United States Solid Waste And EPA 510-R-00-001
Environmental Protection Emergency Response June 2000
Agency 5401G www.epa.gov/oust/
<>EPA Report to Congress
on a Compliance Plan for the
Underground Storage Tank Program
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Report to Congress
on a
Compliance Plan
for the
Underground Storage Tank Program
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
June 2000
-------
Contents
Executive Summary 1
Chapter 1 - Introduction to The Federal Underground Storage Tank Program 7
Chapter 2 - Identifying Underground Storage Tanks That Are Not in Compliance
with Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 13
Chapter 3 - Identifying Underground Storage Tanks in Temporary Closure 24
Chapter 4 - Determining the Ownership of USTs Not in Compliance
or in Temporary Closure 25
Chapter 5 - Determining the Plans of Owners and Operators to Bring Such Tanks Into
Compliance or Out of Temporary Closure 28
Chapter 6 - Describing How Tanks For Which No Owner Can Be Identified
Will Be Brought Into Compliance Or Permanently Closed 30
Chapter 7 - Conclusion 34
Appendix A - Calculations 36
Appendix B - Third-Party Inspection Programs in the Underground Storage
Tank (UST) Program 68
Appendix C - USTfields: Cleaning Up and Reusing Leaking UST Sites 69
-------
Executive Summary
Request By Congress to Develop Compliance Plan
On October 13, 1999 in its fiscal year (FY) 2000 Appropriations Committee Conference
Report, Congress directed the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prepare and
submit to Congress by May 1, 2000 a compliance plan regarding the underground storage tank
(UST) program. In particular, the conferees requested the compliance plan (which is to include
cost estimates): identify underground storage tanks that are not in compliance with Subtitle I of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act; identify underground storage tanks in temporary closure; determine
the ownership of underground storage tanks not in compliance or in temporary closure; and
determine the plans of owners and operators to bring such tanks into compliance or out of
temporary closure. Congress also asked that for tanks for which no owner can be identified, EPA
describe how those tanks will be brought into compliance or closed permanently. In this plan,
EPA devotes a chapter to each of the topics that Congress identified.
Interest in the UST Program
Effective December 22, 1998, owners and operators were required to ensure their
substandard USTs were upgraded (with spill, overfill, and corrosion protection), met new tank
standards, or were properly closed. There has been a great deal of interest - from Congress,
industry, media, and other affected parties - as to whether owners and operators are complying
with this deadline. Because this requirement is one of the major components of a comprehensive
approach EPA has taken in working to prevent, detect, and clean up releases from underground
storage tanks, it is easy to understand why compliance with the December 22, 1998 requirements
has generated attention.
Major Findings of the Compliance Plan
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this plan, state agencies are the primary implementors of the
UST program, except when a state has not adopted regulations, and in Indian Country where
EPA has responsibility for implementing the program. As a result, EPA consulted with state UST
managers as the Agency developed this plan. These managers have considerable knowledge
about UST compliance in their states and how to improve compliance with UST requirements.
The Agency also consulted with EPA regional managers responsible for program implementation
in Indian Country.
While there are similarities among state programs, states are encouraged to adapt their
programs to meet their specific needs and conditions. As a result, there is considerable variety in
state approaches, which is a major strength of the UST program. This diversity, however,
presented significant challenges in preparing this compliance plan which needed to be general
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 1
-------
enough to be applicable nationwide, yet recognize the differences among the states. The diversity
among the state programs made it difficult at times to make cost estimates. In several cases, EPA
had to make assumptions (which are listed in Appendix A) to arrive at cost estimates. EPA
consulted with state UST managers to make the most reasonable assumptions warranted.
Congress directed EPA to include five topics in this compliance plan. Below is a brief
discussion of the major findings for each topic.
Identify Underground Storage Tanks That Are Not in Compliance with Subtitle I of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act
Inspecting All Facilities
Chapter 2 discusses the approach EPA developed for identifying USTs that are not in
compliance and includes determining whether they have the required equipment and whether they
are properly operated and maintained. Since most USTs already have the proper equipment, the
major focus of the approach is proper operation and maintenance of that equipment. A one-time
inspection of all UST facilities can determine compliance, but routine inspections would be more
successful in ensuring continued compliance. On average, states inspect each facility
approximately every three to four years. The additional cost for more frequent inspections over
and above what is currently expended is significant:
• The cost of an initial inspection, including inspector training, in one year would be
approximately $93 million;
• The annual cost of routine inspections every year thereafter would be
approximately $70 million;
• The cost of inspecting every facility in two years, including inspector training,
would be approximately $63 million, or $31.5 million per year;
• The annual cost of routine inspections every two years thereafter would be
approximately $20 million;
• The cost of inspecting every facility in three years, including inspector training,
would be approximately $44 million, or $14.7 million per year;
• The annual cost of routine inspections every three years thereafter would be
approximately $9 million.
The one year inspection cycle may be infeasible due to the significant staff increases that
would be required. For the three year inspection cycle, Chapter 2 also discusses using a
prioritization system for inspections based on the likelihood of facility noncompliance and location
in environmentally sensitive areas. Facilities posing the greatest potential threat would be
inspected more frequently. While frequent inspections of all facilities would yield the highest
compliance rate, prioritizing inspections based on indicators of risk such as compliance history
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 2
-------
and location in sensitive environmental areas would be more cost effective for any given level of
resources. Table 1 summarizes the costs, over and above existing spending levels, for conducting
one, two, and three year inspections at all facilities.
Table 1
Overview of Estimated Additional Costs for Inspecting All Facilities
Inspection Cycle
Initial Inspection
Cost, Including
Training
Continuing
Inspection Cost
1 year
$93 million
$70 million per
year
2 year
$63 million over 2
years ($31.5 million
per year)
$20 million per year
3 year
$44 million over 3
years ($14.7 million
per year)
$9 million per year
Inspecting Only Facilities Not Known to be Equipped to Meet the 1998 Requirements
There has been a great deal of interest in compliance with the December 22, 1998 deadline
for spill, overfill and corrosion protection and EPA is often asked about the number of UST
systems that are equipped to comply with these requirements. As a result, the Agency divides out
the costs to inspect all facilities (with registered and/or unregistered USTs) where implementing
agencies are uncertain whether or not the necessary equipment exists to meet the 1998
requirements for spill, overfill, and corrosion protection. The cost to inspect only those facilities
would be approximately $30 million if done in one year, approximately $15 million ($7.5 million
per year) if done over two years, and approximately $10 million ($3.3 million per year) if done
over three years. These costs are over and above existing spending levels. Please note these
inspections are targeted only at facilities where there is a question about whether or not the
system is equipped to comply with the 1998 requirements. While at these targeted facilities,
however, inspectors would also inspect for other requirements including those related to
operation and maintenance.
EPA also includes in this plan the costs to inspect only those facilities with registered
USTs where implementing agencies are uncertain whether or not the necessary equipment exists
to meet the 1998 regulatory requirements for spill, overfill, and corrosion protection. The cost to
inspect those facilities would be approximately $11 million if done in one year, approximately $4
million ($2 million per year) if done over two years, and approximately $2 million ($0.7 million
per year) if done over three years. These costs are over and above existing spending levels. Table
2 summarize the costs for conducting one, two, and three year inspections at only those
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program
Page 3
-------
facilities not known to be equipped to meet the 1998 requirements for spill, overfill and corrosion
protection.
Table 2
Overview of Estimated Additional Costs for Inspecting Only Facilities Not Known to be
Equipped to Meet the 1998 Requirements
Inspection Cycle
Inspection Cost - Registered
and Unregistered Facilities
(Includes Initial Training Cost)
Inspection Cost - Registered
Facilities Only
(Includes Initial Training Cost)
1 year
$30 million
$11 million
2 year
$15 million over 2
years ($7.5 million
per year)
$4 million over 2
years ($2 million
per year)
3 year
$10 million over 3
years ($3.3 million
per year)
$2 million over 3
years ($0.7 million
per year)
Identify Underground Storage Tanks in Temporary Closure
Chapter 3 discusses the approach EPA developed for identifying USTs in temporary
closure. All USTs in temporary closure must be registered. Therefore, these USTs can be
identified through the implementing agency's database and through the inspections of all facilities
discussed above. The Agency estimates no additional costs associated with identifying these
USTs.
Determine the Ownership of USTs Not in Compliance or in Temporary Closure
Chapter 4 examines determining the ownership of USTs not in compliance or in temporary
closure. Determining the ownership of most registered USTs, including those in temporary
closure, is relatively straight-forward and can be determined by a review of the implementing
agency's databases or through the inspections of all facilities described in Chapter 2.
Determining the ownership of abandoned unregistered USTs can be difficult, although many
states would assign ownership of abandoned USTs to the current property owner. In Chapter 2,
EPA suggests an approach of using summer hires to: identify unregistered USTs and perform an
initial screening through an examination of real estate and property tax records in order to identify
owners. The cost of identifying the unregistered USTs is included in the costs discussed in
Chapter 2. The cost of an initial examination of existing records to determine ownership of
unregistered USTs is approximately $170,000. Due to the difficulty of making an estimate, EPA
does not include the cost for state UST inspectors to locate and contact the property owners
before states perform an inspection.
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program
Page 4
-------
Determine the Plans of Owners and Operators to Bring Such Tanks Into
Compliance or Out of Temporary Closure
Chapter 5 discusses how to determine the plans of owners and operators to bring USTs
not in compliance or in temporary closure into compliance or out of temporary closure. In
general, implementing agencies can determine the plans of owners and operators through the
inspections of all facilities discussed in Chapter 2 and through follow-up activity that would occur
after the inspections. The cost estimates for Chapter 2 include the initial follow-up and issuing
warning letters and notices of violation. This is often sufficient to secure compliance. However,
formal enforcement will be needed in many cases of non-compliance. The Agency has not
estimated enforcement costs for purposes of this report. However, enforcement activity could be
a substantial cost.
Describe How Tanks for Which No Owner Can Be Identified Will Be Brought into
Compliance or Permanently Closed
Chapter 6 describes how tanks for which no owner can be identified will be brought into
compliance or permanently closed. In this chapter, EPA also includes an analysis of those tanks
for which the owner is financially insolvent. (EPA has defined USTs for which there is no owner
or the owner is financially insolvent as orphaned USTs.) Identifying legal owners of abandoned
tanks can usually be accomplished. However, because permanent closure or remediation to clean
up a release may be costly, many of the owners will not have the financial resources necessary to
bring their USTs into compliance. The Agency estimates the total cost to conduct site
assessments ($5,000 per site) and associated cleanups ($40,000 per site) of orphaned UST sites is
approximately $675 million. EPA believes approximately one half of this, or more than $335
million, can be paid for by state funds and the remaining costs would need to be funded from
other sources.
Currently, neither EPA nor most states have the authority to close registered or
unregistered orphaned USTs when there is no release. If that authority was available, however,
EPA believes the closure costs for USTs without releases would be approximately $70 million.
Conclusion
States and EPA have made significant progress over the past 15 years in developing and
implementing a comprehensive regulatory UST program, which includes overseeing the
permanent closure of approximately 1.3 million federally-regulated substandard USTs. As of
September 1999, approximately 400,000 releases from federally-regulated UST sites have been
reported; work has begun on approximately 346,000 of those sites and completed at almost
229,000 of them.
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 5
-------
Even though substantial progress has been made, considerable work - such as improving
the compliance rates of active USTs - remains to be accomplished. Regular and frequent
inspections are the best way to achieve improved compliance rates and maintain high compliance
rates. Considerable work also needs to be accomplished to permanently close orphaned USTs
and, where necessary, remediate releases from them. The following chapters in this compliance
plan discuss the approaches and estimated costs for accomplishing this important work.
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 6
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction to The Federal Underground Storage Tank Program
Congressional Mandate
In 1984, Congress amended the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to
include Subtitle I in response to a growing threat from releases from underground storage tanks
(USTs). Leaking USTs can cause fires or explosions as well as contaminate nearby groundwater.
Because of these threats and the fact that approximately 50 percent of the nation's population
depends upon groundwater for their drinking water, Subtitle I directed EPA to develop and
implement comprehensive regulations to protect human health and the environment from leaking
USTs.
The Federal UST Program
As EPA established the UST program, it was faced with some unique challenges. The
regulated universe was immense, amounting to more than 2 million regulated USTs. Many of the
USTs were old, made of bare steel, and subject to corrosion which is a major cause of release.
Many of the regulated facilities were owned and operated by small businesses not accustomed to
dealing with complex regulations or what would become increasingly complex UST systems.
Finally, the UST industry was in the midst of technological changes. The impending regulations
had to take into account yet-to-be determined changes.
Given the large number of UST facilities, tank systems, and potential cleanup needs, EPA
believed that many aspects of the regulatory program would be most effectively carried out at the
state level. Based on the experience of states that had already been operating UST regulatory
programs, EPA learned it takes several years for most owners or operators to understand, plan,
and arrange to meet new regulatory requirements.
EPA believed a phased-in approach was needed to allow sufficient time for owners and
operators to respond to the new federal regulations. The federal regulations establish
comprehensive requirements for managing a wide range of USTs. EPA designed the regulations
to reduce the number of releases, increase the ability to quickly detect and minimize
contamination, and ensure adequate cleanup of contamination.
While EPA developed a comprehensive program, it is important to note that many USTs
are not covered by the program. For example, Congress in Subtitle I excluded several types of
tanks from the definition of an underground storage tank. Most important of these are farm and
residential tanks of 1,100 gallons or less capacity holding motor fuel used for noncommercial
purposes and tanks storing heating oil on the premises where stored. In the late 1980s, there
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 7
-------
were approximately 2.7 million of these heating oil tanks and an estimated 300,000 farm and
100,000 residential tanks excluded. While there is no current estimate of the number of tanks
excluded from the definition of an UST, they still comprise a large number and are likely to easily
exceed the number of federally regulated USTs. Some state programs regulate some of these
tanks, especially home heating oil tanks, although not necessarily to the same extent as they
regulate federally regulated USTs.
In addition to tanks excluded from the definition of UST, EPA excluded certain UST
systems from the regulations. Among the excluded UST systems are certain wastewater
treatment tank systems, those whose capacity is 110 gallons or less, those containing de minimis
concentrations of regulated substances, and any UST system holding hazardous wastes listed or
identified under Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. (Hazardous waste tanks are
regulated under Subtitle C.) Some UST systems are deferred from portions of the regulations.
Among these are UST systems containing radioactive material that are regulated under the
Atomic Energy Act of 1984, airport hydrant fueling distribution systems, and UST systems with
field constructed tanks. Some state programs regulate some categories of USTs excluded or
deferred from the federal regulations.
Initially, EPA focused on designing the program and promulgating the regulations. The
Agency has taken an active presence in making improvements to the program; helping the states
implement the program in their jurisdictions; and directly implementing the program in Indian
Country and where states do not have regulations. This work has involved building and
strengthening an effective state-federal partnership discussed below. EPA continues to undertake
a wide range of direct implementation responsibilities as well as developing additional training and
assistance documents to benefit owners and operators and state personnel. Over the past decade
or so, EPA - partnering with states and industry - has distributed more than one million copies of
various publications to help improve owners' and operators' understanding of and compliance
with the regulations. The Agency also provides states with electronic versions of many
publications so they can produce the publications themselves and make changes specific to the
needs and requirements of the state. EPA also carries out initiatives which benefit the entire UST
program, such as the current priority to evaluate the effectiveness of UST systems and identify
improvements to ensure continued and enhanced protection of human health and the environment.
An Effective State-Federal Partnership
From the onset, the federal UST program was faced with regulating a huge universe of
USTs. EPA recognized that the nature of the UST problem and the work involved in effective
direct implementation of the regulations by EPA would overwhelm the Agency's capabilities and
resources. As a result, EPA designed the UST program to be implemented primarily by states,
since they were better able to provide oversight and the constant regulatory presence required to
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 8
-------
effectively manage this program. (EPA is responsible for implementing the UST program in
Indian Country and when a state has not adopted regulations.) This decentralized approach was
needed to ensure real gains in protecting human health and the environment.
This state-EPA partnership has made significant progress in addressing the UST problem.
Since the inception of the program, when there were more than two million federally regulated
USTs, more than 1.3 million substandard USTs have been closed. As a result of those closures,
the substandard tanks are no longer sources of actual or potential releases which could harm
human health and the environment. As of September 30, 1999, the federally-regulated tank
universe was about 760,000, of which states and EPA report approximately 85 percent were in
compliance with the spill, overfill, and corrosion protection portion of the regulations (1998
requirements).
States have reported nearly 400,000 confirmed releases from USTs. Cleanups have been
initiated for approximately 346,000 releases and almost 229,000 cleanups have been completed.
More than 20,000 cleanups are completed annually. Even with this record of success, many
thousands of cleanups remain to be completed.
According to the information provided by states and EPA regional offices, owners and
operators have made a great deal of progress in complying with the spill, overfill and corrosion
protection requirements. However, EPA and states need to accomplish additional important work
to improve the compliance rate and have more UST systems better equipped to prevent releases.
In addition, substantial work needs to be done to improve the compliance rate with the leak
detection requirements. Many states estimate that the operational compliance rate with the leak
detection requirements is approximately 60 percent. (These requirements were phased in between
1989 and 1993.) Constant efforts, including increased inspections by states and EPA, will be
necessary to improve this compliance rate.
There are several basic steps EPA and states have taken, and continue to take, to foster
compliance with the regulations. The first is to thoroughly and repeatedly educate and inform the
regulated community about the requirements and the options for complying. The second is to
monitor compliance through inspections or other means. Where necessary and appropriate, the
final step is to use enforcement or other incentives to ensure compliance. EPA and states have
made tremendous efforts in educating and assisting the regulated community. Collectively, EPA
and states have distributed more than one million compliance assistance documents, sponsored
training for owners and operators, maintained hotlines and web sites, and provided compliance
assistance while visiting facilities. Educating the regulated community is a continuing challenge,
especially in ensuring they operate and maintain their UST systems properly. EPA and states have
also been actively working to monitor compliance, which is often done through facility
inspections, though the enormous size of the regulated universe makes compliance monitoring a
significant challenge. While much progress has been made in ensuring compliance, additional
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 9
-------
monitoring will be required to identify the full scope of compliance, and continued periodic
inspections will be necessary to ensure UST systems remain in compliance. This report focuses
primarily on enhancing compliance monitoring, both for registered and unregistered USTs.
Enforcement is discussed further in Chapters 2 and 5.
Preparing the Compliance Plan
From the beginning of the UST program, EPA designed the federal UST program to be
implemented primarily by the states. More specifically, the UST program has adopted a
franchising approach, which provides a unique cooperative venture between EPA and state
governments whereby the states manage the daily business of running the program and EPA
provides national guidance, assistance, and leadership. This was done in part because of the huge
universe of USTs that needed to be regulated. For more than a decade, EPA and states have
worked to develop an effective partnership to regulate USTs. The Agency has used this
successful partnership to help develop this compliance plan for Congress. Initially, in December
1999, nine state UST managers met with staff from EPA to help develop the basic framework of
the compliance plan and help estimate some of the most important cost factors. Subsequently,
EPA asked nine other states a short series of questions to help verify the cost estimates and
provide information on some additional factors that appeared to be central to developing the
compliance plan. EPA had further discussions with the December 1999 representatives from the
nine states to ensure the validity of the approach as well as the cost estimates. EPA contacted
other state managers individually to obtain guidance on how to deal with specific issues with
which they had considerable experience or particular expertise. EPA received many useful ideas
from the discussions with state managers and internal Agency reviews. The Agency made
numerous useful changes and improvements to the final compliance plan and cost estimates as a
result of the many helpful suggestions.
In reviewing this compliance plan, it is important to keep in mind that the federal
regulations set the framework and minimum requirements for the UST program. States are
allowed and encouraged to improve upon this framework and to adapt it to meet state-specific
needs. The diversity in state UST programs is one of the major strengths of the overall national
effort to prevent and remediate releases from USTs. However, this diversity also presents
challenges when preparing this compliance plan called for by Congress. The compliance plan
needs to be general enough to be applicable nationwide, recognizing the diversity among the
states, and yet specific enough to provide a realistic approach to address the issues raised in the
FY 2000 Appropriations Committee Conference Report language. The diversity among states
presents formidable challenges, particularly in making cost estimates to carry out the compliance
plan. Not only are there differences in basic factors, such as wage scales, that can affect cost
estimates, there are also differences in states' approaches, regulations, and laws that can have
important effects on cost issues. As a result, in preparing the compliance plan, EPA made a wide
variety of assumptions on several factors that affect the cost estimates. In every case, the Agency
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 10
-------
attempted to make the most reasonable assumption warranted. EPA's assumptions and cost
estimate calculations are described in Appendix A.
EPA is responsible for implementing the UST program in Indian Country. There are more
than 2,700 active USTs in Indian Country and there have been 1,100 confirmed releases. The
work involved with ensuring compliance with these UST has not been addressed separately in this
compliance plan, but has been incorporated into the overall analysis and cost estimates.
As EPA developed the compliance plan, it was clear from the beginning there are
significant differences in the status of USTs, as well as the many ways in which the universe of
USTs can be divided for analysis. For example, most USTs are registered with the implementing
agency; however, there is an important subset of USTs which are not registered, including those
that have been abandoned and an owner does not legally exist or it is difficult to determine the
owner. For ease of analysis and understanding in this compliance plan, EPA has broken down the
universe of USTs into four broad major groups:
Active Registered: These are USTs that are registered with the implementing agency and
are actively used. This is the largest portion of the total UST universe, and the portion
that will be the most straight-forward to address. The population of active registered
USTs is approximately 722,000.
Abandoned Registered: These are USTs that are registered with the implementing
agency, but which are no longer being used and for which the owner is not working to
permanently close the USTs. These USTs may be abandoned largely because owners and
operators were financially unable to meet spill, overfill, and corrosion protection
requirements. These USTs pose a challenge in that the owner is either disinclined or
financially unable to comply, and is often difficult to locate. EPA estimates there are
approximately 38,000 abandoned registered USTs.
Active Unregistered: These USTs are not registered with the implementing agency, but
are actively used. The obvious challenge is identifying these USTs. Once located, it will
be relatively easy to identify the owner or operator who can be held responsible for
compliance. EPA estimates there are approximately 38,000 active unregistered USTs.
Abandoned Unregistered: This is the most diverse and complicated group of tanks to
address. These USTs have never been registered with the implementing agency, and have
not been in use for an indefinite period of time. The regulatory requirements for these
USTs varies greatly. USTs taken out of operation before the effective date of the
regulations (December 22, 1988) are not required to meet the prevention and detection
requirements. USTs that were taken out of operation before 1974 were not even required
to be registered. However, if the implementing agency deems that any previously closed
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 11
-------
UST poses a current or future threat to the environment, the UST owner can be required
to perform a site assessment and, if necessary, corrective action. The first challenge with
these USTs is locating them. For those located, the second challenge is identifying and
finding the owner. Finally, many of these tank owners will either resist regulatory
responsibility, or be financially unable to comply. For the purposes of this report, USTs
for which there is no known or financially viable owner will be classified as orphaned.
EPA estimates there are approximately 152,000 abandoned unregistered USTs.
As of September 1999, there were approximately 760,000 registered USTs, some of
which have been abandoned. While no one knows how many of these have been abandoned,
based on the professional judgment of state UST managers, EPA estimates approximately 5
percent, or 38,000 active USTs have been abandoned. It is even more difficult to determine, or
even estimate, the unregistered USTs. This is especially true of the abandoned unregistered USTs
which are located throughout the nation. Although there are other ways to divide the UST
universe, EPA believes the breakdown into four broad major groups is the most useful for
analyzing the issues in this plan. In the following five chapters, the Agency discusses the five
topics Congress directed EPA to consider by analyzing compliance and ownership issues for the
four groups of USTs discussed above.
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 12
-------
Chapter 2
Identifying Underground Storage Tanks That Are Not in Compliance with
Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
Introduction
Compliance with the Subtitle I regulations has received a substantial amount of interest in
recent years because of the December 22, 1998 deadline which required all existing underground
storage tanks (USTs), including connected underground piping and ancillary equipment, be
upgraded with spill, overfill, and corrosion protection; meet new tank standards; or be properly
closed. There are a variety of other Subtitle I requirements that apply to UST owners and
operators, including: notification, release detection, closure, financial responsibility, and release
reporting and response. These requirements constitute a comprehensive approach to preventing,
detecting, and cleaning up releases. In the initial chapters of this report, EPA focuses on
compliance with the prevention and detection requirements described above, rather than the
cleanup requirements. In Chapter 6 EPA discusses site assessment and clean up needs and costs.
EPA estimates that as of September 30, 1999, 85 percent of USTs were in compliance
with the 1998 requirements for spill, overfill, and corrosion protection, and 60 percent with the
leak detection requirements that were phased in from 1989 through 1993. These are based on
estimates states provided EPA. In order to determine compliance with the preventative
requirements, including proper operation and maintenance, generally every UST will have to be
inspected. Unregistered USTs will first have to be located. For purposes of this analysis, EPA
discusses three different inspection cycles - at one year, two year, and three year intervals - for
inspecting all USTs, and assesses the costs and advantages of each inspection cycle. Most state
inspection cycles average three to four years, but those states with frequent inspection cycles
(once every 12 to 18 months) have significantly higher compliance rates than the national average.
Please note that most of the states who assisted in preparing this plan stressed the need to do
regular - ideally annual - inspections, because regular inspections are the best way to ensure the
highest degree of compliance. Leak detection and corrosion protection systems can be complex
and require diligence on the part of tank owners and operators. Frequent inspections foster the
necessary diligence. Inspections also offer opportunities for inspectors to educate owners and
operators on important compliance issues. This combination of incentive and education will
ultimately lead to the maximum compliance rates, thus minimizing the risk of future releases. (See
Appendix B on Third-Party Inspection Programs.)
While a substantial field presence (e.g., inspections) provides a deterrent effect and is a
significant factor in ensuring compliance, an effective enforcement program is often required to
return non-compliant USTs to compliance. However, EPA has not incorporated enforcement
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 13
-------
activities into the analysis in this plan. Enforcement efforts will vary greatly depending upon the
severity of the violations, the existence, cooperation, and financial capability of the UST owners,
as well as the variety of enforcement mechanisms available to both EPA and states. If an
enforcement action is required, attorney support, expert witnesses, or follow-up activities will be
needed to sustain an enforcement action. The cumulative cost of these activities could be
significant.
Registered USTs - Active and Abandoned
To determine compliance, inspectors will need to visit every facility which has a registered
UST that has not been permanently closed; USTs that have been permanently closed are assumed
to be in compliance with Subtitle I. State, territorial, and EPA regional databases will generally
have accurate information about the location of registered USTs. Thus, the costs associated with
determining compliance can be estimated by determining the inspection resources required to visit
and perform a thorough inspection at every facility. Please note EPA assumes every inspector is
devoted nearly full time to facility compliance inspections, even though in the real world, most
inspectors perform a variety of functions.
EPA developed cost estimates for inspecting every facility at one, two, and three year
intervals. The Agency provides the calculations of the cost estimates for these inspection cycle
intervals in Appendix A under Calculation 2.
Unregistered USTs - Active and Abandoned
In order to identify the compliance status of unregistered USTs, the USTs must first be
located; this has traditionally been an imposing challenge for EPA and states. There are also
various categories of unregistered USTs, and each category creates a different set of challenges.
To simplify the analysis, EPA categorized these USTs as either active or abandoned. Please note
that not all unregistered USTs are out of compliance. Owners of USTs taken out of operation
before January 1, 1974 were not required to notify the implementing agency. In addition, any
UST closed before December 22, 1988 was not required to comply with the prevention and
detection requirements in Subtitle I. If, however, the implementing agency determines that a
release from any previously closed UST poses a current or potential threat, the owner can be
required to close the tank in accordance with the Subtitle I closure requirements, including a site
assessment and any necessary cleanup. EPA further addresses this situation in Chapter 6.
Nevertheless, it is important to locate as many of these USTs as possible.
There are a variety of approaches that can be used to identify unregistered USTs. Many
USTs simply cannot be identified, and they will not come to the states' attention unless
contamination from those USTs reaches a receptor or the USTs are uncovered during
construction or a real estate transaction. States have tried a variety of approaches to identify
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 14
-------
these USTs, including substantial outreach and education, but the results of those efforts are
probably diminishing substantially. While some states have taken more proactive efforts to
identify unregistered USTs, these USTs are most often identified through either a receptor impact
(for example, a nearby well is impacted), a real estate transaction, or a redevelopment project.
The Agency has identified three potential approaches to identifying unregistered USTs:
enhanced interaction with the real estate industry; delivery prohibitions; and visual surveys by
summer hires. EPA has intentionally excluded the option of visual surveys by UST inspectors
because it is considerably less cost effective than hiring part-time summer help.
Real Estate Transactions
Environmental liability is a primary concern for potential buyers of commercial properties.
Environmental assessments are routinely performed before a property transaction is completed,
and any environmental concerns that are identified can lead to further action by the buyer and/or
the seller. State UST programs are often made aware of USTs identified through real estate
transactions. However, thorough assessments are not performed in every situation, and even
when they are, it is unlikely states are notified of every UST that is uncovered. Therefore,
enhanced awareness on the part of property buyers and sellers, as well as the real estate
professionals involved in the transactions, would lead to some unregistered USTs being reported
to states. EPA and some states have had some success partnering with the real estate industry to
improve awareness (for example, EPA and the Maryland Department of the Environment worked
with Maryland Association of Realtors to develop a publication entitled, "Real Estate
Professionals and Underground Storage Tanks").
EPA has not developed cost estimates for this effort, because it is difficult to estimate the
time necessary to work with various real estate organizations in each state. While EPA believes
this is a worthwhile long-term endeavor, the Agency acknowledges this will simply increase the
sporadic reporting of unregistered tanks and is not sufficient to identify the majority of
unregistered USTs. It is also worth noting that property redevelopment, with or without a real
estate transaction, can also lead to the discovery of unregistered USTs. It is not unusual to
identify a few USTs through a visual search of a property, and additional USTs when excavation
is conducted to remove known USTs.
Delivery Prohibitions
In preparation for the spill, overfill, and corrosion protection deadline, many states
realized that limited state inspection resources would not be sufficient to ensure compliance at
every UST facility in the months immediately following the deadline. A few states used the
successful approach of prohibiting delivery of fuel to any UST not in compliance. These
programs impose a regulatory responsibility on the fuel delivery companies and, in turn, leverage
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 15
-------
compliance by the UST owner. If environmental stewardship and fear of an inspection were not
sufficient motivations to bring about compliance, stopping the supply of product - which is the
lifeline of many businesses - was a successful alternative. A number of other states recognized
the success of this approach and developed their own delivery prohibition programs. As of
December 1999, more than 20 states have implemented some form of a delivery prohibition
program. These programs vary greatly, from tagging the fill pipe of the UST found to be out of
compliance during an inspection - an indicator to the delivery driver to not deliver fuel - to
requiring a compliance permit (without which fuel cannot be delivered) at every facility.
While EPA and some states do not have the explicit authority to impose regulatory
requirements on anyone other than the tank owner and/or operator, the states using these
programs have found them to be quite successful. The primary success of these programs has
been ensuring rapid compliance with the requirements without requiring significant enforcement
expenditures on the part of the states. While state staff must still either inspect the facilities to
determine compliance, or rely on self-certifications from the tank owners, the benefit in securing
rapid compliance for USTs determined to be out of compliance has been significant and can be
achieved without pursuing formal enforcement.
A beneficial side effect of these programs is identifying previously unregistered USTs.
Under a program where delivery to a facility without a valid compliance permit is prohibited,
unregistered facilities would obviously not receive permits from the state, even if the USTs met
the spill, overfill, and corrosion requirements. Therefore, the owners of those facilities must
register their tanks and be evaluated for compliance before they can receive additional fuel. This
approach is only successful in identifying active unregistered USTs. Abandoned unregistered
USTs would not be identified through this process.
Based on limited information about the cost of establishing delivery prohibition programs
in a state, EPA estimates it costs approximately $100,000 per state to establish a delivery
prohibition program, including the cost of tags or stickers and other incidental expenses. Please
note that this cost estimate does not include the cost of either performing the initial inspections to
determine compliance or to review self-certification paperwork or the ongoing program costs.
Visual Surveys by Summer Hires
During the summer preceding the deadline to meet the spill, overfill, and corrosion
requirements, Virginia hired a cadre of students to travel throughout the state to remind tank
owners about the deadline and share educational materials with them. A similar approach could
be adopted to help locate unregistered USTs. When an UST is abandoned, the above ground vent
lines, fill lines, dispenser island, or other visible evidence (including simply the architecture of an
abandoned service station) often remain in place. It is sometimes possible to identify the location
of abandoned USTs simply by looking for visual clues. It is even easier to identify
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 16
-------
active unregistered USTs through visible inspections, since these USTs still have vent lines, fill
pipes, and dispensers. States could potentially hire students (or other temporary workers) to
travel all existing public roadways looking for evidence of abandoned USTs. Although this
approach may be a bit haphazard, it could net some significant benefits. On a smaller scale, North
Carolina hired a contractor to do a visual search through three counties. Based on information
developed for three counties, the study estimated there are approximately 3,200 to 4,000
abandoned UST sites in North Carolina.
EPA estimates it would cost about $5 million to locate unregistered USTs nationwide
using a visual search method and identify land ownership for those facilities found. (See
Appendix A, Calculation 1.3 for EPA's assumptions and calculations.) Obviously, it is extremely
difficult to estimate the number of unknown USTs that exist, and even more difficult to estimate
the number of those USTs that could be found through such an effort. The Agency discussed this
issue with a number of state program managers and believes it is reasonable to estimate there are
approximately 190,000 unregistered USTs. EPA believes this approach could probably identify
the majority of active unregistered USTs, but probably no more than half of the abandoned
unregistered USTs could be identified. EPA estimates the search effort would not find 76,000 of
the abandoned unregistered USTs because in many cases no visible evidence would be found by
the summer hires. These remaining tanks will probably not be found unless they leak and
someone reports the problem, or they are located through a property transaction or
redevelopment. Therefore, EPA assumes this approach will uncover approximately 114,000
USTs. (See Appendix A, Calculation 2.1.2 for details on EPA's assumptions and calculations.)
After ownership of these UST locations is established, inspections will be required to
determine the status of these USTs. In Table 1 below, EPA provides an overview of the
estimated additional costs required to conduct initial compliance inspections (including equipment
requirements, operation and maintenance requirements, and inspector training) and perform
continued inspections for the one, two, and three year cycles. In the narrative below, EPA
discusses details regarding the total cost estimates of the number of inspectors required and the
associated costs for inspections for the three different cycles.
Table 1
Overview of Estimated Additional Costs for Inspecting All Facilities
Inspection Cycle
Initial Inspection
Cost, Including
Training
Continuing
Inspection Cost
1 year
$93 million
$70 million per
year
2 year
$63 million over 2
years ($31.5 million
per year)
$20 million per year
3 year
$44 million over 3
years ($14.7 million
per year)
$9 million per year
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program
Page 17
-------
One Year Inspection Cycle Costs
There are numerous advantages of a one year inspection cycle. One of the most important
advantages is the frequent compliance assistance opportunities to educate and inform UST
owners and operators about properly operating their USTs. Another important advantage is the
increased presence of inspectors and associated incentives for owners and operators to ensure
their USTs remain in compliance.
However, there are a number of practical obstacles that might make a one year inspection
cycle infeasible. The first barrier is the high cost of maintaining an annual inspection cycle. A
public investment required to maintain annual inspections would require a significantly increased
investment in the UST prevention program, and it may not be realistic to assume such an increase
is possible. Even if the funding were available, a second impediment is that EPA and some states
would have difficulty increasing staff so dramatically. Many states have overall personnel ceilings
which limit the possibility of new hires. While most states would make a concerted effort to fully
use the additional funding, some would not be able to fully staff their UST programs. In addition,
unless there was relative certainty of continued funding for a number of years, some states may
not hire new staff who would be subject to layoffs in the event funding did not continue. Finally,
while an annual inspection will result in the highest compliance, due to the obstacles discussed
above, a two year cycle or a three year cycle with targeted inspections is more feasible. As
discussed in the three year cycle below, prioritizing inspections based on indicators of risk such as
compliance history and location in sensitive environmental areas would be more cost effective for
any given level of resources.
Registered USTs
In order to inspect all registered UST systems in one year, EPA believes states would
require approximately 1,435 inspectors, with each inspecting 200 facilities on an annual basis.
EPA estimates it would cost a total of at least $100 million to determine the compliance status for
all registered UST systems in one year. Currently, EPA and states have approximately 465 full
time equivalent (FTE) employees who routinely perform UST inspections. In order to determine
the additional cost (marginal cost) to inspect every registered UST, EPA subtracted the work
(and associated costs) that can be performed by the existing corps of inspectors. Existing full
time inspectors cost about $35 million per year. EPA estimates that more than $65 million in
additional prevention resources would be required to conduct inspections of every registered
facility in one year. (See Appendix A, Calculation 2.1.1 for EPA's assumptions and calculations.)
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 18
-------
Unregistered USTs
EPA estimates it would take an additional 215 inspectors to inspect the unregistered
facilities found and cost an additional $15 million. Therefore, the total cost for searching (via the
visual inspection method) for and inspecting unregistered tanks to determine their compliance
status in one year is approximately $20 million (see Appendix A, Calculation 2.1.2 for details on
EPA's assumptions and calculations). Please note these cost estimates only account for the
unregistered USTs that are identified. As discussed in the "Visual Surveys by Summer Hires"
section, EPA estimates only half of the unregistered abandoned USTs will be located. The
remaining USTs will probably not be found unless they leak and someone reports the problem, or
they're located through a property transaction or redevelopment.
Total Costs
The total additional costs of identifying USTs that are not in compliance with Subtitle I of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act would be approximately $85 million ($65 million for registered
USTs and $20 million for unregistered USTs) for 1,185 additional inspectors. Please note that
inspection costs do not account for new inspector training, which may require at least one
additional month at a cost of approximately $8 million. If inspections were to be continued on an
annual basis, the additional cost per year is estimated to be about $70 million dollars. (See
Appendix A, Calculation 2.1 for EPA's assumptions and calculations.)
Two Year Inspection Cycle Costs
While a one year inspection cycle would be most effective in rapidly determining
compliance and setting processes in motion to bring tanks back into compliance, EPA believes a
two year inspection cycle would still provide significant advantages and be more feasible than the
one year inspection cycle. Inspecting every facility within two years would rapidly improve the
compliance rates in many states, and continued biennial inspections would ensure continued
diligence on the part of UST owners and operators, thus increasing the probability of sustaining
high compliance rates. EPA believes the two year cycle provides the best compromise between
effectiveness and practicality.
Registered USTs
In order to inspect all registered UST systems in two years, EPA believes states would
require approximately 718 inspectors, with each inspecting 200 facilities per year. EPA estimates
it would cost at least $100 million to determine the compliance status for all registered USTs
within two years. In order to determine the additional cost (marginal cost) to inspect every
registered UST, EPA subtracted the work (and associated costs) that can be performed by the
existing corps of inspectors. Therefore, $45 million in additional resources (spread over two
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 19
-------
years) and more than 310 new inspectors would be required to conduct inspections of every
registered facility within two years. (See Appendix A, Calculation 2.2 for EPA's assumptions and
calculations.)
Unregistered USTs
EPA estimates it would take an additional 91 inspectors to inspect the unregistered
facilities found within two years, and cost an additional $13 million. Therefore, the total cost for
searching (via the visual inspection method) for and inspecting unregistered tanks to determine
their compliance status in two years is approximately $18 million (see Appendix A, Calculation
2.2.2 for EPA's assumptions and calculations). Please note these cost estimates only account for
the unregistered USTs that are identified. As discussed in the "Visual Surveys by Summer Hires"
section, EPA estimates only half of the unregistered abandoned USTs will be located. The
remaining USTs will probably not be found unless they leak and someone reports the problem, or
they're located through a property transaction or redevelopment.
Total Costs
The total additional cost of identifying USTs that are not in compliance with Subtitle I of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act within two years would be approximately $60 million (or $30
million each year for two years) for approximately 400 new inspectors. As with the annual
inspection approach, these inspection costs do not account for inspector training, which may
require at least one additional month at a cost of approximately $3 million. If inspections were to
be continued on a biennial basis, the annual additional cost would be approximately $20 million.
(See Appendix A, Calculation 2.2 for EPA's assumptions and calculations.)
Three Year Inspection Cycle Costs
A three year inspection cycle would still be a significant improvement for many of the
states, but approximately 15 states currently inspect every three years or less. As three years is a
fairly significant time between inspections, EPA and states would likely need to prioritize
inspections more so than with annual or biennial inspection cycles. Many states currently
prioritize inspections to maximize their resources, considering such factors as likelihood of non-
compliance (e.g., given past compliance history of a facility) and environmental sensitivity (e.g.,
placing greater priority on facilities located in sensitive environmental areas such as wellhead
protection areas). While facilities would be inspected on a three year average, states might decide
to inspect individual facilities more or less frequently based on the states' inspection priorities.
EPA believes the three year cycle would lead to a significant improvement in many states, and
therefore in the national program. The prioritization of inspections could help ensure the highest
priority sites receive the necessary attention to ensure continued protection of human health and
the environment, despite the relatively longer average inspection cycle.
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 20
-------
Relative to the one or two year inspection cycles, however, there are drawbacks to less
frequent inspection cycles, including fewer opportunities to detect operation and maintenance
errors. Nevertheless, an approach that targets facilities based on indicators of risk such as
compliance history and location in sensitive environmental areas would be more cost effective for
any given level of resources.
Registered USTs
In order to inspect all active registered UST systems in three years, EPA believes states
would require approximately 478 inspectors, with each inspecting 200 facilities per year. EPA
estimates it would cost at least $100 million to determine the compliance status for all registered
USTs within three years. In order to determine the additional cost (marginal cost) to inspect
every registered UST, EPA subtracted the work (and associated costs) that can be performed by
the existing corps of inspectors. Therefore, $27 million in additional resources (spread over three
years) and approximately 130 new inspectors would be required to conduct inspections of every
registered facility within three years. (See Appendix A, Calculation 2.3 for EPA's assumptions
and calculations.)
Unregistered USTs
EPA estimates it would take an additional 54 inspectors to inspect the unregistered
facilities found within three years, and cost an additional $11 million. Therefore, the total cost for
searching (via the visual inspection method) for and inspecting unregistered tanks to determine
their compliance status in three years is approximately $16 million (see Appendix A, Calculation
2.3.2 for details on EPA's assumptions and calculations). Please note these cost estimates only
account for the unregistered USTs that are identified. As discussed in the "Visual Surveys by
Summer Hires" section, EPA estimates only half of the unregistered abandoned USTs will be
located. The remaining USTs will probably not be found unless they leak and someone reports
the problem, or they're located through a property transaction or redevelopment.
Total Costs
The total additional cost of identifying USTs that are not in compliance with Subtitle I of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act within three years would be approximately $43 million (or $14
million each year for three years) for approximately 180 new inspectors. As with the one and two
year inspection approaches, these inspection costs do not account for inspector training, which
may require at least one additional month at a cost of approximately $1 million. If inspections
were to be continued on a three year cycle, the annual additional cost would be approximately $9
million. (See Appendix A, Calculation 2.3 for details on EPA's assumptions and calculations.)
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 21
-------
Inspecting Facilities Not Known to be Equipped to Meet the 1998 Requirements
There has been a great deal of interest in compliance with the December 22, 1998 deadline
for spill, overfill and corrosion protection and EPA is often asked about the number of UST
systems that are equipped to comply with these requirements. As a result, the Agency calculated
the cost above existing spending levels to inspect only those facilities where implementing
agencies are uncertain whether or not the required equipment exists as opposed to inspecting all
facilities as described above (these estimates are a subset of the estimates presented above).
While at these targeted facilities, however, inspectors would also inspect for other requirements
including those related to operation and maintenance. Data from states indicate uncertainty for
approximately 32 percent of registered UST systems. No information is available for unregistered
USTs. In Table 2, EPA provides an overview of the estimated costs above existing spending
levels to conduct initial compliance inspections (including inspecting for equipment and operation
and maintenance requirements) for those facilities not known to be equipped to meet the 1998
requirements and train inspectors for the one, two, and three year cycles.
Table 2
Overview of Estimated Additional Costs for Inspecting Only Facilities Not Known to be
Equipped to Meet the 1998 Requirements
Inspection Cycle
Inspection Cost - Registered
and Unregistered Facilities
(Includes Initial Training Cost)
Inspection Cost - Registered
Facilities Only
(Includes Initial Training Cost)
1 year
$30 million
$11 million
2 year
$15 million over 2
years ($7.5 million
per year)
$4 million over 2
years ($2 million
per year)
3 year
$10 million over 3
years ($3.3 million
per year)
$2 million over 3
years ($0.7 million
per year)
The cost above existing spending levels to inspect registered and unregistered UST
systems is as follows (see Appendix A, Calculation 2.4 for EPA's assumptions and calculations):
• The cost of one time inspections conducted in one year would be approximately
$30 million;
• The cost of one time inspections conducted over two years would be
approximately $15 million ($7.5 million per year);
• The cost of one time inspections conducted over three years would be
approximately $10 million ($3.3 million per year).
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program
Page 22
-------
Please note these inspections are targeted only at facilities where implementing agencies are
uncertain whether or not the system is equipped to comply with the 1998 requirements for spill,
overfill, and corrosion protection. Unless a state currently has the capability to inspect more
facilities than those targeted, the state will not have sufficient resources to conduct inspections at
other facilities during the targeted inspection cycle. For example, in the two year inspection
cycle, approximately 70 percent of states (about 35 states) would have the resources to conduct
inspections at facilities other than those not known to be equipped to meet the 1998 requirements.
However, those states may only have sufficient resources to inspect a portion of the other UST
facilities.
The costs are lower if inspections focus only on registered USTs. The estimated cost,
above existing spending levels, to inspect the registered USTs where implementing agencies are
uncertain whether or not the required equipment exists is as follows (see Appendix A, Calculation
2.4 forEPA's assumptions and calculations):
• The cost of one time inspections conducted in one year would be approximately
$11 million;
• The cost of one time inspections conducted over two years would be
approximately $4 million ($2 million per year);
• The cost of one time inspections conducted over three years would be
approximately $2 million ($0.7 million per year).
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 23
-------
Chapter 3
Identifying Underground Storage Tanks in Temporary Closure
Introduction
Temporary closure is an option that allows owners and operators to temporarily stop
operating an UST system without permanently closing that system. It was a valid option for
complying with the requirement for upgrading with spill, overfill, and corrosion protection;
closing; or meeting new tank standards. Some owners and operators chose temporary closure as
a temporary means to comply with the requirements. UST systems that did not meet the
requirements for upgrading, permanent closure, or new tank standards could be placed in
temporary closure for up to 12 months (no later than December 22, 1999) unless an extension
was granted by the implementing agency. (The implementing agency may only grant an extension
after the owner or operator conducts a site assessment.) If the owner or operator chose to keep
product in the UST system, then operation and maintenance of the release detection and corrosion
protection must continue during temporary closure. This option may be used indefinitely for UST
systems complying with the upgrade or new tank standards; spill and overfill devices are not
required while in temporary closure. State and local temporary closure requirements may vary
from the federal requirements. For example, some states do not allow extensions beyond the 12
month limit for temporary closure.
As of February 1999, states reported a total of 73,700 UST systems in temporary closure.
EPA estimates the number of UST systems in temporary closure today is significantly less than in
February 1999 because some owners and operators have since upgraded or permanently closed
their systems.
Only registered UST systems are in temporary closure as defined in the regulations.
Unregistered USTs, active or abandoned, would not be in compliance with the temporary closure
requirements.
Registered USTs
Identifying registered USTs in temporary closure would not be difficult. Many states,
regions, and territories have temporarily closed UST systems in their databases and others would
identify these UST systems through the compliance inspections of all facilities described in
Chapter 2. Identifying UST systems in temporary closure would not require additional resources
than those described in Chapter 2.
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 24
-------
Chapter 4
Determining the Ownership of USTs Not in Compliance
or in Temporary Closure
Introduction
Determining ownership for most registered USTs is relatively straight-forward; but when
there is a dispute, the process of determining ownership can become difficult. This problem can
be compounded by unregistered USTs that have been abandoned for unknown periods of time.
The Solid Waste Disposal Act defines owner as:
"(A) in the case of an underground storage tank in use on November 8, 1984, or brought
into use after that date, any person who owns an underground storage tank used for the
storage, use, or dispensing of regulated substances, and
(B) in the case of any underground storage tank in use before November 8, 1984, but no
longer in use on November 8, 1984, any person who owned such tank immediately before
the discontinuation of its use."
For active USTs, this definition is easy to apply; however, it can become more complicated when
there is a lease situation in which the operator of the UST is a different person than the owner of
the property. For abandoned USTs, it can be difficult and time consuming to track down the
original owner of the UST. Often the original UST owners no longer own the property on which
the tanks are located, or the owners are deceased. Relying only on the federal definition of
"owner", there are some cases (for example an UST closed in 1978 by an owner who has since
died) where there is simply no owner who can be held responsible.
However, as the UST program is largely implemented by states, more than half of which
have received formal state program approval, the state laws and regulations are even more
relevant. The variation throughout the country causes some difficulty in making broad
assumptions about ownership, but many states have property law provisions that assign ownership
to any structures on or in a piece of property to the property owner. In these states, if there is a
dispute about the actual UST owner, the property owner can become the UST owner, and can be
held accountable for compliance and cleanup. This simplifies the search for the owner and
significantly reduces the number of USTs for which no responsible owner can be identified.
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 25
-------
One common approach used by states to determine the owner of an abandoned tank is to
check the local property tax records to identify the land owner. The land owner is then contacted
by phone or mail to discuss the status of the USTs and any follow-up work required.
Due to the variability and uncertainty associated with identifying ownership, it is very
difficult to estimate the cost associated with determining ownership. While the property law
provisions significantly simplify the process of identifying an owner, the bigger practical problem
is that some owners are financially unable to upgrade or properly close their USTs or pay for any
necessary remediation. EPA addresses this issue in Chapter 6.
Active Registered USTs
Determining ownership for the majority of active registered USTs is routine. EPA and
state notification requirements provide the EPA and states with information (such as number, age,
material, status, etc.) about the USTs as well as the UST owner. Many states have procedures in
place to regularly update this information, and they should have fairly accurate information about
USTs and UST owners. However, the federal regulations require only a one time notification, as
do some state regulations, so the information - including ownership information - in some
databases could be significantly outdated. Nevertheless, using their databases, coupled with the
inspections of all facilities discussed in Chapter 2, states should be able to identify the owners for
all non-compliant and temporarily closed USTs that are still active.
Abandoned Registered USTs
States can generally use their databases to determine the owner at the time the UST was
abandoned. In some cases, however, the owner of an abandoned registered UST will not be easy
to locate. Ensuring compliance from these owners is yet another challenge and may not even be
possible due to financial insolvency. EPA discusses this in more detail in Chapter 6.
Active Unregistered USTs
Once an active unregistered UST is located, there will not be any problem in determining
ownership. Since the UST is still active, the current facility owner will be the responsible UST
owner.
Abandoned Unregistered USTs
The category of abandoned unregistered USTs causes the biggest problem in determining
ownership. Because these USTs were never registered in the first place, states do not have a
starting point from which to work. Determining the date the UST was last used is another
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 26
-------
difficult challenge, but potentially an important factor in determining ownership. Significant
research will need to be done, including researching county records and interviewing neighbors.
Ultimately, many states will use state property laws to hold the current property owner
responsible for the USTs, which in some cases will likely lead to litigation.
Estimating Costs
As noted above, it is relatively easy to determine the ownership of active USTs, both
registered and unregistered. It should not be difficult to determine the ownership of an
abandoned registered UST, but it may be difficult to locate the owner. The identification of
owners of abandoned unregistered USTs is time consuming. As indicated in Calculation 1.2 in
Appendix A, the work by summer hires to research land owners for unregistered USTs will cost
almost $170,000. State inspectors will need to spend additional time trying to locate and contact
some of these land owners before they conduct an inspection, and working with them to ensure
compliance and/or to assess the site for potential contamination.
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 27
-------
Chapter 5
Determining the Plans of Owners and Operators to Bring Such Tanks Into
Compliance or Out of Temporary Closure
Introduction
When bringing USTs into compliance or out of temporary closure, owners and operators
must ensure their UST systems meet all of the regulatory requirements. These requirements
include: release detection; spill, overfill, and corrosion protection; and financial responsibility.
Release detection and operation and maintenance of release detection is required for nearly all
regulated UST systems to ensure that, in the event of a release, owners and operators can
minimize the extent of environmental damage through early detection. The spill, overfill, and
corrosion protection requirements allow owners and operators of substandard tanks to upgrade,
properly close, or meet new tank standards. These requirements help ensure that good UST
systems are in the ground and that those systems are operated and maintained properly. Financial
responsibility requirements ensure that owners have a financial means to clean up any releases that
may occur.
A small number of UST systems may be in temporary closure and in compliance with the
regulatory requirements and may not have or need plans for coming out of temporary closure.
UST systems that did not meet the requirements for upgrading, permanent closure, or new tank
standards could be placed in temporary closure before December 22, 1998 for up to 12 months to
comply with the spill, overfill, and corrosion protection deadline. An extension to the 12 month
time frame may be granted by the implementing agency if an owner or operator conducts a site
assessment. UST systems that meet the upgrade or new tank standards may remain in temporary
closure indefinitely. Since temporarily closed USTs that meet these requirements are already in
compliance with the regulations, they are not addressed in this chapter. However, the majority of
USTs that are still in temporary closure are subject to, and have exceeded, the 12 month limit and,
if an extension was not granted, are out of compliance and subject to enforcement. These
noncompliant USTs are included in the discussion below on determining the plans of owners and
operators to return to compliance.
Some owners may be unknown or financially insolvent and unable to pay for the cost to
bring an UST into compliance. Chapter 4 discusses the issue of ownership. Chapter 6 discusses
the issue of unknown and financially insolvent owners. The strategy for determining the
compliance plans for these USTs would be the same for active, abandoned, registered, and
unregistered tanks. Determining these plans would be dependent on ownership and current
compliance status of the UST.
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 28
-------
Active, Abandoned, Registered, and Unregistered USTs
Implementing agencies can determine the plans of owners and operators whose USTs are
not in compliance as a result of the inspections of all facilities described in Chapter 2 through the
follow-up activity that would occur after the inspection. Inspectors often work with tank owners
through informal means, such as issuing warnings and following up with phone calls, to secure
compliance. Many times, however, more formal enforcement is used to secure compliance. The
settlement of enforcement actions will include a plan and schedule for returning the tank to
compliance. Failure of an owner to comply with a schedule or plan would result in further
enforcement. Enforcement activity could be a substantial cost. As discussed in Chapter 2,
delivery prohibition programs are an alternative approach to enforcement used by a number of
states. While these programs can be quite successful in ensuring compliance for active USTs,
they will not be successful in ensuring compliance with abandoned USTs.
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 29
-------
Chapter 6
Describing How Tanks For Which No Owner Can Be Identified
Will Be Brought Into Compliance Or Permanently Closed
Introduction
States estimate approximately 50 percent of abandoned tanks will be orphaned. The term
orphaned is used to refer to abandoned tanks where there is no known or financially viable owner.
Due to the property law provisions of most states (see Chapter 4), owners will be identified for
the majority of registered and unregistered USTs. However, the most significant problem is
owners who are financially unable to pay for compliance or cleanups. As a result, there is a large
universe of orphaned tanks.
In nearly all cases, bringing these orphaned USTs into compliance will involve permanent
closure and, in many cases, cleanup. Because there are no owners to pay for the closures or
cleanups, this expense will often become the responsibility of the implementing agencies. Under
RCRA Subtitle I, EPA and states are limited in their authority to use federal funds to pay for tank
closures, unless there is reason to believe that a release from an UST may have occurred. Many
states are similarly limited in the use of state funds. However, if there is reason to suspect a
release of petroleum, Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund resources may be
used to conduct a site assessment, and if a release is found, to perform the necessary cleanup.
While a state could empty a tank as part of the site assessment, actual closure of the UST is a
valid LUST Trust Fund expense only if the closing is incidental to either the site assessment or the
corrective action.
In determining whether to perform a site assessment, states make a determination of the
likelihood of a release based on a variety of factors, such as the age of the UST, the type of UST,
and the location. In cases where a state reasonably suspects a release, a thorough site assessment
will be conducted, which includes soil or groundwater samples from those areas where
contamination is most likely to be present. EPA has assumed that the states will always be
granted access to these properties to perform the assessments and, if necessary, cleanups. In
reality, some property owners will resist access, which will affect the manner and time frame to
deal with those sites. If no release is detected through the site assessment, the orphaned USTs
will not necessarily be brought into compliance, until and unless they leak or are addressed as part
of a future property transaction or redevelopment (See Appendix C on USTfields).
A few states have programs specifically designed to address the closure of orphaned tanks.
In these cases the USTs will be appropriately closed, bringing them into compliance. In addition,
approximately 40 states have state cleanup funds. In general, these funds pay some or all of the
cleanup costs of UST releases. However, the eligibility criteria for these funds varies
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 30
-------
greatly. Some funds will only pay for releases incurred by USTs that are currently registered and
for which the UST owner has paid the annual fee. In some cases, payment from the state funds
are allowed only if the USTs are in full compliance with the regulations at the time of the release.
Some state cleanup funds will actually pay for releases from orphaned USTs. These funds are a
significant resource for cleaning up identified releases at orphaned sites, but they cannot always be
used to either assess a site to determine whether a release has occurred or to close an UST where
there has been no release.
While this chapter addresses closure and cleanup from orphaned USTs, it is worth noting
that when financially able owners are identified, states still need to ensure these owners perform
cleanups appropriately and expeditiously. The existence of the state cleanup funds has
dramatically limited this concern, since the state funds have been responsible for the majority of
the total cleanups performed in the UST program. State cleanup funds collectively raise almost
$1.4 billion annually to clean up releases. However, in those cases where state funds do not exist,
or where a release is not eligible to be funded by a state fund, the state needs to ensure the owners
comply with the cleanup requirements. While this can be an issue in some cases, most cleanups
are progressing adequately. While corrective action enforcement costs can be significant in
difficult individual cases, EPA has not factored additional corrective action enforcement costs into
this analysis because they are not as significant as the prevention and detection compliance costs
or the actual cleanup costs.
Closing Abandoned Unregistered USTs When There is Reason To Believe There Has Been
a Release
Because of the uncertainly of the actual number of abandoned unregistered USTs and
releases from them, it is extremely difficult to estimate the costs of assessing, closing, and
remediating UST sites which are orphaned. Due to the fact that these tanks have never been
registered and have been abandoned for an indefinite period of time (often decades), very little is
known about the USTs. There has been very little work done in any systematic fashion with
abandoned USTs.
However, EPA estimates the cost to assess ($5,000 per site) and clean up ($40,000 per
site) abandoned unregistered UST sites which are orphaned is approximately $450 million.
Approximately 50 percent of the states can use their state cleanup funds to pay for the
remediation costs of orphaned USTs. Therefore, $225 million in cleanup costs will need to be
paid by state funds. The remaining $225 million for assessment and cleanup costs would need to
come from other sources. (See Appendix A, Calculation 3 for EPA's assumptions and
calculations.) (Please note EPA estimates that solvent owners will be identified for approximately
50 percent of the abandoned unregistered USTs. These owners will be responsible for closure
and, if necessary, associated cleanup costs.)
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 31
-------
Closing Abandoned Registered USTs When There is Reason To Believe There Has Been a
Release
If efforts to locate and compel an owner to pay for a closure and, if necessary, a cleanup
are unsuccessful, states and EPA will address the facilities in much the same way they address
unregistered orphaned USTs. The Agency has used similar assumptions and calculations to
determine the cost of assessing and, as necessary, remediating registered orphaned UST sites.
EPA believes the total cost to assess ($5,000 per site) and clean up ($40,000 per site)
abandoned registered UST sites which are orphaned is approximately $225 million. Assuming
one half of the state funds will pay for cleanup costs from these orphaned UST sites, more than
$110 million would remain to be funded from sources other than the state funds. (See Appendix
A, Calculation 4 for EPA's assumptions and calculations.) (Please note EPA estimates that
solvent owners will be identified for approximately 50 percent of the abandoned registered USTs.
These owners will be responsible for closure and, if necessary, associated cleanup costs.)
Total Costs
Bringing abandoned USTs into compliance will generally require closing them and
cleaning them up. For those sites with no actual releases, many states will not be able to properly
close the USTs; therefore, the USTs will never be brought into compliance. While this may be a
compliance problem, these sites should not pose a significant threat to human health and the
environment. For those sites with actual releases of petroleum, states can use either LUST Trust
Fund or state cleanup fund resources to address those sites. The remediation of contaminated
sites will generally require the closure of the USTs; so EPA assumes that most of these sites will
be brought into full compliance.
The total cost to conduct site assessments and associated cleanups of orphaned USTs,
both registered and unregistered, is approximately $675 million. EPA assumes that approximately
one half of this, or more than $335 million, can be paid for by state funds and that the remaining
costs would need to be funded from other sources. These costs could be covered by the LUST
Trust Fund. These cost estimates are based on the assumption of $40,000 per cleanup, which is a
reasonable estimate given the nature of these tanks. These estimates also assume that states will
continue cleaning up the constituents that are currently being addressed. Changes in the
constituents cleaned up could have a substantial effect on the total cleanup costs.
Please remember EPA has assumed only 50 percent of the abandoned unregistered USTs
will be identified. Approximately 76,000 remaining abandoned unregistered USTs will not be
located. The compliance status of these tanks will remain unknown. However, a significant
proportion will be very old USTs, some of which were never even required to be registered, and
pose less of a threat than active USTs.
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 32
-------
Closing Orphaned USTs When There is No Release
Currently, neither EPA nor most states have the authority to close registered or
unregistered orphaned USTs when there is no release. If that authority was available, however,
EPA believes the closure costs for USTs without releases would be approximately $70 million.
(See Appendix A, Calculation 5 for EPA's assumptions and calculations.)
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 33
-------
Chapter 7
Conclusion
Over the past 15 years, states and EPA have achieved significant successes in the
underground storage tank program. Approximately, 1.3 million federally-regulated substandard
USTs have been permanently closed. Of the 400,000 confirmed releases, cleanups have been
initiated for approximately 346,000 releases and completed at about 229,000 sites as of
September 30, 1999. Approximately 85 percent of the active USTs meet the spill, overfill, and
corrosion protection requirements and are, as a result, much less likely to have a release and are
more protective of the environment. In sum, an enormous amount of progress has been made in
closing the USTs most likely to have releases and improving the quality of the USTs that remain
active. Even in light of this record, however, considerable work remains to be accomplished so
that improvements can continue to be made.
One of the keys to continued improvement is regular inspection of regulated USTs. There
are many ongoing requirements with which owners and operators must comply. UST systems are
increasingly complicated. Owners and operators need to pay significant attention to operation
and maintenance of their UST systems to maintain the progress that has been made over the past
15 years. Through regular inspections, the implementing agency can verify compliance, provide
technical assistance, help owners and operators come into compliance and take enforcement
actions when necessary to ensure compliance. Targeting inspections based on indicators of risk
such as compliance history and location in sensitive environmental areas would be more cost
effective for any given level of resources. Some states have established delivery prohibition
programs which induce owners to comply relatively quickly without the state expending a great
deal of enforcement resources.
This Report to Congress discusses five topics Congress directed EPA to consider.
Approaches to these topics are discussed along with cost estimates. The Agency has broadened
the analysis of the last topic dealing with compliance when no owner can be determined. As
discussed in Chapter 6, it is relatively easy to identify an owner. A much more difficult issue to
deal with is whether that owner has the financial capability to close an UST and pay for
remediation if that is necessary. Thus, Chapter 6 discusses approaches and cost estimates for
dealing with non-compliant USTs (as well as pre-1974 compliant systems that may have had a
release) when the owner is insolvent. After devoting considerable attention to bringing owners
into compliance with the spill, overfill, and corrosion protection requirements, some states are
giving greater attention to orphaned UST systems. As a result, the attention given in this
compliance plan to orphaned USTs corresponds to increasing interest and time in states to deal
with these USTs.
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 34
-------
As discussed in this compliance plan, considerable and continuous work needs to be done
with owners and operators to provide them with technical assistance on operation and
maintenance issues and, ultimately, to ensure they continually comply with the regulations.
Accomplishing this work will greatly increase the chances that: releases will be prevented; when
releases occur, they are found quickly through proper leak detection before significant damage
can be done to the environment, especially to groundwater and drinking water; and remediation is
undertaken and completed quickly.
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 35
-------
Appendix A
Calculations
This appendix provides the assumptions and calculations used to determine the cost
estimates in the compliance plan to Congress. EPA used data from a variety of sources to
develop the assumptions necessary to perform the calculations. Those sources include: EPA
semi-annual reports; a workgroup meeting with state and EPA UST regional managers;
conversations with state personnel; an abandoned tank report from the state of North Carolina;
the 1999 state fund survey compiled by state fund managers; and the best professional judgment
of state and EPA staff. The data received from states, either at the workgroup meeting or
through other conversations, are both from their databases and best professional judgment. As
specific issues arose during the development of this report, EPA contacted various state experts
throughout the country to seek their guidance and solicit time or cost estimates.
EPA imposes very limited reporting requirements on the state UST/LUST programs.
States are the primary implementing agencies for the program, and the Agency has decided the
program would be best served by limiting the reporting burden on states and allowing them to
focus their resources on preventing, detecting, and remediating releases.
Given the relatively limited scope of national data, EPA often had to rely on these other
sources of data as well as, in many cases, best professional judgment. When appropriate, the
Agency extrapolated from a limited set of data or estimates. Where it was necessary to use best
professional judgment rather than real data, EPA made a concerted effort to make realistic
estimates.
Calculation 1 - Visual Surveys and Land Ownership
1.1 Cost to conduct visual surveys by summer hires
Assumptions:
Estimated miles of road in the U. S.: 4,000,000
Search time: 6 weeks (40 hours/week, 30 workdays)
Hourly cost per summer hire: $10/hour
Government mileage rate: 32.5 eVmile
Miles of new road covered each day: 125
Additional percent of road already
covered to commute to and from home: 50%
Calculation to determine total miles traveled:
(4 million miles) + [(4 million miles) x (0.5)] = 6 million total miles traveled
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 36
-------
Calculation to determine mileage costs:
($0.325/mile) x (6 million miles) = $1.95 million
Calculation of miles per day traveled by all summer hires:
(6,000,000 miles)/(30 work days) = 200,000 miles/day
Calculation of the total miles traveled each day by each summer hire:
(125 miles) + [(125 miles) x (0.5)] = 188 miles
Calculation of the number of summer hires needed to conduct visual surveys:
(200,000miles/day)/(188 miles/day/summer hire) = 1,064 summer hires
Calculation of wages for 1,064 summer hires:
(1,064 summer hires) x ($10/hr) x (40 hrs/wk) x (6 wks) = $2.55 million
Calculation of the total cost to conduct visual surveys:
$1.95 million + $2.55 million = $4.5 million
1.2 Cost to determine land ownership of discovered facilities
Assumptions:
Number of counties in the U. S.: approximately 3,100
Number of facilities found: 43,000 (see calculation 2.1.2)
Average miles traveled to and from
each county courthouse: 30 miles
Time for each summer hire to get to
and from each county courthouse: 1 hour
Time to determine land ownership
for each facility: 0.25 hour
Hourly cost per summer hire: $10/hour
Government mileage rate: 32.5 eVmile
Calculation of the total number of hours spent at the courthouse:
(43,000 facilities) x (0.25 hrs/facility) = 10,750 hours spent at courthouse
Calculation of the total number of travel hours:
(1 hour/courthouse) x (3,100 courthouses) = 3,100 hours driving time
Calculation of the total hours needed to determine land ownership:
(10,750 hours) + (3,100 hours) = 13,850 total hours
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 37
-------
Calculation of the total wage cost to determine land ownership:
(13,850 hours) x ($10/hour) = $138,500 wage cost
Calculation of total miles traveled to and from courthouses:
(3,100 courthouses) x (30 miles/courthouse) = 93,000 miles
Calculation to determine mileage costs:
($0.325/mile) x (93,000 miles) = $30,225 travel costs
Calculation of total cost to determine land ownership:
($30,225) + ($138,500) = $168,725 total cost
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $168,725 to
$170,000.
1.3 Total cost to conduct visual surveys and determine land ownership
Calculation:
($168,725) + ($4,500,000) = $4.67 million
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $4.67 million to $5
million.
Calculation 2 - Compliance Inspections
2.1 Conducting all compliance inspections in one year
2.1.1 Cost to inspect all registered USTs - active and abandoned
Assumptions:
Registered UST systems: 760,500 (as of September 30, 1999)
Number of UST systems/facility: 2.65
Inspections per year per inspector: 200
Years to conduct all inspections: 1
Annual inspector cost: $70,000/year - includes salary, travel costs, benefits,
managerial and secretarial support, and inspector
equipment
Average number of inspectors per
state/territory dedicated to
performing compliance inspections: 8
Number of states and territories: 56
Number of EPA inspectors: 17
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 38
-------
Calculation to determine the number of registered facilities:
(760,500 UST systems)/(2.65 UST systems/facility) = 287,000 facilities
Calculation to determine the number of inspectors needed to inspect 287,000 facilities:
(287,000 facilities)/(200 facilities/inspector) = 1,435 inspectors
Calculation to determine the cost of paying 1,435 inspectors:
(1,435 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector) = $100 million
Calculation to determine the current compliance inspection workforce:
(8 inspectors/state) x (56 states) + (17 EPA inspectors) = 465 total inspectors
Calculation of the cost of 465 inspectors to conduct compliance inspections:
(465 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector) = $32.6 million
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $32.6 million to $35
million.
Calculation of the additional cost to conduct a compliance inspection of every facility in
one year:
($100 million) - ($32.6 million) = $67.4 million
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $67.4 million to $65
million.
2.1.2 Cost to inspect unregistered USTs - active and abandoned
Assumptions:
Percent of active unregistered USTs: 5% of registered USTs
Percent of active unregistered USTs
found: 100%
Percent of abandoned unregistered
USTs: 20% of registered USTs
Percent of abandoned unregistered
USTs found: 50%
Registered UST systems: 760,500 (as of September 30, 1999)
Number of UST systems/facility: 2.65
Inspections per year per inspector: 200
Years to conduct all inspections: 1
Annual inspector cost: $70,000/year - includes salary, travel costs, benefits,
managerial and secretarial support, and inspector
equipment
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 39
-------
Visual surveys and land
ownership cost: $4.67 million (see calculation 1.3)
Calculation of active unregistered tanks:
(760,500 USTs) x (0.05) = 38,025 active unregistered tanks
Calculation of abandoned unregistered tanks:
(760,500 USTs) x (0.2) = 152,100 abandoned unregistered tanks
Calculation of the total (active and abandoned) unregistered tanks:
(38,025 USTs) + (152,100 USTs) = 190,125 total unregistered tanks
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of 190,125 to 190,000
total unregistered tanks.
Calculation of active unregistered tanks found as a result of the visual surveys:
(38,025) x (1.0) = 38,025 active unregistered tanks found
Calculation of abandoned unregistered tanks found as a result of the visual surveys:
(152,100) x (0.5) = 76,050 abandoned unregistered tanks found
Calculation of total unregistered tanks that were found and need to be inspected:
(38,025) + (76,050) = 114,075 total unregistered tanks found
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of 114,075 to 114,000
total unregistered tanks found.
Calculation of number of unregistered facilities found that need to be inspected:
(114,075 UST systems)/(2.65 UST systems/facility) = 43,000 facilities
Calculation of the number of inspectors needed to inspect 43,000 facilities:
(43,000 facilities)/(200 facilities/inspector) = 215 inspectors
Calculation to determine the cost of paying 215 inspectors:
(215 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector) = $15 million
Calculation of the total cost to find and inspect all unregistered systems:
($15 million) + ($4.67 million) = $19.7 million
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $19.7 million to $20
million.
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 40
-------
2.1.3 Total additional cost to find and inspect all registered and unregistered UST systems
Calculation of the total additional cost for the visual search and inspections:
($67.4 million) + ($19.7 million) = $87.1 million
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $87.1 million to $85
million.
2.1.4 Cost to train new inspectors
Assumptions:
Time needed to train an inspector: 1 month
Annual inspector cost: $70,000/year - includes salary, travel costs, benefits,
managerial and secretarial support, and inspector
equipment
Training cost: $1,000
Calculation of the number of new inspectors that would need to be hired:
[(1,435 + 215) needed inspectors] - (465 current inspectors) = 1,185 new
inspectors
Calculation of the cost to pay 1,185 new inspectors during training:
(1,185 inspectors) x ($70,000/year) x (1/12 year) = $6.9 million
Calculation of the training cost for 1,185 new inspectors:
(1,185 inspectors) x ($l,000/inspector) = $1.2 million
Calculation of the total cost to train 1,185 new inspectors:
($1.2 million) + ($6.9 million) = $8.1 million
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $8.1 million to $8
million.
2.1.5 Cost to continue annual inspections into the future
Assumptions:
Registered and unregistered abandoned facilities will need no future inspections
Number of abandoned registered USTs: 38,025 (see calculation 4.1)
Number of active unregistered USTs: 38,025 (see calculation 2.1.2)
Number of inspectors needed to conduct
annual inspections at active facilities: 1,435 (see calculation 2.1.1)
Current number of inspectors: 465 (see calculation 2.1.1)
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 41
-------
Because the number of abandoned registered USTs needs to be excluded and the number
of active unregistered USTs needs to be included, they mathematically cancel each other
out. In addition, the 215 inspectors used to inspect the unregistered facilities are no
longer needed to perform annual inspections because those facilities will be addressed and
closed or are already addressed above.
Calculation of the number of additional inspectors needed to conduct annual inspections:
(1,435 inspectors needed) - (465 current inspectors) = 970 additional inspectors
Calculation of the annual cost of 970 additional inspectors:
(970 inspectors) x ($70,000) = $67.9 million
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $67.9 million to $70
million.
2.2 Conducting all compliance inspections in two years
2.2.1 Cost to inspect all registered USTs - active and abandoned
Assumptions:
Registered UST systems: 760,500 (as of September 30, 1999)
Number of UST systems/facility: 2.65
Inspections per year per inspector: 200
Years to conduct all inspections: 2
Annual inspector cost: $70,000/year - includes salary, travel costs, benefits,
managerial and secretarial support, and inspector
equipment
Average number of inspectors per
state/territory dedicated to
performing compliance inspections: 8
Number of states and territories: 56
Number of EPA inspectors: 17
Inspectors not reinspecting
already-inspected facilities the
second year of the inspection: 75%
Calculation to determine the number of registered facilities:
(760,500 UST systems)/(2.65 UST systems/facility) = 287,000 facilities
Calculation to determine the number of inspectors needed to inspect 287,000 facilities:
(287,000 facilities)/(200 facilities/inspector) = 1,435 inspectors
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 42
-------
Calculation to determine how many inspectors are needed to inspect all facilities in two
years:
(1,435 inspectors)/(2 years) = 718 inspectors
Calculation to determine the cost of paying 718 inspectors for two years:
(718 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector/year) x (2 years) = $100 million
Calculation to determine the current compliance inspection workforce:
(8 inspectors/state) x (56 states) + (17 EPA inspectors) = 465 total inspectors
Calculation of the cost of 465 inspectors to conduct compliance inspections (first year):
(465 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector) = $32.6 million
Calculation of the number of inspectors in states and territories who inspect all facilities
over two or more years (those states/territories that can inspect at a frequency of less than
two years cannot be counted in the total inspectors for the second year because they are
now reinspecting facilities already inspected in the first year):
(465 inspectors) x (0.75) = 349 inspectors
Calculation of the cost of 349 inspectors to conduct compliance inspections (second year):
(349 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector) = $24.4 million
Calculation of the additional cost to conduct a compliance inspection of every facility over
a two year period:
($100 million) - [($32.6 million) + ($24.4 million)] = $43 million over two years
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $43 million to $45
million.
2.2.2 Cost to inspect unregistered USTs - active and abandoned
Assumptions:
Percent of active unregistered USTs: 5% of registered UST facilities
Percent of active unregistered USTs
found: 100%
Percent of abandoned unregistered
USTs: 20% of registered UST facilities
Percent of abandoned unregistered
USTs found: 50%
Registered UST systems: 760,500 (as of September 30, 1999)
Number of UST systems/facility: 2.65
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 43
-------
Inspections per year per inspector: 200
Years to conduct all inspections: 2
Annual inspector cost: $70,000/year - includes salary, travel costs, benefits,
managerial and secretarial support, and inspector
equipment
Percent of states that cannot inspect
abandoned unregistered tanks
every two years without additional
resources: 85%
Visual surveys and land
ownership cost: $4.67 million (see calculation 1.3)
Calculation of active unregistered tanks:
(760,500 USTs) x (0.05) = 38,025 active unregistered tanks
Calculation of abandoned unregistered tanks:
(760,500 USTs) x (0.2) = 152,100 abandoned unregistered tanks
Calculation of active unregistered tanks found as a result of the visual surveys:
(38,025) x (1.0) = 38,025 active unregistered tanks found
Calculation of abandoned unregistered tanks found as a result of the visual surveys:
(152,100) x (0.5) = 76,050 abandoned unregistered tanks found
Calculation of total unregistered tanks found and which need to be inspected:
(38,025) + (76,050) = 114,075 total unregistered tanks
Calculation of number of unregistered facilities found which need to be inspected:
(114,075 UST systems)/(2.65 UST systems/facility) = 43,000 facilities
Calculation of the number of unregistered facilities for which existing state inspectors
cannot inspect within two years:
(43,000) x (0.85) = 36,550 facilities
Calculation of the number of inspectors needed to inspect 36,550 facilities over two years:
(36,550 facilities)/(200 facilities/inspector/year)/2 years = 91 inspectors/year
Calculation to determine the cost of paying 91 inspectors for two years:
(91 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector/year) x (2 years)= $12.8 million
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 44
-------
Calculation of the total cost to find and inspect all unregistered systems over two years:
($12.8 million) + ($4.67 million) = $17.5 million over two years
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $17.5 million to $18
million.
2.2.3 Total additional cost to find and inspect all registered and unregistered UST systems
Calculation of the total additional cost for the visual search and inspections over a two
year period:
($43 million) + ($17.5 million) = $60.5 million for two years or
$30.25 million each year for two years
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimates of $60.5 million to $60
million and $30.25 million to $30 million.
2.2.4 Cost to train new inspectors
Assumptions:
Time needed to train an inspector: 1 month
Annual inspector cost: $70,000/year - includes salary, travel costs, benefits,
managerial and secretarial support, and inspector
equipment
Training cost: $1,000
Number of inspectors needed
to conduct biennial inspections: 718 (see calculation 2.2.1)
Current number of inspectors (year 1) 465 (see calculation 2.2.1)
Current number of inspectors (year 2) 349 (see calculation 2.2.1)
Calculation of the number of new inspectors that would need to be hired:
{[(718 - 465) first year] +[(718 - 349) second year]/2 years} + 91= 402 inspectors
Calculation of the cost to pay 402 new inspectors during training:
(402 inspectors) x ($70,000/year) x (1/12 year) = $2.3 million
Calculation of the training cost for 402 new inspectors:
(402 inspectors) x ($l,000/inspector) = $0.4 million
Calculation of the total cost to train 402 new inspectors:
($2.3 million) + ($0.4 million) = $2.7 million
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 45
-------
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $2.7 million to $3
million.
2.2.5 Cost to continue biennial inspections into the future
Assumptions:
Registered and unregistered abandoned facilities will need no future inspections
Number of abandoned registered USTs: 38,025 (see calculation 4.1)
Number of active unregistered USTs: 38,025 (see calculation 2.2.2)
Number of UST systems/facility: 2.65
Number of inspectors needed to conduct
biennial inspections: 718 (see calculation 2.2.1)
Current number of inspectors (year 1): 465 (see calculation 2.2.1)
Current number of inspectors (year 2): 349 (see calculation 2.2.1)
Because the number of abandoned registered USTs needs to be excluded and the number
of active unregistered USTs needs to be included, they mathematically cancel each other
out. In addition, the 91 inspectors used to inspect the unregistered facilities are no longer
needed to perform biennial inspections because those facilities will be addressed and
closed or are already addressed above.
Calculation of the number of additional inspectors needed to conduct biennial inspections:
{[(718 - 465) first year] +[(718 - 349) second year]/2 years} = 311 inspectors
Calculation of the annual cost of 311 inspectors:
(311 inspectors) x ($70,000) = $21.8 million
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $21.8 million to $20
million.
2.3 Conducting all compliance inspections in three years
2.3.1 Cost to inspect all registered USTs - active and abandoned
Assumptions:
Registered UST systems: 760,500 (as of September 30, 1999)
Number of UST systems/facility: 2.65
Inspections per year per inspector: 200
Years to conduct all inspections: 3
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 46
-------
Annual inspector cost: $70,000/year - includes salary, travel costs, benefits,
managerial and secretarial support, and inspector
equipment
Average number of inspectors per
state/territory dedicated to
performing compliance inspections: 8
Number of states and territories: 56
Number of EPA inspectors: 17
Inspectors not reinspecting
already-inspected facilities the
second year of the inspection cycle: 75%
Inspectors not reinspecting
already-inspected facilities the
third year of the inspection cycle: 50%
Calculation to determine the number of registered facilities:
(760,500 UST systems)/(2.65 UST systems/facility) = 287,000 facilities
Calculation to determine the number of inspectors needed to inspect 287,000 facilities:
(287,000 facilities)/(200 facilities/inspector) = 1,435 inspectors
Calculation to determine how many inspectors are needed to inspect all facilities in three
years:
(1,435 inspectors)/(3 years) = 478 inspectors
Calculation to determine the cost of paying 478 inspectors for three years:
(478 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector/year) x (3 years) = $100 million
Calculation to determine the current compliance inspection workforce:
(8 inspectors/state) x (56 states) + (17 EPA inspectors) = 465 total inspectors
Calculation of the cost of 465 inspectors to conduct compliance inspections (first year):
(465 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector) = $32.6 million
Calculation of the number of inspectors in states and territories who inspect all facilities
over two or more years (those states/territories that can inspect at a frequency of less than
two years cannot be counted in the total inspectors for the second year because they are
now reinspecting facilities already inspected in the first year):
(465 inspectors) x (0.75) = 349 inspectors
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 47
-------
Calculation of the cost of 349 inspectors to conduct compliance inspections (second year):
(349 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector) = $24.4 million
Calculation of the number of inspectors in states and territories who inspect all facilities
over three or more years (those states/territories that can inspect at a frequency of less
than three years cannot be counted in the total inspectors for the third year because they
are now reinspecting facilities already inspected in the first or second years):
(465 inspectors) x (0.5) = 233 inspectors
Calculation of the cost of 233 inspectors to conduct compliance inspections (third year):
(233 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector) = $16.3 million
Calculation of the additional cost to conduct a compliance inspection of every facility over
a three year period:
($100 million) - [($32.6 million) + ($24.4 million) + ($16.3 million])
= $26.7 million over three years
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $26.7 million to $27
million.
2.3.2 Cost to inspect unregistered USTs - active and abandoned
Assumptions:
Percent of active unregistered USTs: 5% of registered UST facilities
Percent of active unregistered USTs
found: 100%
Percent of abandoned unregistered
USTs: 20% of registered UST facilities
Percent of abandoned unregistered
USTs found: 50%
Registered UST systems: 760,500 (as of September 30, 1999)
Number of UST systems/facility: 2.65
Inspections per year per inspector: 200
Years to conduct all inspections: 3
Annual inspector cost: $70,000/year - includes salary, travel costs, benefits,
managerial and secretarial support, and inspector
equipment
Percent of states that cannot inspect
abandoned unregistered tanks
every three years without additional
resources: 75%
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 48
-------
Visual surveys and land
ownership cost: $4.67 million (see calculation 1.3)
Calculation of active unregistered tanks:
(760,500 USTs) x (0.05) = 38,025 active unregistered tanks
Calculation of abandoned unregistered tanks:
(760,500 USTs) x (0.2) = 152,100 abandoned unregistered tanks
Calculation of active unregistered tanks found as a result of the visual surveys:
(38,025) x (1.0) = 38,025 active unregistered tanks found
Calculation of abandoned unregistered tanks found as a result of the visual surveys:
(152,100) x (0.5) = 76,050 abandoned unregistered tanks found
Calculation of total unregistered tanks found and which need to be inspected:
(38,025) + (76,050) = 114,075 total unregistered tanks
Calculation of number of unregistered facilities found which need to be inspected:
(114,075 UST systems)/(2.65 UST systems/facility) = 43,000 facilities
Calculation of the number of unregistered facilities for which existing state inspectors
cannot inspect within three years:
(43,000) x (0.75) = 32,250 facilities
Calculation of the number of inspectors needed to inspect 32,250 facilities over three
years:
(32,250 facilities)/(200 facilities/inspector/year)/3 years = 54 inspectors/year
Calculation to determine the cost of paying 54 inspectors for three years:
(54 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector/year) x (3 years)= $11.3 million
Calculation of the total cost to find and inspect all unregistered systems over three years:
($11.3 million) + ($4.67 million) = $16 million over three years
2.3.3 Total additional cost to find and inspect all registered and unregistered UST systems
Calculation of the total additional cost for the visual search and inspections over a three
year period:
($26.7 million) + ($16 million) = $42.7 million for three years or
$14.2 million each year for three years
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 49
-------
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimates of $42.7 million to $43
million and $14.2 million to $14 million.
2.3.4 Cost to train new inspectors
Assumptions:
Time needed to train an inspector: 1 month
Annual inspector cost: $70,000/year - includes salary, travel costs, benefits,
managerial and secretarial support, and inspector
equipment
Training cost: $1,000
Number of inspectors needed
to conduct triennial inspections: 478 (see calculation 2.3.1)
Current number of inspectors (year 1) 465 (see calculation 2.3.1)
Current number of inspectors (year 2) 349 (see calculation 2.3.1)
Current number of inspectors (year 3) 233 (see calculation 2.3.1)
Calculation of the number of new inspectors that would need to be hired:
{[(478 - 465) first year] + [(478 - 349) second year] + [(478 - 233) third year]/3
years} + 54 = 183 inspectors
Calculation of the cost to pay 183 new inspectors during training:
(183 inspectors) x ($70,000/year) x (1/12 year) = $1.07 million
Calculation of the training cost for 183 new inspectors:
(183 inspectors) x ($l,000/inspector) = $0.183 million
Calculation of the total cost to train!83 new inspectors:
($1.07 million) + ($0.183 million) = $1.25 million
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded this estimate from $1.25 million to $1
million.
2.3.5 Cost to continue triennial inspections into the future
Assumptions:
Registered and unregistered abandoned facilities will need no future inspections
Number of abandoned registered USTs: 38,025 (see calculation 4.1)
Number of active unregistered USTs: 38,025 (see calculation 2.3.2)
Number of UST systems/facility: 2.65
Number of inspectors needed
to conduct triennial inspections: 478 (see calculation 2.3.1)
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 50
-------
Current number of inspectors (year 1) 465 (see calculation 2.3.1)
Current number of inspectors (year 2) 349 (see calculation 2.3.1)
Current number of inspectors (year 3) 233 (see calculation 2.3.1)
Because the number of abandoned registered USTs needs to be excluded and the number
of active unregistered USTs needs to be included, they mathematically cancel each other
out. In addition, the 54 inspectors used to inspect the unregistered facilities are no longer
needed to perform triennial inspections because those facilities will be addressed and
closed or are already addressed above.
Calculation of the number of additional inspectors needed to conduct triennial inspections:
{[(478 - 465) first year] + [(478 - 349) second year] + [(478 - 233) third year]/3
years} = 129 inspectors
Calculation of the annual cost of 129 inspectors:
(129 inspectors) x ($70,000) = $9 million
2.4 Conducting inspections on USTs not reported as equipped to comply with the 1998
requirements
2.4.1 Calculating the percent of USTs not reported as equipped to comply with the 1998
requirements
Assumptions:
Number of USTs reported as
equipped to comply: 520,666 (as of September 30, 1999)
Registered UST systems: 760,500 (as of September 30, 1999)
Calculation of the percent of USTs reported as equipped to comply with the 1998
requirements:
[(520,666 tanks)/(760,500 tanks)] x (100%) = 68%
Calculation of the percent of USTs not reported as equipped to comply with the 1998
requirements:
(100%)-(68%) = 32%
Note: All unregistered UST systems would need to be inspected because their status for
equipped to comply with the 1998 requirements is not known.
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 51
-------
2.4.2 Conducting an annual inspection on USTs not reported as equipped to comply with
the 1998 requirements
2.4.2.1 Inspecting registered USTs not reported as equipped to comply with the 1998
requirements - annual
Assumptions:
Registered UST systems:
Number of UST systems/facility:
Inspections per year per inspector:
Current inspectors:
Percent of tanks not in compliance at a
non-compliant facility:
Percent of states that cannot inspect
32% of USTs annually:
Percent of total inspectors in the 70% of
states that cannot inspect 32% of
USTs annually:
Annual inspector cost:
Training cost:
Time needed to train an inspector:
760,500 (as of September 30, 1999)
2.65
200
465 (see calculation 2.1.1)
85%
70%
50%
$70,000/year - includes salary, travel costs,
benefits, managerial and secretarial support,
and inspector equipment
$1,000
1 month
Calculation of the number of tanks not reported as equipped to comply with the 1998
requirements in states that cannot inspect 32% of USTs annually:
(0.32) x (0.70) x (760,500 tanks) = 170,352 tanks
Calculation of the number of facilities not reported as equipped to comply with the 1998
requirements (This calculation includes a correction for those compliant tanks at a non-
compliant facility. The result of the correction is that more than 32% of facilities need to
be inspected.):
[(170,352 tanks)/(0.85)]/(2.65 tanks/facility) = 75,627 facilities
Calculation of the number of existing inspectors in states that cannot inspect 32% of UST
systems annually:
(465 inspectors) x (0.50) = 233 inspectors
Calculation of the number of inspectors needed:
(75,627 facilities)/(200 facilities/inspector) = 378 inspectors needed
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program
Page 52
-------
Calculation of additional inspectors that would be needed:
(378) - (233) = 145 additional inspectors
Calculation of the annual cost to pay additional inspectors:
(145 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector) = $10.2 million
Calculation of the cost to train inspectors:
[(145 inspectors) x ($l,000/inspector)] +
[(145 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector)/(12 months)] = $0.99 million
Calculation of the total additional cost to inspect registered USTs in one year that are not
equipped to comply with the 1998 requirements:
($10.2 million) + ($0.99 million) = $11.19 million
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $11.19 million to $11
million.
2.4.2.2 Inspecting active unregistered USTs not reported as equipped to comply with the
1998 requirements - annual
Assumptions:
Registered UST systems: 760,500 (as of September 30, 1999)
Number of UST systems/facility: 2.65
Inspections per year per inspector: 200
Percent of states that cannot inspect all
unregistered facilities with existing
inspectors: 80%
Percent of active unregistered USTs: 5% of registered USTs
Annual inspector cost: $70,000/year - includes salary, travel costs,
benefits, managerial and secretarial support,
and inspector equipment
Training cost: $1,000
Time needed to train an inspector: 1 month
Calculation of the number of active unregistered USTs:
(0.05) x (760,500) = 38,025 USTs
Calculation of the number of active unregistered facilities:
(38,025 USTs)/2.65 USTs/facility) = 14,350 facilities
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 53
-------
Calculation of the number of active unregistered facilities that cannot be inspected by
existing inspectors:
(14,350 facilities) x (0.8) = 11,480 facilities
Calculation of the number of additional inspectors needed to inspect active unregistered
facilities:
(11,480 facilities)/(200 facilities/inspector) = 57 additional inspectors
Calculation of the annual cost to pay additional inspectors:
(57 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector) = $3.99 million
Calculation of the cost to train additional inspectors:
[(57 inspectors) x ($l,000/inspector)] +
[(57 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector)/(12 months)] = $0.39 million
Calculation of the total additional cost to inspect active unregistered USTs in one year that
are not equipped to comply with the 1998 requirements:
($3.99 million) + ($0.39 million) = $4.38 million
2.4.2.3 Inspecting abandoned unregistered USTs not reported as equipped to comply with
the 1998 requirements - annual
Assumptions:
Registered UST systems: 760,500 (as of September 30, 1999)
Number of UST systems/facility: 2.65
Inspections per year per inspector: 200
Percent of states that cannot inspect all
unregistered facilities with existing
inspectors: 80%
Percent of abandoned unregistered
USTs discovered: 10% of registered USTs
Annual inspector cost: $70,000/year - includes salary, travel costs,
benefits, managerial and secretarial support,
and inspector equipment
Training cost: $1,000
Time needed to train an inspector: 1 month
Calculation of the number of abandoned unregistered USTs discovered:
(0.1) x (760,500) = 76,050 USTs
Calculation of the number of abandoned unregistered facilities:
(76,050 USTs)/2.65 USTs/facility) = 28,700 facilities
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 54
-------
Calculation of the number of abandoned unregistered facilities that cannot be inspected by
existing inspectors:
(28,700 facilities) x (0.8) = 22,960 facilities
Calculation of the number of additional inspectors needed to inspect abandoned
unregistered facilities:
(22,960 facilities)/(200 facilities/inspector) =115 additional inspectors
Calculation of the annual cost to pay additional inspectors:
(115 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector) = $8.05 million
Calculation of the cost to train additional inspectors:
[(115 inspectors) x ($l,000/inspector)] +
[(115 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector)/(12 months)] = $0.79 million
Calculation of the total additional cost to inspect abandoned unregistered USTs in one
year that are not equipped to comply with the 1998 requirements:
($8.05 million) + ($0.79 million) = $8.84 million
2.4.2.4 Total annual costs (includes the $5 million cost to do visual surveys and determine land
ownership (see calculation 1) and initial inspector training costs)
($11.19 million) + ($4.38 million) + ($8.84 million) + ($5 million) = $29.4 million
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $29.4 million to $30
million.
Note: If only registered USTs not reported as equipped to comply with the 1998
requirements were inspected in one year, the cost would be about $11 million.
2.4.3 Conducting a two year inspection on USTs not reported as equipped to comply with
the 1998 requirements
2.4.3.1 Inspecting registered USTs not reported as equipped to comply with the 1998
requirements - two year
Assumptions:
Registered UST systems: 760,500 (as of September 30, 1999)
Number of UST systems/facility: 2.65
Inspections per year per inspector: 200
Current inspectors: 465 (see calculation 2.1.1)
Percent of tanks not in compliance at a
non-compliant facility: 85%
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 55
-------
Percent of states that cannot inspect
32% of USTs every two years: 30%
Percent of total inspectors in the 30% of
states that cannot inspect 32% of
USTs every two years: 12%
Annual inspector cost: $70,000/year - includes salary, travel costs,
benefits, managerial and secretarial support,
and inspector equipment
Training cost: $1,000
Time needed to train an inspector: 1 month
Calculation of the number of tanks not reported as equipped to comply with the 1998
requirements in states that cannot inspect 32% of USTs every two years:
(0.32) x (0.30) x (760,500 tanks) = 73,008 tanks
Calculation of the number of facilities not reported as equipped to comply with the 1998
requirements (This calculation includes a correction for those compliant tanks at a non-
compliant facility. The result of the correction is that more than 32% of facilities need to
be inspected.):
[(73,008 tanks)/(0.85)]/(2.65 tanks/facility) = 32,412 facilities
Calculation of the number of existing inspectors in states that cannot inspect 32% of UST
systems every two years:
(465 inspectors) x (0.12) = 56 inspectors
Calculation of the number of inspectors needed over two years:
(32,412 facilities)/(200 facilities/inspector) = 162 inspectors needed
Calculation of additional inspectors that would be needed:
[(162 inspectors)/(2 years)] - (56 existing inspectors) = 25 additional inspectors
Calculation of the annual cost to pay additional inspectors:
(25 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector) = $1.75 million
Calculation of the cost to train inspectors:
[(25 inspectors) x ($l,000/inspector)] +
[(25 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector)/(12 months)] = $0.17 million
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 56
-------
Calculation of the total additional cost to inspect registered USTs in two years that are not
equipped to comply with the 1998 requirements:
First year: ($1.75 million) + ($0.17 million) = $1.92 million
Second year: $1.75 million
Total cost over two years: ($1.92 million) + ($1.75 million) = $3.67 million
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $3.67 million to $4
million.
2.4.3.2 Inspecting active unregistered USTs not reported as equipped to comply with the
1998 requirements - two years
Assumptions:
Registered UST systems: 760,500 (as of September 30, 1999)
Number of UST systems/facility: 2.65
Inspections per year per inspector: 200
Percent of states that cannot inspect all
unregistered facilities with existing
inspectors: 43%
Percent of active unregistered USTs: 5% of registered USTs
Annual inspector cost: $70,000/year - includes salary, travel costs,
benefits, managerial and secretarial support,
and inspector equipment
Training cost: $1,000
Time needed to train an inspector: 1 month
Calculation of the number of active unregistered USTs:
(0.05) x (760,500) = 38,025 USTs
Calculation of the number of active unregistered facilities:
(38,025 USTs)/2.65 USTs/facility) = 14,350 facilities
Calculation of the number of active unregistered facilities that cannot be inspected by
existing inspectors:
(14,350 facilities) x (0.43) = 6,170 facilities
Calculation of the number of additional inspectors needed to inspect active unregistered
facilities:
[(6,170 facilities)/(200 facilities/inspector)]/(2 years) =15 additional inspectors
Calculation of the annual cost to pay additional inspectors:
(15 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector) = $1.05 million
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 57
-------
Calculation of the cost to train additional inspectors:
[(15 inspectors) x ($l,000/inspector)] +
[(15 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector)/(12 months)] = $0.1 million
Calculation of the total additional cost to inspect active unregistered USTs in two years
that are not equipped to comply with the 1998 requirements:
First year: ($1.05 million) + ($0.1 million) = $1.15 million
Second year: $1.05 million
Total cost over two years: ($1.15 million) + ($1.05 million) = $2.2 million
2.4.3.3 Inspecting abandoned unregistered USTs not reported as equipped to comply with
the 1998 requirements - two years
Assumptions:
Registered UST systems: 760,500 (as of September 30, 1999)
Number of UST systems/facility: 2.65
Inspections per year per inspector: 200
Percent of states that cannot inspect all
unregistered facilities with existing
inspectors: 43%
Percent of abandoned unregistered
USTs discovered: 10% of registered USTs
Annual inspector cost: $70,000/year - includes salary, travel costs,
benefits, managerial and secretarial support,
and inspector equipment
Training cost: $1,000
Time needed to train an inspector: 1 month
Calculation of the number of abandoned unregistered USTs discovered:
(0.1) x (760,500) = 76,050 USTs
Calculation of the number of abandoned unregistered facilities:
(76,050 USTs)/2.65 USTs/facility) = 28,700 facilities
Calculation of the number of abandoned unregistered facilities that cannot be inspected by
existing inspectors:
(28,700 facilities) x (0.43) = 12,341 facilities
Calculation of the number of additional inspectors needed to inspect abandoned
unregistered facilities:
[(12,341 facilities)/(200 facilities/inspector)]/(2 years) = 31 additional inspectors
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 58
-------
Calculation of the annual cost to pay additional inspectors:
(31 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector) = $2.2 million
Calculation of the cost to train additional inspectors:
[(31 inspectors) x ($l,000/inspector)] +
[(31 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector)/(12 months)] = $0.21 million
Calculation of the total additional cost to inspect abandoned unregistered USTs in two
years that are not equipped to comply with the 1998 requirements:
First year: ($2.2 million) + ($0.21 million) = $2.41 million
Second year: $2.2 million
Total cost over two years: ($2.41 million) + ($2.2 million) = $4.61 million
2.4.3.4 Total two year costs
Calculation for year 1 (includes the $5 million cost to do visual surveys and determine land
ownership (see calculation 1) and initial inspector training costs):
($1.92 million) + ($1.15 million) + ($2.41 million) + ($5 million) = $10.5 million
Calculation for year 2:
($1.75 million) + ($1.05 million) + ($2.2 million) = $5 million for the second year
Calculation of the total 2 year cost:
($10.5 million) + ($5 million) = $15.5 million over two years
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $15.5 million to $15
million.
Note: If only registered USTs not reported as equipped to comply with the 1998
requirements were inspected in two years, the cost would be about $4 million over two
years.
2.4.4 Conducting a three year inspection on USTs not reported as equipped to comply with
the 1998 requirements
2.4.4.1 Inspecting registered USTs not reported as equipped to comply with the 1998
requirements - three years
Assumptions:
Registered UST systems: 760,500 (as of September 30, 1999)
Number of UST systems/facility: 2.65
Inspections per year per inspector: 200
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 59
-------
Current inspectors: 465 (see calculation 2.1.1)
Percent of tanks not in compliance at a
non-compliant facility: 85%
Percent of states that cannot inspect
32% of USTs every three years: 10%
Percent of total inspectors in the 10% of
states that cannot inspect 32% of
USTs every three years: 2%
Annual inspector cost: $70,000/year - includes salary, travel costs,
benefits, managerial and secretarial support,
and inspector equipment
Training cost: $1,000
Time needed to train an inspector: 1 month
Calculation of the number of tanks not reported as equipped to comply with the 1998
requirements in states that cannot inspect 32% of USTs every three years:
(0.32) x (0.10) x (760,500 tanks) = 24,336 tanks
Calculation of the number of facilities not reported as equipped to comply with the 1998
requirements (This calculation includes a correction for those compliant tanks at a non-
compliant facility. The result of the correction is that more than 32% of facilities need to
be inspected.):
[(24,336 tanks)/(0.85)]/(2.65 tanks/facility) = 10,803 facilities
Calculation of the number of existing inspectors in states that cannot inspect 32% of UST
systems every three years:
(465 inspectors) x (0.02) = 9 inspectors
Calculation of the number of inspectors needed over three years:
(10,803 facilities)/(200 facilities/inspector) = 54 inspectors needed
Calculation of additional inspectors that would be needed:
[(54 inspectors)/(3 years)] - (9 existing inspectors) = 9 additional inspectors
Calculation of the annual cost to pay additional inspectors:
(9 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector) = $0.63 million
Calculation of the cost to train inspectors:
[(9 inspectors) x ($l,000/inspector)] +
[(9 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector)/(12 months)] = $0.062 million
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 60
-------
Calculation of the total additional cost to inspect registered USTs in three years that are
not equipped to comply with the 1998 requirements:
First year: ($0.63 million) + ($0.062 million) = $0.692 million
Second and third years: $0.63 million
Total cost over three years: ($0.692 million) + (2 x $0.63 million) = $1.95
million
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $1.95 million to $2
million.
2.4.4.2 Inspecting active unregistered USTs not reported as equipped to comply with the
1998 requirements - three years
Assumptions:
Registered UST systems: 760,500 (as of September 30, 1999)
Number of UST systems/facility: 2.65
Inspections per year per inspector: 200
Percent of states that cannot inspect all
unregistered facilities with existing
inspectors: 16%
Percent of active unregistered USTs: 5% of registered USTs
Annual inspector cost: $70,000/year - includes salary, travel costs,
benefits, managerial and secretarial support,
and inspector equipment
Training cost: $1,000
Time needed to train an inspector: 1 month
Calculation of the number of active unregistered USTs:
(0.05) x (760,500) = 38,025 USTs
Calculation of the number of active unregistered facilities:
(38,025 USTs)/2.65 USTs/facility) = 14,350 facilities
Calculation of the number of active unregistered facilities that cannot be inspected by
existing inspectors:
(14,350 facilities) x (0.16) = 2,296 facilities
Calculation of the number of additional inspectors needed to inspect active unregistered
facilities:
[(2,296 facilities)/(200 facilities/inspector)]/(3 years) = 4 additional inspectors
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 61
-------
Calculation of the annual cost to pay additional inspectors:
(4 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector) = $0.28 million
Calculation of the cost to train additional inspectors:
[(4 inspectors) x ($l,000/inspector)] +
[(4 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector)/(12 months)] = $0.027 million
Calculation of the total additional cost to inspect active unregistered USTs in three years
that are not equipped to comply with the 1998 requirements:
First year: ($0.28 million) + ($0.027 million) = $0.307 million
Second and third years: $0.28 million
Total cost over three years: ($0.307 million) + (2 x $0.28 million) = $0.867
million
2.4.4.3 Inspecting abandoned unregistered USTs not reported as equipped to comply with
the 1998 requirements - three years
Assumptions:
Registered UST systems: 760,500 (as of September 30, 1999)
Number of UST systems/facility: 2.65
Inspections per year per inspector: 200
Percent of states that cannot inspect all
unregistered facilities with existing
inspectors: 16%
Percent of abandoned unregistered
USTs discovered: 10% of registered USTs
Annual inspector cost: $70,000/year - includes salary, travel costs,
benefits, managerial and secretarial support,
and inspector equipment
Training cost: $1,000
Time needed to train an inspector: 1 month
Calculation of the number of abandoned unregistered USTs discovered:
(0.1) x (760,500) = 76,050 USTs
Calculation of the number of abandoned unregistered facilities:
(76,050 USTs)/2.65 USTs/facility) = 28,700 facilities
Calculation of the number of abandoned unregistered facilities that cannot be inspected by
existing inspectors:
(28,700 facilities) x (0.16) = 4,592 facilities
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 62
-------
Calculation of the number of additional inspectors needed to inspect abandoned
unregistered facilities:
[(4,592 facilities)/(200 facilities/inspector)]/(3 years) = 8 additional inspectors
Calculation of the annual cost to pay additional inspectors:
(8 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector) = $0.56 million
Calculation of the cost to train additional inspectors:
[(8 inspectors) x ($l,000/inspector)] +
[(8 inspectors) x ($70,000/inspector)/(12 months)] = $0.055 million
Calculation of the total additional cost to inspect abandoned unregistered USTs in three
years that are not equipped to comply with the 1998 requirements:
First year: ($0.56 million) + ($0.055 million) = $0.615 million
Second and third years: $0.56 million
Total cost over three years: ($0.615 million) + (2) x ($0.56 million) = $1.735
million
2.4.4.4 Total three year costs
Calculation for year 1 (includes the $5 million cost to do visual surveys and determine land
ownership (see calculation 1) and initial inspector training costs):
($0.692 million) + ($0.307 million) + ($0.615 million) + ($5 million) = $6.6 million
Calculation for years 2 and 3:
($0.63 million) + ($0.28 million) + ($0.56 million) = $1.47 million each year
Calculation of the total 3 year cost:
($6.6 million) + ($1.47 million) + ($1.47 million) = $9.54 million over three years
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $9.54 million to $10
million.
Note: If only registered USTs not reported as equipped to comply with the 1998
requirements were inspected in three years, the cost would be about $2 million over three
years.
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 63
-------
Calculation 3 - Costs to Conduct a Site Assessment and Clean Up Contaminated Sites for
Abandoned Unregistered USTs
3.1 Cost to conduct a site assessment of unregistered orphaned USTs with a suspected
release
Assumptions:
Number of found abandoned
unregistered USTs: 76,050 (see calculation 2.1.2)
Number of UST systems/facility: 2.65
Percent of abandoned unregistered
USTs which are orphaned: 50%
Percent of UST sites where a release is
suspected: 90%
Cost to perform an expedited site
assessment: $5,000
Calculation of the number of found abandoned unregistered USTs which are orphaned:
(76,050 USTs) x (0.5) = 38,025 unregistered orphaned USTs
Calculation of the number of unregistered orphaned UST sites:
(38,025 orphaned USTs)/(2.65 orphaned USTs/site) = 14,349 unregistered
orphaned sites
Calculation of the number of unregistered orphaned sites with a suspected release:
(14,349 orphaned sites) x (0.9) = 12,914 unregistered orphaned sites with a
suspected release
Calculation of the expedited site assessment costs associated with 12,914 unregistered
orphaned sites with a suspected release:
(12,914 sites) x ($5,000/site) = $64.6 million
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $64.6 million to $65
million.
3.2 Cost to conduct cleanups of unregistered orphaned USTs with a release
Assumptions:
Number of unregistered orphaned UST
sites with a suspected release: 12,914 (see calculation 3.1)
Percent of unregistered orphaned UST sites
where a site assessment shows a release
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 64
-------
occurred and a cleanup is needed: 75%
Cost of corrective action: $40,000
Calculation of the number of unregistered orphaned sites with releases where corrective
action is needed:
(12,914 sites) x (0.75) = 9,686 sites where cleanup is needed
Calculation of the cost of conducting cleanup at 9,686 unregistered orphaned sites:
(9,686 orphaned sites) x ($40,000/site) = $387.4 million
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $387.4 million to $385
million.
3.3 Total cost of site assessments and cleanups of unregistered orphaned USTs
Calculation of total cost as a result of site assessment and cleanup:
($64.6 million) + ($387.4 million) = $452 million
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $452 million to $450
million.
Calculation 4 - Costs to Conduct a Site Assessment and Clean Up Contaminated Sites for
Abandoned Registered USTs
4.1 Cost to conduct a site assessment of registered orphaned USTs with a suspected release
Assumptions:
Registered UST systems: 760,500 (as of September 30, 1999)
Number of UST systems/facility: 2.65
Percent of abandoned registered USTs: 5%
Percent of abandoned registered USTs
that are orphaned: 50%
Percent of registered orphaned USTs
suspected to have a release: 90%
Cost to perform a site assessment: $5,000
Calculation of the number of abandoned registered USTs:
(760,500 USTs) x (0.05) = 38,025 abandoned registered USTs
Calculation of the number of abandoned registered USTs which are orphaned:
(38,025 USTs) x (0.5) =19,013 registered orphaned USTs
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 65
-------
Calculation of the number of registered orphaned UST sites:
(19,013 orphaned USTs)/(2.65 orphaned USTs/site) = 7,174 registered
orphaned sites
Calculation of the number of registered orphaned sites with a suspected release:
(7,174 orphaned sites) x (0.9) = 6,457 registered orphaned sites with a suspected
release
Calculation of the site assessment costs associated with 6,457 registered orphaned sites
with a suspected release:
(6,457 sites) x ($5,000/site) = $32.3 million
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $32.3 million to $30
million.
4.2 Cost to conduct cleanups of registered orphaned USTs with a release
Assumptions:
Number of registered orphaned UST
sites with a suspected release: 6,457 (see calculation 4.1)
Percent of registered orphaned UST sites
where a site assessment shows a release
occurred and a cleanup is needed: 75%
Cost of corrective action: $40,000
Calculation of the number of registered orphaned sites with releases where corrective
action is needed:
(6,457 sites) x (0.75) = 4,843 registered orphaned sites where cleanup is needed
Calculation of the cost of conducting cleanup at 4,843 registered orphaned sites:
(4,843 registered orphaned sites) x ($40,000/site) = $193.7 million
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $193.7 million to $195
million.
4.3 Total cost of site assessments and cleanups of registered orphaned USTs
Calculation of total cost as a result of site assessment and cleanup:
($32.3 million) + ($193.7 million) = $226 million
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $226 million to $225
million.
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 66
-------
Calculation 5 - Costs to Close All (Registered and Unregistered) Orphaned USTs When
There is No Release
Assumptions:
Cost to permanently close an UST: $5,000
Number of registered orphaned USTs: 19,013 (see calculation 4.1)
Number of unregistered orphaned USTs: 38,025 (see calculation 3.1)
Percent of orphaned sites that do not
have releases: 25%
Calculation of the total number of registered and unregistered orphaned USTs:
(19,013 registered) + (38,025 unregistered) = 57,038 total orphaned USTs
Calculation of the total number of orphaned USTs without a release:
(57,038 orphaned USTs) x (0.25) = 14,260 total orphaned USTs without a release
Calculation of the cost to close all orphaned USTs without a release:
(14,260 USTs) x ($5,000/UST) = $71.3 million
For purposes of this compliance plan, EPA rounded the estimate of $71.3 million to $70
million.
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 67
-------
Appendix B
Third-Party Inspection Programs
in the Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program
The concept of allowing private sector entities ("third-party service providers") to perform
some government functions is being implemented in a few state UST programs and considered by
others. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), and the Montana Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) all require owners or operators of USTs whose facilities are due
for inspection to hire private, state-certified UST inspectors to perform the required inspections at
their facilities. Pennsylvania initiated its program in 1994; Alaska and Montana are implementing
their programs, which are scheduled to begin in June 2000.
Certified UST inspectors in these states must meet minimum qualifications that include
education and/or experience and, in Pennsylvania's case, also passing a written test. Certified
inspectors must adhere to standards of performance once certified. All three state programs have
the authority to suspend or revoke inspector certification. PADEP currently has 154 certified
facility inspectors; ADEC, which has just begun its certification process, has five inspectors
certified and is training more. MDEQ is just beginning to train potential inspectors.
In both Pennsylvania and Alaska, facilities identified for inspection are notified that an
inspection is due and provided a list of certified inspectors. In both states, it is the owner's
responsibility to set up and pay for the inspection. The inspector has 60 days in Pennsylvania and
120 days in Alaska to complete the inspection report. During that period, the inspector may
provide technical assistance to the facility owner/operator and often provides needed services or
tank handling work at the facility to help it come into compliance. In Pennsylvania, the cost of
inspections can be $100 per tank, and PADEP has heard that an average facility inspection costs
about $250. (Market forces set the price. PADEP does not ask inspectors what they charge or
publish rates, but it encourages tank owners to shop for the best price.)
After the inspection, the PADEP and ADEC programs operate in different manners. In
Pennsylvania, the inspection process is completed when the private inspector returns the
completed inspection form to PADEP and PADEP determines that the facility is in compliance.
In Alaska, each tank that passes inspection will be issued a metal tag by the state; the tag is to be
displayed in a prominent place near the tank and it permits fuel to be delivered to that tank. USTs
that fail an inspection cannot get a tag or receive fuel. MDEQ is mandated by its legislature to
inspect every regulated facility by January, 2002; after that, inspections will be conducted on a
three year cycle. In Montana, only tanks that pass inspection, as determined by MDEQ, will
receive operating permits.
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 68
-------
Appendix C
USTfields: Cleaning Up and Reusing Leaking UST Sites
The term and concept of "USTfields" are both offshoots of the Brownfields effort begun
and developed during the 1990s. "Brownfields" are abandoned or underused properties where
redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived contamination. Reclaiming these properties
makes the land productive again and helps to spur private and public sector investment in housing,
job-producing businesses, and open space that can help communities improve their
neighborhoods. Local leaders use this redevelopment as a way to improve and sustain their
economies by recycling land instead of developing pristine land. The obstacles in cleaning up
these sites, such as regulatory barriers, lack of private investment, and contamination and
remediation issues, can and are being addressed through a wide range of programs, ideas, and
methods. "USTfields" is a subset within the Brownfields definition and applies particularly to
abandoned or underused industrial and commercial properties where redevelopment is
complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination from federally-regulated USTs.
(Please note that petroleum sites are excluded from coverage under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and are not, therefore, covered under
the Brownfields program.)
There are many lessons from the Brownfields work that could and should be applied to the
numerous (and often smaller and more rural) USTfields sites. For instance, the successful cleanup
and redevelopment of Brownfields sites involves, by necessity, a wide range of interests,
resources, and stakeholders. Concerned state and local governments and citizens get involved.
The private sector gets involved for a variety of reasons: the need to cleanup and transfer a
property, the otherwise desirable location of a blighted property, tax advantages, or economic
opportunity. For all parties to work effectively together, public-private partnerships are forged
and exploited to foster progress toward the common goal of revitalizing unused properties.
Brownfields has also taken a very broad and inclusive approach to dealing with the
problems of reinvigorating contaminated sites. For instance, barriers (i.e., any barrier) to the
cleanup and redevelopment of abandoned properties are identified and ways to overcome the
barriers are developed. An example of this type of effort is what OUST did in 1994 when it
promulgated the lender liability rule in an effort to encourage lenders to provide loans to UST
owners for upgrading, replacing, or closing USTs. EPA promulgated this rule to facilitate lending
to UST owners and operators by clarifying when a lender may be exempt from UST liability, a big
concern of several potential but reluctant lenders. And beyond overcoming barriers, Brownfields
also focuses on incentives to promote cleanup and redevelopment, such as local tax incentives.
By simultaneously smoothing the path to cleanup and redevelopment and adding "sweeteners" on
top of that, officials, businesses, and communities try to bring abandoned and contaminated
properties back to productive life. These same approaches - public and private
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 69
-------
sector involvement, partnerships, defining and overcoming barriers - are very applicable to
USTfields sites. A few states are already venturing into the USTfields arena and are using these
approaches to successfully deal with abandoned sites.
Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program Page 70
------- |