment sump test water, the most likely characteristics that would apply are the toxicity characteristic (TC) in 40 CFR 261.24 and ignitability characteristic in 40 CFR 261.21. The chemical benzene, often found in petroleum products, is the constituent most likely to be found in UST-sump test water in concentrations equal to or greater than the TC regulatory value, which for benzene is 0.5 mg/l(or .5 ppm). Thus approximately 0.007 ounces of benzene in 100 gallons of test water would exceed the TC limit.

EPA Method 1311/8260 or 1311/5030/8015 or 1311/5030/8021 to determine if there is enough benzene in the test water that it fails for toxicity, and EPA Methods 1010A or 1020B to determine if the test water fails for ignitability. The toxicity characteristic leaching procedure, or TCLP, is the method used for determining whether a waste exhibits the toxicity characteristic (see 40 CFR 262.11). Note the TCLP test considers the solids content of the test water. More information about these laboratory test methods is available in USEPA’s SW-846 Compendium.