The presentation Double Dipping and Cost Recovery was a discussion of methods used by the Director of Colorado’s OPS to recover substantial sums of money from oil companies that had obtained both reimbursement from the Colorado State Fund AND payments from their insurance company. Tom Schruben, a Partner with ACRM, outlined the data and records needed for a successful recovery.

The mid-morning presentation on States in Transition was well represented by Peter Zack from Connecticut’s DEEP. The lessons learned in the past two years, as Connecticut transitioned from State Fund to Private Insurance, have been largely compliance driven. There is still quite a ways to go and the department’s staff are, in my opinion, on the right track.

Two mid-morning sessions focused on (1) Release Prevention through Compliance and (2) Searches for Responsible Parties. An obvious link for these sessions could be – if you are not doing leak detection, someone will be held accountable.

Two afternoon sessions discussed (1) single wall UST linings and co-structural double-wall upgrades and (2) State Fund Soundness Measures. Lots of food for thought.

EPA’s OUST had many staff on hand from the DC area. It also seemed that representatives attended from all 10 regions and nearly every state and territory sent multiple compliance inspectors. I’m not sure if someone from each of the 556 federally recognized tribes was there, but the room was full. Everyone was ready to talk about tanks, but the art and history of the museum wisely prevailed. Good SW food, too!

The networking in the hallway was most productive. It is clear that we are a diverse country and no one wants to pollute the ground or the groundwater. No surprise that state inspectors from Connecticut and Nebraska to West Virginia and Alaska share common goals.

In the Exhibitor’s Hall at the OC Convention Center, WMDA members discussed economic and environmental trends in operating businesses that sell gasoline and diesel.  Concerns are numerous; energy still drives the public and the economy. Yes, that’s a pun, unless we’re talking about E10 and compatibility.

There is discussion in the regulated community about compartment USTs being more than one vessel. So we’re directed to the EPA online Compendium. While it helps to read their text, the issue isn’t resolved for some, especially FR underwriters. An analysis of releases involving compartment tanks will help – but we’re in no hurry for the data if it means another release has occurred.

Two words – leak detection.