UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR
In the Matter of )
)
Bradley Petroleum, Inc., ) Docket No. RCRA (9006)-VIII-94-08
)
)
Respondent )
RCRA Underground Storage Tanks -- Release Detection
Inventory Control
Complaint, which was based on contention that alterations in
Respondent's daily records of measurements of gasoline volume in
its underground storage tanks rendered its method of inventory
control unreliable, was dismissed where evidence failed to show
that monthly inventory control (reconciliation) as practiced by
Respondent was incapable of detecting a release of one percent of
flow-through plus 130 gallons in accordance with 40 CFR §
280.43(a).
Appearance for Complainant:
Dana J. Stotsky, Esq.
Donna M. Arthur, Esq.
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA, Region VIII
Denver, Colorado
Appearance for Respondent:
Peter A. Robinson, Esq.
Robinson, Waters, O'Dorisio and
Rapson, P.C.
Denver, Colorado
INITIAL DECISION
This proceeding under Section 9006 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6991e, was commenced on March 31, 1994 by the
filing of a Complaint, Compliance Order and Notice of Opportunity
for Hearing charging Respondent, Bradley Petroleum, Inc. (Bradley
or Respondent), with violations of RCRA and regulations at 40 CFR
Part 280, Subpart D. In broad terms, the Complaint (¶ 11) alleged
that Bradley failed to provide a "release detection" method for 35
[underground storage tanks] (USTs) at 11 facilities owned and
operated by Respondent in accordance with 40 CFR §§ 280.40,
280.41(a) and 280.43. For these alleged violations, it was
proposed to assess Respondent a penalty of $2,250 for each of the
35 tanks, for a total of $78,750.
Bradley answered, alleging that it maintained inventory
control documentation which, according to its records, was properly
reconciled in accordance with 40 CFR Section 280.43. Bradley
denied the alleged violations, and requested a hearing. The
parties exchanged prehearing information. Pursuant to a Joint
Motion to Amend the Complaint, the number of alleged violations was
reduced from 35 to 32, for the reason that two tanks at each of
three stations were manifolded tanks which under EPA policy are
regarded as one tank. Consequently, the proposed penalty was
reduced to $72,000.(1)
RCRA § 9003, 42 U.S.C. § 6991b(a), authorizes the
Administrator to promulgate release detection, prevention and
correction regulations applicable to all owners and operators of
USTs which contain "regulated substances." "Regulated substances"
include petroleum. 42 U.S.C. § 6991(2). Section 9003(c)(1) of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6991b(c), provides that regulations promulgated
under this section shall include, inter alia, "(1) requirements for
maintaining a leak detection system, an inventory control system
together with tank testing, or a comparable system or method
designed to identify releases in a manner consistent with the
protection of human health and the environment;" and "(2)
requirements for maintaining records of any monitoring or leak
detection system or inventory control system or tank testing or
comparable system;..." This authorization resulted in the
regulations at 40 CFR Part 280, Subpart D, "Release Detection" (53
Fed. Reg. 37194, 1988). At issue in this proceeding is the
adequacy of Respondent's compliance with the mentioned regulations.
A hearing on this matter was held in Denver, Colorado on
October 1 and 2, 1996.
Based upon the entire record, including the briefs and the
proposed findings and conclusions of the parties, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Bradley Petroleum, Inc., is a corporation and a "person" as
defined in Section 9001(6) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6991(6), and
40 CFR § 280.12.
2. Bradley is an "owner" and/or "operator," as defined in
Sections 9001(3) and (4) of RCRA and 40 CFR § 280.12, of
USTs, as defined at Section 9001(1) of RCRA and 40 CFR §
280.12. Bradley owns or operates some 35 to 40 stations. There
are 32 USTs involved in this action at eleven facilities
(stations) identified in the complaint as follows:
[Bradley Station No.]
1. 2160 E. Havana, Aurora, Colorado 21
2. 1121 E. Alameda, Denver, Colorado 10
3. 2698 W. Alameda, Denver, Colorado 11
4. 4015 E. Warren, Denver, Colorado 04
5. 5000 [N.] Federal, Denver, Colorado 08
6. 5100 W. Dartmouth, Denver, Colorado 09
7. 7880 E. Mississippi, Denver, Colorado 06
8. 2122 Grand Ave., Glenwood Springs, Colorado 13
9. 1403 Townsend, Montrose, Colorado (2) 12
10. 3305 W. 72nd Ave., Westminster, Colorado 07
11. 7403 W. 38th Ave., Wheatridge, Colorado 05
3. During the period July through October 1993, Bradley used
inventory control as permitted by 40 CFR § 280.43(a) and tank
tightness testing in accordance with 40 CFR § 280.43(c) as a
leak detection method for its USTs (Tr.205). Tank tightedness
tests were documented by Bradley (Tr. 150, 314; R's Exh G) and
are not at issue herein.
4. Inventory reconciliation is performed by Bradley on a daily
and a monthly basis (Lemke, Tr. 453; C's Exh 12). Bradley's
practice is to "record the deliveries into the tanks....record
withdrawals by reading the pumps,..and record the amount
that's still in the tanks by sticking the tank each day and
writing it on the station report" (Lemke, Tr. 403).
5. Mr. Douglas Lowe was employed by Bradley Petroleum for about
four months (May to September 1993) as an accounts receivable
clerk (Tr. 12, 46). He testified that for the first two and a-half months or so his main duty was to add up the batch
reports for the credit cards from each station and also check
for any forgeries and any duplicate batches that would come
through. He stated that this information was on daily reports
[received from each station]. After the initial two and a-half
month period, he was shown how to input information [from the
daily reports] into the [computer] system, information such as
stick readings [converted to gallons], gallons sold, and price
changes at the wholesale level for gasoline (Tr. 13).
6. Mr. Lowe testified that, although he received daily stick
readings from the stations, he never received stick readings
taken before and after deliveries of product into any of the
tanks.(3) Mr. Lowe had previously been employed for six-month
periods by Exxon and Circle K (Tr. 51). He testified that at
these companies they were required to "stick" the tanks
immediately before and after deliveries were made (Tr. 23). He
indicated that the purpose of this procedure was to verify
that the amount shown on the invoice had actually been
delivered (Tr. 23, 24). On cross-examination, however, he
acknowledged that on the rare occasions at Bradley when he saw
delivery receipts [bills of lading or loading tickets] the
tickets contained notations indicating stick readings before
and after delivery (Tr. 71, 74, 75, 76).
7. Testifying with reference to monthly inventory records for
Bradley's East Warren station (No. 04) for the months of July
through October 1993 (C's Exhs 11-14), Mr. Lowe noted the
large number of deliveries where gallons delivered were shown
in even numbers (Tr. 26-30). He testified that this almost
never happened at Exxon or Circle K (Tr. 30, 68, 70). The
implication is that Bradley recorded deliveries based on
loading ticket or invoice amounts rather than sticking the
tanks before and after delivery as required by the inventory
control regulation.(4)
8. Explaining inventory control as conducted by Bradley, Mr. Lowe
stated that each month started with a stick inventory [which
was actually the closing inventory for the previous month]
before any product was delivered or sold (Tr. 21). To that
figure deliveries for the day were added while gallons pumped
or sold that day were subtracted, which resulted in the book
inventory for a particular tank for that day. At the close of
the day (actually before business commenced at the start of a
day) a stick reading was taken which was compared with the
book inventory.(5) He pointed out that these numbers should be
fairly close but would vary a few gallons either way due
[among other things] to a [lack of precision in stick
readings].
9. At the end of the month the gallons pumped were totaled and
multiplied by one percent (Tr. 21, 22). This figure plus 130
gallons equals the "leak check" result (40 CFR § 280.43(a)),
which is compared with the "over/short number, i.e., the
difference between the book inventory and the "stick
inventory". The "over/short" number should not exceed the
"leak check" result. Mr. Lowe acknowledged that leak check
calculations were performed by Mr. Lemke rather than himself
(Tr. 53, 91, 93). An example, in Complainant's view, of the
application of these computations for inventory control
purposes is the Monthly Inventory Record for Bradley's East
Warren station for the month of October 1993 (C's Exh 12). The
log for the no lead tank reflects that 51,413 gallons were
pumped from this tank during the month and that the
"over/short" number is a minus 669 gallons.(6) One percent of
51,413 plus 130 gives a "leak check" result of 644 gallons
which is less than the "over/short" number. The inventory form
provides that, if the "over/short" number is larger than the
"leak check" result for two months in a row, notify regulatory
agency.
10. Mr. Lowe testified that on a daily basis he received
telephonic reports from the managers of each of Bradley's
service stations data concerning gallons sold, total revenue,
which included sales of merchandise in addition to gasoline,
quantities delivered, "stick readings" and "over/short"
calculations (Tr. 13, 17, 18, 76-78). "Stick readings" were
converted into gallons at the stations (Tr. 444). From this
data, he manually prepared a daily report. This report, which
was prepared by nine o'clock in the morning, was, inter alia,
to enable Bradley's management to detect problems or potential
problems with inventory, cash shortages, etc. Mr. Lowe
testified that if there were more than 100 gallons over/short
[between the book inventory and the stick inventory] his
instructions were to call the station manager and, inter alia,
have him verify the stick readings (Tr. 79, 80). He indicated
that this happened infrequently (Tr. 80). If he were unable to
resolve the discrepancy with the station manager, he turned
the problem over to Mr. Lemke (Tr. 82).
11. Later each day hard copies of the station reports were
received, which confirmed sales and inventory data, included
stick readings in inches and gallons, and showed the
difference between book inventory and the stick inventory for
each tank (Tr. 79, 80, 87, 390; C's Exhs 21, 22; R's Exh E).
Mr. Lowe answered in the affirmative when asked if he were
ever told to change delivery amounts inputted into the
computer from data reported by the stations (Tr. 31). He
testified that he was told to do this by Mr. Al Lemke,
Bradley's office manager and controller. According to
Mr. Lowe, Mr. Lemke explained that the numbers had to be under
one hundred gallons over or short before the reconciliation
reports were sent to Bradley [Bradley Calkins, Respondent's
president] (Tr. 32).
12. Mr. Lowe testified that changes in delivery amounts were made
for the majority of stations at one time or another (Tr. 32).
Although information from daily reports was inputted to the
computer daily, computer printouts were usually prepared on a
weekly basis (Tr. 84, 85). After the reports were printed
out, the reports were delivered to Mr. Lemke, who using a
ruler, would go down the list to see what was off by more or
less than 100 gallons and cross out the number for the
delivery or the amount in the tank and insert the number which
was to be inputted to the computer (Tr. 33, 87). Mr. Lowe
explained, however, that adjustments were made only to
deliveries and to amounts pumped and not to the "over/short"
column (Tr. 34). The "over/short" column would be affected
only to the extent that adjustments were made in amounts
delivered or amounts pumped. He concluded that there was no
real pattern to these adjustments and opined that the
overriding concern appeared to be to make certain that the
"over/short" column did not show more than a hundred gallons
irrespective of what the station actually reported (Tr. 34,
47, 98, 99).
13. Under cross-examination, Mr. Lowe acknowledged that most of
the changes he made to stick readings were in 100-gallon
increments (Tr. 56). His basic concern was that changes in
stick readings made the daily "over/shorts" as reported by the
stations inaccurate (Tr. 60, 88). These changes were not to
the stick readings in inches, but to the gallon conversions
(Tr. 87, 90). He agreed, however, with the concept that mid-month correction of an error in a stick reading without more
would correct itself because the following day it (the
computer) would be off by an opposite exact amount (Tr. 92,
93). He also acknowledged that for the most part delivery
amounts were only changed after Mr. Lemke said that he had
looked into the matter and determined that an error had been
made (Tr. 56, 60). Additionally, changes were almost never
made to amounts pumped or sold (Tr. 88). Mr. Lowe testified
that in most instances no changes were made to the station
reports themselves (Tr. 61). He was instructed by Mr. Lemke to
never change the opening stick reading for a month (Tr. 112-13).
14. Mr. Al Lemke, Bradley's office manager and controller, has a
degree in accounting and has been employed by Bradley since
1989 (Tr. 382-83). Among his duties was responsibility for
compliance with EPA regulations concerning inventory control.
He testified that for inventory purposes all quantities were
rounded to the nearest gallon (Tr. 385-86). Referring to the
initial station reports described by Mr. Lowe, he stated that
he observed mathematical, transposition, and stick reading
errors on a daily basis (Tr. 391-93). He asserted that these
were corrected "(a)s best we can,.." (Tr. 393). He pointed out
that at the time the daily reports were being prepared, they
rarely had a bill of lading or a delivery receipt reflecting
actual deliveries and that these documents were received at a
later time. Data were only inputted to the computer after it
had been "checked out".
15. Mr. Lemke testified that he or someone on his behalf attempted
to resolve "over/shorts" of 100 gallons or more shown on daily
"call-in sheets" with the station manager (Tr. 394). If these
attempts were unsuccessful and a discrepancy of that magnitude
"survived" and appeared on computer reports, he would review
the reports and, having the benefit of "hindsight", was able
to determine that an overage on one day was matched or almost
matched by a short the next day (Tr. 395). In such instances,
he would conclude that there had to have been a "stick" error
reported on that day.
16. Asked whether Bradley had any process to determine whether any
variance in excess of 100 gallons was occasioned by a
misrecorded delivery, Mr. Lemke replied that all deliveries to
all stations were periodically reconciled to the bills of
lading (Tr. 396). He explained that we enter into our bill of
lading system every bill received from [e.g.] Sinclair Oil and
that these are matched gallon for gallon with receipts at the
stations (Tr. 396, 398, 405). He testified that tanks were
"stuck" before and after deliveries were made (Tr. 398-99,
405). In this regard, Mr. Lemke stated that he did not
personally convert the before and after stick readings in
inches to gallons unless he suspected that there was some
problem with the delivery (Tr. 398).
17. In addition to preventing overflows,(7) the reason for gauging
or "sticking" a tank after delivery is to verify that
quantities loaded into the tank truck at the terminal were
actually delivered. While there is some indication in the
record that quantities delivered are metered,(8) Mr. Lemke did
not so testify and he deflected assertions that Bradley's
records implausibly show numerous deliveries in even numbers
by relying on the size of tank truck compartments (Tr. 414-16). He (Lemke) testified that gallons metered into the truck
as shown on the bill of lading were used for monthly
reconciliation purposes (Tr. 405). He maintained that meters
measuring product into a tank truck were very accurate, that
this measure was more accurate [than stick readings] and
[because Bradley pumped fuel while deliveries were
accomplished] in accordance with national EPA guidance.(9)
18. Mr. Lemke denied ever changing a delivery amount from that
shown on station reports without verifying that a mistake had
been made (Tr. 399, 400). He also denied ever changing
quantities sold without verifying that there was an error in
the station report (Tr. 400-01). He pointed out that each
shift [at a station] had to write down the opening [pump]
totalizer readings from the previous shift's closing readings,
that there could be a mistake in rewriting these numbers, that
there could be a mistake in totaling sales from two or more
pumps [from the same tank] and that there could be a
transposition of figures in the columns for calculating the
daily over or short. He testified that because the integrity
of the monthly inventory control depended upon having accurate
opening and closing stick readings and accurate [records of]
deliveries and sales, he never changed opening or closing
stick readings unless he was able to verify that an error had
been made (Tr. 401-02).
19. Asked what he would do if records showed Bradley was out of
tolerance for a month, i.e., an over/short of one percent plus
130 gallons or more, Mr. Lemke replied that the first thing he
would do is "go to" the previous month to determine whether
there were two months in a row with a variance beyond one
percent plus 130 (Tr. 421). He averred that during the period
July through October 1993 there were never two consecutive
months when [inventory reconciliation] showed a shortage in
excess of one percent [of throughput] plus 130 gallons (Tr.
421). The regulation (40 CFR Part 280, Subpart E) requires,
inter alia, notification of the implementing agency when a
release detection method required under §§ 280.41 and 280.42
indicates that a release may have occurred unless in the case
of inventory control, a second month of data does not confirm
the initial result (§ 280.50(c)(2)).
20. As he did with respect to the "daily call-in sheets",
Mr. Lemke regarded amounts in excess of 100 gallons in the
over/short column on station reports and monthly inventory
records as matters requiring particular attention (Tr. 427).
He testified that he would try to determine why the amount was
over 100 gallons and try to correct it if possible. He
maintained that changing a stick [reading] in the middle of
the month [or at any point other than the opening or closing]
would not affect the integrity of the [monthly] inventory
control analysis (Tr. 424, 428-29, 430-34).
21. Referring specifically to the Monthly Inventory Record for the
no lead tank at Bradley's East Warren station for the month of
October 1993 (C's Exh 12), Mr. Lemke testified that he had
verified that a delivery of 5,001 gallons on October 6 shown
on the station report should have been 4,601 and that this had
been corrected on the computer report (Tr. 439, 463). A
comparison of prior stick readings of this tank casts
substantial doubt on the accuracy of this testimony or the
accuracy of the verification.(10) The Monthly Inventory Record
for this tank for October 1993 also shows a short of 546
gallons on October 27. Mr. Lemke's initial conclusion would
be that this [or similar large shorts] must have resulted from
an improper data entry (Tr. 428).
22. Responding to an inquiry from the ALJ as to whether changes in
stick readings in the middle of the month would make it easier
to mask a possible leak, Mr. Lemke averred that he generally
tried to smooth the over/shorts on a daily basis by changing
stick readings when he could not verify a mistake in delivery
or sales. He maintained that these mid-month adjustments [in
stick readings] made it "...better to determine if there was
a leak by taking the spikes out,.... to better determine what
kind of a trend there was in these overs and shorts as to
whether there was a leak or some other problem at that
station." (Tr. 465)
23. Paragraph (a) of the regulation setting forth conditions for
the use of inventory control as a leak detection method (40
CFR § 280.43) provides in part: "(2) (t)he equipment used is
capable of measuring the level of product over the full range
of the tank's height to the nearest one-eighth of an inch; ."
Mr. Lemke asserted that "Bradley complies with that
requirement by providing tank sticks and charts that enable us
to determine to the nearest eighth of an inch how much product
is in the tank." (Tr. 404). While he acknowledged that some
tank charts and sticks in use at Bradley were in one-quarter
rather than one-eighth inch increments, he maintained that the
equipment was capable of measuring to the nearest one-eighth
inch by interpretation [interpolation] (Tr. 404, 451).
Ms. Theresa Bahrych, identified infra finding 29, supported
Mr. Lemke in this respect, stating that it, the stick, could
be in quarter-inch markings, but that it had to be read to the
nearest eighth of an inch and written into the inventory
record (Tr. 333-34).
24. Ms. Stevenson, identified infra finding 29, testified that
whether Bradley used an adequate stick was physical at the
station and that she did not know whether Bradley complied
[with the requirement of the regulation] in this respect (Tr.
221). EPA guidance "Doing Inventory Control Right" (supra note
9) recognizes that charts for converting stick readings to
gallons at one-eighth inch increments may not be available and
sets forth the necessary calculation where the stick reading
is to eighths of an inch and the chart shows gallon
equivalents at one-quarter inch levels (Id. 9). It is not
clear whether any of the readings in the tanks at issue here
were made with sticks having a one-eighth inch scale. Monthly
Inventory Records (C's Exhs 11 through 14) and Station Reports
in the record (C's Exhs 21 and 22) do not show any stick
readings in eighths of an inch (Tr. 450-51).
25. Among other conditions for using inventory control as a method
of leak detection (40 CFR § 280.43(a)) is ¶ (6) which
provides" "(t)he measurement of any water level in the bottom
of the tank is made to the nearest one-eighth inch at least
once a month." Mr. Lemke testified that Bradley's station
managers were asked to stick tanks for water every Monday or
approximately four times a month (Tr. 408). Gauging for water
is accomplished by coating the end of a gauge stick with a
paste which changes color in the presence of water (Bulk
Liquid Stock Control At Retail Outlets, C's Exh 18, Appendix
D). A form for this purpose which provides that each tank must
be stuck for water on [each] Monday throughout the month, the
results recorded, the form signed and returned to the office
with the master report on the first of each month is in
evidence (R's Exh H). Mr. Lemke testified that this form was
in use during the period July to October 1993 (Tr. 409).
26. However, no records of "water stick" measurements for the
stations at issue are in evidence. According to Ms. Stevenson,
identified finding 29 infra, she asked Mr. Lemke for water
stick records and his response was "(l)ook on the delivery
slips." (Tr. 208-09, 232, 236) She testified that they never
saw any water stick readings, but acknowledged that the matter
was not pursued and that the inspectors were not specifically
looking for evidence that the tanks were checked for water
(Tr. 209, 235, 237-38). There is no mention whatsoever of
water readings or the lack thereof in the Checklist for
Inventory Control Documents (C's Exh 10; Tr. 280) or in the
Inspection Report (C's Exh 7).
27. Mr. Lemke testified that he was not aware that EPA was asking
for "water stick" records until Monday afternoon
(September 30) of the week of the hearing. Describing efforts
to locate the records, he stated that they had looked
everywhere [where Bradley stored records] but that "(w)e still
have not located those records." (Tr. 410) He indicated that
records not required to be kept were shredded and that the
records may have been destroyed.(11) According to Mr. Lemke, he
did not normally review "water stick" records in connection
with inventory control because, to him, "any water in our tank
is unacceptable." (Tr. 412-13)
28. Approximately the last week in September 1993, Mr. Lowe left
Bradley Petroleum for a better paying job (Tr. 51). During the
first week in October 1993, he called Ms. Debra Ehlert who at
the time was chief of the underground storage tank program
section at EPA Region 8 (Tr. 123, 129-30). He informed
Ms. Ehlert that while employed by Bradley he had been asked to
change numbers on inventory sheets. Mr. Lowe explained that
he made the call because "I just knew it wasn't right and I
was worried what would happen if it was left to continue this
way and there was a leak" (Tr. 49). Thereafter, EPA sent
Bradley a letter under Section 9005 of RCRA requesting
information, including field and computer records. Due to the
volume of records, Bradley invited EPA to inspect the records
at Bradley's main office (Tr. 130-131, 202).
29. On November 29 and 30, 1993, Suzanne Stevenson, enforcement
coordinator for the UST program, and Theresa Bahrych, an EPA
environmental engineer, accompanied by Scott Simons and Ralph
Acierno, authorized inspectors from the State of Colorado Oil
Inspection Office, conducted a file review (inspection) at
Bradley's main office located at 105 South Cherokee Street in
Denver, Colorado (Tr. 199, 201-02, 203, 330; C's Exhs 7, 8,
and 10). Mr. Lemke informed Ms. Stevenson that Bradley used
inventory reconciliation [control] to comply with § 280.41 and
that data from the original daily station reports was inputted
to a computer to accomplish reconciliation (Tr. 205, 207-08).
Because of the volume of data, the review was confined to the
stations identified above (finding 2), which were randomly
selected, and the period limited to the months of July 1993
through October 1993 (Tr. 204). Days reviewed were limited to
the 1st, 14th and 15th and the last day of each month (Tr.
205, 207, 211).
30. When asked what records Mr. Lemke produced as inventory
reconciliation, Ms Stevenson replied "Computer sheets".(12)
Consistent with this testimony, the Inspection Report (C's Exh
7) states in part: "(t)he inspectors were to compare the daily
stick readings, overage and shortage numbers, and delivery
amounts that were filled out by individual station operators
with the computer printout that was generated by the main
office." (Id. 1) She also asked to see field data, i.e., daily
station sheets or reports and delivery receipts ( Tr. 205-206;
C's Exhs 21, 22). Although only two delivery receipts are in
the record (R's Exhs C and D), Ms. Stevenson stated that
Mr. Lemke produced a box of delivery receipts in response to
her request.(13) She explained that the primary focus of the
inspection was to ascertain what kind of data Bradley used
for inventory reconciliation and that in comparing station
reports with the computer sheets (printouts) there were an
incredible number of changes (Tr. 207-08).
31. Ms. Stevenson opined that "sticking" tanks before and after
delivery as required by the regulation was very important to
inventory control. She testified that they did not find any
evidence in the daily station reports and computer reports
that any of the 32 tanks involved in this action had been
"stuck" before and after deliveries were made on the 1st,
14th, 15th, and 30th [or 31st of the month] (Tr. 209). She
answered in the negative the question of whether they found
any evidence that Bradley reconciled product deliveries by
sticking [tanks] before and after delivery for purposes of
inventory reconciliation (Tr. 220). She understood that the
regulation required that before and after delivery tank
volumes be used in inventory reconciliation and her testimony
does not establish a violation by Bradley in this regard.
32. Although Ms. Stevenson subsequently testified that "we" did
not observe any inch stick readings on the "delivery sheets"
we looked at (Tr. 234, 239, 245), this testimony is
inconsistent with her affirmative answer to a question posited
on the existence of such readings on delivery receipts or
slips which asked whether she informed Mr. Lemke that stick
readings rather than invoice amounts should be used in
inventory reconciliation (Tr. 282-83). Moreover, the
inspectors were comparing daily station reports, which show
the closing stick inventory, but not the stick inventory
before and after each delivery, with computer printouts
(findings 30 and 37). In any event, the evidence supports the
conclusion that Bradley did stick its tanks before and after
deliveries were made and, to the extent Ms. Stevenson's
testimony is to the contrary, it is not accepted.
33. In conducting the file review at Bradley's offices, the
inspectors used a prepared form "Checklist for Inventory
Control Documents."(14) The checklist contains a grid, which
includes the months July through October extending
horizontally and six requirements or purported requirements of
the regulation for the use of inventory control arranged
vertically. These purported requirements are: 1)Inventory
sheet for month; 2) Daily stick readings; 3)Values are within
1% + 130 gal range; 4) Monthly Reconciliation; 5) Delivery
reconciliation (copy of delivery sheet); and 6) Delivery (not
inv[oice]) figures used in inventory sheets. Ms. Stevenson
acknowledged that [all] items on the grid were not based on
requirements [of the regulation] (Tr. 241-42, 243).
34. With one or two exceptions, the grids indicate that an
inventory sheet for the month was located, that daily stick
readings were taken, that values were within the 1% + 130-gallon tolerance, and that monthly reconciliation was
performed. Almost without exception entries for No. 5,
delivery reconciliation (copy of delivery sheet), state "not
used" and entries for No. 6, delivery (not inv[oice]) figures
used in inventory sheets, state "no" (Tr. 240; C's Exh 10).
Ms. Stevenson's testimony that they did not observe stick
readings before and after deliveries on delivery tickets they
looked at is recited above (supra finding 31). She explained
that there was an agreement among the group (inspectors) that
"not used" was written on the grid only where delivery sheets
did not show stick readings before and after delivery (Tr.
245). It is concluded, however, that this testimony is
erroneous and that item 5 on the grid does not mean that stick
readings before and after delivery did not appear on the
delivery receipts, but only that such readings did not appear
on daily station reports reviewed by the inspectors and were
not used in monthly inventory reconciliation. Ms. Stevenson
discussed this matter with Mr. Lemke, taking the position that
[before and after delivery] stick readings should [must] be
used in monthly inventory reconciliation.
35. Opposed to Ms. Stevenson's testimony that there was no
evidence that tanks were "stuck" or gauged before and after
delivery on the delivery sheets or receipts the inspectors
looked at, is Mr. Lemke's testimony that tanks were stuck
before and after deliveries were made (finding 16), is the
fact that bills of lading (delivery receipts) in the record
show stick readings before and after delivery both where the
delivery was made in Bradley's truck and where the delivery
was by common carrier {supra note 13), and Mr. Lowe's
testimony that the occasional delivery receipt he saw while
employed at Bradley showed such readings (finding 6).
Moreover, owners and operators are required to ensure that
spillage and overflows do not occur and present day common
carrier practice almost certainly prohibits unloading
gasoline or the commencement thereof without assurance that
the tank had the capacity to hold the quantity ordered (supra
note 7). These same considerations, although perhaps to a
lesser extent, apply to deliveries by Bradley's truck.
36. Ms. Theresa Bahrych accompanied Ms. Stevenson in the file
review (inspection) conducted at Bradley's offices on
November 29 and 30, 1993 (Tr. 330). She testified that she
observed "delivery sheets" ("delivery records") similar or
identical to the "bills of lading" ("delivery receipts") in
the record (R's Exhs C and D) (Tr. 331, 334-35). She was of
the belief that they did not receive delivery slips or
receipts for all of the days they had selected to examine (Tr.
331). A note on the checklist for Station 04 (Exh 10) in
Ms. Bahrych's handwriting is as follows: "Deliveries: Stick
readings are written clear but not reconciled. Figures are not
used in delivery numbers." Ms. Bahrych agreed that this note
meant that stick readings [before and after delivery] were
written down, but not reconciled nor were they used in the
[monthly] reconciliation process (Tr. 337). Notably, she did
not confirm Ms. Stevenson's testimony that the delivery slips
or receipts she (Bahrych) looked at lacked stick readings. She
agreed, however, with the Region's (Complainant's) position
that owners and operators were required to use actual delivery
receipts in monthly inventory reconciliation rather than
invoices (Tr. 338).
37. Most of the entries made by the inspectors on the Checklist
for Inventory Control Documents (C's Exh 10) are simply
comparisons between inventory quantities shown on station
reports and the computer printouts (Tr. 207, 258). Confirming
her prior testimony that there were an "incredible" number of
changes between the station reports and the computer
[reconciliation] sheets (finding 30), Ms. Stevenson testified
that "hundreds and hundreds" of the amounts shown on the
computer records differed from those in the original station
reports (Tr. 208). She concluded that the number of changes
precluded [proper] inventory reconciliation in that they were
not using valid numbers (Tr. 220-21, 256-57, 261, 263, 305-06). The Inspection Report written by Ms. Stevenson (C's Exh
7) states that the following discrepancies were found:
- Stick readings at the station did not match the
stick readings on the computer printout.
- Gallons of product over and short for each day on the
computer sheets did not match the daily sheets.
- The monthly summation of overage and shortage on daily
[sheets] did not match the summation on the computer
sheet.
- Tanks were not measured before and after delivery and
reconciled in the inventory report.
38. Ms. Stevenson drafted the complaint initiating this proceeding
(Tr. 292). The allegations (counts) in the complaint mirror
those in the inspection report quoted in the preceding finding
(Tr. 314-19). The complaint does not specifically allege that
Bradley did not have equipment capable of measuring the level
of product to the nearest one-eighth inch or that Bradley
failed to measure its tanks for water at least once each month
(Tr. 319).
39. Mr. Bradley Calkins has been president of Bradley Petroleum,
Inc. for 20 years and involved in [the retail motor vehicle
fuel business] for over 40 years (Tr. 347-48). He testified
that leak [or inventory] control was an important facet of his
business and that "we" had "leak detection" before the rules
at issue here became effective (Tr. 357). He pointed out that
he had some familiarity with the rules at issue here by virtue
of the fact he had co-chaired a committee which assisted [or
was consulted] in the promulgation of the regulations (Tr.
349-50). He agreed that a change in a tank's mid-month stick
readings would not affect the monthly reconciliation of [1.0
percent] plus 130 gallons (Tr. 351-52, 353). Asked why such
changes were made, Mr. Calkins denied knowledge of each
instance where a correction was made, but replied that there
are mathematical errors, stick errors, statistical errors with
deliveries and deliveries that were split [between different
tanks] and not adequately [or correctly] recorded (Tr. 352).
40. Mr. Calkins testified that Mr. Lemke was instructed to deal
with these problems, i.e., over/shorts in excess of 100
gallons, on a daily basis.(15) He acknowledged that 100 gallons
was an arbitrary number, but maintained that it was a
[reasonable] indicator of a [potential] problem (Tr. 380). He
opined that changing stick readings so as to correct errors
and eliminate "spikes" [on the daily reports] made the
computer record or inventory more accurate from a management
perspective (Tr. 353). An example of incorrectly recorded
deliveries is the deliveries to Bradley's East Warren Avenue
station on August 16,1993 (infra note 17). Errors of the
magnitude indicated would obviously require correction in
order to make inventory control or reconciliation feasible. As
to inventory control or reconciliation in accordance with §
280.43, Mr. Calkins echoed Mr. Lemke's view that as long as
beginning and ending stick readings were accurate [and
unchanged] mid-month changes or corrections to such readings
had no effect on the validity of monthly inventory
reconciliation required by the regulation. This, of course,
assumes that deliveries and withdrawals are accurately
recorded and used in the reconciliation process.
41. Mr. Calkins testified that he instructed his employees to be
cooperative when he learned that EPA wanted to conduct the
inspection or investigation leading to the issuance of the
complaint (Tr. 353-54). To his knowledge, the EPA inspectors
were furnished all of the records which they asked to see. He
indicated that he was surprised to learn that EPA had
concluded that his inventory control records "weren't up to
snuff." (Tr. 355). He asserted that there was no monetary,
moral, or ethical advantage in not having proper records or in
masking a leak and emphasized that a leak needed to be
addressed immediately in order to minimize the environmental
and financial damage (Tr. 355-56).
42. Mr. Calkins testified that Bradley was sticking its tanks for
water on at least a monthly basis and keeping a record thereof
during the July through October 1993 period (Tr. 376). In
fact, since 1993 Bradley's practice has been to stick its
tanks for water on a weekly basis and keep a record thereof.(16)
He stated, however, that the first time he was aware that EPA
was asking for water records in this case was when he received
a call from his counsel, Mr. Robinson, on the Friday before
the hearing (Tr. 374-75). He confirmed that water stick
records for the period at issue could not be located.
43. On November 10, 1993, the Colorado Department of Labor and
Employment, Office of Oil Inspection, addressed a memorandum
to the Colorado Department of Health, UST Program, which
stated, inter alia, that on November 1, 1993, "our office" was
notified of gasoline vapors in a sump at the University Hills
Animal Hospital (C's Exh 3). The memorandum further stated
that record and site investigation had identified two active
UST sites [as possible sources for the vapors]: a Total
Petroleum site at 2210 S. Colorado and a Bradley Petroleum
site at 4015 E Warren. Data assembled included tank tightness
tests at both UST sites, SIR records at the Total site and
inventory records at Bradley. The memorandum noted that no
past releases had been reported by either facility and that a
review of SIR [records] at Total and inventory and ttt records
at Bradley revealed no apparent current operational problems.
Although the memorandum stated that laboratory analysis by
"our office" has concluded that there is a high probability
that the liquid product in the animal hospital sump is premium
product from the Bradley station, it concluded that no current
leak was suspected at either site and that no further OIS
activity was warranted.
44. Upon learning that EPA was taking issue with Bradley's
inventory control procedures, Mr. Calkins employed USTMAN
Industries, a well-known testing firm, to review Bradley's
records and to provide advice as to the adequacy of its
inventory reconciliation (Tr. 358-59). Mr. Calkins testified
that USTMAN concluded that Bradley's records were good, that
the methods used were in compliance [with the regulation] and
would provide information sufficient to disclose a leak.
USTMAN's initial review was confined to the East Warren
station, but was subsequently expanded to include all stations
identified in the complaint for the four-month period July
through October 1993 (Tr. 358-59; USTMAN Report, R's Exh F).
Thereafter, Bradley employed USTMAN to conduct inventory
control using the statistical inventory control (SIR) method
(Tr. 359-60). According to Mr. Calkins, it was not necessary
that Bradley change its existing method of inventory control
and recordkeeping in order for USTMAN to apply its SIR method
(Tr. 360-61).
45. The USTMAN report states that it reviewed, entered, analyzed,
and compared manual and computer data from all tanks at
Station 04 (East Warren Avenue) for the mentioned four-month
period, that it conducted a similar analysis for 128 tanks at
the ten other stations [identified in the complaint] for the
July-October 1993 period of which EPA had concerns, and that,
in addition, it randomly selected monthly data for that period
from 40 tanks at 14 stations. Data were compared to identify
the number and kinds of discrepancies and data quality were
evaluated per SIR standards and compared to data quality
submitted by USTMAN clients. Findings were to the effect that
there were a large number of discrepancies between manual and
computer entries (some monthly data sheets had over 40
changes), that most (approximately 85% to 90%) of the
discrepancies resulted from the computer "rounding" of gallons
sold, creating a difference of one gallon per day, that some
deliveries were omitted from manual records, and that several
deliveries were corrected on computer records.(17)
46. USTMAN concluded, inter alia, that nearly all of the computer
corrected deliveries were substantiated during the SIR
analysis, that a large percent of the sales and stick reading
discrepancies were identified and substantiated as either
manual or mathematical errors, transposition of numbers in
both manual and computer entries and "typo" errors in data
entry procedures; that nearly all of the changes made from the
manual to computer records were detrimental to Bradley's
inventory, i.e., creating 25-30 gallons of unaccounted for
losses which tend to make tanks appear to be leaking; that
there was no pattern identified for the majority of the errant
stick readings and delivery discrepancies; and that generally
the inventory procedures and the quality of data were rated as
good for SIR analysis purposes. The report noted, however,
that typically the quality of data and the gathering
procedures, varied from station to station and that data from
two of the stations identified in the complaint, Bradley Nos.
05 and 07, were considered to be poor.
47. Mr. Calkins testified that he was not concerned when he was
notified of gasoline fumes in the basement of the Animal
Hospital down the street (one-half block) from the East Warren
outlet and across the street from a Total station, because he
had followed the inventory records and confirmed that tank
tightness [tests] were accomplished and he did not see any
indications of a leak (Tr. 362, 364). He stated that tank
tightness tests [at the East Warren station] had been
performed sometime during the period July through September
1993 and that all the tanks had passed.(18) Additionally,
Mr. Calkins was aware that there had been a major release from
the Total store "right next to the animal hospital" and that
Total was then engaged in remediating that problem (Tr. 364).
Mr. Calkins had the tanks at the East Warren station retested
with the result that all three passed (Tr. 366; Certificate of
Underground Storage Tank System Testing, dated March 25, 1994,
R's Exh G).
48. In connection with a project to upgrade and reline the tanks
with a fiberglass material, it was discovered, however, that
there were holes in the [premium and unleaded tanks] at the
East Warren Avenue station, and that these tanks had been
leaking for some time (Tr. 367-68). Thereafter, Bradley
employed consultants, to obtain state approval for a
corrective action plan and to remediate the site (Tr. 369-70).
Mr. Calkins estimated that the cost of such remedial work to
the date of the hearing was in excess of $100,000. Although he
was familiar with a fund established by the state to assist in
remedial work required by leaking tanks, he asserted that
remedying such leaks resulted in substantial out-of-pocket
expense, because there was a $10,000 deductible and not all
costs were reimbursed (Tr. 356-57, 370-71). He described the
leaks as very slow and of the kind that could have occurred
while Bradley was within the regulatory tolerance of one
percent of throughput plus 130 gallons (Tr. 371).
49. Mr. Calkins testified that Bradley's inventory control system
had detected leaks at other stations in the past (Tr. 372-73).
He stated that "we" at Bradley have a policy of watching
[inventory figures] daily and that, because measuring to an
eighth or a quarter of an inch is "pretty inaccurate",
"spikes" up and down occur (Tr. 372). He explained that if the
spikes and mistakes are eliminated and a small loss is
observed over a ten-day or two-week period, it is almost
certainly due to a small leak that might not be detectable by
a tank tightness test or "somebody is stealing" and we
investigate that (Tr. 372-73). He averred that Bradley's
inventory control system and procedures, which had detected
leaks in the past, were identical to the inventory control at
issue here (Tr. 373-74).
50. Mr. Christopher Higgins, a hydrogeologist and owner of Higgins
& Associates, qualified as an expert in the remediation of
leaks from underground storage tanks (Tr. 498, 500). He
testified that his involvement in the projects at issue here
commenced while he was working for the University Animal
Hospital on East Warren Avenue which had detected vapors in
its basement in November 1993 (Tr. 500). His primary
responsibility was to abate the vapors which led to the
discovery of gasoline in a sump. While employed by Groundwater
Technology, Inc., Mr. Higgins was the author of a Corrective
Action Plan involving Bradley's East Warren Avenue station,
dated October 3, 1994 (C's Exh 17) and he participated in the
preparation of an Underground Storage Tank Removal and Closure
Report for Bradley Petroleum, dated December 23, 1994 (C's Exh
16; Tr. 503-04). The Corrective Action Plan states, among
other things, that on March 25, 1994, the three underground
tanks were [tank tightness] tested and that all passed, that
on March 28, 1994, Bradley removed all gasoline from these
tanks, that on March 29, 1994, the 10,000-gallon tank for
unleaded gasoline was determined to be in good condition and
was relined, and that on May 17, 1994, holes were discovered
in the two tanks of 4,000-gallon capacity for regular and
premium unleaded gasoline. These tanks were removed on June 6,
1994.
51. Mr. Higgins described the assessment activities required to
determine the extent and source of gasoline [contamination]
(Tr. 507). He referred to soil boring activities as a
"geoprobe program" whereby groundwater samples are collected
and analyzed for gasoline constituents such as benzene,
toluene and total petroleum hydrocarbons. Based on site
exploration required for the preparation of the corrective
action plan, the fact that the leaking tanks had passed tank
tightness tests and his understanding of Bradley's inventory
records, he opined that the plume [of contamination] in this
instance was of the kind that could result from a slow, long-term release from underground storage tanks (Tr. 508). He
described the soils in the area as primarily clay, having a
low permeability, meaning that fluids would travel through the
soil very slowly (Tr. 509).
52. Mr. Higgins was familiar with EPA's regulatory tolerance in
inventory control of one percent of throughput plus 130
gallons and testified that a plume of the size determined here
was consistent with a leak of less than 500 gallons a month
(Tr. 510). He indicated that a fair conclusion under the
circumstances would be that a leak in the neighborhood of 400
to 500 gallons a month would be within the regulatory
tolerance and thus not likely to have been detected.(19)
53. Mr. Higgins testified that Bradley's claim for reimbursement
of remediation costs had already gone through a preliminary
review by the State and that in connection with that claim,
Bradley was required to produce inventory control records for
a period of six months prior to the date of the suspected
release (Tr. 511-12). He pointed out that if the State had
considered Bradley's inventory records to be unacceptable, a
reduction in the claim for reimbursement would have been made.
Inasmuch as no such reduction was taken, he concluded that the
State must have considered Bradley's inventory control methods
satisfactory (Tr. 512).
54. Dr. Kendall Wilcox, a chemist by training, has been involved
in the detection of leaks from underground storage tanks since
1985 (Tr. 468-69). At the time of the hearing, he operated his
own company, Ken Wilcox Associates, which is primarily engaged
in the testing of leak testing equipment (analyses of data
sets) for manufacturers (Tr. 472-73). While employed by a firm
known as Midwest Research, which was under contract with EPA,
Dr. Wilcox participated in the drafting of the Part 280 UST
regulations (Tr. 469-70). Dr. Wilcox was accepted as an expert
in the detection of leaks from underground storage tanks (Tr.
476-77). He testified that in view of the records EPA
requires, and that Bradley prepares, a leak could not be
masked by the simple alteration of stick readings in the
middle of the month, because a change on one day would be
reflected in an equal, or almost so, opposite change the next
day, which would correct itself every time (Tr. 477-78, 493-94). He opined that the method of inventory control allowed by
the regulation had a high tolerance or low sensitivity in
terms of actually detecting a leak (Tr. 482-83). He pointed
out that it was recognized from the beginning that simple
inventory reconciliation was not a very good or accurate
method of leak detection (Tr. 482-83).
55. In connection with his employment by Bradley as an expert,
Dr. Wilcox reviewed monthly inventory records encompassed by
the exhibits herein, the corresponding computer sheets and
documents prepared by USTMAN to assist Bradley in determining
whether to settle or contest the complaint (Tr. 484-85). He
testified that in the past five years he or his company had
reviewed probably 3,000 to 4,000 inventory records similar to
Bradley's. He opined that the Bradley data compared favorably
with most of the data "we got" and that, although he had seen
better data, he had also seen data that were a lot worse (Tr.
486-87). Because the computer sheets sometimes showed more
loss than the raw data, he did not think that Bradley was
attempting to mask a leak (Tr. 488).
56. Dr. Wilcox emphasized that monthly inventory reconciliation
was based on two points, i.e., stick readings at the beginning
and end of the month, plus adding deliveries and [subtracting]
sales (Tr. 495). Other than the fact that the regulation
required that inputs, withdrawals and [volume remaining in the
tank] be recorded daily and were useful in detecting
catastrophic leaks, he asserted that"(y)ou don't even need the
stuff in between." (Tr. 495) His ultimate conclusion was that
Bradley's inventory control system was capable of detecting a
leak of one percent of throughput plus 130 gallons and thus
was in compliance with 40 CFR § 280.43.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The regulation concerning inventory control (40 CFR §
280.43(a)) requires the recording on a daily basis of inputs
(deliveries), withdrawals (sales), and the amount remaining in
the tank.(20) Reconciliation, i.e., comparison of the book
inventory (opening stick, plus deliveries, minus withdrawals)
with the closing stick inventory is required to be performed
only monthly. The record establishes that Bradley complied
with this requirement.
2. The regulation (§ 280.43(a)(3)) requires that tank volume be
measured, i.e. that the tanks be "stuck", before and after
delivery and that the resulting volume be reconciled with
delivery receipts. The record establishes that Bradley
complied with this requirement.
3. Although the regular tank and the premium unleaded tank at
Bradley's East Warren Avenue station were discovered to be
leaking, Complainant hasn't shown that either or both of these
tanks or any other tanks at stations identified in the
complaint were outside the tolerance of one percent of flow-through plus 130 gallons for any month, let alone the two
months required by the regulation, and the complaint will be
dismissed.
DISCUSSION
As noted at the outset of this decision, the complaint at ¶ 11
alleges in broad terms that Respondent failed to provide a release
detection method in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR §
280.40(c), § 280.41(a) and § 280.43(a)(1-6). Section 280.40(c)
sets forth in a table the year and date (December 22), depending on
the year of tank installation, when owners and operators of UST
systems must comply with the release detection requirements of
Subpart D. Section 280.41(a)(3) provides that UST systems that do
not meet the performance requirements of §§ 280.20 or 280.21 may
use monthly inventory controls conducted in accordance with §
280.43(a) or (b), and annual tank tightness testing conducted in
accordance with § 280.43(c) until December 22, 1998.
Although ¶ 12 of the complaint, under the heading of "Counts
1-35", incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 11,
the violations specifically alleged are contained in paragraphs 15
through 18. Paragraph 15 of the complaint alleges that, during the
inspection, the inspector observed stick readings (derived by
visually observing product in a tank) on Respondent's main office
computer printout failed to reconcile with daily stick readings
taken at the individual stations; paragraph 16 alleges that the
inspector observed that Respondent's main daily book inventory
(calculated from product available for sale less product sold)
failed to reconcile with daily book inventories calculated at each
of the 11 facilities described in the complaint; paragraph 17
alleges that the inspector observed that Respondent's monthly
summation of book inventories failed to reconcile with its daily
sheets of book inventories; and paragraph 18 alleges that the
inspector observed that tanks were not measured before and after
delivery and reconciled in the inventory report.
The complaint is thus based on the apparent contention that
the regulation requires daily, rather than monthly, inventory
reconciliation. In its opening brief, Complainant describes four
"core" issues, the first being whether making acknowledged,
intentional, and arbitrary changes in monthly inventory figures
constitutes an acceptable manner of conducting inventory control
(Brief at 4). Mr. Calkins' testimony is cited as support for this
assertion. Mr. Calkins, however, was referring to changes in daily
rather than monthly stick readings and the record supports the
conclusion that no changes to monthly stick readings, i.e.,
beginning and closing inventory figures, were made unless an error
was verified.
The second core issue as described by Complainant is whether
Respondent took volume measurements of its UST's before and after
deliveries of petroleum products and reconciled those measurements
with product delivery receipts. On this issue, Complainant has
correctly recited the language of § 280.43(a)(3). The record
establishes, however, that Bradley complied with this requirement
(findings 16 and 30).
The third listed core issue and, according to Complainant,
related to the second, is whether Respondent properly used delivery
receipts in lieu of physical before and after [delivery]
measurements for monthly inventory reconciliation purposes. The
regulation requires only that before and after delivery
measurements be reconciled with delivery receipts and there is no
requirement that such measurements be used in monthly inventory
reconciliation. EPA guidance (supra note 9) indicates that invoice
amounts should be used in inventory reconciliation where, as here,
fuel is pumped while deliveries are being effected.
The fourth and final issue described by Complainant in its
opening brief is whether Respondent took measurements of water
levels in its tanks to the nearest one-eighth inch at least once a
month during the four-month period at issue here. Respondent
objected to testimony at the hearing on this issue for the reason
that the matter of water stick records was not raised until the
Friday before the hearing (Tr. 14-17). Although testimony relating
to water records was allowed, a ruling on whether such evidence
would be considered was deferred (Tr. 16). Complainant asserts that
Bradley was on notice, via the complaint, that it had violated §
280.43(a), which includes measuring water levels in its tanks and
maintaining records thereof (Brief at 4, note 7). The specific
allegations of the complaint, however, do not include any such
failures (finding 38).
Complainant has apparently recognized the validity of
Bradley's objection at least in part, because it has stated that it
will move to dismiss the complaint, if water measurements are the
only issue upon which it prevails (Brief at 4, note 7). Bradley's
evidence is that it did measure its tanks for water, that
Complainant did not specifically ask for water measurement records
until the week before the hearing and, that, although Bradley
searched for such records, the records could not be located
(findings 27 and 42). Moreover, Bradley points out that the
regulation only requires such records to be maintained for one year
(supra note 11 ). Under these circumstances, it is concluded that
whether Bradley measured water levels in its tanks is not at issue
and that even if it were, Complainant has failed to sustain its
burden of proving that Bradley violated the regulation in this
regard.
In its reply brief, Complainant alleges that Respondent
violated inventory control requirements for the following reasons:
(1) Respondent collected daily information (regulated
substance withdrawals, inputs and the amount remaining in
the tank) and arbitrarily altered it; and
(2) Intentional alteration of daily data rendered derived
monthly data corrupted and erroneous; and
(3) Regulated substance inputs were not reconciled with
delivery by measurement of the tank inventory volume
before and after delivery; and
(4) Respondent failed to use equipment capable of measuring
the level of product over the full range of the tank's
height to the nearest one-eighth of an inch.
Although § 280.43(a)(1) requires that inventory volume
measurements for regulated substance inputs, withdrawals, and the
amount remaining in the tank be recorded each operating day, it
does not require and cannot be interpreted as requiring daily
inventory reconciliation. The preamble to the final regulation (53
Fed. Reg. 37082 et seq., September 23, 1988) indicates that weekly
and monthly performance standards (plus tank tightness tests) as
prerequisites to the use of inventory control as a means of leak
detection were eliminated from the rule because such standards
resulted in an unacceptably high rate of "false alarms." (Id.
37157). Instead, the monthly standard or tolerance ("leak check")
of one percent of flow-through plus 130 gallons was adopted. The
provision of § 280.50(c)(2) that a second month's data confirm this
standard had been exceeded before reporting was required was
adopted to eliminate unnecessary reporting and to alleviate the
burden on the implementing agency (53 Fed. Reg. 37170).
Regardless of the amount of fuel delivered or the amount
remaining in the tank, "flow through" for the month is determined
simply by gallons pumped or sold. This is gleaned from "totalizer"
readings on the pumps at the stations. The "leak check" figure is
to be compared with the difference between the "book inventory",
i.e., opening stick plus deliveries minus withdrawals, and the
closing stick or actual inventory. There is no requirement that
inventory reconciliation be performed daily or that daily
"over/shorts" be summed in monthly inventory reconciliation.
Dr. Wilcox's suggestion that the only purpose of recording on a
daily basis product input, withdrawals and the measured volume
remaining in the tank is to detect catastrophic leaks (finding 56)
is, therefore, accepted as reasonable.
Section 280.43(a) does require that inventory control (or
another test of equivalent performance) be conducted monthly to
detect a release of 1.0 percent of flow-through plus 130 gallons in
accordance with (a)(1-6). This logically, but not expressly,
requires a comparison of book inventory, i.e., opening stick
inventory plus deliveries minus withdrawals, with the closing stick
inventory, that is the quantity on hand as determined by
measurement of tank volume. If the difference between the "book"
inventory and the "stick" inventory is greater than the "leak-check" test result (one percent of flow-through plus 130 gallons)
for two months in a row, there may be a leak and the owner or
operator is required to notify the implementing agency (40 CFR §
280.50). Although Complainant acknowledges that the regulation does
not explicitly require the calculation of daily over/short values,
it argues that compliance with the sudden loss provision of §
280.50(b) requires that [monthly] inventory reconciliation be based
on stick readings of all the days in the month (Reply Brief, pages
unnumbered). Complainant asserts that "only by daily observations
can one observe a sudden loss" (Id.) As suggested by Dr. Wilcox,
that, however, is the purpose of requiring that inputs,
withdrawals, and the amount remaining in the tank be recorded each
operating day.
Complainant has contented itself with the assertion that the
numerous changes in stick readings made Respondent's inventory
reconciliation unreliable and has made no contention that the
difference between the book and the stick inventory for any of the
stations identified in the complaint exceeded the leak check result
for any of the months at issue. In the absence of evidence that
inventory control as practiced by Bradley was incapable of
detecting a release equal to the specified tolerance, Complainant
has not met its burden of establishing the violation alleged.
Next, Complainant contends that Respondent failed to properly
track, record and reconcile deliveries (Reply Brief). The record
shows, however, that Bradley did measure or "stick" its tanks
before and after deliveries were made and that the resulting
quantities were reconciled with delivery receipts (finding 16). The
regulation simply does not require that reconciled figures be used
in monthly inventory reconciliation.
Lastly, notwithstanding that the complaint does not
specifically allege that Respondent lacked equipment capable of
measuring product level to the nearest one-eighth inch, and that
Complainant made no such contention it its opening brief or in its
proposed findings of fact, Complainant alleges that the fourth
violation is that Respondent did not record measurements [of its
tanks] in one-eighth increments (Reply Brief). Complainant
acknowledges that the regulation (§ 280.43(a)(2)) only requires
that the equipment "be capable" of measuring product level to the
nearest one-eighth inch over the full range of the tank's height,
but inquires rhetorically "what is the point of setting out the
tolerance of the measuring specification[,] if EPA did not intend
that just such measurements would be recorded in one-eighth inch
increments." (Reply Brief, penultimate page.)
No issue is or can be taken with the thought that the
regulation requires that product levels in the tanks be measured to
the nearest one-eighth inch and the results recorded. To say that
the equipment "be capable" of measuring product level to the
nearest one-eighth inch is not the same as requiring that the stick
or gauge have one-eighth inch gradations and that tank conversion
charts specify gallon equivalents in one-eighth inch increments. In
this regard, the preamble to the regulation indicates that the
Agency concluded that "dipsticks" marked in one-inch gradations can
be successfully read to the nearest one-eighth inch to improve
accuracy, or that conversion tables can be modified (53 Fed. Reg.
37158). A fortiori, should equipment marked in one-quarter inch
gradations be capable of being read to the nearest one-eighth of an
inch. Assuming that this was an issue tried with the express or
implied consent of the parties, Complainant simply has not
established that Bradley failed to comply with the regulation in
this respect.
Complainant has not established that inventory control as
practiced by Bradley was incapable of detecting a release equal to
or one percent of flow-through plus 130 gallons in accordance with
40 CFR § 280.43(a) and the complaint will be dismissed.(21)
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.(22)
Dated this 23rd day of April 1998.
Original signed by undersigned
____________________________
Spencer T. Nissen
Administrative Law Judge
1. Although in view of the conclusion reached herein it is
unnecessary to discuss penalty issues, it should be noted that
OSWER Directive 9610.12, dated November 14, 1990, U.S. EPA Penalty
Guidance for Violations of UST Regulations, provides at Appendix A,
Subpart D, that penalties for failure to provide a release
detection method that meets the performance requirements of §
280.43 or § 280.44 are assessed on a per facility rather than on a
per tank basis. Confusion as to whether the proposed penalty should
be on a per facility rather than on a per tank basis is illustrated
by the fact that the complaint under "Proposed Civil Penalty"
states that the penalty claimed is $18,976. This equals $1,725
for each of the 11 facilities.
2. This is a typographical error and is intended to refer to
Bradley's Station No. 12 at 1103 South Townsend, Montrose, Colorado
(Stipulation of Facts, Appendix 1, C's Exh 23).
3. Tr.17. Stick readings are converted into gallons by reading
a conversion chart provided by the tank manufacturer. Although the
regulation (40 CFR § 280.43(a)(2)) requires that equipment used be
capable of measuring the level of product over the full range of
the tank's height to the nearest one-eighth of an inch, conversion
charts with which Mr. Lowe was familiar showed equivalent gallons
in one-quarter inch increments (Tr. 23).
4. 40 CFR § 280.43(a)(3). Mr. Lowe indicated that quantities
based on stick readings were written on sales tickets (Tr. 70).
Bills of lading (delivery tickets or receipts) in the record,
however, show stick readings in inches rather than the conversion
to gallons (R's Exhs C and D).
5. Mr. Lowe indicated that at stations which closed, i.e.,
those not open 24 hours a day, stick readings were taken at the
close and before business commenced the next day (Tr. 65).
6. Tr. 22. This is the raw data as received from the station.
The 669 gallon-figure was computed by "summing" the daily
over/shorts for the month. The regulation, however, requires only
that regulated substance inputs, withdrawals and the amount
remaining in the tank be recorded each operating day and that
inventory reconciliation be performed on a monthly basis (40 CFR §
280.43(a) and (a)(1). Monthly inventory reconciliation is performed
by Bradley from data entered into a computer. Computer printouts in
the record (C's Exhs 11 through 14) are not Bradley's
reconciliation records, but were assertedly prepared by Bradley at
Complainant's request in an effort to resolve this matter (Tr. 20,
185).
7. The regulation (40 CFR § 280.30(a)) requires owners and
operators to assure that releases due to spilling and overfilling
do not occur and a common carrier driver would almost certainly be
disregarding his employer's instructions if he were to unload or
commence unloading without the tank being gauged or "stuck" in his
presence so as to be certain it had the capacity to take the
quantity ordered.
8. The inspection report (C's Exh 7) quotes Mr. Lemke as
stating that gallons distributed are determined by a meter on the
truck. Mr. Lowe also indicated that tank trucks contained meters
which showed the quantity delivered (Tr. 24).
9. Tr. 406-07. Because of the inherent imprecision in stick
readings (findings 8 and 49), there can be little doubt that as an
abstract matter meters at the terminal are more accurate than tank
stick readings. Accord, Wilcox, Tr. 479. Guidance referred to
apparently is EPA 5110-B-93-004 (November 1993) "Doing Inventory
Control Right For Underground Storage Tanks", which provides that,
in calculating daily changes in inventory, if you were not pumping
fuel during the time the delivery was taking place, then use the
"Gallons Delivered (Stick) number." However, if you had to pump
fuel while the delivery was taking place, then use the "Gross
Gallons Delivered (Receipt)" number as your delivery amount (Id.
10). The evidence is that Bradley pumped gasoline while deliveries
were effected. Guidance issued by EPA Region 8, "UST Inventory
Control And Manual Tank Gauging Procedures and Forms" (April 1993)
states flatly that "Relying on the accuracy of invoice readings
from the delivery company is not adequate." (Id. 4). Official
notice is taken of the mentioned EPA and Region 8 guidance.
10. For example, the October 25 end stick inventory for the no
lead tank at this station was 63 inches which equalled 7068 gallons
(Mr. Lemke changed this figure to 6768 on the computer fuel
inventory log). Another stick reading of this tank which shows that
63 inches converts to 7,068 gallons is contained in the Monthly
Inventory record for July 18, 1993 (Tr. 217-18; C's Exh 11). The
end stick inventory of this tank for September 17, 1993, also
reflects that a stick reading of 63 inches converts to 7,068
gallons (C's Exh 13).
11. Tr. 411. Records of any monitoring, testing or sampling must
be maintained for at least one year (40 CFR § 280.45(b)). Records
of tank tightness tests must, however, be maintained until the next
tank tightness is performed.
12. Tr. 205. Although counsel referred to Exhibits 21 and 22,
these are loose leaf notebooks containing copies of station
reports. Station Fuel Inventory Logs (computer printouts) are
contained in Exhibits 11 through 14.
13. Tr. 233-34, 239. Mr. Lemke testified that he gave
Ms. Stevenson delivery receipts for the days she requested (Tr.
423). He further testified that approximately one-third of
deliveries were in Bradley's own truck and two-thirds were by
common carriers (Tr. 416). Exhibit C is a bill of lading (delivery
receipt) and invoice reflecting a delivery of 2001 gallons of
unleaded gasoline to Bradley Station No. 5, 7403 W. 38th Ave,
Wheatridge, Colorado, in Bradley's truck on October 5, 1993. The
bill of lading contains a notation indicating a stick reading of 50
inches prior to delivery and 69 and a-half inches after delivery.
This station is identified in the complaint. Exhibit D is a bill of
lading, freight bill and invoice reflecting the delivery of 3500
gallons of unleaded gasoline to Bradley Station 5 on October 5,
1993, by Steerer Tank Lines, Inc. The freight bill also reflects a
delivery of 5000 gallons of unleaded gasoline to Bradley Station
No. 69. Notations reflect stick readings in inches before and after
delivery at both locations.
14. C's Exh 10. Exhibit 10 indicates that the address of
Bradley Station No. 21 is 1090 Havana Street, Aurora, Colorado.
The station identified in the complaint is at 2160 E. Havana,
Aurora, Colorado, the address of Bradley Station No. 21 appearing
in the Stipulation of Facts (C's Exh 23). It is probable that the
former address is an error.
15. Tr. 352-53. The API publication "Bulk Liquid Stock Control
At Retail Outlets" (C's Exh 18) recognizes that some inventory
losses are unavoidable and provides that variances in product
inventory should not exceed 0.5 percent of product throughput over
a one-month period (Id. ¶¶ 3.2 and 3.2.2.2).
16. Tr. 377. Ms. Stevenson testified that Bradley had previously
been cited for failure to measure its tanks for water or to
document such measurements (Tr. 308).
17. This is apparently a reference to August 16, 1993, a day
which the report states had major delivery discrepancies [at the
East Warren Avenue station]. For example, the Monthly Inventory
Record (C's Exh 14) shows the delivery of an unlikely quantity of
170 gallons of regular gasoline on that day when the actual
quantity apparently was 1,500 gallons. Additionally, a delivery of
2,000 gallons of unleaded gasoline on that day apparently should
have been recorded as 4,901 gallons and the delivery of what
appears to be a three digit quantity of premium unleaded gasoline
(actual quantity illegible) apparently should have been recorded
as 1,500 gallons. See, however, the Master Station Report for that
day (R's Exh E) which indicates that the latter delivery or
deliveries should have been recorded as 2,100 gallons.
18. Tr. 363-64. Tests referred to by Mr. Calkins are apparently
those represented by "Individual Tank/Line Tightness Test Reports"
attached to Bradley's answer. Complainant, however, has stated
without elaboration that these documents do not comply with the
requirement for "tightness test results" (Prehearing Exchange,
dated February 14, 1995).
19. Tr. 511. Because, on this record, there is no way of
determining how much of the leaked gasoline was regular and how
much was premium unleaded, quantities determined by the one
percent of throughput plus 130 gallon calculation should be summed
for the purpose of Mr. Higgins' testimony. Quantities thus
determined exceed 500 gallons except for October for which the
total is 489 gallons. It does not appear that any of the "leak
check" results for these two tanks during the July through October
1993 period exceed the over/short number after corrections for
misrecorded deliveries (supra note 17 ) have been made. Complainant
has made no contention to the contrary.
20. Section 280.43(a) provides:
Each method of release detection for tanks used to
meet the requirements of § 280.41 must be conducted in
accordance with the following:
(a) Inventory control. Product inventory control
(or another test of equivalent performance) must be
conducted monthly to detect a release of at least 1.0
percent of flow-through plus 130 gallons on a monthly
basis in the following manner:
(1) Inventory volume measurements for regulated
substance inputs, withdrawals, and the amount still
remaining in the tank are recorded each operating day;
(2) The equipment used is capable of measuring the
level of product over the full range of the tank's height
to the nearest one-eighth of an inch;
(3) The regulated substance inputs are reconciled
with delivery receipts by measurement of the tank
inventory volume before and after delivery;
(4) Deliveries are made through a drop tube that
extends to within one foot of the tank bottom;
(5) Product dispensing is metered and recorded
within the local standards for meter calibration or an
accuracy of 6 cubic inches for every 5 gallons of product
withdrawn; and
(6) The measurement of any water level in the bottom
of the tank is made to the nearest one-eighth of an inch
at least once a month.
Note: Practices described in the American Petroleum
Institute Publication 1621, "Recommended Practice for
Bulk Liquid Stock Control at Retail Outlets," may be
used, where applicable, as guidance in meeting the
requirements of this paragraph.
21. There is no evidence or allegation that Bradley failed to
comply with §§ 280.43(a)(4) "[d]eliveries are made through a drop
tube that extends to within one foot of the tank bottom;" and (5)
"[p]roduct dispensing is metered and recorded within the local
standards for meter calibration or an accuracy of 6 cubic inches
for every 5 gallons of product withdrawn;."
22. Unless this decision is appealed to the Environmental
Appeals Board (EAB) in accordance with Rule 22.30 (40 CFR Part 22)
or unless the EAB elects to review the same sua sponte as therein
provided, this decision will become the final order of the EAB and
of the Agency in accordance with Rule 22.27(c).