Skip Maine state header navigation
Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation
 |
| DEP Home | Contact Us | Subject Index | Can't Find It | About DEP |
MTBE In Maine Summary of five Point PlanOCTOBER 13TH, 1998 Department of Environmental Protection
Introduction On June 3rd, the Maine Departments of Environmental Protection and Human Services announced a five-point plan to respond to incidents of MTBE contamination of public and private wells. This report is an overview of the background and results of that initiative. MTBE is an oxygenate that has been used since 1979 when it was first added to gasoline to replace lead as an anti-knock agent and to boost octane. MTBE is now in most conventional and "reformulated" gasoline sold in Maine and in the Northeast. In conventional unleaded gasoline, its concentration ranges from 3 per cent by volume in regular fuel to 8 per cent in premium blends. Reformulated gasoline, as mandated by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, must contain more of the oxygenate-- roughly 10 or 11 per cent by volume. Maine opted into the Reformulated Gasoline ("RFG") program in 1991 during the McKernan Administration to combat ground level ozone, an air pollutant that causes respiratory problems among children, the elderly and healthy individuals. Federal law allows states to employ this pollution control strategy only in areas that fail to meet the health standard for ozone. As a result, seven counties in southern Maine were required to use RFG. It was first introduced there in November 1994. When Governor King came into office one month later, the state had not yet met the federal requirement to submit a plan to reduce Maine-generated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by 15 per cent. This failure prompted EPA to initiate a procedure leading to "sanctions" as prescribed by federal law. If actually imposed, the sanctions would have curbed economic development in southern Maine and halted the transfer of federal transportation funds to the state. To avert such draconian measures, Governor King convened a stakeholder group to advise him on the elements of a plan that would receive EPA approval. Roughly a dozen VOC control strategies affecting various business segments and consumer products were considered and eventually included in the plan. However, since manmade VOCs are generated in Maine primarily by "mobile sources " (cars, trucks and off-road vehicles), the bulk of the reductions had to come from them. As a result, the group focused on gains to be achieved through auto emissions testing, reformulated gas, and stage II vapor controls at the gas pump. Maine's CarTest program, an auto emissions testing program involving centralized facilities and use of a dynamometer to test cars during operation, had been initiated during the McKernan Administration and promptly suspended due to strong opposition from the driving public and collection of 50,000 signatures to force a referendum to terminate the program. The stakeholder group recommended to the Governor that he resume the program, with some modifications, and continue the sale of RFG. Before making a final decision on the plan, Governor King established two task forces to evaluate aspects of reformulated gas that had raised public concerns -- vehicle and small engine performance and health concerns about MTBE. The health effects task force reported to the Governor in May 1995 as follows: "From a health effects perspective, RFG appears to be a reasonable alternative to regular (conventional) with a modest potential for long-term positive health impacts." The group also recommended continued review of any health-effects studies and initiation of sampling of public water supplies. After receiving this recommendation and satisfactory recommendations on engine performance, Governor King chose to continue RFG while meeting with the Administrator of EPA modify federal rules to allow Maine to implement a less burdensome auto testing program in the future. EPA complied with this request authorizing Northern New England states (Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire) to move forward with limited additions to existing safety inspections (e.g. gas cap check until 2001) In addition, the Governor committed to tackle the dominant cause of Maine's air quality problems -- pollution transported across state boundaries from other states. Maine led efforts to press EPA to impose controls on upwind states, including the filing of a lawsuit. These efforts resulted in EPA's issuance of rules in September, 1998 to require substantial reductions in emissions from 22 states which affect Maine's air quality. Air Quality Benefits of RFG Program The RFG program is considered one of the most successful initiatives ever undertaken in the Northeast to reduce ground-level ozone as well as air toxics. Federal law requires that emissions resulting from the use of RFG contain 15 per cent less volatile organic compounds and 15 per cent less toxic air pollutants than conventional gasoline. EPA has verified that these reductions have been met and perhaps surpassed. In addition, violations of the federal one hour ozone standard have declined steadily in Maine and other parts of New England during the RFG program despite an increase in ambient temperature--a factor which would otherwise tend to lead to an increase in the number of air quality violations. Possibly the most significant benefit, however, is that the monitored levels of ambient air toxics have declined dramatically during the period since introduction of RFG in Maine and in other areas in the country. (Specifically benzene has declined by 31 per cent between 1994 and 1997, with ethyl benzene declining by 52 per cent.) On a related note, NESCAUM recently issued a study documenting a 12 per cent decrease in cancer risk due to exposure to air toxics from RFG as compared to the risk from exposure to conventional gasoline. Additonal Analysis of Health of Health and Groundwater Impacts of MTBE Governor King requested a report on the findings of this effort, which was provided to him by the Health Bureau in June 1997. The report concluded: Based on the most recent review of data on MTBE in Maine public drinking water systems, 23 of 333 tested systems (7%) had detectable levels of MTBE. Of those systems testing positive, the median concentration was 2.8 ppb and the range of detected concentrations was 1 to 16 ppb. The prevalence of drinking water sources testing positive for MTBE was significantly greater in counties using MTBE-RFG; 11% of tested waters (sic) systems from RFG counties tested positive for MTBE, 4 tested positive in non-RFG counties. This increased prevalence may indicate an effect of increased use of MTBE-RFG. However, it may also simply indicate a greater prevalence of pre-RFG leaking underground fuel storage tanks in the more populated counties of Maine. For example, ME DEP has found that the majority (70%) of gasoline spill related monitoring wells testing positive for MTBE prior to the introduction of RFG in Maine were located in counties that would later use RFG. BOH added: Current conclusion: Current levels of MTBE in Maine public drinking water systems do not appear to pose a significant human health risk. Monitoring of MTBE in public drinking water systems should continue, in part because of the apparent low odor and taste thresholds for this compound, and in part to monitor for any evidence of increased contamination. BOH also reviewed the potential health impacts from short-term inhalation of MTBE-RFG Vapors. Their current conclusions provided to the Governor were as follows: Epidemiological studies have failed to establish a causal relationship between inhalation exposure to MTBE-RFG and reported acute health symptoms. However, one cannot rule out that exposure to the MTBE-RFG mixture may cause acute health effects among certain individuals, especially those individuals exposed to higher air concentrations (e.g. occupational exposures)... The bureau noted that new research was ongoing which would yield additional information on these and related issues. BOH also investigated the potential health risks associated with chronic exposures to exhaust and evaporative emissions and reported: The evidence that MTBE is carcinogenic in animals raises concern that it may be carcinogenic to humans. However, MTBE appears to be no more potent at inducing tumors in test animals than traditional gasoline and thus its addition to gasoline would not be expected to increase the overall carcinogenic hazard of the mixture. It is possible that the MTBE-RFG mixture may result in aggregate evaporative and exhaust emissions that are of less carcinogenic hazard than similar emissions from traditional gasoline. Estimates of the incremental cancer risk from lifetime exposure to MTBE at air concentrations of 2 ppb (likely an overestimate of levels for Maine) are very low, on the order of 1 excess case per one million exposed people. DEP Gains Right to Opt Out of RFG Program Due to ongoing concern in Maine about the health effects and ground water impacts of MTBE, DEP Commissioner Sullivan took action in 1997 to establish Maine’s right to opt out of the program. At the time EPA was finalizing rules requiring states already in the RFG program to commit to five additional years of the program -- until the year 2003. EPA's draft rules were aimed at placing restrictions on states' ability to opt out of the program so that oil refineries would have advance assurances of the volume of Phase II RFG which they would need to produce for sales in the year 2000. Phase II RFG is required by law to have lower levels of pollutants than Phase I RFG. EPA's draft rules required a state to affirmatively opt out of the program by January 1st 1998 or remain in the program through 2003. DEP requested a modification of the rule to allow Maine to exercise its option after the end of the 118th legislative session (June, 1998) so that the legislature would have time to fully consider whether Maine should remain in the RFG program. EPA included this extension for Maine in the final rules. No other state requested or received such an extension. On December 1st, 1997, Governor King notified EPA Administrator Browner of his intent to exercise Maine's authority to take an extension until May 31st, 1998. On May 21st, 1998 Governor King notified EPA Administrator Browner of his intent to exercise Maine's right to opt out of the program, but asked EPA to withhold its final action on this request until completion of the study he had ordered on MTBE contamination of water supplies in Maine. Legislative Review of RFG Program Legislative oversight and initiatives relating to the RFG program have been continuous since its inception in November 1994. Senator Willis Lord and Representative Richard Gould, chairs of the Natural Resources Committee in the 117th legislature, served on the stakeholder group for the 15 per cent VOC plan. A bill in the first session of that legislature which would have terminated Maine's participation in the RFG program was defeated. A 1996 bill introduced by Representative Verdi Tripp established a committee to review the health effects of RFG, and another in 1997 directed the Bureau of Health to establish a health standard for drinking water. Both of these efforts culminated during the second session of the 118th legislature in 1998. The Select Committee on Health Effects of RFG conducted hearings throughout southern Maine over two years and gathered extensive data on the topic. DEP staff and many others provided information to the committee on both the air quality benefits of RFG and data on the presence of MTBE in ground water. This information, along with several recommendations, was included in the committee's final report to the Natural Resources Committee. On the topic of ground water, the report included the following information provided in a letter by DEP Commissioner Sullivan October 27th, 1997 to the committee: "For the five-year period of 1992 to 1996, inclusive, the Department's Bureau of Remediation and Waste Management has documented 345 private wells contaminated with MTBE at concentrations above laboratory detection levels (usually 1 ppb). Half of these wells are contaminated with MTBE only, the other half are contaminated with both gasoline and MTBE. All of these wells were contaminated by discharges of gasoline resulting from subsurface leaks or surface spills, almost all at underground or above ground gasoline storage tank facilities." Maine's experience as of this point was consistent with national trends, as reported in a national study of oxygenates. This report, the Interagency Assessment of Oxygenated Fuels published by the National Science and Technology Council in June 1997, identified leaking underground storage tanks as the predominant source of ground water contamination by MTBE and other oxygenates. The report states, in part: "Petroleum storage tanks represent the largest populations of potential point sources of alkyl ether oxygenates to natural waters…. USEPA’s statistics show that slightly over 300,000 sites have been identified with contamination that require corrective action…The current improvement in the physical condition of Underground Storage Tanks and release-detection capabilities, coupled with a reduction in the population of tanks, should contribute to a considerable reduction in the annual volume of oxygenated gasoline released to natural waters from this subset of point sources." Its observation that removal and upgrade of obsolete underground storage facilities and replacement with state-of-the-art equipment would lead to reduced contamination was consistent with Maine's campaign to remove all bare steel tanks and replace them with double lined facilities with leak detection capabilities. DEP, working with gas station owners, public facilities and others, moved forward aggressively with replacement of bare steel tanks. More than 30,000, or 98 percent of them, have been removed, placing Maine in the lead nationally on this initiative. It has been in the context of major gasoline spills associated with these tanks that MTBE often appeared as the precursor of other toxic gasoline constituents such as benzene. Among the Select Committee's findings and conclusions, based on review of this information and other related data, was the following: Water Quality Finding: The committee finds that there is cause for great concern that the use of RFG has and will continue to result in the contamination of ground water and drinking water supplies in the State. The committee further finds that this concern is heightened by MTBE's solubility in water, its relative mobility in soils and its resistance to degradation, as well as the lack of consensus in the scientific community regarding the carcinogenicity of MTBE. Recommendation: The committee strongly endorses the adoption by the Department of Human Services of a legally enforceable primary drinking water standard for MTBE in public water systems. Though the Select Committee did not recommend an immediate end of the RFG program, the legislature and Governor went on to pass legislation (PL 791) based on this report, which directed the DEP Commissioner to "develop recommendations regarding alternative fuels to reformulated gasoline (RFG) with MTBE that would meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act...." and submit a report to the Natural Resources Committee by January 15th, 2000 with an interim report by January 15th, 1999. During the same legislative session, the legislature and Governor approved the recommendation of the Bureau of Health that established a maximum health threshold for MTBE in drinking water of 35 parts per billion. During legislative briefings, the DEP indicated it would utilize an action level of 25 ppb for commencing remedial action of contaminated water supplies. Recent Incidents of MTBE Contamination In the spring of 1998 elevated levels of MTBE were detected in ground water at a gas station and in monitoring wells near a public water supply in the town of North Windham. A short time thereafter, high levels of MTBE contamination were discovered in a well serving the Whitefield elementary school and in over a dozen private wells in Standish. While the exact causes of these incidents has not been definitively established, each of them seemed to be related to a spill of a small quantity of gasoline -- most likely the overfilling of gas tanks at a gas station in North Windham, a leak or spill in a parking lot at the Whitefield school, and an automobile accident in Standish. These contamination incidents from small spills stood in contrast to the known historical causes of MTBE contamination -- point source discharges from leaking underground gas tanks. In response, Governor King ordered the most comprehensive MTBE water supply testing initiative ever undertaken in the United States -- 1000 private wells and 793 public water supplies in the state. To address other issues raised in the course of addressing the recent contamination discoveries, DEP and DHS added four additional elements to produce a comprehensive "five point plan." A brief overview of each follows. Summary of Results from Water Testing Program During the summer of 1998, water samples were taken from 793 public drinking supplies and 946 randomly selected private wells. These were analyzed for the presence of five components of gasoline: MTBE, benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylenes. The detection limit for MTBE was determined to be .1 parts per billion (ppb): previous testing had a limit ten times higher at 1 part per billion. In 92.3% of the private well samples, MTBE was either non-detectable or detectable at less than one part per billion (1ppb). However, of all the gasoline constituents tested for, MTBE was the most commonly found. It was detectable at some level 15.8% of the samples: it was present at concentrations exceeding the Maine health-based drinking water standard (35 ppb) in 1.1% of the private wells sampled. All of these wells now have filters. In most (93.9%) of the 793 public supplies tested, MTBE was either non-detectable or present at levels below 1 ppb. However, it was detected at some level in approximately 15.7% of the tested public supplies, although no concentrations exceeded the health-based standard. Benzene was the only analyte detected above the health-based standard (5ppb) for that chemical. Two of the samples showed benzene concentrations above 5 ppb. MTBE was detected both within and outside of areas where RFG is required. For both private and public wells, location of a water supply within an area required to use RFG was found to be predictive of higher frequency of MTBE detection. Detection was also more likely in areas of high population density. Public water supplies classified as mobile home parks or businesses were twice as likely to have detectable levels of MTBE. The presence of MTBE in private wells seems more closely connected to small spills or mishandling of gasoline than to leaks from underground or above ground gasoline storage tanks. DEP follow-up of wells above the threshold for remedial action led in most cases to evidence of a likely source of a specific spill. Summary of Results of Alternative Fuels Analysis Between June and September of 1998, the DEP accelerated the analysis of alternative fuels required by PL 791. The goal was to identify any options that could meet Maine's obligation to reduce VOCs by 15 per cent, while reducing or eliminating MTBE-based RFG. The Department gathered information on fuels utilized in other areas of the country from the EPA and by directly contacting other state agencies. In addition, the Department obtained information from the Maine Petroleum Association and by directly interviewing refiners and fuel suppliers currently servicing the Maine market. EPA New England, NESCAUM, and the Ozone Transport Commission assisted DEP in its review. The DEP found that Maine could meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act with a non-RFG fuel known as low volatility fuel. Alternately, the requirement could be met with a moderate volatility with lower sulfur levels than currently found in RFG and conventional fuel. This fuel would be sold only during the months of April through September. By lowering the volatility of the fuel (its Reid Vapor Pressure (rvp)) -- either alone or in conjunction with a lower sulfur content -- VOC (and NOx) emissions would be reduced in sufficient quantity to maintain the integrity of Maine's 15 per cent plan. To maintain the toxic benefits associated with RFG, the state could also specify a benzene cap, if authorized by EPA. The primary obstacle to implementing a program based on such a fuel is the limited number of suppliers currently indicating the capability to provide it at prices competitive with motor fuels sold in Maine. A multi-part action plan is recommended to achieve a smooth transition to this fuel. Next steps include: 1. Maine should advocate for a modification of federal law to eliminate the oxygenate mandate in RFG. Eliminating this provision of law would enable Maine to remain in the Federal program with the expectation that fuels with lower MTBE levels would become available in the state and region. On September 16, DEP Commissioner Sullivan testified before Congress in favor of legislation that would eliminate the oxygenate mandate in favor of a performance-based fuel specifications. Maine's congressional delegation should be urged to strongly advocate such legislation. 2. Maine should initiate rule making proposing the adoption of state rules requiring a low rvp or moderate rvp/low sulfur fuel in the seven southern counties where RFG is currently sold. Its State Implementation Plan (SIP) must be modified to substitute this fuel for RFG in its 15 per cent plan. During public hearings input should be sought on several issues including: whether sufficient supply of this product could be made available to the state at competitive prices; on engine performance; environmental and public health issues. On a parallel track input could be sought on alternative strategies for maintaining compliance with Maine's 15 per cent plan. 3. To implement such a program, DEP must apply for a 211 (c) waiver under the Clean Air Act, gaining federal authority to drop the RFG program and permission to enforce a fuel specification with state authority. 4. EPA should be asked to waive required use of RFG between October and April when Maine will not experience ground level ozone problems with or without RFG. 5. The Department of Agriculture should seek adequate funds to enhance its fuel inspection program. A methodology for certifying complying fuels must be established. (Other states have indicated that $30,000-$50,000 is needed for such an effort.) 6. A legislative/executive-sponsored task force should be assembled between October and January to develop recommendations on how to phase out use of MTBE in Maine without causing disruption to supplies and price impacts. A timetable and specific measures, including incentives/disincentives should be developed for legislative/executive action. 7. Maine should educate other states regarding the ground water impacts of MTBE and urge them to consider shifting to alternative fuels. A rule change at EPA would likely be needed to allow States which are committed to RFG through 2003 to shift to an alternative fuel, unless the oxygenate mandate in federal law is lifted. Parts of New Hampshire and New York, currently not participating in the RFG program may be interested in an alternative fuel. A stakeholder group, including business interests, legislators, state and local officials and representatives of public water systems, has been meeting since early in the summer to consider ways in which to strengthen the protection of public water supplies and surface water intakes. Maine has had a "Wellhead Protection Plan" in place since 1993, but it involves only voluntary protective action on the part of the water supplier or the municipality. The work group has determined that certain changes should be proposed to the current laws including: A defined voice for public water supplies in local land use processes; A statutory status for public water supplies to appeal local decisions at the local level and to a state authority; and A major educational effort to assure that both local officials and the public at large understand the vulnerability of ground water and the importance of ground water to both public health and to economic development. Waste Gasoline Disposal/Education A task force was convened to discuss the potential threat to Maine’s ground water due to the improper or careless handling of unwanted gasoline. Members of the group included representatives of the petroleum industry, hazardous waste handlers, state agencies, trade and municipal associations, planners and environmental consultants. The group determined that, for commercial and retail users, existing state and federal hazardous waste programs provide for the proper management, transport, handling treatment and disposal of "waste" or unwanted gasoline. However, residential use is not subject to the same requirements and minimal public interest has been expressed on this issue. Licensed hazardous waste handlers report little contact with residential customers. Currently, private citizens have few disposal options for small amounts of unwanted gasoline. Community hazardous waste collection programs provide some opportunity, but these programs are conducted sporadically and at considerable expense. The group could not justify the state expense of funding a collection program solely for gasoline. However it recommended that gasoline collection be added to any household hazardous waste collection activities at the local level with DEP assistance. The group recommended that educational materials be developed and distributed widely to promote the safe handling of gasoline and to reduce the amount of gasoline eventually considered a "waste" by residential users. A public service announcement is already running on this topic and basic information is being placed on DEP’s Internet web site. More materials will be developed. Communication with Municipalities A work group was convened within DEP to review communications with municipalities and legislators, especially at times "when incidents may threaten local services." Members of the group met with representatives of the Maine Municipal Association and the state legislature to discuss how procedures are now functioning and where opportunities for improvement may exist. The group as a whole also examined the DEP’s outreach procedures and initiatives. An observation shared by all parties was that communications need to be two-way: state and the local entities both need to share information regarding environmental threats, even though the immediate magnitude may not be readily apparent as in the case of small gasoline spills. The group concluded that there already are many procedures in place to ensure direct communication with municipal officials and that they are effective most of the time. Nonetheless the group explicitly recognized that the procedures are not fully fail-safe and that improvements need to be instituted under certain circumstances. Although attempting to characterize 100% of the situations that may arise as part of an initiative to establish written communications protocols for every possible eventuality would be an impossible exercise, the group recommended that DEP programs have generic communications protocols to address the kinds of circumstances they are likely to encounter. The work group also recommended formalizing a "key contact" system between municipal officials and the Department that would ensure that the appropriate people on both ends of the communications link are informed situations as they develop and as they are resolved. Maine people have realized substantial air quality and health benefits from the use of RFG, including reduced ground level ozone during the summer and lower cancer causing air toxics in the air they breathe throughout the year. Furthermore, Maine has avoided Federal sanctions by implementing the program and maintained its standing to push for EPA action to reduce the transport of pollutants into the state from upwind areas. EPA's recently issued regulation requiring major cuts in emissions from upwind states -- spurred in large part by Maine's leadership and lawsuit -- will have long-term air quality benefits in the state. However, the incidents of MTBE contamination discovered last spring and in the water supply study have brought to light a previously unknown problem with the federal reformulated gasoline program, and, most particularly, with the federal statute establishing it. Elevated levels of oxygenate in RFG, mandated by Federal law, is leading to higher levels of private well and public water supply contamination by MTBE. Though the majority of "detect" instances in both public water supplies and private wells are at trace levels of no immediate public health concern, a small percentage in private wells are above the health standard. These cases appear to be caused by small spills of gasoline due to "poor housekeeping" or careless disposal practices. Despite the substantial air quality benefits of RFG, the risks posed to Maine’s ground water by MTBE warrant strong efforts to end the federal oxygenate mandate. In the meantime, Maine should initiate action to terminate its participation in the federal reformulated gasoline program and move to an alternative fuel which will maintain the clean air benefits of RFG. Furthermore, with legislative and stakeholder involvement, we should develop a strategy to phase out the use of MTBE in conventional fuel. Both the move to an alternative fuel and the phase-out of MTBE in conventional fuel should be carried out without causing major supply disruptions and price increases. The recommendations of the three remaining work groups should be carried out. However, they should be tasked with reexamining their recommendations in light of the newly released data on the extent of MTBE contamination. In particular it is critical to supplement efforts already undertaken to establish a broad based public education initiative on the need for citizens and businesses to properly handle and dispose of gasoline. Furthermore, the wellhead protection task force should be directed to examine steps needed to assist Maine citizens who obtain their water from private wells to periodically test and systematically protect them from contamination by gasoline and other pollutants.
|
| Copyright © 2005 All rights reserved. |