Underground Storage Tanks: Building State Compliance Programs (UST #79)


UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS:
  Building State Compliance Programs
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      Office of Underground Storage Tanks
              August 1988

-------

-------
                         ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

   The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST)
wishes to acknowledge and express its appreciation to the many State and local program representatives
who gave their time to initial interviews, review of the State and local reports, follow-up requests for
information and materials, and review of the Handbook.  Their responsiveness made the special
features of the Handbook, such as the User's Guide, possible.
   OUST also wishes to thank the EPA Regional UST staff and the OUST Review Group who gave
generously of their time to provide their comments and support to make this a better Handbook. OUST
Review Group members included: Josh Baylson, Helga Butler, Garrette Clark, Claudia Goforth, Joe
Retzer, Tom Schruben, Office of Underground Storage Tanks; Carrie Wehling, Office of General
Counsel; Tim Kasten, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement; Barbara McGuiness, Office of Solid
Waste; and Lee Braem,Cheryl Wasserman, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring.

   Special thanks to the "enforcement team" at ICF Incorporated (Richard Mays, Walter Gawlak,
Barry Nestor, Jennie DeVeaux, Chris Warshaw, and Wendy Roberts) who collected the data for this
report and reworked the various drafts until we had a product that will really help the States develop and
improve their UST compliance programs.  Finally, thanks to Kate Becker of ICF Incorporated whose
editorial skills provided, the professional polish for the Handbook.
                                                               Karen Reed
                                                               EPA Project Manager
                                                               August 1988

-------

-------
                                  DISCLAIMER

   This report was prepared under contract to an agency of the United States Government. Neither
the United States Government nor any of its empioyees.contractors, subcontractors, or their employees
makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third
party's use of or the results of such use of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in
this report, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe on privately owned rights.

-------

-------
                               TABLE  OF CONTENTS
Chapter Title                                                                 Page
      I.   HOW THIS HANDBOOK CAN HELP YOU	1
          How the Information was Gathered	1
          How to Use this Handbook	1
      II.   COMPONENTS OF UST COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS	3
          Developing and Implementing Statutory Authority	3
              Developing and Using Specific UST Statutes	3
              Using Other Environmental Authorities	3
                 Hazardous Waste Authority	3
                 Oil or Water Pollution Control Authorities	4
                 Hazardous Substance Authority  	4
                 Other State and Local Authorities	4
          Identifying the UST Population	5
              Requiring Tank Registration and Permits  	5
              Relying on Government Lists	5
              Conducting Inspections  	6
              Working with Distributors  	6
              Using Other Sources of Information	6
          Educating the Regulated Community	8
          Identifying Violators	 10
              Requiring Owners and Operators to Submit Data	 10
              Supplementing Installation and Closure Notification Data	 11
              Expanding Tank Release Report Requirements	13
              Requiring Operating Permits  	 13
              Certifying UST Installers and Testers	,	14
              Conducting On-Site Inspections	14
                 Follow-up Inspections	 15
                 Targeted Inspections	 15
                 Alternative Means of Inspection  	 16
          Taking Enforcement Actions	 16
              Encouraging Voluntary Compliance	 17
                 Informal Notifications of Violations	 17
                 Permit Leveraging	18
                 Funding Incentives	18
                 Negotiated Cleanup Settlements 	20
              Taking Formal Enforcement Actions	 20
                 Expedited Enforcement Procedures	20
                 Traditional Formal Enforcement  	25
                 Cost Recovery	26
                 Penalty Determination	26
           Delegating Program Responsibilities to Counties/Cities  	26
              Delegation in California	26
              Delegation in New Mexico	27

-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont)

Chapter  Title                                                               Page
     III.   MEASURING PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS	 28
          Measuring Program Actions 	28
          Measuring the Behavior of the Regulated Community  	29
     IV.   SUMMARIES OF UST COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS IN SEVEN STATES  	30
          California 	30
          Maryland 	31
          Massachusetts	32
          Minnesota	32
          New Mexico	33
          Rhode Island 	34
          Texas 	35
     V.   USER'S GUIDE TO SELECTED COMPLIANCE TECHNIQUES	38
          Statutory Authority	39
          UST Inventory	41
                 Tank Registration and Tagging	41
          Compliance Outreach	43
          Violator Identification	46
                 Data Base/Information Management  	46
                 UST Permitting Program	 51
                 Installer Certification Program	65
                 Audit Inspection Form	 75
                 Petroleum Tank Release Investigation Report	85
          Enforcement Response	90
                 LUST Priority Rating Scheme 	90
                 Expedited Enforcement Procedures	94
                    On-Site Warning Notice	96
                    Site Complaint	96
                     Field Citation	97
                    Short-Form Notice of Violation	98
                  Pump Tagging 	122-
                  UST Prosecution Summary	 126
                  Penalty Matrix	138
          Program Delegation	147
                  Memorandum of Understanding 	». 147
          APPENDIX : LIST OF INTERVIEWEES	A-1

-------
                                   LIST OF EXHIBITS
Chapter  Title                                                                  Page
   11-1     Iowa Department of Natural Resources
          UST Registration Tag  	7
   II-2    Maryland Department of Natural Resources
          Public Notice Flier	9
   II-3    Contra Costa County, California
          Tank Status Data Base Menu	 12
   II-4    Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
          Petroleum Tank Release Investigation Report  	19
   II-5    State Loan or Grant Funds	  21
   II-6    Province of Ontario (Canada)
          Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Protection
          Offense Notice  	23
   II-7    Maryland Department of Environment
          Site Complaint	24
   IV-1    Summary Matrix	36
   V-1    Resources on Statutory Authority	:	40
   V-2    Iowa Department of Natural Resources
          UST Registration Tag  	42
   V-3    Maryland Department of Natural Resources
          Public Notice Flier	44
   V-4    Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
          News Release on Enforcement Actions 	45
   V-5    Contra Costa County (California)
          Tank Information File	47
   V-6    Contra Costa County (California)
          Site Information File	48
   V-7    Contra Costa County (California)
          Tank Status File	50
   V-8    San Mateo County (California) Department of Health Services
          Registration Notification Letter	52
   V-9    San Mateo County (California) Department of Health Services
          Underground Storage Tank Permit Application	54
 ,  V-10   San Mateo County (California) Department of Health Services
          Interim Permit	56
   V-11   San Mateo County (California) Department of Health Services
          Certificate of Completion of Initial Inspection	59
   V-12   San Mateo County (California) Department of Health Services
          List of Precision Tank Testing Services	;	60
   V-13   San Mateo County (California) Department of Health Services
          Five-Year UST Permit	62
   V-14   San Mateo County (California) Department of Health Services
          Routine/Annual Inspection Report Form 	63
   V-15   San Mateo County(California) Department of Health Services
          Quarterly Inventory Reconciliation Report	64
   V-16   Maine Department of Environmental Protection
          Application for UST Installer Certification	66

-------
                              LIST OF EXHIBITS  (cont)
Chapter Title                                                                Page
   V-17   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
          Sample Audit Check List for USTs	76
   V-18   Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
          Petroleum Tank Release Investigation Report (Overview)	86
   V-19   Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
          Petroleum Tank Release Investigation Report (Part I)  	87
   V-20   Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
          Petroleum Tank Release Investigation Report (Part II)  	88
   V-21   Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
          Petroleum Tank Release Investigation Report (Part III)	89
   V-22   New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division
          LUST Priority Rating Scheme	91
   V-23   Sample On-Site Warning Notice	100
   V-24   Sample Site Complaint	102
   V-25   Sample Field Citation	104
   V-26   Sample Warning Field Citation	107
   V-27   Washington D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
          Compliance Outreach Pamphlet 	110
   V-28   Sample Notice of Violation	113
   V-29   Modified Notice of Violation	115
   V-30   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Mobile Sources
          Field Citation	117
   V-31   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Mobile Sources
          Notice of Violation	119
   V-32   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Mobile Sources
          Compliance Agreement 	121
   V-33   Austin (Texas) Environmental  Office
          Cease-and-Desist Order	123
   V-34   Austin (Texas) Environmental  Office
          Red Tag - Stop All Work	125
   V-35   San Mateo County (California)
          UST Prosecution Summary	'	 127
   V-36   New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division
          UST Penalty Assessment Policy 	139
   V-37   New Mexico Health and Environment Department
          MOU with the City of Albuquerque	148

-------
PAGE 1
CHAPTER L
HOW THIS HANDBOOK CAN HELP YOU
This Handbook was developed for State and
local officials who are building or improving their
underground storage tank (UST) compliance
programs. Compliance programs are considered
to include compliance monitoring activities,
enforcement actions, and outreach. The
Handbook provides some useful information on
every aspect of these programs and points out
sources where you might go for additional help or
information. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Regional staff might also use this
Handbook to help States and localities develop or
upgrade their programs.

Developing an effective UST compliance
program can be a difficult and complex task. To
begin with, the regulated community is large and
diverse, and it includes many small, independent
businesses with limited financial resources. In
addition, the compliance monitoring efforts must
cover a wide array of regulations that address the
life cycle of a tank, from installation to closure.
Finally, State and local programs will probably
have limited resources for monitoring the
compliance status of this diverse regulated
community and enforcing against violations.

In view of these difficulties, EPA's role is to
assist you in developing your State or local
program. One way is to share information about
procedures and techniques currently being used,
so that other compliance programs can benefit
from that real world experience and function more
effectively and efficiently.

HOW THE INFORMATION WAS
GATHERED
This Handbook presents an analysis of
information collected from seven States with
existing UST programs, as well as information
obtained through reports or other sources on State
and Federal enforcement activities. The States
reviewed were: California, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Rhode
Island, and Texas. These States were selected
because of the level of their UST program
development, their legislative background,
involvement of local government, geographic
diversity, and dependence on ground water for
drinking water.

Information was obtained during on-site
interviews with UST program officials in each
State, county, or city. A protocol was developed to
provide a framework for the discussion. This
protocol included a series of questions on the
following aspects of each State's or locality's UST
program:

O Program background and legal authorization,
O Organization and staffing,
O Funding and budget,
O Compliance outreach efforts,
O Compliance monitoring and inspections,
O Enforcement response actions, and
O Future plans.

The information obtained during the
interviews was summarized in separate reports on
each State; these summary reports were then
reviewed for accuracy by the officials interviewed.
The final reports are available in a separate
document. A list of the UST personnel interviewed
is included in this Handbook as an appendix.

HOW TO USE THIS HANDBOOK
This Handbook is intended for use -as a
reference guide for UST compliance programs.
These compliance programs may involve any
activity, that leads to compliance with UST
regulations. Such activities include, but are not
limited to:

O Identifying the regulated community,
O Promoting compliance through outreach,

-------
 PAGE 2
 O Collecting  and  reviewing  data  on  UST
    systems, and
 O Bringing violators  into compliance through
    formal and informal enforcement actions.
   This  Handbook contains  a  collection of
examples and suggestions, not all of which will be
applicable or appropriate for your program.  The
procedures and programs presented are not meant
as an ideal; rather they  are examples  of programs
that  appear  to be working.   In addition, the
information is by no means exhaustive, and we
hope to  update  this Handbook   with  your
experiences and suggestions.
   Because not all the material presented here will
be useful for every situation, the reader need not
feel obligated to read the Handbook from cover to
cover. The Handbook is divided into  five chapters
and an appendix as follows:

  O  Chapter  I  contains  an  overview of  the
     information sources and  the organization of
     the Handbook.
  O  Chapter  II briefly  describes  the  options
     available when setting up or  augmenting an
   existing UST compliance program. Examples
   from State visits are included.

O  Chapter III discusses methods for measuring
   the  effectiveness  of  an  UST  compliance
   program,  including   the  benefits   and
   drawbacks of different program evaluation
   techniques.

O  Chapter IV presents brief summaries of the
   compliance programs being conducted  in
   each of  the  seven  States  visited.   Each
   summary reviews  the  current  status of the
   program,  the  factors influencing program
   development,  compliance  monitoring  and
   enforcement techniques currently being used
   in the program, and future plans. A summary
   matrix appears at  the end of the chapter.

O  Chapter V provides selected examples of the
   forms,  fliers,  letters,  data sources, etc. that
   have been useful  in compliance monitoring
   and enforcement.

Q  The  appendix is  a list of interviewees and
   contacts who provided information to  EPA
   for use in this Handbook.

-------
                                                                                      PAGE 3
                                     CHAPTER II.
               COMPONENTS OF UST COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS
   States with existing UST programs use a wide
variety of compliance monitoring and enforcement
techniques. The programs themselves vary greatly
depending upon  a number of factors, such as a
State's dependency  on  ground water and the
government infrastructure.  The States differ in
how they implement their programs, including how
they  use available statutory authority,  monitor
compliance, enforce against violators, and delegate
program authority to local levels.  This chapter
provides examples  of different approaches and
techniques  that  States have developed for the
following tasks:

 O Developing  and   implementing  statutory
    authority,
 O Identifying the UST population,
 O Educating the regulated community,
 O Identifying violators,
 O Taking enforcement actions, and
 O Delegating  program   responsibilities   to
    counties/cities.

   Chapter V is a "User's Guide" that contains
selected ideas  and techniques  for carrying out
these  program tasks.   For convenience  to the
reader, it is organized by headings that are parallel
to  those found  in this chapter.

DEVELOPING AND
IMPLEMENTING STATUTORY
AUTHORITY
   Your State agency will need a minimum level of
statutory authority  to  run  an  UST program.
Although some States already have the statutory
authority   necessary   for    developing    a
comprehensive  program,  others  will  require
statutory changes before their UST programs can
be fully functional.  Statutes are needed  for the
authority to perform certain essential tasks such as
obtaining a temporary restraining order or being
allowed to enter and inspect a facility. There are
two sources of statutory authority that can be used
to develop an UST compliance program:

  O Specific UST statutes; and
  O Other environmental authorities.

Developing and Using Specific UST
Statutes
    Of course, the most direct basis for developing
an UST program is to have a specific UST statute.
Three of the States interviewed have such statutes:
California, Minnesota, and Texas. These statutes
allow the legislature  to have direct input into the
development of regulations by:

  O Specifying the general requirements that the
    regulations must address;
  O Setting  certain   minimum  and  maximum
    standards; and
  O Conveying adequate authorities  for enforcing
    the program:

    Most UST statutes address the  following
regulatory areas:   tank notification, new  tank
standards, leak detection and record maintenance,
release reporting, corrective action,  tank closure,
financial  responsibility,  and  inspections  and
testing. (See page 39 for additional  resources for
developing UST statutes.)

Using Other  Environmental Authorities
    If your  State does not have a specific  UST
statute   for   developing   a   ..comprehensive
compliance program,  you may be  able  to use
existing pollution control authorities  to  begin
developing one.  The following  section describes
potential  opportunities   for   using   existing
authorities.'

Hazardous Waste Authority
    Virtually all States have developed hazardous
waste regulatory programs under Subtitle C of the

-------
 PAGE 4
Resource   Conservation  and   Recovery  Act
(RCRA). Although USTs regulated under RCRA
Subtitle  I  generally  contain  petroleum  and
chemical products, not wastes,  the  authority
under a hazardous waste statute may extend to
problems created by these products after they are
released into the environment.  Thus,  an agency
implementing this authority may be able to apply it
to UST releases by:

  O Requiring release reporting;
  O Identifying and inspecting facilities that have
    had releases; •
  O Requiring testing  of tanks suspected to be
    leaking;
  O Ordering corrective actions; and
  O Suing to recover cleanup costs.

    In addition, if your State has a hazardous waste
statute, it may give your agency at least limited
authority  to  impose regulatory requirements on
hazardous substances  that  are not wastes.  In
Maryland, releases from chemical tanks may be
regulated  under  the State's hazardous waste laws.
In New Mexico, the hazardous waste law  provides
authority   for regulating both petroleum  and
chemical USTs.

Oil or Water Pollution Control Authorities
    Some States have  authority to  regulate and
respond to releases from USTs under broad oil or
water  pollution  control statutes.   Although  the
authority   may  be  insufficient  to  develop a
comprehensive  UST program  (e.g., it  may  not
address chemical USTs), it may be useful as a first
step in program development. This authority may
be particularly  useful  if your  State's hazardous
waste  statute does not cover petroleum released
into the environment.

    The oil or water pollution control  authority
might be exercised to  require  the same types of
activities  in response to releases that are identified
in the  hazardous waste authority discussion above.
 In addition, the statutes may also give your agency
 the authority to  gather  information about the
 regulated community  or   to impose certain
 regulatory  requirements  (e.g.,  tank  tightness
testing).   In  Maryland, the State was  able to
promulgate regulations specific to USTs under the
authority of its oil pollution control statute. Rhode
Island promulgated its UST regulations under its
water pollution laws. The Water Quality Act in
New Mexico provides the State with  cleanup
standards for releases of petroleum and  other
substances from USTs.

Hazardous  Substance Authority
    Your State may have a statute authorizing an
implementing agency  to  clean  up  or  order
responsible  parties  to  clean  up  releases of
hazardous substances.  These  statutes  may be
similar    to   the    Federal    Government's
Comprehensive    Environmental    Response,
Compensation,  and   Liability   Act   of   1980
(CERCLA), which established the  "Superfund" to
pay for  the  cleanup  of hazardous substances.
Similar State-level "Superfund" statutes may be
used to address releases from chemical USTs; in
some States, they may even be used to address
releases from petroleum USTs.  In  Massachusetts,
the UST cleanup  program is administered  under
the State's version of the Superfund law.   Such
statutes may also authorize an agency to conduct
other  activities  useful  in  formulating   UST
programs.   For  example,  they  may  enable an
agency  to require  release reporting,  to gather
information    on    potential     sources    of
contamination, and to inspect facilities.

Other State and Local Authorities
    State and  local  agencies  may  have   other
sources of authority that can be used  to address
 USTs.  For example:

  O Local governments  are  generally  endowed
     with broad police powers that authorize them
     to  respond to releases from  and  to regulate
     USTs (e.g., local fire codes are often applied to
     USTs).   The experience,  information, and
     expertise generated by these programs may be
     a useful starting point for developing broader
     UST programs.
  O A State may technically own the ground water
     and have a responsibility to protect that
     valuable natural  resource from  misuse or

-------
PAGE 5
pollution. This responsibility may authorize a
State agency to respond to UST releases or to
regulate USTs.
O Fair trade practice laws in some States (e.g.,
California) can enable State or local agencies
to sanction responsible parties in
noncompliance with the Federal rules and any
State rules during the time that a State
program is being developed. This
enforcement mechanism can help an
implementing agency modify regulated
community practices while the State UST
program is being devised.

In summary, State and local agencies often
have considerable authority to address many of the
problems that are critical to a new or developing
UST prevention and cleanup program;
specifically, they often have the authority to
identify and respond to releases. If these
authorities exist in your State, you may be able to
create the foundation for a comprehensive UST
compliance program by using other environmental
programs.

IDENTIFYING THE UST
POPULATION

Once your State has developed the necessary
statutory authority, the next step is usually to
locate and characterize the regulated UST
population. Being able to identify the regulated
community is fundamental to a State's ability to
ensure compliance with UST regulations. A
comprehensive UST inventory lays the
groundwork for a program's compliance
monitoring and enforcement activities, such as
inspections and outreach. Inventories developed
by States often maintain data on UST location as
well as tank age, type, proximity to aquifers, and
leak detection capabilities. Such information
allows program officials not only to monitor their
regulated community but also to make informed
management decisions regarding compliance
activities. With this information, they can direct
their resources to where they are needed most.

States and counties have used several methods
of acquiring data and sources of information to
develop comprehensive UST inventories. Methods
used include tank registrations, permits, and
inspections. Sources of information include lists
developed by other government agencies,
notification by distributors, and reports from the
general public.

Requiring Tank Registration and Permits
One customary and versatile method for
keeping an up-to-date inventory is requiring that
every facility in the regulated community obtain a
registration or permit. Several States interviewed
(California, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and
Texas) have initiated such programs for USTs by
requiring that all owners or operators identified
through the Federal notification requirements
submit applications for continued use of their UST
facilities.

The registration and permit programs vary in
the level of information required from the owner or
operator. Some registration programs, such as
Rhode Island's, require owners or operators to
notify the State of the USTs existence or of
changes in its status. In Rhode Island, owners or
operators of existing USTs must obtain basic
registration only. However, any owner or operator
wishing to install a new UST system must first get
the State's approval of proposed installation plans.
In contrast, in Massachusetts, all tank owners or
operators must submit detailed information as
part of a permit application. This information
includes tank capacity, tank contents, leak
protection method, and facility layout, as well as
location of any wells and surface-water body
within 500 feet of the facility.
Relying on Government Lists
Government entities that regulate USTs for
their own programs may have compiled lists of
USTs or UST locations that can.be useful to State
program officials. Local fire departments are the
most frequent source of such lists, because USTs
have often been regulated as fire hazards. Other
government, agencies include weights and
measures departments and building departments,
which typically treat UST installation and removal
as a construction activity that requires a permit. In

-------
PAGE 6
the county programs in California, officials were
able to add to their tank inventories by obtaining
lists  compiled  for  a  vapor-recovery  effort
conducted throughout the State.

Conducting Inspections
    Many USTs can be discovered as a  result of
routine inspections. California officials stated that
routine   UST inspections often  lead   to  the
discovery of other nearby UST systems that are not
pan of the State's inventory. Oftentimes, USTs are
found while another type of  inspection  is being
conducted (such  as  a  health   inspection,  a
hazardous material  inspection,  or a  building
inspection). These accidental UST discoveries can
add considerably to a State program's inventory.
To facilitate  the  discovery  of  USTs  through
inspections, progfam officials can encourage their
inspectors to look  for new USTs.

Working with Distributors
    Several States  indicated that the distributors
responsible for filling tanks are another  potential
source   of  information  on   UST   location.
Distributors can be utilized in an UST inventory
effort in three ways. First, if legally permissible,
distributors  can  be  required  to  make   their
customer lists available to UST program officials.
Second, as in Minnesota, distributors can be
required  to pass  along notification  materials  to
their customers.   Third," distributors  can be
required  to  fill  only  tanks  that  have   been
registered.  For example, Iowa recently  passed a
law requiring the owner or operator of a registered
tank to affix a tag to the fill pipe of the tank. If a
distributor discovers a tank  without a tag,  he is
allowed to fill the tank only once, and  he  must
provide the owner or operator with a registration
form and report the tank to the Department of
Natural Resources. The distributor is not allowed
to fill the tank a second time unless the owner or
operator has registered the  tank.  Exhibit II-l
shows Iowa's Department of Natural Resources
UST tag. (See page 41 for the discussion of UST
inventories.)

Using Other Sources of Information
    In addition to the  sources discussed above,
States have mentioned several other methods of
adding to a program's inventory of USTs.  One
such method is used by California's South County
Fire Authority which  directs the  State's UST
program in the Cities of Belmont and San Carlos.
The Fire Authority  regularly has its  engine
companies drive through the streets looking for
visible vent pipes because these pipes often reveal
tanks that are not part of the Fire Authority's UST
inventory.
    Several  States noted   that  they   rely   on
notification from groups, such as real estate agents
or  utility  workers,  for  information  on UST
locations: In Iowa, real estate agents must file a
"Real Estate Groundwater  Hazards Statement"
for  every property  transfer.  This  statement
includes information on any USTs on the property
and is filed with the County Recorder's Office. The
State can then compare the information with that
submitted by the  owner or operator to  verify  the
accuracy of facility reports.  New Mexico indicated
that it has been made  aware of USTs by reports
from  utility  or   construction  workers  doing
below-ground work.
    USTs are often reported to program officials
by concerned citizens.  Maryland and New Mexico
both cited citizen complaints  as an important
source  of UST information. These citizens  are
often purchasers of property that have USTs, and
they need direction on their responsibilities. They
may also be residents of areas where an UST is
being installed arid  are  calling  to report  the
installation.  UST programs should have a system
for checking. these  reported USTs against  the
current inventory and adding new USTs as they are
reported.

-------
                                                                                     PAGE 7
     C-STORE/
        GASOLINE
           RETAILER
        Member
       «TROL£UU
       MARKETERS
        Of IOWA
                                November 1987
                                                  NEWSLETTER
Iowa Underground Tank  Fees and Tags

           DIspFayed here are the actual sizes of the proposed new Iowa Department ot
      Natural Resources underground tank tags. The Underground Storage Tank (UST)
      number Is only a DNR record (or  who received the tag. The number has no
      relationship to the underground tank's original registry number.
 lowa'a refisiered onoertround tank
owncn will toaa be receavinj Iowa
Department of Natural Resources' in-
voice* fora Jl 3 per year tank fee tor an
Htks 1 .101 jaflora and over. Once the
fa to paid, the DNR wiO Issue a one
year (19M) aok a| to be attached 10
OK Oil pipe. Tail anaoal fog wifl be
           IOWA DNR
            EXPIRES
         APRIL 1,  1989
        U.S.T. NO.  00000
chaoje to T~»"< The dradimr. for
p«yiaj ihtx annual tack taf fee b Janu-
•7 15.  19«. AH itjinered nnda-
pxnid tankj 1.100 gaDonj or U=u wffl
•oc be anexaed the aooual I at and wiB
«eceiv« • peraeoon GU pipe rejiarm-
doa taj &tn knM'i DNR.
       MKdirfroitnJ lamt Uf color rill ch*Mft
            •> prohibit petro-
Icoa catfo taok ddrreriet into ander.
pcmi laokj tbai are not repaired, A
OMO^H delivery ta aDowed tf the
delivery pern icpara (be r»rejU-
  o
          IOWA DNR
         PERMANENT
       Less than  1100 gallons
       U.S.T. NO.  00000
O
alir.
ured tank to the Iowa DNR and pro-
vide] the unk't owner with a rcgism-
uon farm. The tank owner has IS days
Crom (he date the Iowa DNR receives
the pcnokum delivery penon'i report
to refiner the tank for J10. After 15
days, the retumuon fee jumps to £22.
 Butt petroleum delivery persons are
oot required 10 report deliveries of
vderpcuod tanks thai are exempt
from reparation. These exempt tanks
nould not have a Till pipe tag. Eiemot
BR OBoerpoaad beaanf oil tanks for
ccnxuapuve  
-------
 PAGE 8
EDUCATING THE REGULATED
COMMUNITY
   Most of the States interviewed have developed
procedures for educating the regulated community
and  the public  as  a  means  of  encouraging
compliance.  Given the large size  of the UST
population and the limited resources available for
compliance monitoring and inspections, the State
UST  programs  will  have  to  rely  heavily  on
voluntary compliance. The primary purpose of an
effective outreach program is  to  educate  the
regulated community about the UST regulations.
In addition, the regulated community can  also be
made aware of potential penalties for violations.
Outreach to the public helps to develop citizen
awareness and thus encourages the reporting of
UST releases and violations.

   An outreach program is most effective in the
initial stages of program development, when UST
program requirements are first issued. While  it is
important to make owners and operators aware of
the regulations,  outreach  can also be  used to
establish a working relationship between the State
or local UST  agency  and  the public.   The
usefulness of an outreach program will level out
over time as the regulated community becomes
more knowledgeable  and  as certain  behavior
patterns become established.

    Interviews with the seven States indicated  that
many different techniques are being used to inform
the regulated community and the  public about
UST regulations and State program requirements.
A common  means  of reaching  the regulated
community is to  identify certain industry groups as
representative of  the regulated  community  and
then  develop relationships with  these  groups.
Several examples follow.

  O  The Texas UST staff maintains close contact
     with  the  Texas Oil Marketer's Association,
     has submitted information  for UST-related
     articles for  the Association's newsletter, and
     has  been   featured  at  several  regional
     Association meetings.

  O  The Maryland Department of Environment
     established an advisory committee composed
    of members from local government, industry,
    and   community   groups   to  aid   in
    communicating UST issues.

 O Minnesota   advertised    its   notification
    requirements by contacting the Independent
    Service   Station  Organization  and   has
    publicized information in newspapers and the
    Hazardous Waste Newsletter.

 O The  New Mexico  UST Program Manager
    meets monthly'with  petroleum  marketers,
    dealer associations, and other industry groups
    to keep them apprised of developments in
    UST regulations and programs.

 O Rhode Island has published notices of new
    regulations in oil industry magazines and sent
    information  letters to oil  dealers and their
    customers and to service stations owners.

    A  primary  disadvantage to such  targeted
outreach techniques,  however,  is  that  certain
groups within the regulated community may be
missed.  To reach a wider audience within the
regulated community and to educate the general
public,  some State and county programs use
standard communication techniques such as press
releases, public service announcements, and mass
mailings.

    Maryland developed public notice fliers that
describe the regulatory  requirements  for  tank
testing, indicate test methods .approved by the
State,  and   provide  telephone  numbers  and
addresses for further information.  (See Exhibit
II-2.)  Rhode Island has been able to reach out to
both  the regulated  community and  the general
public by having articles on violations published in
the newspapers. The articles included the name of
the company in violation, the penalty,  and the
terms of the agreement. In particular, articles that
focused on the State's enforcement response have
drawn  attention from the  public. Minnesota
publicized its UST requirements  and held a series
of public meetings at which question-and-answer
sessions  were  conducted.     Fresno  County
(California) enlisted the help of UST contractors in
distributing information  among  members of the
regulated community and wrote letters to owners
-------
                                                 PAGE 9
          Maryland Department of Natural Resources
          Wjter Resources AUmirmlndon
           T»w<3 Suit Ortke BuikJing
          Anrupoliv Maryland 2H01-9974
      IF YOU  HAD AN UNDERGROUND
      OIL STORAGE TANK INSTALLED
      IN  MARYLAND PRIOR TO 1971
             YOU ARE REQUIRED
    BY MARYLAND OIL CONTROL  LAW
AND REGULATIONS TO HAVE THIS SYSTEM
          TESTED FOR TIGHTNESS
        BEFORE JANUARY 28,1987
 ALL UNDERGROUND OIL STORAGE TANKS BURIED FOR 15 YEARS
      OR MORE EXCEPT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND
 FARM STORAGE TANKS UNDER 10.100 GALLONS MUST BE TESTED.

TESTS MUST BE PERFORMED BY COMPANIES USING TEST METHODS
   APPROVED BY THE .DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
    WATER RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION, AS LISTED BELOW:
    PETRO-TITE
           TM
LEAK LOKATOR
                            TM
EZY-CHECK
                                          TU
 FOR MORE INFORMATION AND A LIST OF TANK TESTERS CONTACT
        THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
           WATER RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION
                OIL CONTROL DIVISION.
            TAWES STATE OFFICE BUILDING.
             ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21401
              OR CALL (301) 269-2105.
        Exhibit II-2. Maryland Department of Environment
                 Public Notice Flier
-------
PAGE  10
and operators outlining the permit requirements.
(See page 43 for further discussion on outreach
techniques.)

IDENTIFYING VIOLATORS
   To have an effective UST compliance program.
a State must be able to identify violators and bring
them into compliance. The interviews indicated
that some existing State compliance programs do
not rely solely on traditional periodic inspections
of  random  facilities  to  monitor  compliance.
Rather,  some States have developed compliance
monitoring  programs  that  incorporate a wide
range  of  procedures,  including  issuing  UST
permits, reviewing  reports  submitted by the
regulated  community,   and  targeting  certain
portions of the UST population for inspections.
States have  used  these  techniques alone or in
combination. Depending upon a State's resources
and capabilities, different emphases were  placed
on one type of compliance monitoring procedure
over another. Examples of different techniques for
collecting and monitoring data on the compliance
status of the regulated community are:

  O  Requiring  owners and operators to submit
     data,
  O  Supplementing   installation   and   closure
     notification data,
  O  Expanding UST release report requirements,
  O  Requiring operating permits,
  O  Certifying UST installers and testers, and
  O  Conducting on-site inspections.

 Requiring Owners and Operators to
 Submit Data
    One of the least resource-intensive methods
 for  monitoring  compliance  of  the  regulated
 community is to use the  data already available in
 the records and reports submitted by UST facility
 owners or operators.  At a minimum, the Federal
 regulations will require that owners or operators
 keep records  on leak  detection  devices,  tank
 tightness testing and monitoring results, corrosion
 protection  systems,  and  repairs and  closures.
 These  records are  generally kept at  the  UST
facilities and must be made available to the State
upon request of the implementing agency. Federal
regulations will also require owners and operators
to notify the  State implementing agency of any
UST releases and subsequent actions  taken  to
correct them.

    Some  States have expanded these  reporting
requirements and developed additional  ones as a
means of monitoring compliance.   Under  the
Federal regulations, owners  or operators do  not
have to submit the  records maintained at  the
facilities, except by request. However, States may
require owners or operators to submit on a"regular
basis  detailed information on UST installations
and closures. The State implementing agency can
use  this  information   to  determine  which
installation/closure activities to monitor, or it can
target facilities  that may be more likely to have a
release. Furthermore, although leak notification is
a Federal requirement, a State may require that
such  notifications include more comprehensive
information than is Federally mandated. Clearly,
the notification  itself allows a  State  to respond
quickly to a  release.   However,  by  requiring
additional information in the same  report, the
State can not  only determine  which  release
incidents  require more immediate attention but
also check the facility's compliance in other areas.

    The    advantage    of   requiring    such
comprehensive reporting  is that it helps States
minimize resources for compliance  monitoring by
allowing  them  to   target  facilities  for  future
inspections. For some States, this may be the only
way in which they can monitor the entire regulated
community.  However, to use  this type of data
collection  effectively,  States  must   have  the
resources to collect  and  review the  voluminous
records, identify those requiring follow-up, and
inspect selected facilities to verify the accuracy of
the data.  Furthermore, a State that relies heavily
on reported data plays a passive role in compliance
monitoring and must  count  on  its  regulated
community to provide accurate information.  For
that reason, the State agency must be able to take
 enforcement actions  when necessary to provide an
 incentive for compliance.
-------
                                                                                        PAGE 11
Supplementing Installation and Closure
Notification Data
    Data on UST installations and closures can be
used  to  monitor, compliance.    The  Federal
regulations will  require owners or operators  to
report UST installations and to maintain records
of closures.  However, some States  have  gone
beyond  these regulations by requiring  advance
notification of  installations  and closures  and
additional information on these activities. In some
cases, the State  may use approval of installation
data as  a condition for facility operation. Prior
review of installation and closure data  can  also
help the State agency identify facilities that  may
need closer monitoring in the future.

    In Rhode Island  and Texas,  comprehensive
information on UST installation is required  as a
means of ensuring proper installation procedures
and use.  In Rhode  Island, owners must submit
installation plans to the State for approval prior to
operating a new UST system. The State reviews the
plans- to ensure that  they are in compliance with
regulations and to  assess whether  more stringent,
site-specific requirements need to be imposed.
Through this process, the State may become aware
that an UST is being installed near a vital source of
drinking water.  Because of this, the State  may
require more stringent monitoring requirements or
may target the facility for comprehensive, future
inspections.  Generally, State  officials do  not
oversee  installation sites; instead, they rely heavily
on the  information provided in the installation
plan.  The Texas UST interim regulations require
30  days prior  notice of installation, although
installation plan approval is  not  required.   The
Texas Water Commission reserves the  right  to
review   installation   data,   which   includes
engineering  plans  and  specifications,  quality
assurance plans, leak monitoring  and corrosion
protection  systems, chemical compatibility data,
and site geological data.
   Several  of the  States  require  owners  or
operators to  submit notification  and  detailed
information on UST closures. This information
can be  used to determine which  closures may
require State oversight or assistance. For example,
California  requires  that  owners  or operators
report any plans  to  temporarily or permanently
close an UST system. Prior to permanent closure,
the owner  must submit to the local  agency all
previous  monitoring  data  and   a  proposal
describing the method of closure to be used. The
State also requires that a notice be placed on the
property deed indicating the location of any closed
USTs left in the ground.  For UST removal, the
owner or operator must submit to the local agency
documentation that indicates proper disposal of
the tank. Other examples include:

 O UST owners  in  Texas must also notify the
    Texas    Water   Commission   prior   to
    permanently removing an UST from service.
    Such notice must describe the procedures and
    schedule for removal.
 O Rhode Island UST closure applications must
    contain  information  on all  previous leak
    incidents,  type  of monitoring  wells, and
    distance from drinking water sources.
 O In Massachusetts,  UST owners or operators
    must obtain an approved certificate prior to
    closure.  This certificate serves as a manifest
    for tracking the proper closure and disposal of
    the  tank.
   Effective  use  of  reported  data  can  be
facilitated  by the development of data  bases
designed for monitoring such data.  Contra Costa
County   in   California   has   developed   a
comprehensive data management  system that
includes  information such  as  installation and
removal  dates, soil  sample and  tank tightness
testing results, and  monitoring records.   (See
Exhibit II-3 and page 46 for a description of the
data base.)
-------
PAGE  12
                           01
                           02
                           Al
                           A2
                           A3
                           AH
                           A7
                           AS
                           HI
                           N2
                           H3
                           HH

                           31
                           82
                           B3
                   TANK STATUS

Operating. New Permit (5  year permit)
Operating, Conditional Permit (eitner  Mon Alt  16 -3yr permit
                            or Temp closure - 2 yr permit)

Recleved money,  Application
Tanks removed, pending  sod results
Soil results 0 K
SoU results not OK
Abandoned In place
Removed prtcr to August  1, 1985

 Monitoring uell In place
Exempt
Removed from list, this tank never existed

No Tank Test
No Monitoring Plan
No Application
No Money
                              Exhibit II-3.    Contra Costa County (California)
                                               Tank Status Data Base Menu
-------
                                                                                        PAGE 13
Expanding Tank Release Report
Requirements
    In some States with limited UST resources, the
only compliance  monitoring  activities  currently
being  conducted  are  inspections   following
notification of a release. Although UST owners or
operators are required to notify their State agency
of  all  leaks,  three  of the  States interviewed
(California,  Massachusetts, and New  Mexico)
require  that responsible  parties also provide
detailed reports of each release incident.

  O California  requires  a  verbal notification
    within 24 hours and a written report within 5
    days containing detailed  information on the
    incident, including the type and amount of
    substance    released,    the   results   of
    ground-water and  soil sampling,   and the
    proposed corrective actions.
  O Massachusetts maintains records of sites that
    have had  releases or that currently require
    remedial action. A file is maintained for each
    incident,  and  the  State  is  considering
    developing a central data base.
  O New  Mexico  has  developed a   detailed
    questionnaire for  each release incident. The
    data collected include the threat to a water
    supply,  the potential  for  toxic vapors  or
    explosivity, and any mitigating actions taken.
    The  information  is subsequently assigned a
    value depending  upon  its threat to human
    health and the environment and is used to
    prioritize responses to the site.

    This reporting assists the implementing agency
in determining the priority  for  responding  to
releases prior to examining each site. In addition,
the State can use the additional information as a
means of  monitoring compliance with  other
requirements.

Requiring  Operating Permits
    Some State, programs rely on comprehensive
permitting programs as a means of monitoring the
compliance status of all operating UST systems.
Permitting   programs   differ   from   simple
registration programs in that they typically require
that the  owner or operator meet a standard of
performance prior  to being  issued the permit,
while registration programs primarily serve as an
inventory  tool.   In permitting programs,  the
compliance  status  of  an UST  facility can  be
checked in several ways (e.g., by inspecting it prior
to issuing the permit or by requiring the owner or
operator to submit results of tank tightness tests).

   The  primary  advantage  of  a permitting
program is that because tank owners or operators
must obtain a permit in order to operate their UST
facility, there is a major incentive for them to be in
compliance.   In  addition,  the  permit renewal
process provides a  regular means of monitoring
compliance.  Permit requirements  can also  be
easily  monitored by requiring that  permits  be
displayed  so that  they can be  checked during
routine inspections.   Some  States  (e.g.,  Iowa,
Oregon) have passed laws enabling vendors to
assist  in  monitoring  compliance  with  permit
regulations. In Iowa, distributors may not fill tanks
without permits more than once, and they must
notify  the  owner   or  operator  of  the  permit
requirements.

   The • primary  disadvantage  to permitting
programs  is  the level  of resources  required to
ensure that every operating UST system or facility
has a permit and that every UST with a permit is in
compliance. In particular, extensive resources are
needed to  contact  all  owners or  operators, to
provide assistance in the  permitting process, and
to review  permit documentation, particularly if
renewals are frequent.

   Of the States interviewed, only California and
Massachusetts required that all USTs throughout
the  State be issued permits for operation.  The
most extensive permitting  program among  the
States interviewed is that of California. The State
program, which is implemented at the county level,
was established to ensure  that every facility issued
a permit, and thus every  UST in operation, is in
compliance. (See page 51  for a description of San
Mateo County's permit  process.)   The  initial
permit application requires information on UST
monitoring equipment, and  the  permit is  not
issued until the UST system has been inspected to
ensure that it complies with the regulations and
terms of the permit. Requirements of the permit
include certification that  secondary containment
-------
PAGE 14
has met regulated standards and a description of
the proposed monitoring system.  UST systems
that do not meet the requirements are closed.
Several of the California counties have developed
innovative techniques for promoting compliance
through the use  of permitting  programs.  For
example, San Mateo County can notify the credit
agency of owners or operators who fail to submit
permit fees.

    In Massachusetts, permits are issued  by the
State but the permitting program  is essentially
managed  at  the  local level  with  the  local  fire
department    handling     inspections    and
enforcement. In Maryland, the State program does
not  require permits, but several  of the  county
programs do.  In  Prince  George's  County, for
example,  all • new  USTs  must go  through  a
permitting process which entails an inspection of
the  UST  installation,  pressure  testing,  and
precision testing once the UST is filled.  Baltimore
County has permit requirements that include an
installation inspection and two tank tightness tests
prior to permit issuance.

Certifying UST Installers and Testers
    Several States certify tank installers or testers
as  a means of  providing quality  control  and
ensuring that  these  activities comply with the
regulations. In Maine, for example, UST installers
applying for certification  are provided training
materials and must be examined every 2 years to be
certified.  (See page 65 for more information on
this certification  program.)   New York  State
certifies UST installers who then must verify that
each  installation  they  conduct  meets   State
requirements.   Florida  has set up  a licensing
program for UST installers, testers, and removers.

     Of the seven States interviewed, three currently
certify  UST  service  techniques  or  personnel.
 Rhode   Island  certifies   certain  tank  testing
 procedures that have been developed by particular
 companies. Certification of the testing contractors
 themselves is the responsibility of. the company
 franchising the  particular test method,  but all
 certified contractors are required to register with
 the State.  Minnesota not  only tests installers for
 competence before issuing a renewable certificate
but also plans to conduct training programs. Both
Massachusetts  and New Mexico  have plans to
establish certification  programs.    Like  Rhode
Island, Massachusetts is planning to certify several
testing procedures. New Mexico intends to certify
UST  installers  to  ensure  quality control in
installation,  thus  reducing  the  number  of
installation failures.
    The advantage of certification is that it reduces
the need for the presence of a State inspector at
each UST installation or testing event. Thus, these
States  can limit  their  direct  involvement to
follow-up inspections and possible enforcement
actions if  an UST  system fails  the test or is
improperly  installed.    However,  some State
officials have expressed concern  regarding  the
reliability of certified testers and installers and the
accuracy of  their procedures.   Minnesota  and
Maryland  have  controlled  for   false  positive
responses  in   testing  results   by  requiring
monitoring wells at  sites where test failures are
reported.  False negative results, which indicate
that an UST system is safe when it may actually not
be, are more problematic for State compliance
efforts.

Conducting On-Site Inspections
    Perhaps the most  standard and best-known
technique for monitoring compliance is to conduct
on-site  inspections.    Traditional  inspection
programs   involve   periodic,   comprehensive
inspections of facilities chosen at  random. Many
States  currently  do not  have  the resources to
devote to this type of inspection program.  As  a
consequence, they are often limited to conducting
inspections in response to notification of releases
or other violations.  Often, the  first  step in
developing an expanded inspection program is to
target the  segment  of the UST population  that
presents the greatest risk to public health and the
environment.  Expanded programs are more likely
to occur when comprehensive  data on the  UST
 population (e.g., tank location, size, type* age, and
 use)  have  been collected. States that do conduct
 inspections have developed innovative  ways to
 reduce resource requirements  for them.  These
 different approaches to inspections are described
 below.
-------
                                                                                         PAGE 15
 Follow-Up Inspections
    In  general,   States   initially   focus   their
 inspection resources  on following up  reports of
 UST leaks or other indicators of potential releases
 or  violations.  Of the States interviewed, four
 (Maryland,  Minnesota, New Mexico, and Texas)
 are currently  limited by resource constraints to
 conduct inspections  primarily in  response  to
 complaints of leaks, failures during UST testing, or
 notifications of violations.  However, these States
 indicated  plans   to   expand  their  inspection
 programs.

    In Maryland,  inspectors have responded to
 complaints from residents,  utility service workers,
 and the fire department about odors  from tank
 leaks.  Presently, much of the information received
.comes from the tank testing companies  or UST
 owners who must report tank test  failures.  In
 current practice,  inspectors following up on test
 failures use this opportunity to check the facility's
 status with all other regulations.

    New Mexico  devotes most of its  inspection
 resources to investigating  notifications of UST
 releases.  A  number of different  groups  (e.g.,
 private citizens, utility companies, UST owners)
 keep the State UST staff informed of potential or
 known  releases  from USTs.   In addition, the
 environmental department  field  staff  may also
 respond to potential  leaks  or violations because
 they are familiar with activities in their areas.

    The   UST   program   in   Minnesota  is
 release-oriented,  and the majority of inspection
 and enforcement  activities  are  performed once a
 leak or potential  leak is reported.   Because the
 State UST staff is very limited, the State agency
 reserves its staff for field work on the most severe
 cases and uses local  Ore departments  and other
 municipal   agencies    whenever  possible   to
 investigate releases.

 Targeted Inspections
    Several of the States interviewed indicated that
 they  are  planning   to expand  their  current
 inspection programs  to include more preventive
 inspections. Preventive inspections typically check
 for compliance  with  regulations  designed  to
prevent releases, such as requirements that owners
or operators maintain UST system leak detection
devices or keep track of product inventory. (See
page 15 for an example of an inspection checklist.)
The purpose of the more preventive inspections is
to detect problems  before  they occur, to deter
noncompliance, and to identify those facilities that
may have more serious problems.

    Because  inspection  resources  are  limited,
however, most  States are planning to or already
have prioritized their inspections to certain groups
of UST systems that pose greater risk to human
health and the environment.  Examples  of such
USTs include: aging USTs, which have a greater
chance  of leaking;  UST systems located  near
sources of drinking water or ground  water; and
UST  facilities  with a history  of  significant
violations.  Maryland is planning to implement a
methodology  for targeting certain subsets of the
UST population based on risk to the environment.
This methodology was developed as part of a study
on UST population and ground-water sensitivity
in the Baltimore area. Maryland is planning to use
this methodology in other regions of the State to
target areas on which compliance monitoring and
inspection  activities  should  be   focused.   In
Massachusetts, the State-level UST program is
administered  under  the authority  of  the State's
"Superfund"   program,  which   focuses   on
contamination  from  releases  and  abandoned
disposal sites.  As a result, the site inspections
conducted by the State  UST staff are limited to
those  sites suspected of being contaminated with
oil or other hazardous substances resulting from
UST releases.  However, local fire officials may
conduct routine inspections in their areas.

   Alternatively, some State and county programs
have   targeted  UST-related  activities  (e.g.,
installations or closures) for inspections.  Rhode
Island focuses most  of its inspection  activity on
UST system closures.  Prior to closures, facility
owners  or  operators  are required  to submit a
closure application, which includes information on
all previous leak incidents. Although UST systems
can be  closed upon approval,  the State has an
inspector present at every closure to ensure that no
releases  have  occurred.  Several  counties in
-------
PAGE  16
California (e.g., Contra Costa County and South
County)  also  target closures.   In  all of these
programs, compliance is driven  by  the certainty
that site contamination will  be  discovered  and
remediated  during at  least  one critical  event.
However, if a release has already  occurred, it may
be too late to prevent some environmental damage,
particularly  to ground water.

    Other State or county programs focus on UST
installation activities. In California,the San Diego
County UST  staff has inspected all new UST
installations  and removals  since  the  county
program was  established in 1984.   State UST
officials in New Mexico are aware that the most
common and  the most catastrophic leaks have
often been from  installation failures. The State
believes that more stringent oversight and control
of  installations  will  minimize environmental
damage  from  leaking   USTs.   Therefore,  New
Mexico  is  planning to  focus   inspections on
preventing   releases   caused   by  defective
installations.  Additional spot-check inspections
of tanks will be conducted on a case-by-case basis.
Alternative Means of Inspection
    Even  with  increased inspection capabilities,
States    often   delegate   some   inspection
responsibilities to alternative inspectors, such as
members of governmental entities that are already
periodically present at UST facilities. A number of
government programs, ranging from fire safety to
consumer  affairs,   require  the  presence  of
government personnel at UST sites.  Some State
and  local agencies  have  "piggy-backed"  their
inspection needs onto the inspection program of
these agencies. Specifically, many agencies rely on
fire marshals or plumbing inspectors to conduct
technical UST inspections when at a site.

    California  indicated that it had relied on the
 services  of alternative inspectors in the  initial
 stages of its permit  program.   The demand for
 inspection resources  was high at the beginning of
 the California program because all UST facilities
 requesting  permits  had to be  inspected.   To
 alleviate the shortage of inspectors, some counties
 used inspectors from other programs (usually
health  departments)  to  conduct  the  required
inspections.  Once  the  permits were issued, the
burden of inspections was greatly reduced.

    In  Minnesota's response-oriented  program,
releases are  often investigated by the responsible
party.  Minnesota  has a detailed petroleum tank
release investigation form that serves as a set of
guidelines for both remedial investigation reports
and corrective action proposals. (See page 85 for a
description of the report.) Once a release has been
reported and documented, this form allows the
implementing agency to delegate the investigation
and  subsequent   corrective   action   to  the
responsible  party.


TAKING  ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

    Effective enforcement  response procedures
are  necessary  in  order  to take  action  against
violators, bring them into compliance,  and deter
other violators.  Interviews with UST program
officials indicate that many  of them prefer to use a
combination of formal and informal enforcement
mechanisms to achieve compliance.    Formal
enforcement is  considered here  to include any
action taken under the authority contained in a
statute (e.g., issuing a formal  notice of violation
(NOV) or administrative order, or taking judicial
action).   Informal enforcement actions  are any
other  actions   taken to  achieve  compliance,
including warning letters  and other  innovative
techniques described below. Even if a State is not
expressly authorized by  statute,  it may  want  to
develop  procedures for issuing some of the more
formal orders (e.g., NO Vs) as an informal response
where violations  are  minor and compliance is
expected. A broad range of enforcement tools is
 necessary due to  the unusually  large regulated
 community and the relatively limited, resources
 available for conducting enforcement.

     In traditional, formal  enforcement response
 procedures, the  implementing  agency  typically
 issues an NOV,  followed by  an administrative
 order (with or without a penalty) if the violation is
 not corrected.  The enforcement  order usually
 requires the violator to take actions to  correct the
 violation; it may assess a penalty. In States without
-------
                                                                                        PAGE 17
administrative order  authority,  or  for cases in
which the order is ignored, judicial orders and
penalties must be sought.

    Although formal enforcement procedures are
necessary at times, they can be resource-intensive.
Furthermore, States may lack the staff of attorneys
or funds necessary to carry out formal responses in
all situations.  In  view of these concerns,  many
States  have developed   informal  enforcement
mechanisms that are structured so that violations
are prevented or minimized to the point that the
formal enforcement process is rarely used.  Such
programs tend to employ informal  methods of
notifying violators and encouraging compliance.
However, in these programs,  the threat of more
stringent  enforcement  actions  and  penalties
remains  an important  factor.   Although  most
officials  prefer to use the informal approaches
initially, they will exercise  more formal responses
when violators are not cooperative.  Examples of
some informal and formal enforcement techniques
are discussed below.

Encouraging Voluntary Compliance
    The type of enforcement response used by a
State often depends upon  the cooperation of the
violator and the severity of the violation or release.
For  example,  informal enforcement  techniques
may not  be effective or may be inappropriate if
there is  a  release or  violation  that  requires a
complicated or extensive  remedy, or where the
violator is uncooperative.  However, several of the
States interviewed indicated that unless there is a
flagrant  violation,  they  prefer  to  negotiate
informally with the violator to attempt to develop
an agreement specifying the actions necessary to
achieve  compliance.     They  consider  such
enforcement responses  to be  less  resource-
intensive than more formal responses and to lead
to   the   development  of   more   cooperative
relationships with  the regulated community.

    Informal methods for leveraging violators into
compliance include issuing informal notifications,
threatening to  revoke  permits,  or  providing
funding incentives. For situations in which there is
a  release  from  an UST system,  States have
developed procedures  for encouraging voluntary
cleanups. Examples of these informal, yet forceful,
techniques are described below.

Informal Notifications of Violations
    Many  States  have  developed  procedures
specifically  to  notify  violators  and  encourage
correction of the violations without having to issue
more formal orders or levy  penalties.   These
procedures   include   warning  letters,   verbal
warnings,  and  even  more  informal  forms  of
notification.  In general, such  informal notifica-
tions require the owner or operator to correct the
situation and bring the facility into compliance.
The notification may indicate the potential penalty
if the actions are  not taken,  but generally it does
not have the force of law for imposing penalties. If
the violator  remedies the situation satisfactorily,
the State considers the matter resolved.

    Interviews with State UST officials indicated
that most programs have some informal means of
notifying  violators  of minor  violations and
encouraging compliance. In Maryland, inspectors
write a simple  warning letter that informs the
owner or operator of the  requirements and
specifies the actions necessary to bring the UST
into compliance. Potential penalties for continued
noncompliance  are described, but no penalty is
levied at that time. For more significant violations,
the inspector generally  issues official NOVs from
the  Department  of Environment that have the
force of law and can impose penalties.  Maryland
has  found that  the informal notifications  are an
effective, practical  tool to  obtain compliance.
State UST staff estimate that only about 10 percent
of  the  violators  do not undertake  the  actions
advised by inspectors.
    Rhode   Island  has a  similar   "letter  of
noncompliance" that informs the violator of the
violations and specifies the  actions to be taken.
Approximately  60 percent  of  the  letters  of
noncompliance issued in 1986 required no further
actions.  If noncompliance  continues, the State
takes more formal actions.
    Texas has developed a notification letter that
may be adapted to site-specific situations. This
informal letter advises that appropriate response
actions  be taken   and   requests'  technical
-------
PAGE 18
information on both the violation and the action
that will  be taken  by the violator to  achieve
compliance. If the violator responds adequately to
the letter, no further action is taken. The UST staff
tries to work with cooperative responsible parties
to obtain  compliance without having to initiate
formal action.

Permit Leveraging
    Several  counties  in  California  use permit
requirements as a means of encouraging violators
to come into compliance.   In California, most
enforcement occurs at the  local (county or city)
level, and  compliance is usually achieved through
informal negotiations between local officials and
their regulated population.    If a violator  is
recalcitrant,  the  implementing  county  or  city
agency  can  threaten  to  revoke .a  permit to
encourage compliance.
    Some California counties have developed even
more   innovative    means   of   encouraging
compliance. San Mateo County enforces its permit
program through the use of .adverse credit ratings.
If owners or operators in the county fail to pay their
permit fee. the bill is sent to the bill  collection
division of the county government, which can
report nonpayment to the national credit bureau.
San  Diego   County,  which  does  not  have
administrative   penalty   authority,   assesses
"investigation fees" when tank owners or operators
fail to obtain a required permit. Most of the other
counties prefer informal persuasion  as a means of
obtaining compliance, but they  do rely on  the
authority  of the county  District Attorney  as an
incentive  for  compliance.  In general,  the State
Regional  Water  Quality  Control  Boards  take
action only when negotiations at the  local level
have failed.
    UST programs that encourage participation of
local agencies (e.g., fire departments) may be able
to  employ  the enforcement authorities of that
agency to assist in encouraging compliance.  In
Massachusetts, some  local fire  departments are
able to  revoke an  operating permit  (including
locking the pump), while others are authorized to
p'etition  the  local  government  to  revoke an
operating  permit.     In   Baltimore  County
(Maryland), the enforcement responses are linked
to building permits. A tank found to be leaking is
considered to have violated  the building permit,
and the permit is revoked. Without a permit, the
tank cannot be operated and  must be pumped out
until a replacement permit is obtained, which can
only occur after corrective action has been taken.


Funding Incentives
   One method of encouraging compliance is to
provide incentives.   Minnesota  has adopted  a
"carrot   and  stick"  approach   to  encourage
voluntary cleanup  response without the  use of
formal  enforcement.     Minnesota  encourages
responsible  parties  (RPs)   to  get involved in
investigating releases and designing cleanups. To
provide RPs with an incentive (the "carrot"), the
State has a trust fund that awards reimbursement
to RPs who are in compliance with the regulations
when a  release is discovered,  as long as they
cooperate  with  the  State in   achieving  an
agreed-upon level  of cleanup. The "stick" is an
aggressive  State  cleanup  and   cost-recovery
program   supplemented   by    penalties   for
unresponsive owners  and  operators  of leaking
USTs. (See Exhibit II-4.) Florida has implemented
a similar program  that  provides amnesty from
cleanup costs as long as  the owners or operators
have complied with certain requirements and have
been cooperative.

    In addition to cost-recovery  programs that
provide reimbursement or amnesty to cooperative
owners or operators, some States provide no-cost
oversight of corrective action if the RP provides
notice of the release and cooperates in the cleanup.
In  general, RPs who admit responsibility for
violations can not only be provided assistance in
obtaining compliance, but also spared a penalty.

    Rhode Island has developed  an innovative
funding program  available to tank  owners or
-------
                                                                                            PAGE  19
November 2, 1967

                                     Contents  of
                               Petroleum Tank  Release
                                Investigation  Report


Federal and State laws require persons  responsible  for  i  release of petroleum from a
tank to conduct corrective actions  adequate  to 'minimize,  eliminate, or clean up a
release to protect the public health and welfare  or the environment".

A remedial Investigation «ust yield sufficient Information to  select and design an
adequate corrective action.  The corrective  action  must not  only deal with current
pollution, but must also protect against future on  and  off site problems.  This docu-
ment describes the Information that must be  contained  1n  a remedial  Investigative
report and corrective action proposal.

The hazards which Bust be addressed Include:
    - fire and explosion froa product and product vapor;
    - contamination of drinking water;
    - contamination of soil, ground water or surface water.

Investigating and correcting a release  of petroleum from  a tank can  be  simple and
straightforward or extremely complex depending upon the site and  Its  soil  and ground
water conditions, the amount and type of product  released, and the current and  future
uses of the site and neighboring area.   These  site specific conditions  make  It
Impossible for the Minnesota Pollution  Control Agency  (MPCA) to  specify a  definite
number of test borings or a certain type of  water analysis to  be  done  1n  all cases.
Rather, this document lists the conditions and Items of Information  that  an  Investi-
gation «ust address In order to determine corrective action which  assures  protection
of the public's health and safety and the environment.   Presented  below are  outlines
of 'Parts 1, II', and III" of an Investigation  report.   Reports must  contain  this  or
equlvilent Information to be considered acceptable to  the MPCA staff.If  some  of
the required"Information cannot be  found you shoulH Include a  statenent to that
effect In the~report.  If you believe that some of the  Information is  not  relevant
to your site you should say so and describe  »hy It Is  not relevant.

Part I of the report (Background Information)  must contain descriptions of the  site,
the area around the release site, the product  and the  tanks.  Much or all  of this
Information can be gathered by responsible persons.  The  Information should  be  as
detailed as possible and may be submitted separately from and  before.  Parts  II  and
III.

Part II of the report (Technical Data' and Conclusions)  must contain detailed descrip-
tions of soil, water, and chemical conditions  at  the release site.  Few responsible
persons will have sufficient expertise and experience  to  gather and  Interpret  this
Information.  Certain parts must be done by a  certified or registered  person (for
example, monitoring wells nust be constructed  according to the State well  code  by
licensed well drillers or registered civil or geologic engineers).
              Exhibit II-4.   Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
                               Petroleum Tank Release Investigation Report
-------
PAGE 20
operators for correcting situations in which the
UST poses a danger to human health  and the
environment. The UST Loan Fund provides the
owner or operator with a low interest loan to be
used for repair, replacement, or removal of leaking
UST systems. A condition of the loan is that the
applicant be in compliance with the regulations;
any  owner or  operator cited  as  a violator  is
ineligible  to receive funds.  Several other States
have proposed or established grant or loan funds
to assist owners and operators in upgrading or
replacing UST systems. (See Exhibit II-5.)

Negotiated Cleanup Settlements
    Several States have developed procedures for
negotiating settlements with RPs in cases of tank
releases. Through these settlements, the State can
encourage the RP to undertake corrective actions
without  having  to  use   formal  enforcement
responses.   Because  UST  releases  do  not
necessarily occur  because of  a violation, these
settlements are used when the RP appears to have
made a good faith effort to cooperate and was in
compliance when the release occurred.

    In Texas, if the RP does not  respond  to  the
initial notification, or responds inadequately,  the
Texas UST staff initiates negotiations to reach an
agreement specifying actions to be taken. A letter
of agreement may suffice as confirmation or, for
complex  cases,   the  more   formal  Agreed
Enforcement Order (AEO) may be  developed.
The AEO is prepared by the Legal Division of the
Texas Water Commission  and must be approved
by  the Commission  before it is effective.  If the
Commission staff fails to reach an agreement with
the RP after taking  these steps, it will initiate
formal enforcement proceedings.

    New Mexico initiates negotiations for all sites
requiring corrective actions, regardless of priority.
(See page 90 for a more detailed discussion on the
LUST priority rating system.)  For lower priority
cases that do not pose an immediate or substantial
threat to human health and the environment, the
State  attempts  to achieve compliance with  a
minimum  expenditure   of  State  resources.
Compliance is negotiated informally with  input
from the owner or operator. Although the State
may cite potential legal recourse, such actions are
generally not taken, and few formal  settlements
are negotiated for low priority cases.  For cases
that pose a more significant threat to human health
and the environment,  the State can initiate more
formal negotiations with the violator or RP. The
purpose of the negotiations is to sign a settlement
agreement, which is a legally binding document in
which the violator or RP agrees to take action to
clean  up the site to State standards.  In  general.
New  Mexico will  waive  any penalties  upon
approval of  the corrective action outlined  in the
agreement.

    In Rhode Island, contamination or violations
may  be discovered  during  the  tank  closure
inspections.   If the contamination or violation is
extensive, the State  and owner or operator enter
into a consent agreement that specifies the actions
necessary to correct the situation. There is usually
no penalty associated  with this agreement as long
as the actions are taken within the specified time
period.   If  the  agreement is  violated, formal
response procedures are initiated.

Taking Formal Enforcement Actions
    As  mentioned earlier,  informal  actions are
usually effective, and formal actions are used only
if the  violation is significant  or if the  violator
is  uncooperative.  All  seven  of  the  States
interviewed   used formal  enforcement   actions
under certain conditions. In very serious cases or
when the violator is a repeat offender, the States
are likely to  omit informal responses and respond
directly with formal actions. However, even formal
enforcement actions can be divided into innovative
or  expedited   procedures    and   traditional
enforcement response.

Expedited Enforcement Procedures
    For  a  violation   that requires a formal
enforcement response but for which a traditional
approach  is  inappropriate  or  too resource-
intensive,   States  may   consider   developing
expedited procedures such as field citations and
other  enforcement  mechanisms  that  can  be
administered on site.
-------
                                                                                                                 PAGE 21
  State/Tund Title
                               Eligibility
                                                               Revenue Sourc*
                                                                                           Interest Rat*
California              <^n»i1  businesses unable to obtain   1)  State  appropriations
  California Petroleua  Loans from private landing sources.  2}  Application  fe«s
  Underground Storage  The amount of * loan nay not exceed  3)  Interest on  outstanding
  Tank Financing        370,000.  Loans may be used to         loans
  Authority (PROPOSED)  upgrade or replace USTa.             4)  Federal appropriations
                                                            5)  Interest income from the
                                                               fund
                                                                                        Equal to th* cost of conay
                                                                                        to the State on the first
                                                                                        day of the calendar quarter
                                                                                        during which the loan is
                                                                                        approved.
low*.
  Petroleum Underground Provide loans to financial!/
  Storage Tank
  Financing Account
  (PROPOSED)
                        qualified small businesses
                        to repair,  upgrade,  or
                        replace UST to meet applicable
                        State or Federal standards.   The
                        aaxinum amount of a Loan Bay not
                        exceed 330.000.
                                    1)  Petroleum tank  faes
                                    2)  Interest received  on
                                       outstanding Loons
                                    3)  State and Federal
                                       grants
Equal to the cost of
borrowing money by the
State on the first day
of the calendar quartar
during which the Loan is
approved
Heine
  Underground Storage   Money In th* fund nay b* used
  Facility Replacement  for direct loans for all or
  Fund                  part of underground oil storage
                        facility replacement projects
                        according to criteria set by the
                        State.  Also provide funds for
                        Insuring mortgage payments for
                        UST loans.   The mortgage Insurance
                        is limited to 35 aillion
                                                            1)  State  appropriations
                                                            2)  Interest  incasa  on
                                                               the fund
                                                            3)  Repayments
                                                                                        To be determined
Hew Jersey
  State Underground
  Storage Tank
  Improvement Fund
Revolving fund; low interest Loans  1} State appropriation of
aede Co UST owners who have been       Si aillion
directed by the NJ3EP to repair or  2) Repayment of Loans
replace one or more of their USTs
or Install monitoring systems.
                                                                                         Hot snore than  six peccant;
                                                                                         fixed  rates.
New York                Loans made to owners of facilities  1)  State appropriation
  State Underground     who are required pursuant to law       of S3 million
  Petroleum Storage     or regulation to replace one or     2)  Interest from out*
  Facility Improvement  more underground storage tank          standing loans
  Fund (PROPOSED)       facilitiee.
                                                                                         An  annual  rate  equal to the
                                                                                         Federal discount rate.
Rhode Island
  Underground Storage
  Tank Replacement
  Revolving, Loan Fund
                        Low Interest loans to residential
                        and commercial owners of USTs to
                        remedy leaking tanks and replace
                        tanks that axe likely to Leak;
                        revolving fund.
                                    L) State appropriations
                                    2) Repayment of loans
                                    3) Federal grants
                                    4) Gifts,  bequests,
                                       donations
                                    5) Bond issues
Two points below the six month
Treasury Bill rate at the time
the loan is awarded; fixed rates.
Vermont
  Underground Storage
  Tank Incentive
  Program
                        Grants up to 33,000 for small
                        retail ganoline outlets (sale*
                        <20,000 gallons/month) and muni'
                        cipalities (pop. <2.500) to aid in
                        compliance with State regulations.
                                    1) Funds authorized by the
                                       oil overcharge fund and
                                       from the petroleum
                                       cleanup fund for this
                                       purpose
                                                                                                  H/A
                          Exhibit II-5.    State Loan or Grant Funds
-------
PAGE 22
    Field  Citations.  In general,' field citations
(much  like   traffic   tickets)   are   modified
administrative orders that are often used for minor
violations and are issued by the inspector at the
time  a violation  is  discovered.   The citation
typically assesses a low to  moderate penalty and
requires the violator to correct the violation to
bring the facility into compliance.  Although they
are  usually  addressed   to  relatively  minor,
commonly occurring violations where the violator
is likely to correct the violation and forego appeal,
field citations can be a larger component of the
formal  enforcement  arsenal. (See page  94 for
further  discussion  of  expedited  enforcement
procedures.)

    The Ontario, Canada, UST program has used
field citations for several years to enforce all of its
UST regulations, including major provisions. (See
Exhibit II-6.) The District of Columbia is planning
to use field citations as the  initial enforcement
order  for all of its  UST  regulations  under its
generic civil enforcement  procedures.  In  both
programs, the violator has the option of correcting
the violation and paying the fine assessed on the
field citation, or pursuing an appeal following the
procedure outlined on the citation.

    Of  the  seven  States  interviewed,  only
California  uses  field citations  to any  degree.
Although most counties or localities in California
do not have administrative authority to write field
citations, those that do reported favorably on
them.  The authority allows  the county or local
agency to cite  owners for  minor infractions and
thus  requires less  documentation  for violations.
The South County Fire Authority issues citations
that  require a court appearance.   If a fine is
imposed, the Municipal Court collects the fees
according to an approved schedule, similar  to the
manner in  which parking violations are handled.
However, some officials in counties  without this
authority indicated that they would not want  it
because  it would  damage  their  cooperative
relationship with the tank owners and operators.
This procedure would normally be the same as that
followed for appeals of traditional administrative
orders.
    Cease-and-Desist Orders.  Assuming that a
State has the necessary statutory authority, as an
alternative to the traditional administrative orders,
a State may take other, more efficient and equally
effective action by ordering violators  to  cease
operation of their tanks.  For more significant
violations.  States  may  revoke  the permit (if a
permit is required to operate a facility) or issue
orders requiring that tanks be pumped until empty
or closed, if necessary.   In Maryland, inspectors
issue site complaints to prohibit  violators from
operating their USTs  or installing a new UST.
These complaints are essentially cease-and-desist
orders that do not levy penalties. (See Exhibit II-7.)
Maryland inspectors have also ordered tanks to be
pumped out until a suspected leak is confirmed or
corrected.   In California, county agencies can
revoke the permit if a violator has not responded to
informal enforcement; the agency can also require
that the tank be removed from  the ground.

    The City of Austin, Texas,  has developed an
innovative  approach to  exercising a cease-and-
desist order for violators that is a combination of
informal and  formal  steps.   Under  the  City's
building code, new USTs  being  installed must
obtain  a  building  permit  and  follow  proper
installation  procedures.    If  the  installation
requirements are violated,  the inspector gives the
violator a verbal 24-hour compliance deadline. If
the violation is not corrected, the inspector gives a
written notice.  If compliance is still not achieved,
the inspector posts a "red tag" on the tank that
orders  the violator to  stop all  work  until the
violation is corrected.  This tag also serves as a
warning to distributors that the UST system does
not meet specifications and should not be filled.
(See page 122 for a discussion of pump tagging.)

    The advantage of these less  formal procedures
is that they allow for tailored on-site settlement of
the  violation  without   requiring   extensive
administrative resources. The  field-citation type
of notice in particular provides the inspector with
flexibility to determine the appropriate response in
each situation. The disadvantage of field citations
is that  some authorities view them as having the
potential  to  adversely  affect  the relationship
between inspectors and  the regulated population;
-------
                                                                                    PAGE 23
 PROVINCIAL         CQUR 0€S

 OFFENCES COURT     ,nf«ACTIONS
 PROVINCE Of ONTAfllQ .*«OVINCIACES
                  OFFENCE NOTICE
                AVIS D'INFRACTION

                 A  109314-2
    YOU ARE CHARGED WITH THE FOLLOWING OFFENCE
     VOUS ETES ACCUSE  DE L'INFRACTION SU1VANTE
On |
L»
NAME
NOM
             tout  t^,MM  it t OO

  ^O NOT WING A^CNviCTiCNrtltL d£ tNfEMfcO
  Al^AIN^r vOU ANO ^ INC PATM^NT ENfOHCE-
                        AVIA
          OANS tES QUINCE -uuHS OE  UA DATE »
          tAoU6l.Lt  uui SOfir
          HOIOUES *U V(«SO U£ C£ H.HOOLAiME  -jl
          vOub NtN*AiiESfti£N vOuS b£f*6/OECLAfl£
          CGuPABie £T  t£ PAiiuCNT C£ l. AMENDE
 if YOU PtEAO NOT GUIUTY TM£ TfllAL SMALt BE MELO AT
 Si, VOUS PVAIOEZ NON COUPA8CE. L£ PBOCES SE ri£NO«A A
   JudtCUM OlMIKI Ol
      OLD CITY HALL 60 QUEEM ST. W.
      TOROHTa OHTAfllO M5H 2TH4
 SET f INE l.neii*aina co»tl(
 AUENOE ET fOAlS
-------
PAGE 24
                                                          STATE OF MARYLAND
                                                       .FPAfiruFNr of r>ic tN
                                                      Ai; 1C MANAGEMENT AOMINlSTHA TlL-N
                                                         ANNAPOLIS. MARYLAND 2M01
                                                                 (301)074-1551
SITE COMPLAINT


NuwegR
sc.ov- 000479
DATE
                                 1 Pnncipal:  .
                                   (Address).
                                                                              .(PHONE) .
                                 2 Agent or Contractor
                                   (Address):  	
                                 3,  Violation  of O Environment  Article.
                                   Q Code ol Maryland Regulations Section) i) Viotaled
                                                                         	  (PHONE)	
                                                                         Section  4-401  irtrouon
                                                                                                 418
                                 4 Specifically:
                                  5. Accordingly it n "ORDERED" mat
                                    Q Gets* and desist by __^_-^
fat. .
            . 19.
                                    QOuief:
                                    Please Be advised tnal you are entitled 10 a ncaring oelore me Adminitiration
                                    as i result ol mil Order  If you >nsn  lo schedule a Hearing on mis mciur. me
                                    Administration must o« so notified in wriung wiinm (10) days
                                  8. T hereby acxnowteoge receipt ql mis Site Compuint Dy my Signature. w«ucn is not
                                    an admission of guilt ~
                                   Pervxi issued lo:  ____——^——————————^——	
                                   AUTHORIZED BY RONALD NELSON ISSUED  BY 	
                                                       Director
                                   OENV 80   WHie - Oil Control O»mon    1*aom • File
                Inspector
             D Addendum Atlached
          Pin* • Principal
                                   Rxhibit 11-7.   Maryland Department of Environment
                                                      Site Complaint
-------
                                                                                         PAGE 25
their reasoning is that if the inspector normally
encourages   compliance   by  maintaining   an
informal,  friendly relationship with  the  facility
owners, use of field citations may make relations
more inflexible  and antagonistic, thus creating
hostility   within  the   regulated   community.
However,  other jurisdictions view the authority to
quickly issue some formal enforcement action as a
necessary "hammer" to their role as regulators.
Traditional Formal Enforcement
    All  of the  States interviewed  indicated that
certain  violation situations require that formal
enforcement orders be issued by the implementing
agency. Maryland uses administrative compliance
orders and judicial orders  to achieve compliance
when  informal negotiations  fail   or  when  the
violation is  significant.  Such  orders are used to
require  actions  and/or  assess   penalties and
provide  the right  to  a departmental  hearing.
Self-identified violators can reduce the amount of
the  penalty by  pre-paying the  fine.   Higher
.penalties can occur if the case is taken to court and
substantially "higher costs  of cleanup  can  be
assessed against the violator.

    In most enforcement cases in New Mexico,
violators are cooperative and the State works with
them  to   develop  an  appropriate  solution.
However,  for  those sites  where  violators  are
uncooperative  or the  environmental  or  human
health   threat   is  particularly   severe,   an
administrative order is issued. The UST program
has the authority to impose penalties and require
violators to correct the situation.  If the violator
fails to cooperate, judicial  action is required to
order the necessary response.

    In Texas, formal enforcement actions are taken
when the violator does not  adequately respond to
the informal negotiations.   Formal enforcement
actions must follow the procedures  established
under the Texas Administrative Code.  For each
case, the Texas UST staff prepares a report that
outlines  the facts  in  the case   and includes
recommendations  for  corrective  actions and
administrative  penalties. This  report is reviewed
by the UST legal staff, signed by the director, and
sent to the  violator.  The  violator may either
consent to the report or request a hearing.  If, upon
review of the hearing, the  Texas Water Com-
mission determines that a violation has occurred, it
may assess   penalties  and/or  order  actions to
achieve compliance.

    When county-level  negotiations for settlement
fail in California, the counties generally have two
choices. They can take the case to the local District
Attorney for prosecution or to the Regional Water
Quality Control  Board for  formal enforcement
actions. (See page 126 for a description of the case
transfer process.)  The Board typically  issues a
cleanup  and abatement order  that   requires
information  on the release and an  evaluation of
actions taken.   After  the Board has selected a
cleanup  level,  an  order  requiring  complete
remediation is issued.  Noncompliance with these
orders results in administrative fines.
Cosf. Recovery
    Several   States   have   developed   formal
procedures  for  recovering costs from RPs for
corrective actions following a  tank release.  In
Minnesota,  if  RPs  cannot  be located  or are
unwilling to cooperate, the State takes corrective
actions and follows up with cost-recovery steps.
Any corrective  actions or cost-recovery orders
must be  approved  by the  Citizens'  Board,  a
Governor-appointed group of nine citizens who
present various interests. Approved cost-recovery
orders are issued by the Attorney General.

    When a release is discovered in Massachusetts,
the State issues a formal Notice of Responsibility
which  informs the RP of liability for the cost of
corrective actions. If the RP does not respond, the
State takes corrective action and bills him for the
costs incurred. If the RPs cannot or will not pay, a
lien  may be placed  on  the  property, which
increases the administrative cost liability.  State
officials can require that notification of the release
be  indicated on the property deed,  informing
potential buyers of their potential liability for
future  damages  and limiting the use that can be
made of the property.
-------
PAGE 26
Penalty Determination
    When States  use their formal  enforcement
authorities, they typically want the flexibility to
assess  penalties  at  levels appropriate  to  the
violation and situation. To determine appropriate
penalties, some States use a  penalty matrix to
provide a system for matching the penalty with the
violation. In Rhode Island, NOV penalties are
assessed according to the State's penalty matrix,
which categorizes specific violations into classes.
For example, failure to register tanks is a lesser
violation than the failure to report a leak. While a
penalty  matrix  is  a common  element of an
enforcement  program, a State  might discount
penalties  specified  in the matrix  to  negotiate
compliance   with  violators.     Past   penalty
assessments in Rhode Island have been decreased
by 50 percent in some cases in order to encourage
the violator  to achieve compliance.  New Mexico
has a penalty matrix that assigns values  to such
factors as the type of violation, the threat to ground
water  or water  supply, and  the  violator's
willingness  to  cooperate  or  history  of  non-
compliance. (See page 138 for more information
on  the penalty policy.)   Values are totalled to
determine the final penalty.

DELEGATING  PROGRAM
RESPONSIBILITIES TO
COUNTIES/CITIES
    Because its resources for enforcement are
likely to be limited, a State may want to consider
delegating some of its UST compliance monitoring
and enforcement activities to  local governments.
In addition, the size and diversity of the regulated
community can make it difficult for a centralized
program,  particularly   in  a  large  State, to
implement a comprehensive compliance program.
Delegating  certain  compliance  monitoring and
enforcement responsibilities to local agencies' can
alleviate difficulties.

    The advantage of delegating responsibilities is
that   local  officials   often   have  a   more
comprehensive and intimate  knowledge  of the
regulated community, which allows them to work
with owners or operators in a less formal, and often
more effective, manner than State officials.  The
disadvantage  is  that  delegating  enforcement
activities gives a State less control over the actual
program  implementation,   which  can   make
directing the overall UST program more difficult.
Therefore,  effective  delegation  may  require a
system of oversight procedures that provides the •
State with the information necessary  to evaluate
the  performance  of the local agencies and to
establish program objectives and priorities.

    Of  the  seven  States  visited, most   have
informally    delegated   some   enforcement
responsibilities to local officials. In Maryland and
Minnesota, local fire departments enforce building
and fire codes regulating USTs; however, there is
neither a  formal  agreement  with the State to
develop enforcement programs nor a  system for
direct  State  oversight  of enforcement activities.
Massachusetts  delegates its regulatory program
(e.g.,  inspections,  permits)  to  the  local  fire
departments through  the State Fire Marshal's
Office. Although local officials are responsible for
enforcing State UST regulations, the State  Fire
Marshal provides  oversight   through technical
guidance,  such   as   providing  protocols  for
inspecting  monitoring systems.

    Two States (California and New Mexico) have
formally delegated UST enforcement programs to
localities.  California  has  completely delegated
UST program  development and enforcement to
cities or counties, while New Mexico has done so
with Albuquerque, one of  its  major  cities.  The
delegation  of program authority in California and
New Mexico is detailed below.

Delegation in California
    The California State Underground Storage of
Hazardous Substance Law (Chapter 6-7, Division
20 of  the  California  Health  arid Safety  Code)
delegates  the  UST  prevention  and  cleanup
.activities to the counties. Unlike the Federal UST
program in which States are encouraged to adopt
UST  programs,   counties   are  required  to
implement  the  State program  and  can  be
sanctioned for not doing so (possibly by  the
withholding  of State funds for other  programs).
Cities  can  pass their own ordinances and have the
-------
                                                                                        PAGE 27
option of running UST programs in  lieu of the
counties.  The California State Water Resources
Control Board issues and revises regulations and
provides guidance to the localities. The State has
nine regional offices,  known as Regional Water
Quality Control Boards, that provide oversight
and assistance to the counties and cities.

   Several   factors    make  this   approach
appropriate and effective in California. The size of
the State, combined with the large population of
tanks, would make running a centralized program
extremely difficult.   The California  regulatory
enforcement  program,  which  is  based  on an
extensive permitting process, requires the direct
attention of program officials to guide owners and
operators  through the  permit   requirements.
Having  the  program  run  by  local  officials
facilitates this process. In addition. California has
a  strong  county government  system that has
experience in implementing other State programs.

   The California State law allows the county or
city implementing the UST program to assess civil
penalties for violations.  Most programs use their
local district attorneys to assess penalties under
this law. The civil penalties  range from  $500 to
$5000 per day.  Criminal sanctions can be sought
for owners and operators who either knowingly fail
to report an unauthorized release or who falsify
monitoring requirements. Counties are allowed to
use legal remedies and penalties under other laws
as well as the State law.

Delegation in New Mexico
    New  Mexico   used  a  Memorandum  of
Understanding (MOU)  to delegate certain UST
program   responsibilities   to  the   City   of
Albuquerque. The MOU allows the Albuquerque
Environmental Health Department (AEHD) to
perform functions under the authority of the State
Hazardous Waste Act.  These functions  include
the location and investigation of UST sites within
Bernalillo County where leaks may have occurred,
particularly  at   locations   where  there  are
abandoned tanks and where the depth of ground
water is shallow.  The responsibilities of  AEHD
include characterizing the presence,  type,  and
extent   of   ground-water  contamination   and
assessing the  threat to  public health  posed by
contamination of wells and fire hazards.

    The MOU also specifies that all enforcement
actions  must be  taken by the State. The  City of
Albuquerque  does  not  have the  authority to
prosecute, litigate, or take any enforcement action
under the  MOU.  Thus, the MOU  gives the City
authority  to undertake  compliance monitoring
activities,  but not  formal enforcement response
actions. (See page 147 for a sample MOU.)
-------
PAGE 28
                                     CHAPTER III.
                     MEASURING PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS
   This  chapter examines methods that your
agency might use to measure the success of its UST
compliance program.  Measuring program success
allows program officials  to  determine what is
working and what is  not  and to make informed
management decisions. Setting program goals and
measuring progress toward meeting those goals can
assure you that you are spending your resources as
efficiently as possible.

   Generally  speaking, there are  two ways  of
measuring  program effectiveness: measuring  the
actions taken by the program, and measuring the
behavior of the regulated  community.  Each is
discussed below.


MEASURING PROGRAM ACTIONS
   The success of your agency's UST program can
be measured by tracking the number or frequency of
compliance-related  actions taken.   For example,
you can track the number of inspections conducted,
outreach materials distributed, or warning letters,
field citations,  or administrative orders issued. The
UST program in  Suffolk  County, New  York,
measures the success of program compliance not by
tracking enforcement actions taken, but by tracking
the  frequency of  reported  UST  installations,
notifications, tightness tests, and closures. The data
are  entered into a  data  base and are  used to
calculate    compliance   with   the   respective
requirements.  Although compliance  measurements
may  be  overestimated due  to  lack of data  on
unregistered tanks,  the county is aware of certain
categories of USTs that have low  registration levels
and is working to correct this.

    The  advantage of  this system  is that it  is
straightforward (i.e., the types of activities that can
be counted are easy to identify).  In addition, your
agency can establish clear  goals  for  achieving
compliance and can easily track progress in meeting
those goals.  Because of this  simplicity, many
enforcement program officials rely on these types of
measures to evaluate the performance of their UST
program.

   However,  this method has several disadvan-
tages. First, counting enforcement activities reveals
what the program is doing, but it might not indicate
whether or not the program is achieving its goal (i.e.,
promoting compliance in the regulated community).
At best, these activities are substitutes for the more
basic program goal of achieving compliance with the
regulations and protecting human health and the
environment.  In addition, the number of actions
taken by a program may or may not correlate with
the number of owners or operators in compliance.
For example, a large number of random inspections
or  field  citations   may  do   little   to  deter
noncompliance  if few members of the regulated
community know about the regulations or how to
comply. In this case, measuring the number of
inspections conducted  or  field  citations  issued
would reveal little about the success of the program.

   Another potential disadvantage of this' method
is that it  may  create incentives that  distort the
enforcement process. Suppose that your program
sets  goals for the number of field citations to be
issued during a certain time period and that field
staff  are  rewarded  for meeting  this  goal.  This
arrangement  gives field staff an incentive to detect
and sanction  minor, but conspicuous, violations to
meet the  goal,  but  it may divert attention from
identifying major problems and preventing future
violations.

    By being  aware  of the limitations of using the
number of program actions taken as  measures to
judge program success,  you can structure  the
measures   to  maximize   their  usefulness.   In
particular, measures that are tailored to a particular
stage of a  program's development can yield data on
the activities that are most important during that
stage. For example, new  programs might measure
activities  like  outreach  materials produced, as
opposed to administrative or judicial orders issued.
By carefully  choosing program activity measures,
-------
                                                                                      PAGE 29
you can  enhance their usefulness  as  a program
management tool.


MEASURING THE BEHAVIOR OF
THE REGULATED COMMUNITY
   The second  method  of measuring program
success is to monitor the behavior of the regulated
community.  Ideally, a compliance program should
measure the level and rate of change of the regulated
community's compliance with the UST regulations.
This type of measure directly tracks the program's
progress in promoting compliance.   However, the
large and diverse set of regulations and the diversity
and size  of the  regulated community can make
measuring compliance difficult and expensive.

   Your program  may, however, concentrate on
measuring  the  compliance  of  the   regulated
community with specific parts of the regulations or
on certain related regulated community behavior,
such as:

 O The portion of tanks with  reported tank test
    results or insurance,
 O The number of existing tanks not replaced or
    upgraded,
 O The rate of tank replacement or upgrading,
 O The number of releases reported or detected, or
 O The  number of tank  owners  with  liability
    insurance.

   As in the case of measuring success  by tracking
program  actions, the appropriate measures  for a
program  depend upon the stage of the program's
development. For example, the major focus in many
new programs may include ensuring that tanks are
identified,  tested  for  tightness,   and  properly
upgraded, and  that any releases are swiftJy and
completely corrected.  The success of these goals
may be measured primarily in terms of how well the
regulated  community has  complied with  these
requirements.   A mature program,  on  the  other
hand, may focus more on measuring compliance
with  requirements  to maintain  and  use  leak
detection and prevention technologies.

    Interviews  with  State  and county  officials
provide several examples of how this technique can
be used. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA)   UST  program   currently   measures
compliance  of  the  regulated  community  with
corrective  action  requirements.   The  program,
created in  1985 and  still  in  its early stages, is
devoting most of its resources to responding to leak
reports    and   enforcing    corrective   action
requirements.     The  MPCA   has   observed
approximately 85 to  90 percent compliance with
these requirements.

   The Dade  County,  Florida,  UST  program
measures  compliance with   corrective  action
requirements through  enforcement and oversight.
In Dade County, compliance is also measured with
registration requirements by comparing UST notif-
ication forms to maps, information supplied by local
authorities, and  on-site inspection data.  However,
these measures may be overestimated due to a lack
of data on unregistered USTs.  New Mexico has
measured  compliance with notification  require-
ments through on-site inspections in the City of
Albuquerque.    As  their  programs   develop,
Minnesota, New Mexico, and Dade County plan to
increase  the resources  devoted  to measuring
compliance,  and would like to use  inspections to
measure  compliance  with  installation,  closure,
recordkeeping,  leak  detection,  and  financial
responsibility requirements.
-------
PAGE 30
                                     CHAPTER IV.
     SUMMARIES OF UST COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS IN SEVEN STATES
   This  chapter  briefly  describes  the  UST
programs in each of the seven States interviewed:
California,  Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Texas.  Although
the programs established in these seven States do
not present all possible approaches to developing an
UST compliance program, they  do illustrate  the
diversity of programs that may be established. As a
whole,  the  States represent a number of factors,
including  population  size,  maturity of the UST
program, degree of local government involvement,
type of legislative authority used, and techniques
used  for  achieving  compliance.    This  chapter
summarizes the  seven  programs;  the complete
reports on each  State are contained in a separate
document. For purposes of quick review, a matrix of
UST compliance programs by State is included at
the end of this chapter. (See Exhibit IV-1.)


CALIFORNIA
    California's 1983 State Underground Storage of
Hazardous Substances Law established the State's
regulatory authority and described the protocol for
delegating  the  enforcement authority to  local
agencies.   The  law directed the California State
Water Resources Control Board to develop specific
guidelines for the design, construction, installation,
inspection, monitoring, and closure of both new and
existing  USTs.  These  tank  standards  became
effective in 1985 and included  requirements for
secondary containment, cathodic protection, strike
plates, and a leak detection system.  The  UST
statute also required that counties implement and
enforce the technical requirements of the  UST
program,  although cities may choose  to develop
their own programs and override county authority
within the city limits.

    Two factors were important in the California
decision to require counties to implement the UST
program.  First, the size of the State and the size of
the  regulated  community would  have  made  it
difficult  for   the   State  to  assume  program
responsibility. The California regulations require
the implementing agency to work closely with the
regulated community, which may be most effectively
accomplished by the local governments.  Second,
county governments in California have a tradition of
running State programs.  Several State programs,
including the hazardous waste regulatory program,
are run by counties.  Thus,  the counties have had
experience   with   the   State's  environmental
regulatory programs.

    Counties and cities implement the regulations
through a permitting process. To obtain a permit,
the  owner or  operator  must  first  submit  an
application to the local agency providing extensive
information about the facility, and specifying one of
eight methods  to be  used to  monitor product
inventory. Owners or operators are usually required
to submit a permit fee with the application and to
have a tightness test performed prior to receiving  a
permit. Tank permit fees vary by county. After the
owner or operator has submitted the application
and permit fee. most counties then require that the
facility be inspected to determine whether it  meets
the standards set by State and/or local regulations.
If the UST passes the inspection, a 5-year permit is
issued. Outreach efforts of the localities typically
focus  on informing owners and operators of the
permit requirements.  Most counties undertook an
extensive mailing; counties  generally  located their
USTs through inventory  information gathered by
the  State and supplemented this information with
local fire department records.


     The State also  requires that UST owners or
operators report unauthorized releases from either
the  primary or secondary containment unit  to the
local  implementing agency  within  24  hours of
detection. A written report  must then be submitted
within 5 days. Until the cleanup is completed, the
operator or permittee must submit a report to the
local agency or regional board of the State every 3
months specifying the progress of cleanup activities.
-------
                                                                                        PAGE 31
    If owners or operators fail to comply with the
permit  requirements or  other regulations, the
counties and  cities  attempt  to  use  informal
enforcement techniques, such as letters and phone
calls,  to get the owners or  operators to comply.
None of the counties interviewed had administrative
authority to impose fines on owners or operators
who operate a tank without a permit or violate the
regulations in some other manner.   If informal
methods fail, the counties can assess civil penalties
under the State law through their local District
Attorney's Office.


MARYLAND
    The UST  program in Maryland is  part of a
comprehensive program for oil pollution control
and spill response. The UST compliance program is
currently administered at the State level by the Oil.
Control Division in the Department of Environ-
ment. However, some Maryland  counties have their
own UST regulations or enforce building and fire
codes regulating USTs.  County programs tend to
focus  on   permits  and   inspections   of  tank
installations.

    The UST program in Maryland grew out of a
broader oil pollution control program that has been
in existence since 1973. Maryland's shoreline forms
a large  part of  the Chesapeake Bay, one  of the
largest estuaries in the country and an important
natural  resource. Because Maryland relies  on the
Bay, particularly for the State's  substantial fishing
industry,  it  developed  a  program  to prevent
surface-water and ground-water pollution from oil
spills and releases.  The oil pollution  control and
spill response program  was administered  by the
Department of  Natural  Resources and focused
primarily on responding to  oil  spill emergencies.
However, releases  of petroleum from USTs were
also covered in the program.

    In response to  increased reports of leaks from
UST  systems,  the  program  was  substantially
expanded   in  1985  with   the  promulgation  of
regulations  specific to  UST  facilities.   These
regulations included mandatory tightness testing for
all USTs 15 years or older (or where age is unknown)
and technical  standards for UST installation and
closure.  The  strength of the UST program was
expanded further in July 1987, when authority for
the program was moved to the newly established
Department of Environment.  This reorganization
served to provide the UST enforcement program
with wider access to statutory authority for water
pollution control.

    The UST  program  in Maryland is currently
response-oriented  and  does  not  have written
procedures for site inspections and enforcement of
the regulations. Inspectors are assigned to one of
seven regions in the State and devote most of their
time  to  investigating complaints  and  enforcing
against  violations.   Only in  the less  populated
regions  do inspectors have more time to conduct
routine  inspections or "spot checks" to assess the
compliance status of facilities.

    The inspectors have developed both formal and
informal methods for  responding  to  violations,
depending upon the type of violation and the
reaction of the violator.  Most  enforcement actions
are informal (i.e., the inspector  works with the
violator  to  explain the  necessary  corrective
measures  and   the   potential   penalties  for
noncompliance).   In cases of  continuing  non-
compliance, a formal administrative order may be
issued by the Department of Environment to order
actions  and/or assess penalties. In extreme cases,
the Department may request the Attorney General's
Office to seek a judicial  order.

    To  encourage   voluntary  compliance,  the
program utilizes several means of notifying the
regulated  community of its responsibilities.  For
example, the State has developed public notice fliers
that describe the regulatory requirements for tank
testing and provide sources for further information.
The State also relies on an Ad Hoc Committee,
made up of members from the local government,
industry,   and  community   groups,   to  'relay
information to petroleum industry representatives
and trade associations.  •

    The  State  is  planning to expand its  UST
program to focus on prevention of violations and
releases from USTs.  Future activities in the UST
program include developing  a methodology for
targeting random inspections,  creating a data base
for tracking  inspections and  other  enforcement
-------
PAGE 32	:	

activities, and producing written procedures  for
exercising enforcement authorities.


MASSACHUSETTS
   The  UST  activities  in  Massachusetts   are
separated into  two programs:     a  prevention
program coordinated by the State Fire Marshal's
Office; and a release-response program established
by the State Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering  (DEQE).    The  release-response
authority stems  from  the  State's  Superfund
program, which governs  response  actions  for
releases  and/or  unauthorized disposal of oil  or
hazardous material.  However,  the  authority for
developing regulations  specific  to USTs  and for
establishing   broad   technical   and  reporting
requirements was delegated to  the Office of the
State Fire Marshal.

    Before Massachusetts developed a specific UST
program, the   State's water   pollution  control
authorities,  which were administered by DEQE,
were used to address all remedial response actions.
However, the  pollution laws at  that time did not
permit State response until a responsible party was
identified. As a result, tank owners and operators
often abandoned contaminated sites. The resulting
site  contamination problems and  the subsequent
contamination of ground water  were the primary
forces behind support for more legislation. In 1983,
the  State  passed  the  Massachusetts  Oil   and
Hazardous  Material   Release  Prevention   and
Response Act.  This statute, which constitutes a
State  counterpart  to  the  Federal Superfund
program, provided funding for site assessment and
remediation, and it expanded DEQE's enforcement
authority.   The  State is now  developing  the
Massachusetts Contingency Plan to formalize and
detail the responsibilities of those involved in the
release-response process and to establish specific
procedures  required for responding to threats of
releases of oil and hazardous materials.

    Currently, the  majority of  DEQE's response
actions involve follow-up inspections and oversight
of cleanups in  response to releases.  Under the
State's Superfund program, DEQE must be notified.
immediately of a release or threat of release of oil or
hazardous substance.  DEQE officials then inspect
the site and determine the necessary corrective
action. A Notice of Responsibility (NOR) is issued
to inform  responsible parties  of their liability,
regardless of fault, for the cost of all response
actions. In addition, the NOR serves to notify the
recalcitrant responsible parties that DEQE will hire
contractors  and  then recover  those costs plus
administrative costs and damages in court.

   A  different  set  of authorities were  passed
subsequent to the State's Superfund Act to address
the prevention aspects of UST regulation. In 1986,
the  State   Board  of  Fire  Prevention  passed
regulations pertaining to UST installation, use, and
closure.  As the primary State agency responsible
for public health and safety issues, the State Fire
Marshal's Office in the Department of Public Safety
was   given   administrative  authority  for  the
regulations.

   The Fire Marshal's regulations are enforced by
local  fire  department   officials.   Under  the
regulations, all  UST facilities  are  required to
maintain a permit for UST operation and obtain a
closure permit prior to UST removal; therefore,
local fire officials may  inspect  installation and
closure activities  to  ensure compliance with the
regulations. Some localities have developed more
stringent regulations,  including  requirements  for
double-walled tanks.  Local fire officials may issue
an order requiring an owner or operator to take
specific  action, such as  filing  for a permit or
removing out-of-service USTs.   Failure  to take
appropriate action can result in court action, and
civil  penalties may  be assessed  at that  time.
Compliance outreach has  been achieved primarily
through mass mailings by State and local officials.


MINNESOTA
    Minnesota's   UST  program  is  primarily
response-oriented  and encourages  the  prompt
cleanup of releases  through negotiation with  the
responsible party. The program is administered by
the  Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
and was significantly expanded through legislation
passed in 1985 and 1987. The legislature granted the
MPCA the authority to develop and enforce a broad
range of regulations, including the establishment of
a cost-recovery  program.  The development  of
-------
                                                                                        PAGE 33
specific technical regulations, however, is awaiting
the  promulgation  of  the  final  Federal  UST
regulations.


   A major factor contributing to the development
of the current program is the attention given in the
last 5 years  to the high number of UST releases.
UST releases are of great concern in Minnesota
because of their impact on ground water, the State's
primary  water  resource.   At present, the  UST
program focuses on identifying potential releases
and ensuring that corrective action is  taken where
appropriate  and necessary.


   Because   of  limited  resources.   State  UST
officials do not routinely inspect UST installation or
closure sites,  although  local  fire  marshals or
building inspectors  may occasionally oversee UST
activities in their area.  Instead, the majority of the
MPCA's activities are release-response efforts.  An
important element  of  this response  effort is  the
newly  created   Petro  Fund,  a  reimbursement
program that has a strong enforcement component
coupled with financial incentives for  compliance.
The strength of the  program relies on the cleanup
efforts made by the  responsible  party and  the
reimbursement  funds  from   the   Petro  Fund
program.  The  Petro Fund may provide up to 75
percent of the cleanup costs depending on the level
of cooperation of the responsible party.


   Upon notification of a release, local fire officials
usually investigate the release site and  mitigate any
immediate fire hazards. If severe contamination is
discovered, the MPCA  sends field staff for further
investigation. Once the site has been assessed, the
MPCA attempts to  notify the responsible party of
the corrective action necessary  to clean  up  the
contaminated site. If the responsible party agrees to
act, the MPCA provides guidance and periodic
checks as necessary.   Once cleanup  actions  are
complete,  the  Petro  Board,  with  members
appointed by the governor, reviews cost reports and
determines the portion  of the costs incurred by the
responsible party that  qualify  for reimbursement.
Because  State  funds  are available  for  partial
repayment, the responsible parties are frequently
more willing to take prompt remedial action.
    If appropriate remedial action is not taken, a
 State order or corrective action letter is issued by the
 Attorney General's office with  the' consent of the
 Governor appointed Citizens' Board. The MPCA
 has  authority  to  hire  cleanup  contractors  and
 initiate all  necessary  remedial activities.   State
 cleanup costs may then be recovered through legal
 proceedings if necessary.

    As the program develops, the MPCA plans to
 move toward a more preventative approach, relying
 less on response-oriented activity and more on the
 owner's or operator's efforts to prevent releases.
 This  will  include  developing  a  more extensive
 certification  program  and  focusing  on  proper
 installation  and removal techniques in order to
 prevent future releases, while continuing to use the
 Petro Fund for reimbursement of responsible party
 actions.


 NEW MEXICO
    The UST program in  New Mexico was officially
 established in August 1986 and is administered by
 the UST section of the Groundwater  Bureau in the
 State's   Environmental   Improvement  Division
 (EID).    The  program  currently   focuses  on
 responding to complaints and other notifications of
 releases, and it has a well-developed enforcement
 response process.  However, a very active effort is
 currently underway to develop comprehensive UST
 regulations with an emphasis on preventing leaks.
 The program is expected  to greatly expand with the
 collection of UST registration fees and the issuance
•of specific  UST regulations in 1988.

    The UST program developed out of the State's
 efforts to prevent contamination  of ground  and
 surface water.  Over 90 percent of the population
 relies on ground water for drinking water supplies;
 in rural areas, this dependency is nearly 100 percent.
 Water  pollution  caused by UST  releases  was
 initially covered under the, 1967  Water Quality Act,
 which provided cleanup  standards for releases of
 any hazardous substance (including petroleum) into
 ground water. The major impetus to focus on UST
 environmental  problems, however, came  from a
 1984  EPA-funded study conducted  by EID.  The
 study, entitled "Hydrocarbon  Contamination of
 Ground Water and Soil in New  Mexico," identified
-------
PAGE 34
petroleum releases from USTs as the primary cause
of   ground-water   contamination   from   all
petroleum-related activities.   In  addition, EID
became increasingly sensitive to the UST situation
in the State by reviewing the data collected during
the Federal UST notification process.  The new
awareness  led to the  formation  of a State-level
group to focus on the need to regulate USTs.
    The  UST staff  currently  directs  its  efforts
toward  identifying and responding to  releases of
petroleum and other substances into ground water.
The program does not have procedures for routine
inspections and most inspection efforts concentrate
on  responding  to complaints of violations and
releases.  However,  the State has also identified
inadequate installation as a primary cause of tank
releases, and it intends to focus future compliance
monitoring efforts on tank installations.
    Because of the concern for ground water, the
State  has developed  an  extensive  enforcement
process  to  bring violators into  compliance and
encourage cooperation from  responsible parties.
Upon notification of a release or violation, the UST
staff documents the case, conducts assessments to
determine the extent  of the threat,  and  begins
negotiations with the responsible party or violator to
determine appropriate actions.  The  extent of the
litigation depends  upon  the   severity  of  the
environmental impact, the potential health threat,
and  the cooperation of the responsible party or
violator. The objective of the enforcement process is
to  reach an  agreement whereby the responsible
party or violator will undertake appropriate actions
under the supervision of the State.
    The prevention component of the UST program
 is expected to expand in the near future. The State is
 developing new regulations specific to USTs that
 include technical standards, financial  responsibil-
 ity,  tank  installer  certification,  and  closure
 requirements. With the adoption of the regulations,
 the State UST staff expects to increase its inspection
 program, develop remedial action standards, and
 expand outreach.
RHODE ISLAND
   Rhode Island established a comprehensive UST
regulatory program  in  1985.   The program is
administered by the Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management with legal advice from
the Rhode Island  Department of Legal Services.
The primary concern of Rhode Island officials is the
prevention of ground-water contamination because
the State's high water table facilitates the spread of
contamination from releases into public and private
drinking water supplies.  With technical regulations
being developed by the Federal EPA, Rhode Island
officials looked to develop a  program that would
provide immediate protection of ground water while
maintaining the flexibility to incorporate impending
Federal requirements. The Rhode Island program,
therefore, emphasizes three techniques to identify
and   remediate  possible  sources  of  aquifer
contamination:  establishing stringent tank testing
and  notification requirements;  monitoring  tank
closures; and maintaining the authority to impose
site-specific tank requirements.

    The prevention component of the UST program
serves to detect leaks before  major environmental
damage  occurs  by  imposing stringent precision
testing  requirements.  Existing  USTs  must be
precision tested at 5, 8, 11, 13 years after installation
and annually thereafter. New USTs must be tested
every 5 years in addition to complying with the
established  technical standards.  Program officials
expect  that  data from  UST registrations and
precision test results will be fully computerized by
 1988 so that notices may be sent to  owners or
operators  who  fail  to  comply  with  the test
requirements. Rhode Island officials also review all
proposed UST installation  plans  and have'the
statutory authority to require that  more stringent
technical requirements, such as double-walling or
monitoring  wells, be installed at  UST facilities
located in a sensitive aquifer  area.

    The primary  activity of the  Rhode Island
 program is to monitor all UST system closures in the
 State in order to detect and remediate contami-
 nation from leaking  USTs. State officials chose to
 target closures for two reasons.  First, ensuring that
 tanks are  closed  properly ensures that contami-
 nation  would not be released into  the soil and/or
 ground water indefinitely. Second, the small size of
-------
                                                                                        PAGE 35
the State made the labor requirement feasible. A
State UST official oversees each UST closure and
inspects the surrounding area for contamination. If
soil contamination is discovered, the official usually
requires  that it  be removed  immediately by the
contractor on the  site.   More  extensive  damage,
including contamination  of  ground water, may
require that  the responsible party  enter into  a
consent agreement specifying the actions necessary
to remediate site contamination.

    Department   officials  use  both   informal
negotiations  (e.g.,   letters   of  noncompliance,
telephone contact, consent agreements) and formal
enforcement   procedures  (e.g.,   administrative
orders, with  or  without penalty  assessments) to
encourage compliance by owners and  operators.
However, only 15 formal orders were issued in 1986.

    Rhode  Island   officials  also   encourage
compliance   through   notices  in  oil   industry
magazines and newspapers, press conferences, and
information  letters sent directly to  the regulated
community.      In  addition,   UST  installation
contractors and tank testers have been instrumental
in informing  the regulated community about the
program.

TEXAS
    The Texas UST Section was established within
the Texas Water Commission in 1986 to handle UST
registration, enforcement and oversight of leaking
USTs, and program development. At that  time, the
UST program was operated  under the general
authority in the Texas Water Code. Passage of UST
legislation in the  summer of  1987  enabled the
Commission   to  . promulgate   specific   UST
regulations and enhanced  its ability  to  bring
successful enforcement actions  against owners or
operators of leaking UST systems.

    As a result of the 1987 UST statute,  the UST
Section has  focused  its efforts on  two  basic
functions. First;  the staff oversees UST registration
 and notification. Owners or operators are required
 to notify the Commission of any new or replacement
 UST  installations and to register all existing UST
 systems. Owners or operators must also notify the
 Commission prior to permanently removing an UST
 system from service. Program officials expect that,
 with  some  expansion  of the  existing program,
 inspectors will  be  able to monitor  a  greater
 percentage of UST installation and  removal sites
 using the notification requirements as  a basis for
 targeting some sites for  inspection.

    Second.  UST  officials   have  the statutory
 authority to perform, or order the owner or operator
 to perform, any action necessary to correct a leaking
 UST. At present, approximately 75 percent of UST
 staffs time is  devoted to oversight of leaking UST
 remedial action.  The Texas regulations require that
 leaks be  reported  to the Commission within 24
 hours.   The  UST staff  believes  that owner or
 operator  compliance  with  the  regulations  is
 enhanced because of the enforcement  procedures
 established by the Commission.  Initial enforcement
 responses are informal; UST staff members work
 cooperatively with the violator or responsible party
 to  secure  corrective  actions   and  compliance.
 Penalties are rarely levied against individuals who
 demonstrate good faith in reporting and performing
 remedial    actions.      However,    continued
 noncompliance does result in legal action by the
.Commission's Office of Hearings  Examiners, at
 which  time  administrative  penalties  may  be
 assessed.

    Compliance outreach efforts in Texas have been
 strongly linked to Texas  Oil Marketers Association
 (TOMA)  representatives who   have  maintained
 close contact with UST staff since the passage of the
 UST  legislation.     TOMA  has   implemented
 information   dissemination   programs   for  its
 members; UST staff have submitted information for
 UST-related articles  for TOMA's newsletter and
 have  provided guest  speakers at several  regional
 TOMA meetings.
-------
r
                                 State UST Enforcement Programs
                                                                                      o
                                                                                      w
        s?
      
-------
                          State UST Enforcement Programs (continued)
U
results
Federal notification
Information
Installation notice
Closure/abandonment
notice
Registration
Outreach
Monthly meeting t with
Industry officials, and
petro marketers,
dealer association*,
lobbyist*
Newsletter being
established
Notices In oU Industry
magaiine and
newspapers
Press conferences
Advertisements by tank
testing companies
News releases of major
violations
Communication with
the Texas Oil
Marketers' Associa-
tion (newsletter,
meetings)
Public notice fliers
Compliance
Monitoring
Response to complaint*
Installation Inspection*
being planned
Occasional closure
oversight
Review ol Unk Installa-
tion plan*
Review of precision
test results
Testing procedure*
approved by State
Tank closure
Inspections
Response to release*
Oversight of some
Installations and
closure activities
Primary
Enforcement
Actions
HcflnciHon/lMklam
BeBCft bask data on
release
SJuLMiWAiifiitmcnl
on-slte Investigation
MofJcejjlVloUUon: re-
quires that the HP be-
gin negotiations
hcgfiUillon: RP and
State determine the
necessary remedial ac-
tion
SflWcmanl AoiMmjinf
legally binding docu-
ment lor clean-up
Informal negotiations
Gcflifinliojcfimsnt
RP agrees to take the
necessary corrective
action
MaJicAolYloiAlton; In-
clude* a penalty as-
tessment based on a
penalty matrU
Immediate Order
Notice of Violation:
Informal notification
Agreed Enforcement
Drdfili; negotiated
settlements
Hotke of Impending
Enforcement Actions:
outlines penalties
Hearing* and Commis-
sion Action: formal
response
Delegation to
Localities
Memorandum ol
Understanding
(MOU) with
Albuquerque
None
No formal delegation
Some cities have
developed their own
program*
Tank
Fees
Proposed annual tank
ree (*28 first year)
None
Annual Unk fee (J25
per Unk)
                                                                                       o
                                                                                       M
-------
 PAGE 38
                                     CHAPTER V.
          USER'S GUIDE TO SELECTED COMPLIANCE TECHNIQUES
   The previous chapters presented a wide array of
options for building or improving a State or local
UST program, particularly with a view toward
enhancing compliance.   This chapter  discusses
some techniques  currently being used in State
programs—as well as a few that are apparently not
being used. This chapter is intended to be a User's
Guide  in that it provides detailed information on
how to adopt these techniques. The examples are
not representative of a "model program" and, in
fact, they might be incompatible if taken together.
However,  they are suggestions  of  techniques or
programs  that might be  economical  and  easily
adapted to other situations.
    The organization  of this chapter is similar to
that of  Chapter II:     Components  of  UST
Compliance Programs. The chapter topic headings,
while not identical, relate to the same subject matter
and appear in the same order. They are:

  O  Statutory authority.
 O  UST inventory,
 O  Compliance outreach,
 O  Violator identification,
 O  Enforcement response, and
 O  Program delegation.

   This organization should  help the reader flip
back and forth from Chapter II to Chapter V to
obtain more information about a specific technique
or program area. Some of the exhibits appears in
both chapters.

   The following techniques are included primarily
because each can enchance compliance while saving
measurable  time  or resources.   Each example
contains  an explanation of  the  benefit to the
program,  although  often the value is obvious.
Further information on  the examples  can  be
obtained by contacting the State, county, or city
program personnel listed the Appendix.
-------
                                                                                       PAGE 39
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
    Legislation  that authorizes  the  existence  and
actions of an UST program is an obvious necessity.
A State that is designing new UST legislation has a
number of sources or models for program elements.
One helpful source is legislation that exists in other
States.   In 1985,  the  National  Association of
Attorneys General (NAAG) compiled existing UST
requirements  into  a   Report  to  EPA  entitled
"Assessment of State  Statutory and  Regulatory
Authority  for   Underground  Storage  Tanks."
Although the report is somewhat dated, the contents
are a comprehensive  collection of  various State
approaches. Specific examples of statutes used by
States to develop their UST programs can be found
in the individual reports on the interviews with State
officials.
    Another useful resource is a model statute.  The
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)
in conjunction with the EPA drafted a model State
UST  statute in  1985.   Although it  has  been
superceded  to  some  extent  by amendments  to
RCRA  (under  the  Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986), the model contains
several  useful  sections  on:    definitions  and
exemptions,  notification  requirements,  new  tank
standards, leak  detection  and record maintenance,
reporting of releases,  corrective action, financial
responsibility, inspections, monitoring and testing,
and   an  optional   section   on   tank   permit
requirements. The model statute might provide a
helpful  framework for designing legislation when
Federal  technical   standards   and   financial
requirements are  promulgated  and incorporated
into the framework.  In  addition,  the Bureau  of
National Affairs offers a  commercial service that
provides an up-to-date  collection of State  UST
statutes and regulations.  Exhibit V-l provides the
address and telephone number of the  references
discussed above.
-------
PAGE 40
                        National Associarion of Attorneys General
                        444 North Capital Street, NW
                        Washington, D.C. 20001.
                        (202) 628-0435
                         Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
                         1231 29th Street, NW
                         Washington, D.C. 20037
                         (202) 452-4200
                         National Conference of State Legislatures
                         444 North Capitol Street, NW
                         Washington, D.C. 20001
                         (202) 624-5400
                      Exhibit V-l. Resources on Statutory Authority
-------
                                                                                        PAGE 41
UST INVENTORY

Tank Registration and Tagging

    An   important1  component  of  any . State
enforcement program is an updated inventory of all
regulated  USTs.     However,  enforcing   the
registration  and  notification of  a  large, diverse
regulated community can be difficult.  One way of
enforcing  such  requirements   is   to   rely  on
UST-related groups, such as distributors, to assist
in tracking UST inventory.  Iowa,  for example,  has
developed a program that uses distributors to assist
in  encouraging  compliance   with   the   State's
registration requirements.  The  registration  and
tagging  program was  developed by  the  State's
Department  of  Natural   Resources  (DNR) to
prevent the operation of UST systems that have not
been registered with  DNR.  (See  Exhibit V-2.)
Iowa's requirements include:

  O Annual registration of all  USTs with DNR's
    Licensing Section,
  O Payment of annual registration  fee of $15  per
    tank (if greater than 1100 gallons),and
  O Displaying the registration  tag on all tank fill
    pipes.
    In  this  program,  distributors  must  check
whether  the tank they are about to  fill  has  the
required registration tag. If the tag is missing, the
distributer is allowed to fill the tank once. Filling an
unregistered tank more than once is a violation of
the  regulations.  It  is   also  the  distributor's
responsibility to:

 O Inform  the owner or operator  of the UST
    registration requirements,
 O Supply   the  owner  or  operator  with  a
    registration form, and
 O Notify DNR of the distribution of the product
    under such conditions.

   The regulations are formally enforceable with
administrative  orders, fines, and court actions.
Both the owner or operator and the distributor may
be penalized for  illegal actions:   if the owner or
operator  fails  to  come  into   compliance  by
registering the tank, or if the distributor  fails to
report an  unregistered UST.  So far, the program
has proven  to be  very  successful  in  achieving
compliance  through  issuing informal  letters of
violation rather than taking formal  enforcement
actions.
   The program was strengthened significantly by
making it the responsibility of the distributor to
report to DNR any USTs without a valid tag. This
distribution  of responsibility successfully reduced
the hours  and resources needed by DNR by using
sources who come into contact with violators under
normal circumstances.
-------
PAGE 42
              C-STORE/
                 GASOLINE
                    RETAILER
                              Merrber
                             KTROLEUM
                             MARKETERS
                              OF IOWA
                                         November 1987
                                               NEWSLETTER
          Iowa  Underground  Tank  Fees and  Tags

                     DIspFayed here are the actual sizes of the proposed new Iowa Department of
               Natural Resources underground tank tags. The Underground Storage Tank (UST)
               number Is only a DNR record for who received the tag. The number has no
               relationship to the underground tank's original registry number.
           low.'* filtered wderpouod tank
               wfll woo be reeuvint low*
                             1 la-
            .  1.101 pnora and over. Ctacett*
          fa* I* j»Jd. the DNR win inu« i one
          -or (19U) «nk n| B be taxied to
                 >e, T»i» aeooai fe« win i»
                    year onkfl  • hw
               U e«aed. T*e de«fline far
o


lo
IOWA DNR
EXPIRES
APRIL 1. 1989
U.S.T. NO. 00000
O


oj
                                      tJ«i (Jj ceier trill
          •n 15. J9«. AD recinaed •*»«-
                  1.100 pDooi or leBwffl
                       "' rr ^r''"-
          rio«a« from tow«'l DNR-
            TlK 19t8 aekap « put of Jowt'i
o.^.^ delhcry k atowed
Delivery penoi lepora ibe *«!»*•
                                 IOWA DNR
                                PERMANENT
                              Less thaa 1100 gallons
                              U.S.T. NO."00000
                                   Firmnu
          tertd tank to the Iowa DNR and pro-
          vides tbe lank'l owner with a ref isira-
          uon form. The lank owner has ISdays
          from tbe dale the Iowa DNR receives
          tbe petroleum delivery person's report
          la register the tank for J10. After 15
          days, the registration fee jumps lo SZS.
            Butt petroleum deli very persons are
          oot required O report deliveries of
          aaderpauad tanks (hat an exempt
          from reparation. These exempt tanks
          would pot kave a fill pipe taf. Exempt
          are underground beaon| oil tanks for
          consumptive tse  on the premises
          •here stored, residential (private noo-
          , comiaociaf) and farm onderfnxind
          tanks of 1.100 gallons or less until July
           1.1989. Iowa's law requires all exist-
          of unrepstercd farm and rrsidrjirial
aibtflamimuin aoderpoood tanks stohnf motor fuels
          totegtsteratnochariebyJuly 1,1989.
                    Exhibit V-2.  Iowa Department of Natural Resources
                                  UST Registration Tag
-------
                                                                                        PAGE 43
COMPLIANCE OUTREACH
    An  important  component  of  an  effective
enforcement  program  is educating the regulated
community   and  the   public  about  the  UST
regulations.  States with established UST programs
have  developed  several  strategies  to  promote
compliance through outreach. Often, the first step is
to identify potential  members of  the  regulated
community;  that is, any person or company that
owns  or operates  a regulated UST.  Petroleum
producers, refiners, wholesalers, and service station
owners  are some of the more obvious members.
However, the UST regulations affect a wide range of
industries including:

 O Transportation services (e.g., airports, trucking
    firms, railroads, bus  companies,. ambulance
    services);
 O Automotive services (e.g., car and truck rental
    agencies, towing services, auto recyclers);
 O Manufacturing  industries  (e.g.,   chemical,
    electrical, metal);
 O Public  agencies  (e.g.,  police  stations, fire
    departments,  public   works   departments,
    government agencies);
 O Institutions   (e.g.,   universities,   prisons,
    hospitals);
 O Service    industries   (e.g.,    golf   courses,
    amusement  parks,  dry  cleaners,  repair
    companies, delivery services); and
 Q Farmers and ranchers.
    Once  the  regulated  community  has  been
identified, an outreach program  can use several
methods to  educate  the community  about  the
regulatory requirements, communicate the benefits
of complying with the regulations, and publicize the
penalties for noncompliance.  Some  methods may
target  a  specific  sector  within the  regulated
community.   For example, publishing notices in oil
industry magazines  or  other trade association
publications  may  effectively and  quickly inform
members in a -particular industry. Likewise, UST
officials may chose to sponsor monthly  meetings
with specific industry representatives. UST officials
would  then seek the assistance  of the  industry
representatives  to  communicate  the   program
requirements to their respective members.
    Other outreach methods may be best suited to a
wider audience, including the public. For  example,
publishing  information notices in major or local
newspapers or distributing  information  in  mass
mailings  can serve several purposes.  First, such
broad communication may help reach more isolated
members of the regulated  community,  such as
owners and operators of small facilities or people in
rural areas.  In addition, educating the public may
encourage citizens to notify  the  State agency of
releases or violations.
    The  two  examples presented  here  provide
illustrations of outreach techniques that serve these
purposes.  The  first example (Exhibit V-3) is a
public  notice flier developed by  the   State of.
Maryland's  Department  of Environment.   This
notice, which describes the regulatory requirements
for tank testing, was widely distributed throughout
the State. Because the  regulatory requirement for
precision   testing   has   been   only   recently
implemented, the State distributed these as a means
of informing the community of the new regulation to
assist in compliance.  The  notice provides infor-
mation on test methods approved by the State and
telephone numbers for  more information.
    The  second example  (Exhibit V-4)  was
developed  by  the  State  of  Rhode Island  for
promoting  compliance with  enforcement orders.
The State has issued press releases on enforcement
actions   and  penalties assessed  against  major
violators.   The example here publicizes  the large
penalty assessed against an oil company for failure
to notify UST officials of a gasoline leak.  The news
release also includes details of the corrective action
measures necessary  to  remediate the site.   The
adverse  publicity . apparently  had  a  positive
influence on the company's  compliance efforts in
addition to  informing other  members of  the
regulated community  about  the UST  program
requirements.
-------
PAGE 44
                 Maryland Department of Natural Resources
                 W»ler Resources AJminmmion
                  Tiwei Sute Office Building
                 Annapolu. Maryland 21401-9974
             IF YOU HAD AN UNDERGROUND
             OIL STORAGE TANK INSTALLED
             IN MARYLAND PRIOR TO 1971
                   YOU ARE REQUIRED
           BY MARYLAND OIL CONTROL LAW
      AND REGULATIONS TO HAVE THIS SYSTEM
                TESTED FOR TIGHTNESS
               BEFORE JANUARY 28,1987
        ALL UNDERGROUND OIL STORAGE TANKS BURIED FOR 15 YEARS
            OR MORE EXCEPT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND
       FARM STORAGE TANKS UNDER 10,100 GALLONS MUST BE TESTED.

       TESTS MUST BE PERFORMED BY COMPANIES USING TEST METHODS
          APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
          WATER RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION. AS  LISTED BELOW:
          PETRO-TITE1'
LEAK LOKATOR
                                   TM
EZY-CHECK
                                                 TU
       FOR MORE INFORMATION AND A LIST OF TANK TESTERS CONTACT
               THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
                  WATER RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION.
                       OIL CONTROL DIVISION,
                   TAWES STATE OFFICE BUILDING,
                    ANNAPOLIS. MARYLAND 21401
                     OR CALL (301) 269-2105.
                     eep
     4/ae
             Exhibit V-3. Maryland Department of Natural Resources
                     Public Notice Flier
-------
                                                                                      PAGE 45
 Rfioda Island Department of Environmental Management
 Office  of Information &  Education
   Release: IMMEDIATE
Information:
Saver-lo  Manceirl   277-2234
 Howard  Cohen 277-2771
Wednesday, January 21, 1987
COMPANY  FINED FOR FAHURE TO REPORT UHOERGSOUNO TANK LEAK TO OEM
      The Exxon Company has agreed to pay  J46.SOO Into  the state's Environmental Re-
sponse Fund as part of a consent agreement  with the RI Department of Environmental Man-
agement.
      The agreement was reached after OEM  notified the  company 1t had violated state
law by falling to report a gasoline leak or to take corrective action to prevent an
ongoing  leak at the Metacon Service Station In Bristol.
      The leak, fro* underground storage tanks, was discovered during'required testing
of the 20-year-old steel tanks 1n July.  OEM was notified by the  testing company  In
late August, and sent Exxon a notice of violation and order to take corrective action.
      The tanks were pumped out and removed In September, and seven monitoring wells
were Installed.  Well sampling showed the presence of several hydrocarbons - benzene,
touluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene, primarily  In the two wells closest to the former
tanks.   Ho detectable amounts were found off the property.  There are no known wells
In the area being used for domestic purposes.
      In addition to the administrative fine, the consent agreement requires Exxon
to continue sampling the monitoring wells,  and to notify all Rhode Island Exxon  dealers
of the requirement 1n DEM underground tank  regulations that OEM Immediately be notified
of any tank that falls to pass a precision  test, and of any leak or spill.
      The penalties were agreed to In lieu of an administrative hearing which ori-
ginally  had been" requested by the company as a result of the notice of  violation and  order.
         Exhibit V-4.   Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
                        News Release on Enforcement Actions
-------
 PAGE 46
VIOLATOR IDENTIFICATION

Data Base/Information Management
    One of the least resource-intensive methods
that can be used to help monitor compliance of the
regulated community is to rely on the data available
in the records and reports submitted by tank owners
or operators.  At a minimum, such requirements
include keeping records on tank tightness testing
and monitoring  results, leak detection  devices.
corrosion protection systems, and UST repairs and
closures.
    Effective use of reported data can be facilitated
by the development of data  bases  for monitoring
such data. Contra Costa County in California has
developed and implemented a data management
system  designed  for   its   specific  needs  and
requirements. UST inventory data were obtained
from  State registration data and from information
provided by local fire departments. The county then
selected  data  pertinent  to*  its   concerns  and
developed a data management program to:

  O Invoice  UST owners or operators  for permit
    fees:
  O Edit and update current UST  data, including
    tank  location, tank owner's  name,  facility
    identification  number,   facility  name,   and
    owner's telephone number: and
 O Issue permits at 5-year intervals.

   The basic information is kept in a data base file
that has specific UST information, including tank
size, age, description, contents, date of last testing,
and monitoring  devices used (Exhibit V-5).  A
separate file, called a site file, includes information
on a site:   its  date  for retesting, permit  number,
permit expiration date,  and compliance status. A
sample menu  screen from  this file is shown in
Exhibit V-6.

   The data base is used to send notices regarding
annual tank testing requirements and to record the
responses and  results of such tests. It also tracks
UST removal information and records results from
the required soil and water samples accompanying
each  removal  activity  (Exhibit  V-7).    If  no
contamination  exists,  an   "OK"  status  code
signifying the completion and closure of the file is
recorded.   Any necessary remedial action  is  also
recorded in the data base, and the Department of
Health Services refers the case to the appropriate
department (frequently a State or Regional Water
Board) for  future action.
   Information collection such as this' has enabled
the county to significantly  reduce the resources
utilized in  tracking and recording data and  to
establish an automated system of permit issuance
and renewal.
-------
                                                                                 PAGE 47
      UGT PROGRAM: TANK SPECIFIC PRIMARY INFO
                                               NumCapa
                                                            KEYS
 UGT FACILITY ID t:  20267

               TANK STATUS:
Tank status effective date:
             Volume (gala):
        Original Tank Test:

Surcharge Paid? Y/N:  Y ...

              Type of fuel:
      Year of Installation:
      la Tank Vaulted? Y/N:
           Number of Walls:
    Monitoring Alternative:  9
      CC  Co  Tank  *:   5

  01  -->-->-->--»
  01/16/87
     12000
  014/16/87

.Date:  02/17/86
  03  ->->->->-;
  1987  '
  N
  1
      .  .  C  s  CLOSURE (TEMP)
      .  .  0  =  VISUAL
        .  9  =  CONTINUOUS
        .  1-8  PER  SHRC8
0» = OPERATING PERMIT
A* = ABANDONED
L  = LEAKING, NOT ABAN
R  s REMOVE FROM FILE
W  = WELL
N* = NO PERMIT
E  = EXEMPT
1  = UNLEADED
2 = REGULAR
3 = PREMIUM UNLEADED
M = DIESEL
5 = WASTE OIL
6 = OTHER
7 = PREMIUM LEADED
8 = EMPTY
            Exhibit V-5.  Contra Costa County (California)
                         Tank Information File
-------
PAGE 48
                                                        NumCapa
                                  UNDERGROUND TANK PROGRAM SITE INFORMATION
                           SITE
                                                      OWNER
                                *  sites owned:   1
                                acct  »:         980610
                UNOCAL SSI 6927
                1900   OAK PARK BLVD
                PLEASANT HILL 9^523
                (512) 223-2631
                      UNOCAL

                      P.O.  BOX  8175
                      WALNUT  CREEK CA  91596
                      ("415) 945-7676
                   SITE DESCRIPTION
                                     20267
                UGT Facility ID :
                Billing Status: I
                Number of operating tanks:
                              SITE PERMIT INFO

                      Compliance:  Y
                      Permit »:
                      Status:  effective date:    /
                      laaue Date:    /   /
                      Expiration Date:    /  /
                NOT a farm
                Business Type:
Gas Station
            EDIT THIS INFORMATION  . .Y/N
              TANK  INFO  FOR  ALL TANKS  AT  SITE  I  20267  follows:

              Please  Insure  that  the I  of  tanka  with  atatua  codes  (  tnk_atatua,  below)
              Indicating ••  operating  ••  =     3.   and  that other  Info  la  correct

                             tnk status  t  atat  eff'vol  gala aubatance monitor  E->fp
U |J U 4 U %• t
20257
20267
20267
20267
20267
20267
1
2
3
M
5
6
AM
At
At
01
01
01
OT/01/E7
01/01/87
04/01 /87
OH/1 6/87
Ot/ 16/87
04/ 16/87
9940 01
9940 02
9910 03
1 2000 01
12000 03
10000 Of
5
5
5
9
9
9
*
Y
f
Y
Y
Y
          Press  any  key  to continue...
                     Exhibit'V-6.  Contra Costa County (California)
                                  Site Information File (Page 1 of 2)
-------
                                                                                PAGE 49
   UGT 3Ue name:  UNOCAL SSI  6927
     	address:  1900  OAK PARK BLVD
NumCaps
      ID »:  20267
      * of OPERATING tanks...
           Site Status:   01
Status effective date :     /
     Gag Station?  Y/N:   Y
         Business Type:
            Farm?  Y/N:   N

   In Compliance ? Y/N:'  Y
              Permit »:
     Permit Issue Date:    /
Permit Expiration Date:    /
       Last Inspection:     /
         Tank Test Due:     /
                                                              KEY
        0* ~ Operating Permit
        A* s All tanks abandoned
        R = Remove from file
        N - No Permit
        E = Exempt
     EDIT THIS DATA? ...Y/N
           Exhibit V-6.  Contra Costa County (California)
                         Site Information File (Page 2 of 2)
-------
PAGE 50
                                                 TANK  STATUS

                         01    Operating.  New Permit (5 year permit)
                         02   Operating.  Conditional Permit (eitner  Mon Alt  »8  -3yr permit
                                                          or Temp closure - 2 yr permit)

                         A1    Recleved money.  Application
                         A2   Tanks removed, pending  soil results
                         A3   Soa results OK
                         A «   SoU results not 0 K
                         A7   Abandoned  in  place
                         A8   Removed prior to August 1, 1985

                         Wl   Monitoring  well in place
                         E    Exempt
                         R    Removed from list,  tnls tank  never existed

                         M1   No Tank Test
                         N2   No Monitoring Plan
                         ,M3   No Application
                         NM   No Honey

                         31
                         B2
                         83
                       Exhibit V-7.  Contra Costa County (California)
                                       Tank Status File
-------
                                                                                       PAGE 51
VIOLATOR IDENTIFICATION (cont.)

UST Permitting Program

    A permitting program allows a State to collect
substantial   information   on   the   regulated
community and to enforce against the terms of the
permit. While a comprehensive permitting program
can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, it
does provide an effective means of monitoring the
compliance status of all operating UST facilities in a
State.  In most permitting programs, tanks cannot
be operated  without the owner  or operator  first
obtaining  a  permit.  The permit  renewal, process
provides for the periodic monitoring of compliance
status.  Also,  by requiring  that  the  permit be
prominently  displayed,  it can be easily checked
during an inspection and serves  as a notice  to
vendors that the tank meets compliance standards.
In addition   to the primary benefit of ensuring
compliance,   a  permitting program can generate
data useful for other purposes. For example, it can
identify tanks for subsequent targeted inspections
and  track  the  performance of  different   tank
technologies, thereby identifying  likely problem
sites.
    The most comprehensive permitting program
among the seven States interviewed is California's,'
which  is  implemented  at the county  level.  An
excellent example of how a permitting program can
be implemented is the San Mateo County program.
A brief description of the permit process in San
Mateo County follows:
  1)  After a  tank has been identified through the
     county   inventory  process,  the  Office  of
     Environmental   Health   (OEH)   in   the
     Department of Health Services sends an initial
     registration notification letter to the owner  or
     operator (Exhibit V-8).  Included with this
     letter is an "Underground Storage Tank Permit
     Application" (Exhibit V-9).  The registration
     notification  letter  provides  instructions on
     fulfilling the requirements for obtaining a tank
     permit.
  2)  After  the owner  or operator  returns the
     completed tank permit application, an interim
     permit,  that is valid for 6 months, is issued
     (Exhibit V-10).  The OEH then performs an
     initial inspection.  This inspection serves  to
   identify actions the owner or operator must
   take  to receive a tank permit (e.g., perform
   needed repairs, install additional  monitoring
   equipment) and the date by which such actions
   must be completed.  The owner or operator is
   required to sign the "Certificate of Completion
   of Initial Inspection" form at the conclusion of
   this inspection. This form specifies the dates
   by which  various UST permit  requirements
   must be met (Exhibit V-ll).
3) Upon receipt of the interim permit, the owner
   or operator is  responsible  for submitting  an
   UST monitoring plan, within 4 months of the
   initial inspection and having a precision test
   conducted on  tanks  and  pipelines within 6
   months of the interim  permit notification.
   These requirements are set  forth in  a letter
   accompanying  the  interim  permit  (Exhibit
   V-10).
4) During the interim  permit period, the OEH
   provides considerable assistance to the owner
   or operator regarding both the choice of tank
   monitoring alternatives and the  precision test
   requirements.  The owner  or operator is also
   sent  a list of  precision tank testing services
   companies.  This  list, 'however,  includes a
   caveat that states, "mention of company names
   and   products  does   not   constitute  an
   endorsement or recommendation for use by the
   San  Mateo County  Department of  Health
   Services" (Exhibit V-12).
5) Upon receipt of the precision test results and
   the  UST monitoring plan, a 5-year permit is
   issued by the county (Exhibit V-13). One year
   after conducting the initial permit inspection, a
   follow-up inspection is conducted to verify that
   the  owner or operator has complied with the
   permit  requirements.   In  conducting this
   inspection, a checklist type report form is used
   by the inspector to check the results of the
   precision   test  and  the   maintenance   of
   monitoring equipment and records as well as to
   inspect for unauthorized releases.  A space for
   listing any needed corrections is also provided
   (Exhibit V-14).
6) If an owner or operator  has .selected a tank
   monitoring alternative that requires inventory
   reconciliation,   a  quarterly  report must be
   submitted to the OEH (Exhibit V-15).
-------
PAGE 52
       Department of Health Services
       PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION — Emlronmtnl*! Health
ANNAS. ESHOO
TOM NOLAN
WH.LIAI/. J SCHUMACHER
K. JACQUELINE
JOHN M WARO
                   I  COUNTY OF  SAN MATEO
       UYIOR
                      190 HAMILTON STREET
                                          REDWOOD CITY
                                                          CALIFORNIA 9<063  363-<:05
                                                August 1, 1986
          Dear Underground Tank Owners/Operators:

          As a result of severe groundwater contamination  caused by  leaking
          underground storage-tanks, the California  legislature passed  several
          bills which require owners and operators of  underground  tanks  to
          assume certain responsibilities.. This  letter  is intended  to  provide
          you with information regarding your  obligations  as  an owner/operator
          of an underground tank  facility  and  to  assist  you with  compliance
          pursuant to the new laws.

          A3 2013 (Cortese) required that  all  owners of  underground  hazardous
          materials storage facilities (including motor  vehicle  fuels)  file  a
          Hazardous Substance Storage  Statement with the State Water Resources
          Control Board.

          The California Administrative Code (CAC).  Title 23. Chapter 3.
          Subchapter  16(i.e.  Underground Tank Regulations) became effective on
          August  13.  1985.  The  major  components of these new laws  specify
          construction  standards for new or planned tank  installations, and
          monitoring  and  leak detection requirements  for  existing tanks.
          Please  be  advised that new tank installation requirements mandate
          double  containment  for all underground tanks containing hazardous
          materials.

          In  this County,  the Environmental Health  Division  of the  Department
          of  Health  Services will be  the  Agency  responsible  for  ensuring
          compliance with all regulations of  the CAC  pertaining  to  underground
          tanks.

          Other obligations pursuant  to the new  law require  owners/operators
          to:

                1. Apply for a permit  from the local agency (In  this case,  the
                   San Mateo County Department of Health Services).

                2. Keep inventory and  maintenance records of each tank.

                3. Notify the local  agency when an unauthorized release occ-urs,
                   or if you  plan to  remove,  repair or alter your
                   underground tank system.
                   Exhibit V-8.  San Mateo County (California) Department of Health Services
                                Registration Notification Letter (Page 1 of 2)
-------
                                                                        PAGE 53
To apply for a permit., please complete the enclosed application (2',
and submit the appropriate fees.  Fees are based en the number of
tanks it the facility.  The first tar.l-: is 5132.00, each additional
tank is SEO.OO.  Also, a State rurcharg* of 256. GO i« required for
each tank.  As an example, a service station with four tanks would
pay S132.00 for the first tank, S80.OO for each of the thrift
ren-.air.ing tar.ks (S240.00) and a Sio.OO lurcharge for tach tank
(S224.00) for a total of S596.0O for the facility.

County Environmental Health personnel will inspect your
underground tank facilities at least once annually.  This will
deterraine whether the tanks comply with design  and construction
standards, whether the operator has nor.itored and tested the tank
as required, and whether the tank is in safe operating condition.
We are also able to provide you with resource lists  and any
information you may need to effectively begin your underground
tank monitoring prograa.

Please be advised that.the costs associated with  cleanup of  an
underground leak can be astronomical, so rccney  spent on leak
prevention cakes good sense and is easily  justified.   Vnen  locking
at an effective leak detection  and nor.itcnng program,  several
items should be considered.  If your tanks are  over  seventeen  (17)
years old, there is a 50% chance that they are  leaking (EPA data
on steel tajiks).  With this information  and other supportive data,
it may be more advantageous to  save the  expense of monitoring
systems and to budget for replacement of  the tar.k(s) with  a
completely double contained system.   If  the monitoring
requirements are not  cost effective for  the tanks at your
facility, then tank removal may be  the  only feasible solution.
Tank removals  require permits,  and  soil.and/or  water sampling is
required  to determine if  there  has  bttn  any past contamination.

Please contact this office  at  (415)  363-1305,  if you have, any
questions regarding these  issues.   Thank you  for your cooperation-.
                                  Sincerely,

                                  Mark A.  Kostielney
                                  Director of Environmental Health
                                  3y_
      Exhibit V-8.  San Mateo County (California) Department of Health Services
                   Registration Notification Letter (Page 2 of 2)
-------
PAGE 54
                              CFP1CE OF ENVIP.ONM6NTAI; n£AUH « 59O HAMILTON STPtET PCOVVOOO CITV CA 9«O«3
                              t-ili) 3«3-»30S
                                    UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PERMIT APPLICATION
             I  C«e.uty
             1. 24-Hour tm»nt»nrf Conuel P*r»on
             3. Owner
                             coim.rri rwe FOLLOWING OH A SEPARATE FORM ro« EACH TAM«
             4. O««cnp«t*n
                                                     I WASTE   I PRODUCT
              A nxux«t d Prwrnry Coraamm«ni
              a -
              C I .•
              0 ~ :•
                         Si**    I

                              r » Si»* Cl»a
                                                                                 Z » Coner»<«
              £. ~ J. RoOO«r Un«J   Z a Attyd Urvnq   2 JJ £or umoq   Z « P«»noK unuvj    3 » Ql«» Un.nq

                3 M Clir Unng    Z« Ur*««d   Z o< Un»no»«    Z ^ Om»r                   '
              P ~ « Pory«uiMn« Wr»o   C M Vinyl Wrtopnq    Z » CunoO* Protection

                ~ M UnnnoMi   C at N
-------
                                                                                                         PAGE  55
 «. Plpmd.

  A Aooveground Piotng,:     !'  Oouoie-««ued >oe    « Concreie-Jinea trencn    n GuvHy   . :« Preuu'e  _ .» Sucnan
    |(Chec*l looroorijio oo»«i|                  * urmnovn     :>  None
Underground Pfvno,:    J>  Oouoie-»i»ed O'Oe
     «l aoixorxui* oo>(*«i|
                                              Concrti«-4in«o ircncn
                                             . unnnown      ;/ No
Gr«wion
      ViluM      a StOOl inyvrxory
      Ground Water Morworioq w««»
      Olfwr:	
                                i  Til« Oam    ; w  Vioor SniM wwi*      « Senior inj
                                 Precifjon r«t<  •    * internal Iraoeciion      •* None
(. ChetmcM CompoeecK joorooruie oon«i
       j> Unleaded    u  Rtqui*    ->  Premium    ..  0>e*et    n Watte Ow    *  Oiner IUHI	
 il vow *n»i»«»«o >•• oo not complete Pin 68
    II r*n* KKaMd on «i A^ncunuftt Far
                                                     so
f. AcMMtorukt (AlormeuoA and ApoOcarM Carrwnem*
cow OFF»C« use OMty
            Rxhibit'V-9.   San Mateo County (California) Department of Health Services
                              Underground Storage Tank Permit Application  (Page 2 of 2)
-------
PAGE 56
            Department of Health Services
            PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION —Environment*! H*»lib
SOARO OF SUPERVISORS

ANNA Q ESHOO
TDM NOLAN
WILLIAM J SCHUMACHER
K JACQUELINE SPEIER
JOHN M. WARD
                              COUNTY  OF  SAN MATEO
                              190 HAMILTON STREET    •    REDWOOD CITY    •     CALIFORNIA 94083  363-43O4
JAY QELLEJU
MMCTON Of HCALTH ICJIVKU
               Thi«  letter is written to acknowledge receipt of your permit application, provide you with your
               Interim  Permit,  and to  inform you of your obligations pursuant  to Chapter 6.7 of the Hazardous
               Waste Control Law and  the San Mateo County Ordinance No. 02865.

               Pursuant to the  application  you submitted  to  this office,  enclosed  you will  (md your  Interim
               Permit  lor the storage  of  hazardous materials  in underground tanks.  Your permit is conditional
               upon all of the items listed therein, and  is issued  only (or the tanks and materials  specifically
               mentioned.

               This permit is an  interim measure  which allows  the Department  lime  to  assist you with the
               additional  testing and monitoring required of all underground lank  owners and operators.  Once
               testing  and monitoring  systems have been  completed,  a Final Permit  will be  issued  to your
               facility.

               In order to obtain your  Final Permit, please conduct the following activities:

               I.    Conduct a precision test of all  tanks and  pipelines within six  (6) months of the  date of this
                    letter.  Methods used for testing must  be  able to detect a release  of a hazardous substance
                    at  a rate  of  .0$  gallons  per  hour.   A  partial list of tank  testers is  enclosed  for your
                    reference.   Your  equipment  or product  purveyor  can give  you  additional  tank  and line
                    testers.

               2.   After  your  first  inspection  by this Department,  you are  required to submit  plans  for
                    monitoring  your  underground storage  tanks.  You have (our (<») months from  the date of your
                    inspection to develop  and submit your plans (or  approval.   The monitoring plan must include
                    your choice of alternatives (outlined in the  enclosed  list) as  proposed by  the  State  Water
                    Resources Control  Board,  as  well  as  plans  for implementing your system.   We  strongly
                    suggest you choose .your monitoring system carefully,  and submit your plans early.

                3.   Your underground  tank  monitoring system must be  in  place  and operational within six  (6)
                    months after you receive plan approval  from this office.
                          Exhibit V-10. San Mateo County (California)  Department of Health Services
                                           Interim Permit (Page 1 of 3)
-------
                                                                                               PAGE 57
Completion of the above mentioned requirements  will assure you have taken the necessary steps
to comply  with  existing regulations regarding the underground storage of  hazardous  materials.
Final permits will be issued to each facility once all requirements have been met.

You  have  two additional  options  that  will  allow you to comply with the  underground  tank
regulations:

a.  Replace your existing tanks with double-contained tanks and install leak detection systems to
    monitor for unauthorized releases into the secondary container (please see insert), or;

b.  If  you feel it is not feasible to meet monitoring requirements (outlined in numbers 1-3 above)
    you  will  have  to  remove  the  tank  and  demonstrate  that  no significant  soil/water
    contamination exists around the tank.

Both of the above options  (a or b), however,  require  that you  contact this office prior to taking
any action.

Please call  Paul  Dana  or  Jeff  Coyle of this office  C»I5)  363-
-------
PAGE  58
             Department of Health Services
             PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION — Eorironnwiilal HemWh
                                              (415) 36J-OOS
                                                          INTERIM  PERMIT
                                                                    for Ik*
                                                             SMraf*of HszardoM
                                                         Maiertata te U«dtrgfo«jJ Tulu
                 To:
                 Locu ion:
                 Owner/Operator:
                 Mailing Address (if different lhan above):

                 No. of lank] authorised (o operate:  	
                 Each underground storage lank at ihu facility ii permuted 10 contain Ihe following material*:
                             Volume
                                                                                                   Material! Stored
                  This perm* a conditional upon compietton of ihe following requirements:
                  A.   Perform yearly maintenance testing of all equipment including meten. pipeline leak detectors and emergency shut-off valves.
                       This includes keeping records of all testing, indicating date tested, methods used and vendor;
                  B.   Inventory records mus be reconciled and available for inspection at the facility;
                  C.   In ihe ever* of * spul. lemk. or other unauthorued release, you must notify ihe Department (Environmental Health Division)
                       within 24-houn of each occurrence (unless ihe release has not escaped Ihe secondary containment and can be cleaned up wiihm
                       8 hours);
                  D.   Any modificaitonj planned for your facility (i.e. pipeline repairs, lank removals,  installation of new lanks, and change in
                       substance stored, etc.) must be approved, by irus office and local Tire and building departments, prior to undertaking activities.



                  Please call Paul Dana, or Jeff Coyle. (415) J&J-4305, if you have any questions regarding your Interim  Plan.
                  By:
                              Rxhibit V-10. San Mateo County (California)  Department of Health Services
                                                 Interim  Permit (Page 3 of 3)
-------
                                                                                      PAGE 59
                San Mateo County Office of Environment*! Health
             Hazardous Materials Section - Underground Tank Progrs
                CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETIOS 0? INITIAL IJISPECTIOB
Facility Address:
Date:
Dear Underground Tank Owner/Operator:

     This letter is  to certify that an initial  peraitting inspection vas com-
pleted by our Office at the above site.   Based  on  this inspection, the follow-
ing timetable for  completion of permit requirements has bo*n adopted:
     ACTIVITY.

     1. Precision  testing of tanks and pipelines.
        Methods  used  for testing aust be able to
        detect a release of a ha tar do us substance
        at a rat*  of  0.05 gallons per hour.

     2. Submission of plans for monitoring under-
        ground storage tanks.  The aoaitorlng
        plan must  include your choice of alterna-
        tives as adopted by the Water Resources
        Control  Board.

     Other Requirements:
               COMPLCTIOa DATS
     This is to acknowledge that I have been informed of my deadlines for
satisfying 'underground storage tank permitting requirements.
Signature
Name (print)
     Date

     Title
Inspected by
                                         Title
      Exhibit V-11. San Mateo County (California) Department of Health Services
                      Certificate of Completion of Initial Inspection
-------
PAGE 60
                                PRECISION TANK TESTING SERVICES


         Th« mention of company nanaa and products does not constitute an endorsement
         oc r«coa««ndation toe uae by the San Mateo County Department of Health
         Servlcea.
         AAA Testing, Inc.
         1526 W. Minacal King
         Vlaalia, CA  93291
         (209) 627-4400

         Able Maintenance,  Inc.
         51 Poley Street
         Santa Rosa, ca  95401
         (707) 545-5522

         Accutlte
         35 South Linden
         South San  Pranclaco, CA 94080
         (415) 952-0327

         AES
         P.O. Box 151
         Bakeca«leld, CA 93302
         (805) 325-2212

         Balch Petroleua
         930 Aa«a Avenue
         Mllpltaa,  CA   95035
         (408)   942-8686

         Bay City Teating,  Inc.
         1716 Ocean Avenue
         San Pranclaco, CA  94112
         (415) 997-0608

         Backer  Induatrlea,  Inc.
         1036 Darna Lane
         Napa, CA   94558
         (707) 255-9508

         Cacdona 4  Aaaociatea
         80 Browna  Valley Road
         Cocralitoa, CA  95076
         (408) 728-1916
Converse Environmental Consultants
101 Howard Street, |A
San Francisco, CA  94105
(415)  543-7295

The Customer Company
1765 Park Road.
Benicia, CA  94510
(707)  745-6691

Damea k Moore
500 Sanaome Street
San Francisco, CA  94111-3292
(415)  433-0700

Eagan & Paradlso
9220 "G" Street
P.O. Box 6397
Oakland, CA   94603
(415) 562-5511

Equipment Maintenance Company
2533 Connie Drive
Sacramento, CA   95815
(916) 961-2315
(916) 925-2716

P  I H Equipnent  Maintenance  Company
1100 north  "J" Street
P.O. Box  88
Tulare, CA  93275-0088
 (209) 688-2977

Gettler-Ryan,  Inc.
1992 National Avenue
.Hayward,  CA  94545
 (415)  783-7500

H. Harlan  fc Associates
55 Sand Harbor
Alaaeda,  CA  94501
 (415)  865-3161

 Heath  Consultants,  Inc.
 511 "D" Harbor Blvd.
West  Sacramento, CA  95691
 (916)  371-2520
            (9/23/86)
                    Exhibit V-12. San Mateo County (California) Department of Health Services
                                  List of Precision Tank Testing Services (Page 1 of 2)
-------
                                                                                  PAGE 61
Homer Z-Z Check Company
P.O. Box 16S3
Glendala, CA 91209
(318) 956-0608
(800) 535-5325

OH Materials (OHM)
1950 Channel Drive
Weat Sacranento, Ca  95691
(916) 372-1331

Petroleum Engineering Company
205 Fifth Street
Santa Rosa, CA  95401
(707) 545-0360

Patro-Tec Services
13424 Imperial Highway
Santa Pa Springs, CA  90670

Petrotek
P.O. Box 54178
San Joaa, CA  95154
(408) 292-7566

Precision Industries
2191 Navy Drive
Stockton, CA 95206
(209) 462-9911
(800) 332-5900

R.J. Miller Company
631 Marina Hay South
Richmond, CA  94804
(415) 233-9000

R.L. Steven* Company
22240 Meekland Avenue
Hayward, CA  94541
(415) 568-0938

R.W. Johnston I Son
801 - 53rd Avenue
Oakland, CA  94601
(415) 261-9424

Redwine-Manley Tasting Services
P.O. Box 80606
Bakarsfield, CA 93308
(805) 834-6075
Scott Company Mechanical Contractors
1919 Market Street
Oakland, CA  94604
(415) 834-2333

SOS International
377 Oystar Point Blvd., |19
South San Pranclsco, CA 94080
(415) 871-8755
Toxguard Systems
P.O. Box 30113
San Bernardino, CA
(714)  370-3470
92413
Triangle Inc. of Sacramento
3525 - 52nd Avenue
P.O. Box 9795
Sacraaento, CA 95823
(916) 421-1990

U.S. Tank Testing, Inc.
4520 Stlna Road |8
Bakersfiald, CA 93309
(805) 397-5791

vail Oil Conpany
1741 Leslie Street
San Mateo, CA  94402
(415) 345-2644
 (9/23/S6)
           Rxhibit V-12. San Mateo County (California) Department of Health Services
                         List of Precision Tank Testing Services (Page 2 of 2)
-------
PAGE 62
                 Department of Health Services
                 PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION — Enyironmenlal Health
                                                     (415) 3&W30S
                                      PERMIT TO OPERATE  HAZARDOUS  MATERIALS
                                                 UNDERGROUND STORAGE  TANKS
                 Tb:
                 Location:
                 Owner Name:
                 Local ion:
                 Number at Tanks Auihomed 10 Operate:
                                                             (ux additional iheeil u needed)
                  Tt* Prrmn 10 Operate a vakd (at a pmod of fiv»(J) inn. The permmec mu* oovtrvr ihe foUowun condition. 10 maintain ihe Permit 10 Operate:

                       I    In lh« tmt of « will. lea*. Of other unauthorised release. ihe perirmiee must notify ihe San Maceo County Office of Environ-
                           menial Health wittuai iwcMy-four (24) hours of cM.h otxurrcnce.

                       2.   The permitle* nwsl notify IM Offic* of Environmental Health wuhm thirty (30) dayt afler my changes in lh« usage of *n»
                           uiulertround uoraae lank, invluilinf:
                           (a) The uorate of  new K-r^rf^. wbuancei: (b| Chjnaei in monno periornied.  This would include inventory reconciliation or lank gMuging
                           record*, and vadotc lone and/or groundwater inonuorntg m.u(ds  III ^pptKaoic).

                       6.   The permitiee mull suboiM annual permit  fees.

                       7,   The permittee muu submM aa annual report documenting compliance with ihe above conditions within ihmy (30) days of the
                           anniversary of ihe permit issuance dale. Facilities wtll jlio be impcvled a least once annually for compliance wiih ihe above condi-
                           tKMU. PVrale be advised Iruu any violation of ihe jbuve conditions may be cjuve for revocation of ihe permit 10 operate.
                       I,  Additional oondiiioni:
                        nxiiact ih« office at (415) 363-4W1 if you have any jddiiioiul quntioni.

                  Dale of Ituance: 		— E«piraiion Oiir.
                  If thai portion of Monitoring Alternative IS. ai Jevribed wuhm Section 2WI (KXAMii). Article 4. Subchaptcr 16. Tiile 23. CAC hai been
                  selected by Ihe permit applicant: Ihu individual, or an auihotucd repceieniative, mutt >i»n below in affirmation of ihe permitee1! 1-'or"n11';
                  ment lo cloie or replace ihe above referenced underground .torage tank(>) in accordance wnh ihe proviuoni of Subchapter 16, Title 23 CAC
                  prior lo August 13, I9U.
                               Exhibit V-13. San Mateo County (California) Department of Health Services
                                                    Five-Year UST Permit
-------
                                                                                   PAGE 63
Department of Health Services
HJBI.IC llhALTH DIVISION — Earlroaracalsl Htallk
                                                                 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
                                                                 ANNA Q. ESHOO
                                                                 TOM NOON
                                                                 WILLIAM J. SCHUMACHER
                                                                 K. JACQUELINE SPEIEH
                                                                 JOHN M. WAflO
               COUNTY OF  SAN MATEO =fJ-°f,,
               190 HAMILTON STREET   «   REDWOOD CITY    «    CALIFORNIA 94O63 3«3-<30S
                       UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK  PROGRAM
                     Routine/Annual  Inspection Report Form
                                      Film Numberi
 r ac ; ii ty/S11 e:

    .-ess—City:.
         porscn:.
                                      T»l»phon» Numbar:
              TAf4K  STA TU3 1
 1.  Pr»ci»xon  t«»t p«rforro»d  tuts y«ar:                  Yam _ No _  U/A_
 -.  Current  Invantory /qjugi nq racord* pre»»nt on site:  Y»* _ tio _  N/A_
 Z,  Inventory /g»ugl nq records within all enable error:   Yes _ No _  N/A_
 f .  Maters calibrated this yoar:                          fas _ No _  N/A_
 j.  L«-ak datectors,  alarms,  shut-o-f-f valves,  electronic monitoring
      &quipn.ent,  etc. checked thim year:                 Ye« _ No _  N/A_
 'j.  Annular  space being properly monitored:              VB*__ fj°^_  N/A_
 7.  Monitoring/Observation wells being  properly monitored:
                                                           Yes _ 'No _  N/A_
 3.  Any unauthorized release!       •                     Yes _ No _  N/A_
^AS.^ GENERATION STATUS i  (if applicable)

1. Receipts available  on  site for  hauled wasta:
2. All waste renvovad  rrcra aite within 90 days:
3. No mixing of incompatible waste occurring:
4. Any new hazardous  wastci beir.g  generated:
                                                           Yes.
No_
No_
No"
No
 CnitnENTS/CORFECTIONS NEEDED;
     reverse sida -for  additional  commsnta/corr ect i ons
             cor.-d(..cted  by:.
                                                           Ti tie:
          Exhibit V-14. San Mateo County (California) Department of Health Services
                         Routine/Annual Inspection Report Form
-------
PAGE 64
                                        COUNTY OP  SAN MATEO
                                  Office of  Environnental  Health
                              Hazardous  Materials  Management  Program
                                     Underground Storage Tanks
                             QUARTERLY INVENTORY RECONCILIATION  REPORT
                  Tiraa Period
through
                                 {•onth)
                                                              (month)
            Check One
                            I hereby certify that daily inventory reconciliation/
                            weekly tank gauging records have shown measurements within
                            the allowable error liaita as determined by the California
                            Underground Storage Tank Regulations, CAC,  Title 23,
                            Chapter 3, Subchapter 16. •


                            Daily inventory reconciliation/weekly tank gauging records
                            have indicated discrepenciea in excess of the allowable
                            error limits aa stated be lowi
                            Date
                                          Tank
        Error Liai t
         (gallons)
Actual Error
 (gallons)
                           "(Attach additional  sheets  as  necessary)
             Maae  of  Facility:

             Address:
                                                                    Date:
        City:
             Signature:	
             (Person filing report)
                                                          Title:
                    Exhibit V-15. San Mateo County (California) Department of Health Services
                                  Quarterly Inventory Reconciliation Report
-------
                                                                                         PAGE 65
V\OLATOR \DENT\F1CAT1ON (cont.)

 Installer Certification Program
    The certification of UST installers provides a
 measure of quality control with which a State UST
 program can improve regulatory compliance while
 conserving its program resources. The advantage of
 certification is that it reduces the need for a State
 inspector to be present at each UST installation or
 testing event.  Several States certify UST installers
 as a means of providing quality control and ensuring
 that these activities comply with the regulations.
 One such certification program has  been developed
 by  Maine's   Department  of   Environmental
 Protection (DEP). There are currently 250 certified
 installers  in  Maine.   The certification  process
 involves the following steps.
    The first step involves the initial certification of
 an applicant.  An installer must  pass a written
 examination on the  specific details and processes
 involved in proper tank installation.  The installer
 applies for certification by paying a  $35  fee and
 submitting the application materials (Exhibit V-16)
 to the DEP. Materials to prepare  for the test are
 available for an additional S35, and the written test
 is given by DEP  twice a year.  Once passed,  it is
 followed by a second, on-site test, and an additional
 fee of S100 is collected.  The installer has 6 months
 within which to take the second part of the test, but
DEP  will grant  a 3-month extension for vaiid
requests.  Once the installer has passed both parts
of the examination, a certificate is issued and the
installer is placed on DEP's recommendation list.
The installer must then pay a final certification fee
of $100.
    The second step requires the installer to renew
the certificate every 2 years. This process involves
completing   additional  training  on   technical
expertise and paying a $100 fee.
    The third step involves the use of a noncertified
installer.  Prior  to installation, a tank owner or
operator is required to register the tank with DEP
and identify the installer to be used. If the installer
is not certified, the registration is invalid, and the
owner or operator  must find  a new  installer to
complete  the work.   If a noncertified  installer
completes  the   work  and  either  violation   is
discovered (failure to use a certified  installer or
failure to  register the tank properly), the tank must
be removed and  reinstalled,  usually voiding the
manufacturer's original warranty and  resulting in
additional owner expenses and  fines.
    Maine's  certification   program  has   been
successfully implemented over the 2-year period
since its creation and has resulted in a more efficient
utilization of UST program inspectors, as well as in
a  reduction  in  the number  of  poor-quality
installations that are performed.
-------
PAGE 66
                            SCKTK BOAED CF CEJOTFICAnCN FOR CTCQCBOCMJ TAMC
                                       DEPAKIHQJT OP aWHOKENEM. PBDTECTICN
                                              State House Station »17
                                                Augusta, Maine 04333
                  Dear Applicant:

                  Bwlosed are: 1) your application for certification as an underground petroleum
                  storage systea installer in the State of Maine, 2)  experience data  sheets, and
                  3)  reference forms.  The application form and experience data sheets should be
                  returned directly to the Board at the above address, together with  the
                  application and examination fee of 535.00.  A personal check, or money order
                  payable to the 'Treasurer, State of Maine' will be acceptable forma of  payment.

                  Persons who currently hold a valid Master Oil Burner Technician License are
                  exen^Jted from the S35.00 application and examination fee.  A completed
                  application oust still be submitted.  Please submit a photocopy of  your oil
                  burner license together with your application.

                  Copies of the examination study material are available at a coat of S35.00.   If
                  you wish to receive a copy, please mar* the appropriate box on the  application
                  fora and enclose a check or money order made payable to the Treasurer,  State  of
                  Main*.

                  Pleas* not* that your application must be signed in the presence of a Notary
                  Public or a Justice of the Peace.  To find a notary public or a Justice of the
                  Peace in your area please call the Secretary of State's Office in Augusta at
                  289-3501.

                  It is your  responsibility to obtain three professional and three personal
                  references.  Inference forma for this purpose are enclosed.  You must  submit
                  them to appropriate people, and the reference forma should be returned  to the
                  Board directly by these people.  It is your  responsibility to see that  these
                  form* are completed and returned.  Your application will not be complete until
                  all references are received by the Board.  All docunents become the property  of
                  the Board upon submission, and will not be returned.   If you write your address
                  on the enclosed postcard, it will be mailed  to you as  soon as all of your
                  application materials, including reference forms, have been  received by the
                  Board.

                  By submitting your application, you will  automatically be kept informed of
                  training sessions, exara content and format,  and all pertinent installer
                  certification  information.  Please allow  at  least 30 days processing time for
                   review of your  application before submitting further inquiry to the Board.
                        Exhibit V-16. Maine Department of Environmental Protection
                                        Application for UST Installer Certification (Page I of 9)
-------
                                                                                   PAGE 67
State of Maine
Department of Environmental Protection
State Board of Chderground Oil Storage Tank Installers
State HOUM Station »17
Augusta, Maine 04333
                        APPLICATION FOR
                      AS AN UNDEH3CCHD TVK INSTALLER
Application and Examination Pe«:  $35.00
Examination Study Material!   $35:00  Yes	 No
 (Remit by Check or Money Order Only and
  Payable to:  Treasurer, State of Maine)
PLEASS PRINT OR TTPB AW) SIGH
 Por Office Ose Only
Received(Date)	
Money Received	
Application *	
Certification »	
1. FULL NAME .
Last First
2. Pernanent Residence: Street 4 Ninfcer ' C
3. Business Address: C
4. Phone:
(
5.
) . ( ,)
Residence Business
6. Send Mail To
	 Busineea
	 Residence
: 7. Place of Birth:
City State
Middle
ity State
ity State
Birthdate:
/ /
Month Day Year
8. Social Security 4:
9. List other professional registrations and licenses that you hold from a
governnental body in or out of the State of Maine (for exanple an
electrician's oc plurtoer's license).
Type of
License



10. Have any of
revoked?

License
No. - Issuing Agency



Date
State Issued



the above licenses or registrations ever been suspended or
Yes No. If yes, state circumstances:




     Rxhibit V-16. Maine Department of Environmental Protection
                    Application for UST Installer Certification (Page 2 of 9)
-------
PAGE 68
11. List any schools or training seminars concerning tank installations
which you have attended.
tttle




Presented by




Date(s)




12. With whoa did yoo moot recently apprentice as a
Business name:
tank installer?
Mdresa:
City. State. Zip:
Person who supervised you:
Period of apprenticeship: From: MO/YR



To: MQ/TO

                   13.   Member of years experience as a tank installer:.
                   14.   Approximate number of tank installations you have

                                                         Supervised?
Participated In?
                    Bare/asphalt coated steel
                    Fiberglass
                    Fiberglass coated steel
                    Cathodically protected steel (STI-P3)
                    Dual containment (excavation liner)
                    Dual containment (double wall tank)

                                                 TOTSLS:
                      Exhibit V-16. Maine Department of Environmental Protection
                                      Application for UST Installer Certification (Page 3 of 9)
-------
                                                                               PAGE 69
15.  Approximate nusber of piping  installations you have:

                                     Supervised?     Participated In?

  Blacfc iron/galvanized                	        	
  Copper                             	        	.
  Piberglas*                         	        	
  Cathodically protected steel	        	
  Dual
                             TOTALS:
16. Professional Experience Related to Tank Installation: Begin with present
position and proceed to prior enployera. LUt details on the Experience
Data Sheets provided.
Ccaplrt* Experience Data She*t for each entry.
Years Br$
Proa




sloyed
To




Name of Enployer




Address




17. List the names and addresses of at least three people (e.g. anployer,
• supervisors) , f amilar with your work as a tank installer to whom you have
sent reference forma.
Narae



Address



Telephone t



    Exhibit V-16. Maine Department of Environmental Protection
                   Application for UST Installer Certification (Page 4 of 9)
-------
PAGE 70
18. List the names and addresses of at least three people (not employers and
not relatives) who can attest to your character and business integrity,
and to whom you have sent reference forms.
Name



Address



Telephone 1



                    19.  If you have been employed as an underground  oil storage tank installer
                         for at least two years prior to June 28,  1985, please indicate your
                         preferred method of testing below.  You need only complete ONE of these
                         testa«

                            	  Oral  test based on rules and regulations of the Board

                            	  Written  test based on rules and regulations of the Board

                            	  Successful completion of an underground storage system
                                   installation under the supervision of  the  Board or its
                                  • representative.  (Additional fee for on site examination:
                                   $100.00)

                       NDTEj   If you have NTT been  employed as an underground storage tank
                               installer  for at  least  two years prior to June  28,  1985,  you must
                               pass BOTH  a written test  MB successfully complete an  underground
                               storage system installation under the supervision  of  the  Board.

                       NOTEi   Initial application fee includes the fee for  the first oral or
                               written exam.  Written  or oral  re-examinations  will cost  an
                               additional 535.00.  Each on  site exam will cost 5100.00.
                     20.    I understand that police records will be checked to determine whether I
                           have a criminal record.     	      (initials)
                     21.
I understand that  I may be required to supply additional data  if
requested by the Board.  .	_(initials)
                        Exhibit V-16. Maine Department of Environmental Protection
                                        Application for UST Installer Certification (Page 5 of 9)
-------
                                                                              PAGE 71
I,
hereby certify that the information
contained on this application and attached Experience Data Sheets is true
and correct to the best of ny knowledge.
                    Sl^vature of Applicant:

                                     Date:
State of _

County of
Subscribe and Swore to before me this

	day of 	,  19	


 Notary Rjblic or Justice of the Peace

Hf Camisaicn expires 	
 Exhibit V-16. Maine Department of Environmental Protection
                Application for UST Installer Certification (Page 6 of 9)
-------
PAGE 72
                                       Kizn BOiiD or ujrosMacaK) run USTJU.LKJU
                                                 uo nottssiotu. urnact roiM
                                         D«parta«nt of DivlroruotnttJ.  Protection
                                                Stata Roua* Station *1T
                                                 Au«u«t«,  Kilo*  0*333
                     Applicant'a Ra»s_

                             Iddraaa:
                     Dear Xtelplaetl

                     Th« abor* nuad applicant !• lubalttloc »n •ppliutfoa to tw o«rtlflt b« 41r*oUy r«apoaalbl« for U>« oonatruotloo of
                     faollltla* which will  ator« baxardooa ao4 toxla p«trol«ui pr&duots.   In many
                     oaM> tb«a« atoracar ayatiaia vlll b« la aioM  prozXalty to hoi«a aod pr«MOt or
                     futur* (round watar aupplla*.  Too bar* baca  a«laat*d by tb« applicant  aa •
                     pvraoa wbo caa attaat  to bis/bar proraaaloaaa ooaip«tue7 and/or p«raonal
                     intacritr.  flaas*- do  not taJca this raqu«it lltbtly.  n>* llvcllbood of tb«
                     applicant aod th« baaJta aad aa/aty of Halaa'a People aod •nrlrooKaiit dap«ad oo
                     jotr booaaty and lnta»rtty.  n««M rat urn thla for* dlraotly to Uia Board at
                     U>a abor*
                     n.Eisx MUT ot rrrz
                    Iddraaal
                              T	T
                      My lalatloaablp vltb  tba applicant baa b«ao  that of:
                                 Co-vorkar
                                 Frlaod
2up*rrlaor
Cuatoaiar
Othaf (riaaa* d«acrH»i

Cbaraotar - paraonal rapuUtloa
Quality of profaaalooal work
Tacbnleal knowladc* aad ability
Abilltr to or«anl«a projaota
EzoallaBt




Oood




Foor




Do not kaov


.

                        Exhibit V-16. Maine Department of Environmental Protection
                                        Application for UST Installer Certification (Page 7 of 9)
-------
                                                                                 PAGE 73
   IF  in m i TKOTISSIOKU. IEJESDTCZ, K.ZISK IXDICATI:
   Hew looc you worked tot«th«r:
                                       eo/yr to
            »o/yr
  BuaiM*« or company you vork(«d) for:

          rtlatiooihip, typ« of work, and cocmcots:
  Do you poo»id«r  thla applicant to k« qtullfltd for evtlfloatloo «a «Q
  uad«r(rouD4 oil  •torict (yalM iDitaIl*r7  	I«»  	lo
  ir TOO ill i  Frxsoiii. urtRncz. n.ii3i
Bow
           you hivt Imowo applicant:
•o/yr to
                                                               •o/yr
  Tour l»pr-««»loo» of ttt* oooaelcoclouarMia,  capobllltia and  p«r»oaaj
            of  U* applicant:
         attach u> addltloaal a!i««t If  Q«otaaary
CJ u-« •  o«rtlfl«d tank Inatallir,  your oixb«rt_
 Exhibit V-16. Maine Department of Environmental Protection
                 Application for UST Installer Certification (Page 8 of 9)
-------
PAGE 74
                                     HUHE 8CM3J OP OCEBGSOCMJ T7KX DBCTLLERS
                                               ECPEHIENCZ DATA
                                                                     offlca uc« cnly
                                                                     info verified:
                                                                     Init:	
                    Tout
                                                                    Data
                           Pffljff OR TTHJ

                    DMcriba
vodc you (ttrfooMd,

Suptrrijoc'i curr«

       f rou 	
               _.,	rad pvexoloui cturaq* «y«t«« «xp»rl«nc» In th« bca
               OM OM a*ta cbMt: for MC& •vloyvr.  M brief, but 114  _
             face* ooncarnin) tb« deqrvw o< c««prr»it)i1 Ity, t±» n>cur« of tb«
                  and tb*
                                                      la
                                                             itnry.
                      tfXRZS&t
                       PRZSINT ADCKESSl
                     ccasavr
                     OH./111/3/87
                       Exhibit V-16. Maine Department of Environmental Protection
                                       Application for UST Installer Certification (Page 9 of 9)
-------
                                                                                       PAGE 75
VIOLATOR IDENTIFICATION (cont.)

Audit Inspection Form
    One   means   of   informing   the   regulated
community  of  requirements  and  stimulating
voluntary compliance that does not appear to have
been given much attention is the  self audit. The
self-audit form, which is a detailed checklist of
requirements,  would  take  the  auditor (e.g., the
owner or operator, inspector, or contractor) step by
step through a review of the status of existing and
removed tanks. An adequately detailed form could
be sent to owners or operators as part of compliance
outreach and could also be used by inspectors.  In
addition.  States  could  use   some  form  of  a
self-certifying   audit  to   supplement   formal
inspections,  particularly for facilities with a good
history of compliance.

    EPA (with its contractor, Roy F. Weston. Inc.,)
developed a prototype of an UST audit in 1985. This
audit form (Exhibit V-17) could be easily updated
with new information to  reflect current State and
Federal UST regulations, or refined to meet State or
local needs.
-------
PAGE 76
                               SAMPLE AUDIT CHECK LIST
                            FOR UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
                  Exhibit V-17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                              Sample Audit Check'List for USTs (Page 1 of 9)
-------
                                                                PAGE 77
Facility Compliance Category Audilor(s) Dalt


REQUIREMENTS



1. A master list of all above-
ground and underground stor-
aae tanks should be main- •
taint-d at each facility
(good management practice) .

















AtiniT
AUWI 1
QUESTIONS



• Does the facility have a
master list of all above-
ground and underground stor-
age tanks?

• Does the master list contain
information on:
- Tank capacity?
- Tank construction material
and type of mternal/exter- '
nal protection?
- Tank age?
- Dates of integrity testing?
- Dates of service/repairs?
- l*ak detection systems in
place?
• Is a map available that shows
the location of all tanks and
piping? (The auditor should
use this map for reference
dur ing the audit . )
ANSWER



Tn

























M>

























NfA






















Bated On:


•f






















1
f
a
O





















*
























COMMENTS

















,.





Exhibit V-17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
             Sample Audit Check List for USTs (Page 2 of 9)
-------
PAGE 78
FtcMf Compliance Category Audriorti) Dale


REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTS


2. Facilities with underground
storage tanks for hazardous
substances or petroleum
prooucts are subject to
notification requirements
(40 CFR 280) .
(tOTE: Heating oil tanks.
septic tanks, and certain
other tanks are exempt
from notification require-
ments. Refer to definition
of UST.)


3. FoCllities with underground
tanks taken out of operation
after Jan. 1, 1974. but still
in the ground should provide
notification to the state by
Hay 1986. Notif ication should
include known information on:

AUDIT
AUWl 1
QUESTIONS


• Was EPA Form 7530-1 "Notlfl-
f ication for Underground Stor-
age Tank in Use" or state form
prepared and submitted to the
designated state or agency by
May 8. 1986?
• Are copies of the notification
forms maintained at the plant?

• Is the information on the noti
f ication forms the same as
that on the facility's master
list of tanks?
• Record any inconsistencies.
1 • Have any underq round tanks
been taken out of service
since Jan. 1. 1^74?

• Are any abandoned tanks still
in Uie ground?

ANSWER


Y«























H»























M'A





















Bated On:

I





















i
I
o





















I






















il iniTOR
AULJI i \jn
COMMENTS






















                  Exhibit V-17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Sample
                               Audit Check List for USTs (Page 3 of 9)
-------
                                                                PAGE 79
Facility Complunct Category Auditors) Oal«


pp fit it ATflBY
FICUUI.A i un f
REQUIREMENTS



3. (continued)
- Date of deactivation;
- Substances in the tank;
- Tank size and type;
- Location of tanks (40 CFB
280)
4. Facilities that bring under-
ground storage tanks into
use after May 8, 1986 rust.
within 30 days of bringing
such tanks into use, notify
designated state or local
agencies (40 CFR 280. 3 (c) '.









AUDIT
QUESTIONS



• If so, has EPA Form 7530-2,
"Notification for Underground
Storage Tank No Longer in
Operation," or state form been
submitted to the designated
state agency?
• Are there any plans to install
a new underground tank at the
plant?

• If so, is there a formal pro-
cedure to ensure that notifi-
cation (registration) of new
underground tanks will be made
to the state within 30 days
of brinaing the tank into use?
• EPA Form 7530-1, "Notl f ication
for Underground Storage Tank
in Use," or state form should
be used for this purpose.
ANSWER



rn

























M>

























M/A






















Ba»«d On:


?
I





















J
•
£
i
0





















I
























» 1 miTOQ
AUDI 1 \Jn
COMMENTS























Rxhibit V-17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
             Sample Audit Check List for USTs (Page 4 of 9)
-------
PAGE 80
Faeihly
                              Compliance Category
                                                                 Auditors)
                                                                                                   Dal*
         REGULATORY
        REQUIREMENTS
                                           AUDIT
                                        QUESTIONS
                                                                          ANSWER
                                                                               Bated On:
                                                               AUDITOR
                                                              COMMENTS
 h.
Facilities may not install
any new underground tank  un-
less it has been cathodical-
ly protected or designed  to
prevent any release IFCHA
St-Ct. 9004).

(NOTE: This provision known
as the "bare steel tank"
prohibition will remain in
effect until EPA issues per-
formance standards for now
underground tanks (scheduled
for Feb. 1987) .)

Inventory control procedures
should t* in place lor oil
underground storage tanks
(good management practice).

IfX/TE: The  1984 PCPA Ampnd-
nt/nts roquire EFA to  isr.uo
Ituk oc-tection, prevention,
anJ corrective  oction regu-
lations hy  Feb. 1987.)
                                      Have all new steel underground
                                      tanks  installed after May 1985
                                      heen:

                                      - Cathodically protected?
                                      - Constructed of non-corrosive
                                       mater.ial  (e.g., fiberglasl?
                                      - Clad with a non-corrosive
                                       material?
                                      OR
                                      - Designed to prevent release?
•  Are inventory  and use records
   kept for  all UST?

•  Does the  facility:

   - Measure tank levels with a
     gauging stick  on  a daily
     Nasis?
   - Cr-tain  i.-adinqs from meters
     at dispensers?
   - Calculate quantity of mater-
     ial delivered  to  the tank?
                       Exhibit V-17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                       Sample Audit Check List for USTs (Page 5 of 9)
-------
                                                                PAGE 81
Facility Compliance Category • Auditors) Dal*

REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTS



6. (continued)

















AUDIT
QUESTIONS



- Balance these nuntsers
against each other to iden-
tify unexplained losses or
additions?
• Are calculations recorded in
a pernanent log? .
• Review inventory control rec-
ords to verify conpleteness
and frequency of operation.
• Are any discrepancies noted?
• If so, have follow-up inves-
tigations been made?
(NOTC: Pressure testing with
air or other gases to detect
tank leaks is not reconrnended
because of severe darner of
tank rupture.)
ANSWER



Tn






















M*






















N/A



















Bated On:


r
i


















1

I
0


















1




















AI iniTno
AUDI i \jn
COMMENTS





4














Rxhibit V-17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
             Sample Audit Check List for USTs (Page 6 of 9)
-------
PAGE 82
Facility Compliance Category Auditors)

REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTS



6. (continued)





7. Underground metallic storage
l«jnks jnd pipings with cath-
odic protection trust tie rou-
tinely tested (good iranage-
nent proctice) .










AI iniT
fk\JUt I
QUESTIONS



• Have releases been reported to
state and EPA?
• Have corrective actions been
taken?
(NOTE: NFPA 329 provides addi-
tional guidance on UST leakage
• Does the facility have an un-
derqround metaUic storage tan
with cathodic protection? If
rot, go to Item 8.

• For impressed current systems:
- Is voltage checked monthly
ana recorded in a log?
- Do records indicate the
voltage is greater than
-0.85, hot not more than
-3.0 volts?
• For sacriticial anode system:
- Is the voltage checked bi-
annual ly?
ANSWER


Tn







)
















Ha
























M/A






















8»»d On:
f
3
I





















i
»
|
o





















S






















Oait
AimiTnn
AUUI i \jn
COMMENTS























                  Exhibit V-17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                               Sample Audit Check List for USTs (Page 7 of 9)
-------
                                                                PAGE 83
Facility Compliance Category Auditors) Oat*

REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTS



7. (continued)

•



8. Regular inspections of UST
should tx conducted (good
management practice).















AUDIT
QUESTIONS



- Do records indicate the
voltage is greater than
-0.85, but not nore Lhan
-3.0 volts?
• Are failures and leak de-
tection reported?
• Inspect underground storage
tank sites.

• Is there evidence of potential
leakage, such as:
- Strong odors?
- Presence of surface stains?
- Presence of stressed vegeta-
tion?
- Presence of liquids in secon
dary containment system (if
applicable) ?
- Evidence of spills (satura-
ted and darkened soil.
stained concrete, soft spots
in asphalt)?
- Damaged fill pipes?
ANSWER



T«




























M»




























N/A

























Bated On:

f
p
1
























1
»
|
o
























5


























Al iniTrtD
AUUI t \jn
COMMENTS


























Exhibit V-17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
             Sample Audit Check List for USTs (Page 8 of 9)
-------
PAGE 84
 Fjctldy
                             Comphance Category
                                                               AudiUx(l)
                                                                                              Date
         REGULATORY
        REQUIREMENTS
        AUDIT
      QUESTIONS
                                                                       ANSWER
                                                                            Ba*«d On:
 AUDITOR
COMMENTS
 8.  (continued)
Does the facility have a leak
detection system in place? If
so:

- Is the system routinely cal-
  ibrated in accordance with
  manufacturer's instructions
- Does the system show signs
  of tampering?
- Does the system indicate
  potential leakage?
                       Exhibit V-17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                      Sample Audit Check List for USTs (Page 9 of 9)
-------
                                                                                       PAGE 85
VIOLATOR IDENTIFICATION (cont.)

Petroleum Tank Release Investigation
Report

    The  initial  stages  of  implementation  of
nationwide UST regulations are expected to lead to
the discovery of numerous  potential  leaks.   For
many States in the process of building or expanding
UST programs, the need to respond to notice of
releases,  to investigate,  and,  in  some  cases, to
implement corrective action will  place  a  serious
strain on resources. Minnesota's response-oriented
UST  program  has  developed a  resource-saving
approach  to this  problem  by encouraging  and
assisting owners or operators to undertake the basic
work  of tank release investigation  and remedial
design (Exhibit V-18). A series of  generic forms
provide comprehensive guidance to the owner or
operator to gather information where possible and
to  contract  for  professional   services   where
necessary,  yet  keep  oversight in the  hands of
Minnesota's Pollution Control Agency  (MPCA).
   The contents of the Minnesota Petroleum Tank
Release Investigation Report are outlined below.

 O Part   I   requests   detailed   background
    information pertaining to the property and the
    release itself (Exhibit V-19).
 O Part II is less detailed but sets out the type of
    technical data (e.g., well-boring data, soil data)
    that  might  be needed in order to describe the
    actual  or  potential  impacts of the  release
    (Exhibit V-20).
 O Part III combines  all  the  information and
    considers  the  range of  corrective   actions
    indicated for the site (Exhibit V-21).

   The MPCA selects the corrective action option
but uses input from  the  owner or  operator's
consultant,   thus,   giving  the  responsible party
involvement in the process. The need for oversight
of the  corrective action is often  minimized if the
remedy is accepted by a cooperative responsible
party.
-------
PAGE 86
               November 7. 1967

                                                    Contents of
                                              Petroleum Tank Release
                                               Investigation Report


               Federal »nd Stite laws require persons responsible for a  release  of  petroleum from a
               tank to conduct corrective actions adequate to 'minimize, eliminate,  or clean up a
               release ta protect the public health and welfare or the environment".

               A remedial Investigation must yield sufficient Information to  select and  design an
               adequate corrective action.  The corrective action must not only  deal  with  current
               pollution, but must also protect against future on and off site  problems.   This docu-
               ment describes the Information that must be contained In a remedial  Investigative
               report and corrective action proposal.

               The hazards which oust be addressed Include:
                   -  fire and explosion from product and product vapor;
                   -  contamination of drinking water;
                   -  contamination of soil, ground water or surface water.

               Investigating and correcting a release of petroleum from a tank  can  be simple and
               straightforward or extremely complex depending upon the site and Its soil  and ground
               water  conditions, the amount and type of product released, and the current  and  future
               uses of th« site and neighboring area.  These site specific conditions make It
               Impossible for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to  specify a definite
               number of test borings or a certain type of water analysis to be done 1n all  cases.
               Rather, this document lists the conditions and Items of  Information  that an Investi-
               gation must address  In order to determine corrective action which assures protection
               of  the public's health and safety  and the environment.   Presented below are outlines
               of  "Parts I, II, and III* of an Investigation report.  Reports must  contain this  or
               equivalent Information to be considered acceptable to the HPCA staff.If some  of
               the  reguiregain format Ion cannot be found you  should  Include a statement to that
               effect In the  report.  If you believe that  some of the Information  Is not relevant
               to  your site you should say so and describe »hy It Is not relevant.

               Part  I of the  report (Background  Information) must contain descriptions of the  site.
               the  area  around  the  release site,  the product and  the  tanks.  Much or all of this
               Information can  be gathered by responsible  persons.  The  Information  should be  as
               detailed  as possible and may be submitted separately  from and before. Parts II  and
               III.

               Part  II of the  report  (Technical  Data and Conclusions) must contain detailed descrip-
               tions  of  soil,  water, and chemical conditions at  the  release site.  Few responsible
                persons will have  sufficient expertise  and  experience  to  gather  and  Interpret this
                Information.   Certain  parts must  be done by a certified  or registered person (for
                example,  nonltorlng  wells must be  constructed  according  to the State  well code  by
                licensed  well  drillers or registered  civil  or  geologic engineers!.
                        Exhibit V-18. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
                                        Petroleum Tank Release Investigation Report (Overview)
-------
                                                                                        PAGE 87
Noveaber 2. 1987
                                      Part I.
                              BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.  Legil  description  of property:
B. History of site  ownership  «nd operation since at lesst the point  at which petro-
   leum releases  did  or  could have occurred on the property:

    1.   naae and current  address of all current owners and operators
    2.   nam« and current  address (If known) of all past owners  and  operators  1f you
           are alleging  multiple responsible parties
    3.   years of ownership/operation
    4.   general  activities conducted at site by each owner/operator
    5.   general  construction history of site

C.  Hap or maps and descriptions appropriate In scale and scope  showing:

    1.   your building
    2.   adjacent and nearby  buildings
    •3.   paved (concrete or asphalt) areas
    4.   property line
    5.   location of  above and underground tanks and associated  lines,  pumps and
           dispensers
    6.   location of  former tanks
    7.   soil  boring  locations {If done)
    8.   monitoring well locations (If  done)
    9.   underground  utilities on and adjacent to  site 'sewer, water,  telephone,
           electric)
    10.  basements  and  tile drain and sump systems on and adjacent to  site
    11.  street names
    12.  MJor pumping wells  and municipal wells (get Info from city)
    13.  private  w<11$  (dty  nay know this)
    14.  water bodies (rivers, ponds, lakes)
    15.  surface  elevations from surveys or topo maps or city, elevation  relative  to
           nearby landmark acceptable
    16.  north arrow  and map  legend (scale, such as 1 Inch • 100 feet)

0.  Tank and Leak Information:

    1.   age of all existing  and previously removed tanks on site
    2.   size of  all  tanks on site (diameter, length, gallons)
    3.   tank construction material of  all tanks on site 'construction  prints  If
           available)
    4.   present  contents  of  all tanks  on site
    5.   previous contents of all tanks on site
    6.   type and locations of product  pomps, piping, and dispensers
    7.   method and results of product  Inventory reconciliation (describe and
           attach charts,  etc.)
    8.   corrosion  protection on tanks  and lines (yes/no and description)
    9.   type and location of leak detectors
    10.  type of  fill under and around  tanks and lines 'clay, sand,  etc.)
    11.  type of  tank anchors (1f any)
        Exhibit V-19.  Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
                        Petroleum Tank Release Investigation Report (Part I)
-------
PAGE 88
               Moveaber 2. 1S87


                                                     Part  II
                                         •Technical  Data  and  Conclusions


               The requirements for Part II are described  In  less  detail.  The amount of work
               required at « sltt depends on site specific conditions,  the Judgment of a responsible
               person's consultant, and the MPCA staff.   Part II should update Part I 1f new Infor-
               mation  Is discovered and the two parts are  submitted  separately.

               The Initial goal of • Remedial Investigation (RI)  Is  to  determine whether free petro-
               leum  product  Is present on the water table.  You nay  use excavations, borings, or
               monitoring wells to Identify the aaount of petroleum  present  In the  release area.
               Th« MPCA Bust be notified Immediately If free  product Is discovered.

               The RI  report must describe the actual and potential  Impacts  of the  release using the
                following  Information:

               A.  Site map  showing all sample locations:
                   1.   borings
                   2.   monitoring wells
                   3.   recovery wells  (Include Minnesota Unique  Well  Number for a_n_ wells)
                   4.   vapor  survey paints
                   S.   other  samples

                B.  Soil,  and bedrock technical  Information and map(s) from published reports or worV
                   done on  site such as:
                    1.   published or generally  known  Information
                   2.    1n'for»at1on generated  by  this  Investigation
                        -area  soil  (type,  thickness,  classification, etc.)
                        -area  bedrock  (type,  thickness,  formation name, etc.)
                        -boring  logs,  (description,  methods, odors, blow count etc.)
                        -soil  characteristics  (grain size, sorting, origin, texture, permeability.
                            classification,  etc.)
                         -observed  contamination  (visual,  odors, vapor  survey results)
                         -contaminant  analytical  results
                         -bedrock  (depth,  type,  etc.)

                C.  Ground water  technical  Information and maps such as:

                    1.   general  description of area  aquifers  (use published or generally known
                           Information)
                         •hydraulic characteristics
                         •use

                    2.   observation of water table  aquifer on  site
                         •depth to water table
                         •surveyed elevations
                         •contours,
                         •direction of ground water flow

                    3.   perched conditions

                    4.   connections to other aquifers
                       ,  -potential  connections
                         •evidence of connection/no  connection at  site
                        Exhibit V-20. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
                                        Petroleum Tank Release Investigation Report (Part II)
-------
                                                                                       PAGE 89
November 2,  1967
                                     Part III
                              Corrective Action  Plan


Your Remedial  Investigation will Identify those corrective actions which win  protect
health, welfare  and  the environment.  Potential corrective «ct1ons may Include
combinations  of:

    1.   do nothing
    2.   soil  excavation and treatment/disposal
    3.   In place  soil treatment
    4.   product recovery
    5.   ground  water  removal and treatment
    6.   ground  water  gradient control
    7.   vapor control measures
    8.   drinking  water supply replacement
    9.   resident  relocation

Site maps, equipment diagrams, specifications, calculations  etc.  must be presented
which demonstrate  that the  proposed corrective action  protects  health, welfare and
environment.   Only very limited detail Is provided In  this  document  because correc-
tive actions  are very  site  specific.  Selection of corrective  action will depend on
the responsible  person's consultant and review by the  MPCA  staff.
        Exhibit V-21. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
                        Petroleum Tank Release Investigation Report (Part III)
-------
 PAGE 90
ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE

LUST Priority Rating Scheme
   A primary concern for States in carrying out
enforcement responses is inadequate resources for
responding to all tank releases and violations that
may threaten human health and the environment.
Because these resource constraints prevent them
from addressing all releases and violators. States
may develop a system for rating enforcement cases
to determine where resources are needed most.
   The attached sample (Exhibit V-22) indicates
how New Mexico determines the priority of cases of
releases from USTs.  The rating system evaluates
different factors in  each case,  such as type  of
product released,  effects on  the water supply,
potential for toxic vapors and explosivity, and
mitigating actions taken. Each factor is individually
rated, and the ratings for all factors are totalled. The
resulting score is used to determine the significance
of that case with respect to other cases.
   The New  Mexico UST staff has developed the
rating scheme to address the cases both in the short
term and  the long term.  In  the short term,  by
ranking the release cases, the staff can evaluate the
severity of  the  environmental  threat  and  thus
determine which cases require the most immediate
corrective actions. Sites that are quickly addressed
are those that threaten ground water and its users or
that result in a concentration of explosive or toxic
vapors.  Thus, the State can use  its limited staff to
respond to releases where they are most needed.
   In the long term. New Mexico uses  the rating
scheme as a means of determining the type of
enforcement response it will take. In general, more
time and effort are devoted to negotiations with the
responsible party in high-ranking cases to bring
about remedial action. For lower-ranked cases, the
State attempts to bring  about compliance with a
minimum    expenditure   of  State   resources.
Negotiations  are accomplished  by sending  the
responsible party (RP) a form letter that verifies the
violations   and  requires  the  RP  to conduct
investigations of the environmental damage.  In
addition,  the  RP  must  submit a  proposal  for
remedial actions to be taken. For cases that pose a
more significant threat to the environment, the State
initiates formal negotiations with the RP to achieve
a settlement agreement.
-------
                                                                         PAGE 91
                        LUST PRIORITY RATING SCHEME
I.    TYPE OF CONTAMINANT

     (10)  crude   oil.   natural   gas   condensate.  gasoline,  JP-4,
          Jet 3  Fuel

     (5)   dlesel,  kerosene fuel.  JP-5,  Jet  A  or  Jet  C  fuel,

     (1)   heavier petroleum product*

     (l-lO)other,   eliding  scale based on   contaminant   hazard
          characteristics
II.   IMPACTS TO WATER SUPPLY

     (A)   YES,  a water supply has been affected

          (40)  public well affected OR >10 private wells affected
               OR  pluae  is  less  than  100  feet  from  a non-
               comaunlty water  supply well OR plume is less than
               300 feet from a community water supply well

          (30)  6 to 10 private wells are  affected or Immediately
               endangered  OR  the  contaminated  aquifer is in a
               sole eource setting
     IB)
          (23)  C-1O private wells affected
               supply available.
                                             but  alternate water
(20)  1  to  5  private  wells  affected  or immediately
     endangered OR contaminant plume la 100 feet from a
     private well OR surface water Is endangered

(IS)  1 to S private wells affected,  but alternate water
     supply   is   .available   (able    to   drill   an
     uncontamlnated  well  on-slte.   or  being  able to
     connect to a city water supply system),  OR private
     irrigation well contaminated.

(10)  farm  irrigation  well  affected,  but no immediate
     threat to drinking water supply

NO, a water supply has not been contaminated

(20)  contamination is imminent

(10)  contamination potential Is unknown but probable

(S)  contamination potential Is unknown but possible

(0)  usable groundwatar is unlikely to be affected
    Exhibit V-22. New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division
                  LUST Priority Rating Scheme (Page 1 of 3)
-------
PAGE 92
                III.  TOXIC VAPORS IN EXCESS  OF  HEALTH  STANDARDS  OR  EXPLOSIVITY

                     (20)  benzene (measured   as  benzene  -or   benzene  equivalents
                          using  MSA  sample-air   tubes,   hHU ,   or  equivalent)  in
                          excess of  1 ppm  in an  area  where people  are exposed  to
                          vapors  3    hours   or   more per day OR   exploslvlty
                          measurements  of   >  60*  LEL  using   MSA   gascope   or
                          equivalent in an  area other  than utility  corridors  (is.
                          any  offics,  house,    or   other   building  including
                          crawlspaces and basements) .

                     (IS)  benzene levels  in excess  of I ppm  (as measured  above)
                          in an area where   people  are  exposed occasionally  or
                          dally  for  lees   than   8  hours  a   day  (not including
                          utility corridors) .

                     (10)  benzene  levels  in  excess  of  1   ppm  or  exploslvity
                          easursments  greater   than  60* LEL  in utility corridor
                          with 3 or  more access points.  Add   1 points  if  damage
                          to telephone cables or  other property is  occurring.

                     (5)  benzene levels  in excess of Ippai or exploslvlty  levels
                          greater than 60*  LEL   in a  utility corridor  with  less
                          than  3  access  points.    Add  9   points if damage  to
                          telephone  cables  or other property  Is occurring.

                IV.  13 LEAK COKTimJINQ?

                     (10)  yes
                     ( 3 )  maybe
                     ( 0 )  no
                V.
                     HAS THERE SEEK ANY MITIGATION?
(10)
(5)
(0)
                          Settlement Agreement signed, cleanup is underway OR
                          no Settlement Agreement required,  cleanup la underway.
                          (cleanup  moans  actual  pumpage of groundwater or free
                          product or  active  bioreclamat Ion  system  as  well as
                          active 'vapor remediation where  applicable).
                          yes — enough to protect public health and ground water
                          quality (le. cleanup complete).
                VI.  NUMBER OF GALLONS LOST

                     (10)  >20.000 gallons
                     (8)   10,000 - 19,999 gallons
                     (6)   3,000 - 9,999 gallons
                     (4)   2,000 - 4,999 gallons
                     (2)   1,000 - 1,999 gallons
                     (1)   < 1000 gallons
                     (9)   amount unknown, this should
                           becomes available
                                  be  updated  as  more info

                                        revised 12/22/87 ML
                    Exhibit V-22. New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division
                                  LUST Priority Rating Scheme (Page 2 of 3)
-------
                                                                       PAGE 93
                 LUST PRIORITY RATING WORKSHEET
FACILITY MAMS
                               LOCATION
Record  th« «cor« and  tha  aourc* of  th«  Inforaatlon  for each
quaatlon,  »•  w«ll aa any coma«nt».

I.    TYPE  OF  COMTAMIMAHT                          	•
II.   IMPACTS  TO WATER SUPPLY
III.  TOXIC VAPORS OR EXPLOSIVITY
IV.  IS LEAK COMTIMUIHG7
V.   MITIOATIOS
IV.  NUMBER OF  GALLONS  LOST
                                  TOTAL
R«vi«w«d by_

Upd*t«d by_
_D*ta_

 Date
   Exhibit V-^22. New Mexico Environmental Improvement
                 Division LUST Priority Rating Scheme (Page 3 of 3)
-------
 PAGE 94
ENFORCEMENT RESPONSES (cont.)

Expedited Enforcement Procedures

   The success of an UST regulatory program is
largely dependent on the ability of UST officials to
both  encourage  voluntary  compliance with  the
regulations and to bring violators into compliance
without investing the majority  of  the program's
resources. Many States have found that traditional
enforcement  procedures  are  often  too   time-
consuming and resource-intensive for many of the
violations discovered, particularly for cases in which
the violation is relatively minor.  As a result, some
States may want  to develop expedited enforcement
procedures  as part  of their  UST  compliance
program.    It should  be  noted,  however, that
expedited procedures are most effective when used
as a complement to existing  administrative, civil,
and   criminal  authorities  rather   than   as  a
replacement   for   more   formal   enforcement
responses.
    Several of the State UST officials interviewed
expressed  interest  in  using   these  types  of
procedures. However, with some exceptions, such
as Maryland's use of Site Complaints in their UST
program and Ontario's  use of Offense Notices to
enforce a variety of civil regulations, States have not
yet developed expedited procedures for their UST
programs.
    This section  will present several approaches to
streamlining enforcement  methods. Furthermore,
the sample forms in this section demonstrate  that
expedited  procedures  can   be modified   to fit
different types of compliance  programs.

What are Expedited Enforcement
Procedures?

    As the  name implies, expedited enforcement
procedures are techniques that have been developed
to enhance the overall compliance program by
simplifying the enforcement process and improving
timeliness.  Some forms of expedited enforcement
procedures that might be useful in an UST program
are:

  O  On-Site Warning Notices,
  O  Site Complaints,
 O Field Citations, and
 O Short-Form Notices of Violation (NOVs).
   These techniques are similar in that the notices
are issued directly by  the inspector or regulatory
agency without  going through the State's judicial
system.  A warning notice is issued by an inspector
at  the site of the violation to inform the owner or
operator of  the violation and of the  appropriate
action necessary to correct the violation.  However,
penalty  assessments are not associated with the
notice.  Like the  on-site warning  notice,  a site
complaint is issued by an inspector and does not
include  a penalty assessment.  However,  a site
complaint is a formal administrative order that.has
been  preauthorized  by  the appropriate  State
official. A field citation is another type of formal
administrative order presented in a simplified form,
similar to a traffic ticket. A penalty is often assessed
when a field citation is issued. A short-form notice
is issued by the regulatory agency after reviewing an
inspection report, and a penalty is often assessed at
that time.  An example and discussion of each of the
expedited  enforcement procedures  as  well  as
variations on each procedure are presented  later in
this section.

How Can Your UST Program Benefit from
Using Expedited Procedures?
    The primary  goals of expedited  enforcement
procedures are to enable UST officials to address
more violations and to reallocate resources to new
or  more  serious  cases.   These procedures are
relatively easy for the inspector and the violator to
use, and they require less of both parties' time than
formal  judicial enforcement actions.   Thus,  a
program's enforcement resources are conserved for
contested or serious violations.  Implementing a
formal and standardized method for responding to
violations also may encourage, owners and operators
to  comply  with  all  the  regulations because  a
precedent has been established for enforcing a wide
range of violations.

When Should You Use Expedited
Procedures?
    Expedited  enforcement  procedures  generally
are designed to address relatively minor violations.
These procedures are best used when  the actual
environmental  harm is small and the violation is
-------
                                                                                         PAGE 95
 easily correctable,  as  in  the case  of  reporting
 violations. In addition, the factual elements should
 be simple and  easily visible  in  the  field so  that
 inspectors spend  few resources identifying the
 violation.  Finally,  there should be no evidence of
 criminal   intent   to  avoid  compliance   with
 environmental regulations. In the absence of these
 circumstances,   traditional   civil  or  criminal
 enforcement procedures would still be used.
    Most regulatory programs that use expedited
 procedures  have  established set  penalties for
 specific violations.  These penalties seem to be most
 effective when the  amount is  relatively small (e.g.,
 $50 to $500  per violation) because the violator  is
 more likely to pay the fine and correct the violation
 than to contest the violation.   However,  States
 should not be held  back by attempting to precisely
 match  each  violation with  a  penalty.  Instead,
 determining  appropriate fines may be an ongoing
 process; the  level of the fine should encourage the
 violator to come into compliance rather than contest
 the violation. Thus,  fines may need to be adjusted as
 the program gains  experience.
    Expedited  enforcement procedures are  only
 part  of  an enforcement program.  A regulatory
 agency should retain the right to enforce violations
 using full civil and criminal penalties authorized by
 statute.   Therefore,  violators  actually benefit by
 complying with  expedited  procedures rather than
 risk being assessed the full civil penalty, which may
 be as much as $10,000 to 525,000.

 What Types of Support Material Would
 You Need to Develop?

    To   effectively  implement  an  expedited
 enforcement procedure as pan of its compliance
 program, a State would need  to  prepare outreach
 materials to inform the regulated community about
. the requirements. Particularly in the early phases of
 an UST program, it is likely that'lack of knowledge
 would be  a  primary  reason  for noncompliance.
 Thus, having detailed explanations of the program
 requirements, and  suggestions on how to comply
 with  those requirements (e.g., a list  of certified
 installers),  would   help  violators   come   into
 compliance.  In addition, violators would need to be
 informed of their legal rights when issued a citation.
 The appeals  procedure should be clearly stated on
 the citation or notice and in outreach material to
 fully inform the violator of his/her options.
    To ensure the quality and consistency of the
 inspection process. States would also  need  to
 develop  an   inspectors'  training  guide  and  a
 standardized  inspection manual.  An inspectors'
 training  guide  would  detail  the  appropriate
 inspection techniques and provide guidance  on
 recognizing signs of environmental contamination.
 A standardized inspection program would establish
 the procedure for conducting UST investigations to
 ensure consistency within the inspection program.
    Comprehensive    inspector   training     is
 particularly important to educate UST inspectors
 about the liabilities associated  with their role as
 technical advisor. It is often difficult for inspectors
 to  separate  the role  of inspector from that of
 technical advisors.   If a State  program  allows its
 inspectors to  render detailed  advice  on how  an
 owner or operator can comply with the regulations,
 inspectors must  have  the necessary  technical
• qualifications  and  background to  provide that
 information.

 What Types of Statutory Authority Would
 You Need?
    The   expedited   enforcement   procedures
 presented here are techniques that have been based
 on  statutory  authorities  commonly  found  in
 regulatory programs.  Those States  that already
 have  the statutory  authority and administrative
 procedures to  issue  administrative  orders and
 assess penalties could rapidly adopt the techniques
 presented here. The penalty authority would neither
 mandate a minimum penalty nor restrict discretion
 on assessment of fines.  If the  field citation were
 used,   the  State  would  be   able  to,  delegate
 enforcement  authority to the inspector.  However,
 the State agency may prefer to use a short-form
 NO V as an alternative to delegating the authority to
 the inspector; the NOV may only  be issued under
 the signature of the regulatory agency's director.
    An appeals procedure must also be provided.
 The  forum   could   range from  administrative
 hearings to civil or criminal trials. The State agency
 would need to provide an appeals proceeding for
 any case in which it has the power to issue orders
 and penalties; however,  the less cumbersome the
 appeals procedure, the more compatible it is with
-------
 PAGE 96
expedited enforcement procedures. That is, a State
might not find an advantage to using a field citation
if an appeal were forced to compete on a crowded
civil court docket and placed demands on the
Attorney General for prosecution.

    While relatively few States might currently have
the ideal statutory basis for rapid adoption of the
expedited  enforcement procedures  listed  here,
many States have some of the requisite authorities
and could tailor these procedures or develop similar
alternatives in order to enhance UST compliance
programs.   For  example, the short-form  NOV
modified into a consent agreement will have the
same effect  on many violators as the  standard
short-form NOV. States are encouraged to obtain
authorities where possible, but, as always,  should
consider   developing  expedited   enforcement
approaches  as  part of  their UST compliance
program.  The following  sections describe four
expedited and enforcement techniques in detail.

On-S/fe Warning Notice

    What is It? An on-site warning notice is issued
by an inspector at the site of the violation to inform
the owner or  operator of a  violation and the
appropriate  action  necessary  for  compliance
(Exhibit V-23). Although a penalty would not  be
assessed at this  time, an  on-site warning  notice
serves as a formal record that  a-particular facility
has been cited for a  violation.  This initial notice
could be used by the implementing agency to impose
further sanctions if the violation were not corrected
or if it were repeated.

    When  Would You Use It?  The on-site notice
may be particularly  useful during the first year of
regulation as a method of informing the regulated
community about the UST requirements, and the
penalties  for noncompliance.   In general,  some
violations  that are common in the initial stages of a
 regulatory  program  (e.g.,  failure to  notify the
 implementing agency of an existing tank or failure to
 obtain an operating permit) may warrant an on-site
 warning notice.  Because these types of violations
 are often  due to a lack  of knowledge  about the
 program,  State agencies may want to use on-site
 notices to emphasize the importance of compliance
 without assessing a penalty.
   Inspectors may also use an on-site notice when
the violation is relatively minor or when there are
mitigating   circumstances   resulting   in  non-
compliance. Thus, an UST inspector may use an
on-site  notice as a  positive  gesture to promote
compliance.

   What Types of Outreach Materials Would You
Need?  The on-site notice is most effective when
accompanied by a  detailed explanation  of the
requirements and suggestions on how to  comply
(e.g.,  for closure violations, the State agency may
provide names of certified disposal sites).  The
violator  should  also  be  informed   of  his/her
responsibilities and  the  penalties for continued
noncompliance.

Site  Complaint

    What is It? While the on-site warning notice is
usually directed at  achieving  compliance with
relatively minor violations, a similar enforcement
procedure  may be used for more  serious violations.
One such procedure is the use of a site complaint.
The site complaint is often a-formal administrative
order,  usually  without   a  penalty  assessment.
Because it  is a formal order, the site complaint must
be signed by an appropriate State official and time
must be allowed for an appeal of the order. This
procedure   can   be  adapted into  an  expedited
procedure   if   the   appropriate  State  official
preauthorizes the blank citation by signing the form
and designating the inspector to fill out the details of
the violation during the inspection.
    When  Would You  Use  It?   The  State  of
Maryland  has developed a site complaint as part of
its UST compliance program. The site complaint is
used to promote voluntary compliance and to serve
as formal  record of the  violations discovered.  A
penalty  is not  assessed.    The  site complaint,
 therefore,  is used to inform owners and operators
 that  a violation has been discovered.  By issuing a
 formal order, inspectors emphasize the seriousness
 of noncompliance while encouraging owners  and
 operators  to correct the  violation without being
 subject to  a penalty assessment.
    Maryland's  site complaint  includes a cease-
 and-desist order that allows Maryland officials to
 order an UST facility to stop a tank installation or to
-------
                                                                                         PAGE 97
stop using a tank that is suspected of leaking. This
type of authority provides UST officials with the
ability to take immediate action necessary to protect
human  health or the environment.  Exhibit V-24
presents a sample site complaint, modeled after the
one used by Maryland officials.

Field Citation

    What  is It?  A field citation is a simplified
administrative order issued by an inspector at the
site of the violation (Exhibit V-25).  The citation
often resembles a generic "traffic ticket" and  may
include a predetermined fine for a specific violation
and  an explanation of the  appeals process.  The
violator has the option of paying  the fine  and
correcting the violation, or requesting a hearing.
    When  Would  You Use It?   A  State  would
generally  use  field citations for  relatively  minor,
easily  corrected  violations.   In  addition,  the
violations  should   be  easily  visible  so that the
inspector  would not have  to  invest a lot of time
identifying the violation, and  there  should be no
evidence of criminal intent to hide noncompliance.
In these cases, an inspector may issue a field citation
with a relatively small penalty,  thereby encouraging
the violator to pay the fine and correct the violation
rather than contesting the citation. However, when
more serious violations are discovered, inspectors
may use other  enforcement techniques, such as a
formal Notice of Violation.
    A standard field citation may also be used as a
warning to inform an owner or  operator of a
violation   and  emphasize,   the   penalties  for
noncompliance without actually assessing penalties
(Exhibit V-26).  A warning  field citation would be
the same  form as  the standard citation with the
distinction that it is a warning and that there is no
penalty  attached.     This  approach  may  be
particularly useful during  the  initial stages of
regulation when many violations may be attributed
to lack of knowledge about the  program. By using a
standard citation, an inspector may emphasize the
importance of  compliance  while promoting good
faith  between the  State agency and the owner or
operator.  The warning field citation can also serve
as a formal record that a violation.was observed at a
particular facility.
   What  Do  You  Need to Implement  a Field
Citation Program?  To implement a field citation
program,  the  State  agency will need to  have
administrative order authority to assess penalties,
and  the ability to delegate that authority to the
inspector.  In addition, outreach materials would
need  to  be  developed  to explain  the  appeals
procedure  should a violator wish to contest the
citation. The District of Columbia has established a
field citation  program for enforcing many civil
regulations under its  Civil Infractions Program.
District officials also plan to use their standard field
citation, which served as the model  for Exhibits
V-25 and  V-26, for  UST violations once  their
program has been  developed.   The  District has
developed comprehensive outreach materials that
detail their Civil  Infractions Program and clearly
answer common  questions that a  recipient of a
citation might have.  One  example used for their
program is presented in Exhibit V-27.
   Because there are a large number of possible
UST violations that could  be enforced using field
citations, descriptions of all the  possible violations
could not be stated on the citation form. Thus, the
violations and the set fines would have to be detailed
in a separate document so  that the investigator
could quickly cite the violation and penalty. As the
sample citations show, the section of the regulation
and a brief description of  the  violation would be
clearly stated  on the  citation.   The  inspector,
therefore,  would have an additional  document
detailing the violations in  a short  form,  and the
penalties associated with each particular violation.
Some effort  would be required to develop  this
penalty document because the short-form wording
of the violations must be clear and accurate to avoid
overlap of similar violations.
   A field citation program also requires that the
inspectors be well-trained to identify violations and
assess their severity, including the determination of
which violations can be adequately addressed by a
field , citation    and   which   warrant   further
enforcement action.  Because inspectors will have
administrative  order  authority,  consistency and
competency are important  to help ensure that the
administrative  orders  and penalties issued  by
inspectors would be supported in a court of law, as
well  as  to protect inspectors   from liability for
technical  advice  offered  during the  inspection
-------
 PAGE 98
process.  Thus, a State agency may need to establish
a training program for UST inspectors and provide
a standardized inspection manual to detail how
inspections should be conducted.
    How Should Penalties be  Established?  Field
citation programs seem to be  most effective when
the penalty assessments  are relatively small.  For
example, the Province of Ontario  has successfully
used field citations (called offense notices in the
Province)  for  several   years  as  a   primary
enforcement   technique  for  all  Provincial  and
municipal  regulations.  In 1980,  the  Provincial
Offenses Act was passed which allowed short-form
wordings of the regulations to be developed and set
fines to be established for specific violations.

    Fines for violations of UST regulations within
the Gasoline Handling Act range from $50 to S150
depending on the seriousness of the violation.  For
example, failure to display a license in a conspicuous
position carries a penalty of $60 whereas failure to
reconcile dipstick readings with  meter  readings
carries a penalty of $150. However, under Province
law, the inspector retains the ability  to  prosecute
violators to the full extent, which may result in up to
a $10,000 fine and/or 1 year in jail if the violator is
convicted.
    Approximately 80 percent  of the  owners or
operators receiving  offense notices have pleaded
guilty.  Thus, the amount of time inspectors have
had to  spend  in court has  been  significantly
reduced, allowing for better use of their resources.
For further information  on this program, contact:
        Fuels Safety Branch
        Ministry of Consumer and Customer Relations
        Ontario Province. Canada
        (416) 239-2949
    In general, penalties for  UST violations  may
range  from $50 to $500, depending on the severity of
violations a State agency may enforce  through their
 field citation program.  The penalty should reflect
 the severity of the violation, yet be small enough to
 encourage the owner or operator to correct the
violation and pay the fine rather than  pursue  a
 hearing. Determining fines that are large enough to
 deter  owners and  operators  from  violating the
 regulations but small enough  to provide them with
 an incentive to pay the fine and correct the violation
 is critical to a field citation program.
Short-Form Notice of Violation

   What is It? The short-form Notice of Violation
(NOV)  is an administrative  order  issued by  the
State agency after reviewing the inspection report
filed by the on-site inspector (Exhibit V-28).  It
informs the  owner or operator that a violation  has
been observed  and  clearly  states the  response
actions  necessary to correct  the violation.  If the
State agency has administrative penalty authority, a
penalty may  be  assessed  at that  time.   The
short-form   NOV   can  be  used   to  expedite
enforcement in  the  same way in which  the field
citation is  used.  The  State agency targets  less
serious  violations, establishes a set fine for specific
violations, and offers the violator the opportunity to
avoid the formal enforcement process in  exchange
for prompt  action and payment of a small fine. In
these cases,  additional legal action is necessary only
in cases involving contested violations or continued
noncompliance.
    If the  State agency does not have administrative
order and  penalty authority, a  NOV may  be
modified  to have the same effect. For example, an
NOV may be used to offer a settlement agreement in
which the violator is given an opportunity  to correct
the violation and pay a  small fine without a formal
hearing on  the  matter  (Exhibit V-29). The State
agency  may also cite its authority to pursue civil or
criminal penalties and  the potential magnitude of
those penalties if the violator does not enter into or
comply with the settlement agreement. In effect, a
settlement  agreement  is  a  "carrot  and  stick"
approach to  enforcement.   The  "carrot" is the
incentive  of a  reduced  penalty  and  less  time
investment  if a  violator agrees to the terms of the
settlement  agreement.   On  the other hand, the
"stick" is the risk of being assessed the maximum
statutory penalty should the case be taken to court.
     The  EPA   Mobile  Sources  program  has
 developed both a field citation (Exhibit V-30) and a
 short-form NOV (Exhibit V-31) with a separate
 compliance agreement (Exhibit. V-32) to  enforce
 gasoline pump nozzle violations.  Although the two
 forms have  similar language, the short-form NOV is
 issued from EPA whereas the field citation would be
 issued  by  the  inspector.   The  Mobile Sources
 program has experimented with both forms, which
 illustrates how expedited enforcement forms can be
-------
                                                                                       PAGE 99
designed and modified to suit the circumstances.
The Mobile Sources program served as the model
for the sample modified short-form NOV (Exhibit
V-29).
    When Would You Use It? The short-form NOV
is   often  used  by  State  agencies   that  have
administrative order  and  penalty  authority but
choose  not to  delegate  that  authority  to the,
inspector. Some State agencies may prefer to retain
the authority to issue penalties because it allows
inspectors  to  separate their roles  of technical
advisor from that of law enforcer.
    What Do You Need to Implement Short-Form
NOVs? The State agency must have administrative
order authority to assess penalties without a judicial
hearing.  However, using a predetermined consent
agreement as described above would enable a State
agency to use expedited procedures without actually
having administrative order authority.

   State agencies  also would  need to develop a
penalty policy.  Many agencies using expedited
enforcement procedures have established set fines
for the violations  that may  be cited under a
short-form NOV program.   Establishing set fines
simplifies  the  penalty  process  and  ensures
consistency in the compliance program. Additional
information on penalties assessments is provided in
the discussion of field citations.
-------
PAGE  100
                     State seal	
                     Department of_
                     Office o<	
                                                                                                Citation Number
                                                ON - SITE WARNING NOTICE
                     Facility Name:_
                     Address:.
                     Name ol Facility Owner or Operator,
                           On
_, a routine underground storage tank inspection was conducted at the abovemen-
                     toned faciMy. Regulators concerning underground storage tanks have been promulgated by the Slate pursuant
                     to	(3)	.
                     During the inspecton, vdalon at the following requirements were found:

                     Secton	(4)	,	(5.  descnpton of vdaton)_

                     Section	(4)	(5.  descnpton of volaton).
                     To correct the volaton. the owner or operator o> the abovementoned facility must •
                            This notice of noncomphance a being issued by the Department ol,
                                                                                                       m lieu of
                     further enforcement actions at this time, provded that the volaton is promptty corrected. However, this notice
                     may be used as evrience that the abovementoned lacilrty has been cited in volaton ol (he	(3)	and
                     that' the owner or operator ol the abovementoned  laoUy  may be subiect to  civil penalties of up to
                     $	(6)	tor repeated vdatons.
                     II you have any further questons, you may contact.
                                                                                    at
                     CITATION SERVED BY:
                               J9L
                         J10L
                                                                                                         .(11)
                     CITATION RECEIVED BY:
                             J12L
                            Exhibit V-23. Sample On-Site Warning Notice (Page 1 of 2)
-------
                                                                             PAGE 101
     EXPLANATION FOR SAMPLE ON - SITE WARNING NOTICE


(1) Name of the State Department with enforcement authonty for UST regulations

(2) Name of Office within (1) responsible for implementing UST enforcement
   procedures

(3) Specific statutory authonty(ies)

(4) Specific section of the regulation for which a violation has been cited

(5) Brief description of the violation

(6) Maximum statutory penalty

(7) Name of contact at the appropnate Department

(8) Appropriate telephone number

(9) Printed name of inspector

(10)  Signature of inspector

(11)  Date

(12)  Printed name of owner or operator

(13)  Signature of owner or operator
   Exhibit V-23. Sample On-Site Warning Notice (Page 2 of 2)
-------
PAGE 102
                                                                                        State seal
                                                                                  Citation Number
                        Department of.
                        Office of	
.(2),
                                                   SITE COMPLAINT
                                                                          Date:
                        1.  Facility Owner or Operator.
                           (Address):	
                                                                        _(Phone):.
                        Faalrty Permit Number:_
                        2.  Contractor,
                         1 (Address):_
                                                                        JPhone):.
                        3. Violation of
                        4. Descnpton of Violation:,
                        5. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that.
                                |    [  Cease and desist by:_

                                [    |  Other	
                      hrs.
                                                                             19
                            Please be advised that you are entitled to a hearing before the Administraion as
                            a result of this Order.  If you wish to schedule a Hearing on this matter, the Ad-
                            ministration must be so notified in writing within (10)days.

                        6. 'I hearby acknowledge receipt of this Site Complaint by my signature, which is
                            not an admission of guilt."
                         Person Issued to:_

                         Authorized by:	
                 J5L
                        Signature of Inspector:,
                                                                                     I.D. Number
                          Exhibit V-24. Sample Site Complaint (Page 1 of 2)
-------
                                                                           PAGE 103
                 EXPLANATION OF SITE COMPLAINT


(1) Name of State Department with enforcement authonty for UST regulation

(2) Name of Office within (1) responsible for implementing UST enforcement
   procedures

(3) Name of the legislative Act, regulation, or code

(4) Description of action(s) necessary to correct violation

(5) Name of owner or operator

(6) Name of Director of State Office

(7) Inspector identification number
  Exhibit V-24. Sample Site Complaint (Page 2 of 2)
-------
PAGE 104
                                           Front Side
Department at
Officaol
State seal
(2)
NOTICE OP VIOLATION OF
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS
On
Al
(Data ol Violation) Time a.m. p m.
(Nam* ol Faaury)
(Address ol Facility)
Nam*olOwne
(ord
Formal ID
Facility Uc*ns«
An ffwownor c
wiffiviouoooo
(•tod wnetfior
deny ffievwUC
cox>(«)
Nature ol viola
Cooe (4)
Naueol viola
Total fin* appii
WARNING: II
adiudicaoon b)
ihts nooca. yoi
sus pension ol
rocorved withr
1 personally oc
rorOoerator
« one)
Ye» No
^Permit No.
f operator ol in* abov* menooned faaSry. you hav* been charged
in* (3) You must indicate below lor >acn violaaon
rou admrt in* viotaoon. admit in* violaoon witi an eiptanaoon. or
on You nave in* rgnt to request a neanng.
HwguUUxi (S) . .1 June (b)
>on (7)
f— 1 Admit f~l Admit wim eipunaoon I — 1 Deny
Regulation (5) 1 SFine (6)
Don (71
1 — | Admit | — I Admit witneiplanaoon 1 1 Deny
cabl* to th* aoov* voUoonls) J (9>
you do not pay m* required An* or request a hearing or an
r mail (see reverse side) witnm (10) days ol service ol
I wiU b* subject to the maximum penaioes permitted by law. and
your licensa/permit. The fine wul double il payment has not been
(in davs.
served or investigated me v
-------
                                                                                                        PAGE  105
                                   Back Side
           YOU ARE REQUIRED TO RESPOND TO THIS NOTICE OF INFRACTION
           WITHIN 	(10)_i	 DAYS OF THE DATE OF SERVICE TO AVOID
           BEING ASSESSED A PENALTY EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF THE ORIGINAL
           FINE. YOU MUST RESPOND IN ONE OF THE FOLLOWING WAYS:

           TO PAY THE FINE AND WAIVE YOUR RIGHTS TO A HEARING:

               • Check the "Admrt" box under fig violation listed on the reverse side;
               • Certify fat the violation has been corrected by signing below;
               • Make personal check, cashier's chock, or money order payable to	(1)	;
                 (no cash by mail)
              . • Pnnt noooa number on the check or money order
               • Enclose payment with tha nooca and mad to:
               • Department oC	(1)	
               • Office of	(2)	
               • AddntM	

           TQ ADMIT THE VIOLATION WITH AN EXPLANATION:

               • Check the "Admit with Explanation" box under the rotation listed on the
                reverse side
               • Certify that tne vraiaBon has been corrected by signing, below,
               • Chock fit appropriate boi to requetl a hearing, choose on* of !he following
                 method*:
               HEARING:
                            To request a neamg. cnoose one of fa following methods:
                           (a) Mad th» completed nooce to the Office ol	(2)	
                           (6) Appear in person or by authorized representative, at me
                           Office ol 	(12)	 , addres*. between tne hours ol
                                i'3).
             ADJUDICATION BY MAIL: Mail JIB complete noDce to_
  .(Sl-
             IT
-------
PAGE  106
                                 EXPLANATION FOR SAMPLE RELD CITATIONS


                   (1) Name of the State Department with enforcement authonty for LIST regulation

                   (2) Name of Office within (1) responsible for implementing UST enforcement
                      procedures

                 '  (3) Name of the legislative Act or regulation

                   (4) Specific statutory authonty

                   (5) Specific section of the regulation for which the violation has been cited

                   (6) Set penalty for the violation

                   (7) Bnef description of the violation

                   (8) Violator's response options, marked for each violation cited

                   (9) TotaJ of set penalties for all violations cited on this form

                   (10)  Number of days allowed for violator's  response to the citation

                   (11)  Number of days allowed for violator's  response to the citation before a late
                        penalty is assessed

                   (12)  Name of Office responsible for hearing appeals

                   (13)  Business hours of the hearing Office

                   (14)  Name of owner or operator

                   (15)  Address of facility

                   (16)  Signature of owner or operator
                        Exhibit V-25. Sample Field Citation (Page 3 of 3)
-------
                                                                 PAGE 107
                      Front Side
OoojJrtTxi nt of (1)
Ome*o« (2)
Staia saal
WARNING
NOTICE OP VIOLATION OF
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS
On
(Da* of Violation)
At
(Nam* of Faoiry).
Tim* a.m. p m.
(Addnna of Faotry)
Nam* of Owner or Oovrator
(orcl* on*)
Formal 10 Yet No
FaoHty Ljc*n**/Permrt No.

wi« violaaon of th* (31 You mutt indteai* betow
tet*d wh*tft*r you admit Ih* volaoon. admrt th* vtoUDon win j
d*ny th* violation. You haw* in* ngnt » requeu a neanng.
t^oo* i Heguiioort
to cr« ?«rt «f i««ion JIO 11

iav* be*n charged
tor each violaQon
in explanation, or
3
Naur* of vwiaoon ruiur. to otmin ?tr«n
1 — 1 Admrt [ — 1 Admit wtm •xptanaoon I — 1 De| V^ app*r*fif In Ih« aAn» VBlaflOn(») t (91
WARNING: If you do not pay ft* nqumd In* or r*que*t a n**rmg or an
ad|udicaDon by mad (>*• rwente aid*) winn (10) day* of tervtc* of
fm noao*. you wd b* >ub|*a to in* maximum p*rnrB*« permnad by law, and
lu*p*n*ion of your Icenoo/permrt. Th* fin* tnl doubl* if payment hea not been
r*cerv*d witMn (11) day*.
I pcraortalry obierved or mvesogatad fn vcuoory s) ai notad abov*.
(Inspecoft signature)
I hearty aduxwrtodg* receipt of ffw None* of Vloiaooo
ID No.
(Signature of Owner or Operator)
Exhibit V-26. Sample Warning Field Citation (Page 1 of 3)
-------
PAGE  108
                                                                 Back Side
                                         YOU ARE REQUIRED TO RESPOND TO THIS NOTICE OF INFRACTION
                                         WITHIN 	(10)	 DAYS OF THE DATE OF SERVICE TO AVOID
                                         BEING ASSESSED A PENALTY EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF THE ORIGINAL
                                         FINE. YOU MUST RESPOND IN ONE OF THE FOLLOWING WAYS:

                                         TO PAY THE FINE AND WAIVE YOUR RIGHTS TO A HEARING:

                                             • Check ffM 'Adrnrr box under the violation listed on the reverse side:
                                             • Certrty mat me violation has be*n ccrrecsd by signing cetow;
                                             • Max* personal check, cashiers check, or money order payable to	(1)	.
                                               (no cash by mad)
                                             • Print noDce number on It* check or money oroer
                                             • Enclose payment wiffi EN* notice and mail to:
                                             • Department of	(1)	
                                             • Office of	(2)	
                                             • Address	

                                         TO ADMrT THE VIOLATION WITH AN EXPLANATION:

                                             • Check Tie 'Admit with Explanation' box under trie vulaDon listed on tie
                                              reverse tide
                                             • CerBfy that the violation hae been corrected by signing betcw
                                             • Check the appropriate box o requeet a heamg. cnoose one of the following
                                              method*:

                                             HEARING:    To request» heenng. choose one of the toBowmg melnods
                                                         (*) M«d tMe complied noace to the Office o>	(2)_
                                                         (6) Appeer in penon or by autnorued repreeentaove. it the
                                                         Office of 	(12)      . addre««, be oxen the hour* o(
                                                              .('3).
                                           ADJUDICATION BY MAJL. Me
-------
                                                                                  PAGE 109
              EXPLANATION FOR SAMPLE RELD CITATIONS


(1)  Name of the State Department with enforcement authority for LIST regulation

(2)  Name of Office within (1) responsible for implementing UST enforcement
    procedures

(3)  Name of the legislative Act or regulation

(4)  Specific statutory authority

(5)  Specific section of the regulation for which the violation has been cited

(6)  Set penalty for the violation

(7)  Brief description  of the violation

(8)  Violator's response options, marked for each violation cited

(9)  TotaJ of set penalties for all violations cited on this form

(10) Number of days allowed for violator's response to the citation

(11) Number of days allowed for violator's response to the citation before a late
     penalty is assessed

(12) Name of Office  responsible for hearing appeals

(13) Business hours of the hearing Office

(14) Name of owner or operator

(15) Address of facility

(16) Signature of owner or operator
     Exhibit V-26. Sample Warning Field Citation (Page 3 of 3)
-------
PAGE 110
                                                                                      THE CIVIL INFRACTIONS PROGRAM

                                                                               The Department ol Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (OCRA) is
                                                                              responsible lor the protection of me health, safety and welfare of
                                                                              the citizens of the District of Columbia through the regulation of
                                                                              Business activities, land and building use. occupational and profes-
                                                                              sional conduct and standards, rental Mousing and condominiums,
                                                                              health and social service care facilities, and the physical environ-
                                                                              ment. To ensure that every citizen receives maximum protection.
                                                                              DCRA provides consumer education and information, handles com-
                                                                              plaints, conducts investigations, and assures compliance with the
                                                                              laws and regulations administered by DCRA
                                                                                There art many laws and regulations that fall under the jurisdic-
                                                                              tion of DCRA  When a specific law or regulation is not followed or
                                                                              5 broken, the DCRA Civil  Infractions Act of 1985 enables DCRA to
                                                                              issue tickets, collect fines, and hear cases. When a DCRA inspec-
                                                                              tor observe*  * violation, a ticket will be issued by that inspector.
                                                                              This procesa is very similar to tickets issued by police officers to
                                                                              dnvers who violaie traffic laws.
                                                                                The Civil Infractions Act is implemented by the OCRA Office of
                                                                              Civil Infractions (OCI). OCI provides support services to six OCRA
                                                                              administration* by processing tickets, collecting tines, and schedul-
                                                                              ing hearings resulting from tickets issued tor violations of District
                                                                              of Columbia  laws and regulations in the areas of Occupational and
                                                                              Professional Licensing. Insurance, Business Regulation, Building
                                                                              and Land Regulation. Housing and Environmental Regulation, and
                                                                              Service Facility Regulation.
                                                                                Through the Civil Infractions Program, violations are  processed
                                                                              quickly and efficiently as  follows: 1) An inspector will issue a cita-
                                                                              tion with a predetermined fine: 2) The violator must pay the fine
                                                                               .vitnm 15 days AMD CORRECT THE VIOLATION. If this is not done.
                                                                              the violator will face a doubling or tripling of the fine and possible
                                                                              suspension or revocation of his/her license or permit; 3) The violator
                                                                              ha* the right to request a heanng before an Administrative Law Judge
                                                                              (ALJ) if he believes that he should not have received the ticket; and
                                                                               4) The violator may appeal an unfavorable decision of the ALJ.

                                                                                          OFFICE OF  CIVIL INFRACTIONS
                                                                                 The Office of Civil Infractions has three divisions to spe«d along
                                                                               the processing of violations. They are the Violations Processing Divi-
                                                                               sion, the Collections Division, and the Adjudication Support Division.

                                                                               Violation* Proce**irvg Olvltlon
                                                                                  The  Violations Processing Division provides information and
                                                                               assistance to the public  concerning the procedures for paying civil
                                                                               fine* andVor requesting hearings. It is also responsible lor prepar-
                                                                               ing all citation* lot loading into  an automated  data system. This
                          Exhibit V-21. Washington D.C.  Department of Consumer and  Regulatory Affairs
                                            Compliance Outreach Pamphlet   (Page  1 of 3)
-------
                                                                                                                         PAGE  111
system gives OC1 the capability lo track a citation from issuance
to collections. Once this is accomplished, the system is monitored
to identify cases that need to be referred to the Office of Compliance
for criminal prosecution or other appropriate actions.

Collections Division
  The Collections Division processes all payments received By OCI
to insure proper recording and collection of fines. II initiates col-
lection proceedings  for delinquent accounts  and coordinates
suspension or revocation of licenses with the Office of Adjudica-
tion. Office of Compliance, and the various Administrations. It also
provides collection information to the Administrative Law Judge.

Adjudication Support Divitlon
  The Adjudication Support Division provides administrative support
lo the Office of Adiudication by: processing requests lor hearings.
coordinating the scheduling of heanngs with the Administrative Law
Judge, the Office of  Compliance, investigators, inspectors, and
respondents: receiving mail adjudication: and verifying compliance
with the Administrative Law Judge's orders.

              OFFICE OF ADJUDICATION
  The Office of  Adjudication is directed by an Administrative Law
Judge who directs, coordinates, supervises, and  provides advisory
services related to the formal adjudication of cases ansing from viola-
tion of laws and regulations enforced by the Department of Con-
sumer and Regulatory Affairs. The cases will be heard by the Office's
attorney examiners and will fall into one ol three major categories:
the Consumer Protection. Business Regulation, and Insurance Divi-
sion, the Land Use and Environmental Regulation Division, and the
Occupational. Professional Licensing. Health Care, and Social Serv-
ices Division, each of which is headed by a senior attorney examiner
Upon conclusion of acase. the attorney examiner is required to write
a decision and order which shall include findings of fact and con-
clusions of law, which is app«aiacie 10 appropriate appellate bodies

              QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q. WHAT IS A CIVIL INFRACTION?
A A "Civil Infraction" is any act or failure to act which violates any
   of the  laws and regulations administered by DCRA.  for which a
   fine may be imposed under the provisions of  the DCRA Civil in-
    tractions Act ol 1985.
Q.  WHAT KINO OF INFRACTIONS ARE COVERED BY THE ACT?
A  Examples of the Kind of infractions are' Failure to  Post a Cer-
    tificate of Occupancy. Failure to Renew a Home Improvement
    License or Pharmacy License. Operating without a Cosmetology
    License. Food Contamination. Selling/Seo/ing Alcoholic &»verage
    After Hours, and so on
0. WHO ISSUES THESE TICKETS?

A. The tickets, which contain predetermined fines, are issued by
   inspectors and investigators who work for DCRA Their job is to
   protect the public by ensuring that businesses comply with re-
   quired laws and regulations.

Q. WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I  RECEIVE A TICKET?

A  The (me must be paid within 15 calendar days from the data of
   service and the violation(s) must be corrected.

0. WHAT HAPPENS IF I OONT PAY THE FINE?

A  If the fine is not paid within 15 days of the issuance of the ticket.
   the fine will double. If not paid wilhin 30 days, the fine will triple
   and collections proceeding will be initialed against you. In addi-
   tion, you may  face possible revocation or suspension ol your
   license or permit to  conduct  business within the District of
   Columbia.

Q. WHAT IF I DONT THINK  THE TICKET IS FAIR?

A. You have the right to request a hearing before an Administrative
   Law Judge. This must be done within 15 days of issuance of the
   ticket. A hearing can be requested one of two ways:
      1  Write lo the hearing office  at  P O. Box No. 37140.
      Washington, D.C. 20013.  Your name, address, and citation
      number must be shown on all correspondence,
      2  Appear in person, or by authorized representative  at the
      hearing office  located at 613 G St.. N W.. 7th floor

Q. WHAT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE?

A An Administrative Law Judge is one who presides at an admin-
   istrative hearing, with power to administer oaths, take testimony,
   rule on questions of evidence and make agency determination*
   of fact and conclusions of law.

Q. WHAT WILL HAPPEN AT THE HEARING?

A If you deny the alleged violation, both you and the inspector who
   issued tho ticket will appear before the ALJ to explain the events
   which resultod in the issuance of Ihe ticket. After hearing all the
   testimony, the ALJ will write a decision that will either uphold
   the fine; reduce the fine: or dismiss the fine.
                     Exhibit V-27. Washington D.C.  Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
                                        Compliance Outreach Pamphlet    (Page 2 of 3)
-------
PAGE 112
                                   Q. 00  I HAVE THE BIGHT  TO BE  REPRESENTED  BY AN
                                      ATTORNEY?
                                   A, Yes. You nava the ngm to ba represented oy an attorney of your
                                      choice, or you may represent yourself at trie Rearing.
                                   Q. WHAT HAPPENS IF I DISAGREE WITH THE DECISION OF THE
                                      AU?
                                   A, You nave a ngnt to appeal ma ALJ's daemon Appeals can be
                                      made to the Board of Appeals and Review (BAR), except 'or those
                                      matters involving issues related to zoning. A8C licenses, profes-
                                      sional boards, and rental accommodations. These are handled
                                      By tha following: Board ol Zoning Adjustment. ABC Board, ap-
                                      propnata Doard of commission, or Rental Housing Commission
                                      All appeals must be died within 15 calendar days Irom the date
                                      ol tha decision ot the AU.
                                   Q. CAN  I APPEAL BEYOND THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND
                                      REVIEW?
                                   A  Yes. You can appaai to the Oistnct of Columbia Court of Appeals.
                                      Judicial appaai must oe tiled witnm 30 days of service of the ad-
                                      ministrative appaai decision.

                                             FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
                                   THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
                                                OFFICE OF CIVIL INFRACTIONS
                                                     813 Q STREET. N.W.
                                                         7th  FLOOR
                                                   WASHINGTON. O.C. 20001
                                                  TELEPHONE: (2021 3474530
                       Exhibit V-27. Washington D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
                                        Compliance Outreach Pamphlet   (Page 3 of 3)
-------
PAGE 114
                       EXPLANATION OF SAMPLE SHORT-FORM NOTICE OF VIOLATION




                   (1)  Name of the State Department with enforcement authority for UST regulation
                                                                     •

                   (2)  Name of Office within (1) responsible for implementing UST enforcement
                       procedures


                   (3)  Name and address of facility


                   (4)  Name of owner or operator


                   (5)  Specific statutory authority(ies)


                   (6)  Specific section of the regulation for which a violation has been cited


                   (7)  Brief description of violation


                   (8)  Set fine for specific violation


                   (9)  Total penalties for the violations cited


                   (10) Maximum statutory penalty


                   (11) Name of contact at the appropriate Department


                   (12) Telephone number
                       Exhibit V-28. Sample Notice of Violation (Page 2 of 2)
-------
                                                                                                     PAGE 115
Slate seal
Department of_
Office of	
                                                                              Citation number
                J2L
                                NOTICE OF VIOLATION
with
       On      (date)	
      	(name of facility).
      	(3)	of the _
., an inspector from the Department of	
'.	located at	(address of facility).
                                                                               	inspected
                                                                               .for compliance
          The facility was found to be in violation of the following requirements:
Section
                           .(description of violation).
                                       _Set penalty $_
Section
                           .(description of violation).
                                       _Set penalty $_
                                                                     TOTAL $_
       The Department encourages the expeditious resolution of these matters.  Rather than assessing the
maximum civil penalty of $	(6)	, the Department will agree to mitigate the penalty to S	(7)	
provided that the violation(s) is(are) promptly correctad and this notice is signed and relumed to the Department
along with a check forthe full amount of the penally. The penalty amount must be mailed within	(days)	
of your receipt of th* Notica, or the settlement terms will increase substantially. If a settlement Is not reached
through thto agreement, the matter will be referred to	(8)	tor legal action, and the maximum
civil penalty may be Impoeed at that  time.   You may send your certified check in the amount of
$	(7)	. made payable to	(1)	and the signed waiver below to	(address of
Department)	.


       You are encouraged to sign this notice in accordance with the terms above.  If you have any further
questions, you may cootact^__(9)	at	(10)	.
                                                                               Citation Number
                             SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Name oi Facility.
Address of Facility.
Name of Owner or Operator.
within
       Settlement under this expedited procedure is conditioned on payment of thepenaltyof $ _ (7) _
           (days) _ of receipt of this notice, and correction of the conditions in violation of the Slate's under-
      _      _
ground storage tank regulations. The undersigned owner or operator in settlement of the violation(s) described
on this notice, certifies that he/she has corrected the violation, and has enclosed a check for  $ _ (7) _ in
payment for the violation.
                                           _(date)_
       Exhibit V-29.  Modified Notice of Violation (Page lot 2)
-------
PAGE 116
                       EXPLANATION OF MODIFIED SHORT-FORM NOTICE OF VIOLATION


                 (1) Name of the State Department with enforcement authority for UST regulation

                 (2) Name of Office within (1) responsible for implementing UST enforcement
                     procedures

                 (3) Name of the legislative Act or regulation

                 (4) Specific statutory authorrty(ies)

                 (5) Set penalty for each specific violation

                 (6) Maximum civil penalty under the appropriate statute

                 (7) Total penalties for the violations cited

                 (8) Brief description of the appeals/court procedure

                 (9) Name of contact within the Department

                 (10) Appropriate telephone number

                 (11) Signature of owner or operator
                      Exhibit V-29. Modified Notice of Violation (Page 2 of 2)
-------
                                                                             PAGE 117
                    Um(«« SUI«« Environmental Protection Afltncy
                             wunington. OC 2044O
751	
Operator of Retail Outlet
                       Notice of Violation
                             ofS«c.211
                         of thf Claan Air Act
                                   Violation Numb
 Number
Q&B.
       Nam*
       City. State, and ZIP Cod*
       Re:
            Inspection of Gasoline Pump Nozzle
Oat* of Inspection
Pump Serial No.
Inspection Form No.
Nozzle Gauge Number
          The U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency has
          inspected this retail outiet and determined that  a
          gasoline  pump used for dispensing leaded gasoline
          was equipped wtth a nozzle spout having a terminal
          end of less than 0.930 Inch outside diameter. This
          constitute* a violation of 40 CFR sec. 80.22(f)(1). for
          which  the Clean  Air  Act  authorizes  a  penalty
          assessment of  $10.000  per violation  per  day.
          However, if you follow  the  Expedited  Settlement
          procedures, tht* matter can be settled for $200. This
          node* onty pertains to this violation and to no  other
          violation  of th*  Own  Air  Act  or  other laws or
          regulations.

        Signature of Inspector
         rVchard G. Koziowaki, Director
         Held Operations & Support
        BPA Form 3S20-7 (*-«7)
Exhibit V-30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
               Office of Mobile Sources Field Citation
               (Page 1 of 2)
-------
PAGE 118
                                            Expedited Settlement
                                    To settle, you must immediately correct the violation.
                                    and, within twenty days of your receipt of this notice.
                                    complete the settlement agreement (below), and send
                                    the agreement together with your certified chock in
                                    the amount of $200 to:

                                     The Director
                                     Field Operations and Support Division
                                     U.S. EPA (EN-397F)
                                     401 M Street. SW
                                     Washington. DC 20460

                                    Make your certified check payable to the "United
                                    States of America."  and write  on the  check  the
                                    violation number printed on the Notice of Violation.

                                    II you do not agree to settle on  these terms,  the
                                    settlement  terms acceptable  to this Agency  will
                                    increase substantially, and the case may be formally
                                    referred  to  the U.S. Department of  Justice   for
                                    prosecution for th« civil penalty of $10.000 per day of
                                    violation.

                                    It you have  any questions  you may contact  the
                                    Eastern Field Office at (202)382-2043 or the Western
                                    Field Office at (303)231 jaM?*"

                                              Settlement Agreement
                                    Settlement   under  this   expedited   procedure  is
                                    conditioned on payment of S200 within 20 days  and
                                    correction of the violation.

                                    The retailer, in settlement of this violation of 40  CFR
                                    sec.  80.22(f)(1).  certifies,  under civil and criminal
                                    penalties for making a false submission to the United
                                    States Government, that he/she has corrected  the
                                    violation, and has endosed a certified check for $200
                                    in payment of the crvH penalty for the violation..
                                 Legal or Corporate Name of Retailer
                                 Printed Name of Person Signing
Date Signed
                                 Signature
                                 EPA Form 3S20-7 (*-*7)  Reverse
                        Exhibit V-30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                         Office of Mobile Sources Field Citation
                                         (Page 2 of 2)
-------
                                                                    PAGE 119
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

     NOTICE Or VIOLATION NO.  N

     TOt
     On                  » inspectors of the U.S.  Environmental
Protection Aqency (EPA) inspected
located at                       •            •  for compliance
with section 211 of the Clean Air *ct, 42 U.S.C. $7545, and thj
regulations Issued thereunder (40 C.'.R. Part 30).  This law
prohibits gasoline retailers from equipping a pump used to
dispense leaded qasollne with a nozzle spout which has an
outside diameter of less than 0.930 inch.  This law also reauvre*
that all pump* have a label affixed speci'vtnq the type of
gasoline dispensed by that pump.  The law subjects violators to
a civil penalty of 510,000 per day for each violation.

     During the inspection of this facility, th«»  inspectors
determined that a pump with serial number       , used to
dispense leaded gasoline into motor vehicles, was equipped with
a nozzle spout having an outside diameter of l«»ss than 0.930
inch.  It was also determined that         pumns  did not have
th« required labels affixed.

     The EPA'encourages the expeditious  resolution  of  these
matters.  Rather than assessinq  the statutory penalty  of  SIO.OOO,
the EPA will agree to mitigate  the penalty  to S200  provided
that you promptly correct  the violations and sign and  return
the encloMd Aqree«ent along with  a check  for $200,  as specified
in the Agreement.  The penalty  amount and  signed  Agreement must
be mailed within 30 calendar days  of  your  rec«»4ot of this
Notice, or the settlement  terms  acceptable to  this  Agency
thereafter will increase substantially.  If  you still  choose
not to settle, I intend to re'er the  matter for prosecution by
the U.S. Department of Justice  for the  maximum  civil penalty of
Sin.000 per.day of violation.
      Exhibit V-31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                  Office of Mobile Sources Notice of Violation
                  (Page 1 of 2)
-------
PAGE 120
                     W« ««*tourag« vou  to  sign  the  enclosed  Agreement  in
                accordance with the  terns  provided therein.   If  you  have any
                'urtn«r questions, you may contact         at (202)  382-
                                            Richard  G.  Koziowski,  Director
                                                 Ooer^tions  and Supoort division
                Enclosure

                bcc:
                   Exhibit V-31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                Office of Mobile Sources Notice of Violation
                                (Page 2 of 2)
-------
                                                                       PAGE 121
                                Enclosure 2
                                Proposed Agreement
[OUTLET!
Notice of Violation No.  I -

COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT
     THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter
"EPA") and (name] located at {address!  (hereinafter "Respondent")

     1.  On {date], Notice of Violation No. I - was issued
to Respondent stating that on {date]  Respondent violated S 211
of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. S 7545, and the regulations
promulgated thereunder, 40 C.P.R. Part 80, as described therein.

     2.  As a retailer. Respondent is liable for a violation
of 40 C.P.R. 5 80.22(a) as specified in the Notice of Violation.

     3.  Jurisdiction to settle this matter exists pursuant to
5 211 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. S 7545, 40 C.P.R. Part 80,
and other provisions of law.

     4.  Respondent has taken remedial action to prevent  fuether
violations by informing all employees of  the prohibition  against
allowing a vehicle labeled as requiring unleaded gasoline  from
fueling from leaded pumps, and implementing procedures  to
ensure against future violations.

     5.  Respondent agrees to pay S200, to be enclosed  with this
Agreement, by cashier's check or certified check payable  to
•United States of America.'  The check and signed  Agreement
shall be forwarded within 30 calendar days of  the  date  of
receipt of the above-referenced Notice of Violation  to  Director,
FOSD, U.S.E.P.A. (EN-397P), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,
O.C. 20460.

     6.  The parties  agree  that  resolution of  this matter
in accordance with this Compliance Agreement  is  both appropriate
and  in the public  interest, and  Respondent waives  its rights,
if any, to a hearing,  trial or any other  proceeding  on any
issues of  fact or  law relating to  the  matters  consented to
herein.
BY.:.
   Respondent
    Richard  G.  Kozlowski,  Director
    Pield Operations and Support Division
    U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
       Exhibit V-33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                    Office of Mobile Sources
                    Compliance Agreement
-------
PAGE 122
ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE (cont.)

Pump Tagging


    One  effective way of inducing an owner or
operator  to  correct  a  serious  violation  or to
cooperate with State authorities is to shut down the
tank. For retail operations, tagging the opening to
the tank  can be a warning to distributors that the
UST is in violation and, therefore, should not be
filled.  This provides a considerable commercial
incentive for the owner or operator to deal with the
compliance problem expeditiously. Also, the State
might choose this passive approach rather than the
more resource  intensive  and   time-consuming
pursuit of an injunctive order or other formal action.
In addition, cutting off supply of product reduces
the risks  of initial escape or further contamination.
   The City  of  Austin,  Texas,  takes  a formal
approach to "red tagging" USTs that violate certain
provisions of its UST regulations.  The red tag is
actually a cease-and-desist order authorized under
the city's building code (Exhibit V-33).   For new
construction,  in  this  case, UST  installation, a
building permit  must be obtained and proper
installation procedures followed.  Failure  to install
an UST properly leads to its being tagged, which
essentially shuts down the installation.
   The Austin inspector proceeds as follows:
 O Verbal  notice  is given, and  a  24-hour
    compliance deadline is imposed.
 O If the violation is not corrected, written notice
    is given and a 24-hour compliance deadline is
    imposed.
 O If compliance is still not achieved, the red tag is
    posted (Exhibit V-34).
-------
                                                                                    PAGE 123
(f)
     Any  person  violating  any  of  the  provisions of this Article, upon
     conviction,  shall  be  fined in an mount not exceeding Si.000.  each
     violation  hereof   occurring during a calendar day ehnll be a distinct
     and  separate  offense from such a violation occurring during the next
     preceding or next following calendar day.

     It  shall  not  be  necessary  for  the complaint  filed   in any case
     hereunder  to  negate  any  exception,  whether exemption or variance.
     contained in this Article concerning any prohibited act! but. any such
     exception  made herein may be used as a defense by any person  charged
     by such complaint.

(g)  Nothing  herein shall limit the City's authority to seek injunctive or
     other civil relief  available under the law.

SEC. 15-15-215.  CZASC AMD DESIST ORDER

(a)  W»n  either  the   Office  of Environmental Kesouree  Hariau«j«nt (TO).
     fublic  wsrfce  Departsent,  Water  and  Mastevater Utility,   Electric
     Utility,  or  Building Inspection Department determines that  there has
     been  nonccmpliance with any material term, condition, requirement or
     agreement under this Article, the person who either has or should have
     obtained  an approved development permit shall be ordered to cease and
     desist   from   allowing  further  development  and/or  from  allowing
     transportation  of construction  material to the alleged nonccmpUant
     sit* until such sit* is in compliance with this Article.

(b)  laid  os«s* and desist order  ("Bed Tag*) shall be in writing and shall
     be posted on the sit*.

(c)  tt*  aty  shall  bring   suit  in a  court of competent jurisdiction to
     restrain  and  enjoin any person attempting or allowing development or
     construction  without  ui approved  cWvelop=ent  jjrr_it cr ur/ percon
     failing   or  allowing   failure to  cease  and  desist  from  further
     development or construction under Subsection (a).

(d)  Ho  further aty inspection or utility connections shall b* smd* wtil
     much  lit*  is in compliance  with this ordinance, aa determined by the
     Chief Environmental Officer of the  aty.

SEC. 13-15-216.  AFTOU. Of ORST AWJ IZSIST CKX*

(a)  Appeal  of  a  cease  and  desist  order.   Issued  pursuant to Section
     1J-1S-215,   may  be  made  by  the  person aggrieved  to the  ouei
     environmental  Officer.     Such  appeal  shall  be perfected by
     written notice  containing  the  following information   to the _
     environmental Officer within three (3) days of the posting on  the site
     of  the  ceas* and desist order:
   Exhibit V-33. Austin (Texas) Environmental Office
                    Cease-and-Desist Order (Page I of 2)
-------
PAGE 124
                           1.   The name  and address of the person making  the appeal
                           2.   The facts surrounding the particular  ruling
                           3.   The ruling of the issuing departaent
                           4.   The technical reasons why the ruling  should be Mt aside.

                      (b)  Within  • period of three (3) day* fron  the filing ol the sppeal, the
                           Chief  Bwironmental  Officer  or  his designe* shall bear the appeal
                           together with technical testimony of the person making the appeal, or
                           his  technical  expert, and the departaent.  and Bake a decision either
                           affirming or reversing the department's decision within two (2) days
                           thereafter.    The  person requesting the hearing shall be notified of
                           the  decision in writing.  The notification shall be acccecianied by a
                           statement of  the reasons for the decision.

                      (c)  Appeal  of  the  Chief environmental Officer's decision may be made by
                           the person aggrieved to the Planning OaiBusslon.  luch appeal shall be
                           perfected  by  giving  a  written  notice  containing  the  following
                           information   to  the  Chairman of the Planning Commission within three
                           (3)   days after the receipt of the decision of the Chief Brvironaental
                           Officer:

                           1.   The name  and address of the person making  the appeal.
                           2.   The facts surrounding the particular  ruling.
                           3.   The  rulings  of  the  issuing  department and Chief mvlranmental
                               Officer.
                           4.   The technical reasons why the ruling  should be Mt aside.
The  Planning  Commission  shall  hear  the appeal at the next regular
meeting  following  receipt of the notice.  If the appeal la not heard
by  the Planning Commission within twenty (20) dayc from the filing of
the appeal with the Commission, the appeal shall be diamH granted.
                      (d)
                      (e)  Appeal wider this Section hhall nat ctcy tns ccecc erd tfscict order.

                      SBC. 13-15-217.  cornnoor or COKPUMCB o» OCCUPANCY

                      Ho City utilities  may  be  connected  to  a site unless a certificate of
                      compliance is  issued by the Devat Lment of Public Marks when the development
                      Is completed pursuant to requirements of this Article for areas outside the
                      City   limits   oc  until  the  Building  Inspection  Department  Issues  a
                      certificate  of  occupancy  with the written concurrence of the Director of
                      Public  Marks for  sreas  within  the  City  limits.    Bequests  by  the
                      developer/towner   for   a   certificate  of  compliance  or occupancy  for
                      development    other   than  single-family  or  duplex  residential  housing
                      construction shall be accompanied by a certificate prepared and signed by a
                      professional   engineer  registered  in  the State of Texas attesting to the
                      completion  of the project in substantial ecnformance with the development
                      permit.

                      •EC. 13-15-218. -220.  KSZXVED
                         Exhibit V-33. Austin (Texas) Environmental Office
                                         Cease-and-Desist Order (Page 2 of 2)
-------
                                                                PAGE 125
                        RONM
                          NtA
                      ATTACH ED'BUSI
                          ONS'B
                          rrw
DENT1F1EDTO
    CORRE
,-,
       Exhibit V-34. Austin (Texas) Environmental Office
                   Red Tag - Stop All Work
-------
PAGE 126
ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE (cont.)

UST Prosecution Summary

   The California UST program delegates program
responsibility to the counties and cities. Most of the
implementing agencies in these counties and cities
do  not have  the  authority  to  assess penalties
(administrative authority) and must rely on the local
District Attorney to assess fines. To aid the District
Attorney in the processing of a case, the County of
San Mateo has developed an Underground-Tank
Prosecution  Summary (Exhibit V-35) that allows
the implementing agency to transmit the necessary
information.to the District Attorney.
   The prosecution summary is only used when all
other means of encouraging compliance have failed.
When  noncompliance is discovered,  San Mateo
officials first attempt to use  informal means (e.g.,
phone  calls,  letters) to  persuade  the owner or
operator  to   come    into   compliance.     If
noncompliance persists, the  case is sent to  the
District Attorney via the prosecution summary.
Because the District Attorney has a heavy workload,
the prosecution summary allows cases to be process
more quickly.
   The   prosecution   summary  contains   the
following information:

  O Background Information. Includes informa-
    tion on the tank owner, property owner, and the
    tank  operator  such   as   name,  address,
   telephone, date of tank purchase.  In addition,
   the type of business is described and the names
   of the corporate offices  or  principals are
   included if appropriate.
O  Tank Information. Includes information on the
   location, volume, and contents of the tank.
O  Initial   Permit   Inspection   Information.
   Includes information obtained from the initial
   permit inspection,  such  as  the date  of
   inspection, the name of the inspector, inventory
   reconciliation  information, the  monitoring
   devices  used,   the  leak  history,  and the
   monitoring alternatives  discussed  with the
   owner  or  operator.     Also  included  is
   information on the  initial permit inspection
   timetable, specifying the dates on which the
   owner or  operator  was required to  have a
   precision test performed and submit plans for
   new monitoring devices.
O  Contacts with Owner or Operator. The dates,
   type, and contents of all discussions between
 ,  the owner or operator and county officials are
   detailed.
O  Leak  or   Disposal  Evidence.    Includes
   information on the leaks discovered.
O  Sampling   and  Analysis.     Includes  all
   information on sampling  and analysis of the
   leak.
O  Suggested Violations.   The suggested viola-
   tions, the period of violation, and the legal
   citation are included.
-------
                                                                      PAGE 127
             UNDERGROUND TANK PROSECUTION SUMMARY
                                 O.A.'3 Case *
                                 E.H. Staff	"
    Tank Owner;

    a .   Nana t
    b.   Business entity (i.e. sole owner, corp. etc.)
     c.    Addressi
     d.    Telophono:_
     •.    Date ownership acquired:^
     f.    Corporate Officers/Principals!
2.   Tank Operator;

     a.   Nanet	
     b.   Business entity (i.e.  sole owner,  corp.  etc.)
     c.   Addressi
     d,.   Telephone i_
     e.   Description of business:
   Exhibit V-35. San Mateo County (California)
                UST Prosecution Summary (Page 1 of 11)
-------
PAGE 128
                3.  Property Owner;

                    a.   Name:	

                    bt
Address5
                    c.   Telephone:_
                    d.   Data property acquired:^
                 4.  Underground Tank Information:

                 a. Tank  i	Location	Volume
                              Contents
                                               Misc.
                 b.  State source of tank information:
                    Exhibit V-35. San Mateo County (California)
                                 UST Prosecution Summary (Page 2 of 11)
-------
                                                                       PAGE 129
    Interim Permit;
    a.    Issued:   Yes or  No_
    b.    Date Issued: 	
6.  Initial Permit Inspection  Form;
    A.   E.H.  Inspector:	
    b.   Inspection Date:	
    c.   Owner/Operator Contacted:_
    d.   Inventory Reconcilation:	
    e.   Monitoring Hells on site:_
     f.    Leak History:_
    Exhibit V-35. San Mateo County (California)
                  UST Prosecution Summary (Page 3 of 11)
-------
PAGE  130
                  g.   Any apparent unauthorized  release:
                  h.   Hazardous waste generated:
                  1.   Monitoring alternative discussed:
                   j.   Additional Comments:
                    Exhibit V-35. San Mateo County (California)
                                 UST Prosecution Summary (Page 4 of 11)
-------
                                                                       PAGE 131
7.  Initial Permit Inspection Timetable;

            ACTIVITY	     COMPLETION DATS
a.  Precision testing of
    tank and pipeline:
b.  submission of plans toe
    monitor ing underground
    'storage tanks.
 c.   Other requirements:
 d.  Owner/operator signature's_
 e.  Date:
     Exhibit V-35. San Mateo County (California)
                  UST Prosecution Summary (Page 5 of 11)
-------
PAGE 132
                   8.  B.H. Contacts with owner/operator  re; status;

                             Owner/    Person,
                      E.H.   Operator   letter,
               Date Staff	Rep.	Telephone	Discussion
                    Exhibit V-35. San Mateo County (California)
                                 UST Prosecution Summary (Page 6 of 11)
-------
                                                                       PAGE 133
9.  Leak or Disposal  Evidence;

    a.   Evidence  of  leak oc disposal of hazardous waste.

(Be specific regarding  material, amounts, time periods

    and locations.)	
      Exhibit V-35. San Mateo County (California)
                   UST Prosecution Summary (Page 7 of 11)
-------
PAGE 134
                   b.   Sampling and  Analysis

                          Sampling
               Sample I	Date	Location
Analysis
 Results
     Data
Interpcetation
                    Exhibit V-35. San Mateo County (California)
                                 UST Prosecution Summary (Page 8 of 11)
-------
                                                                        PAGE 135
         5.   Data interpretation^
10.  Pre-filtnq  Field  Inspection;

    a.    D.A. Inspectors	

    b.    E.H. Staff:	

    c.
                                   Date:
     Owner/operator  contacted:_

d.   Ownership status:	
         Tank status:
     £.   Permit Progress:,
      Exhibit V-35. San Mateo County (California)
                   UST Prosecution Summary (Page 9 of 11)
-------
PAGE 136
                      Disposal/leak  status:_
                 h.
Mlsc:
                   Exhibit V-35. San Mateo County (California)
                                UST Prosecution Summary (Page 10 of 11)
-------
                                                                      PAGE 137
11. Suggested  Violations;
CodeS(3)
            Description
                of
             Violation
  Period
    of
Violation
Misc.
     Exhibit V-35. San Mateo County (California)
                  UST Prosecution Summary (Page 11 of 11)
-------
PAGE 138
ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE (cont.)
Penalty Matrix
   Although States need legal authorities to impose
penalties for regulatory violations, they may not
want to be restricted to applying the same penalty
to different violations.  To  consistently  apply
appropriate penalties  to various violations, States
may wish to develop a penalty matrix.
   The  attached  sample  of  a  penalty  matrix
(Exhibit  V-36)  indicates the  factors  that  New
Mexico  takes  into  account  when  determining
penalties.  The  matrix  applies to civil penalties
authorized by the New Mexico Water Quality Act.
The purpose of the penalty policy is to provide fair
treatment to violators  and encourage them to
correct   the  situation  as  needed  to  obtain
compliance.  In  determining  the penally  for a
violation, the State takes into account:

 O Violation circumstances - including type of
    violation,  threat  to human  health and  the
    environment (particularly via contamination of
    ground water of a water supply), and volume of
    leak or discharge;
 O Number of days in violation; and
 O Adjustment factors - such  as prompt response
    to  release,  ability  to pay,  and   history of
    noncompliance.

    Each factor is given a  rating number, and the
numbers are totalled to give an overall  rating.
-------
                                                                        PAGE 139
                 UST PENALTY ASSESSMENT POLICY

The UST penalty policy applies  to  civil  penalties  authorized by
Sections  74-6-1 et.  seq.  NMSA 1976  of  the New  Mexico Hater
Quality Act.   The goals of  this  policy are:

     Deterrence.

     Fair and equitable treatment of the  regulated  community of
     Underground Storage Tank Owners and Operators.
                                      i
     Swift resolution of environmental problems.

     Protection of  public  health and drinking water supplies.

The  penalty calculation  Is done  by determining a  base  penalty
based  on the  type  of  violation,  threat  to  the  environment  and
public  health,  and  then  adjusting  the base  penalty  for  special
circumstances.
            GUIDELINES FOR CALCULATING BASE PENALTIES

     VIOLATIONS:

     Each  violation should be  checked  and  corresponding points
     totalled.

     CONTAMINATION OP GROUNDWATER  OR  A WATER SUPPLY:

     This  calculation  takes  into  account  the  extent  of
     contami-nat ion  or  the  Immediacy  of  any  threat  of  such
     contamination,  the  number  of  private wells contaminated,
     whether  an alternative  water supply  is  readily available,
     and  the number of  people  supplied by  the contaminated
     system.   The description  which best  describes  the current
     situation should be chosen.

     OTHER THREATS  TO PUBLIC  HEALTH,  ENVIRONMENT,  OR PUBLIC
     NUISANCES:

     If  there  are  other threats  to  public health or the
     environment not accounted for in 2,  these  should  be  factored
     in here.  Check each of the answers  which  currently  apply to
     this  case and total these points.

     Other public  nuisances  Include  potential threats to both
     human and non-human  life.  The  emphasis should be  placed on
     the potential harm or nuisance caused by a violation, rather
     than on whether harm  has  actually  occurred.   Staff must
     describe In detail  the  specific facts  which were considered
     in each case such as explosivity,  vapors  in excess  of health
     standards. Impacts  to surface water,  fish,  livestock,  other
     Exhibit V-36. New Mexico Environmental Improvment Division
                  UST Penalty Assessment Policy (Page 1 of 8)
-------
PAGE 140
                     wildlife,  unpleasant  smells, etc.   This factor Is to  be
                     calculated on  a  10  to  5O  point sliding scale.

                4.   VOLUMB OF LEAK OR DISCHARGE:

                     The  total volume  leaked or  discharged should be used  to
                     choose  the appropriate  point  score.   The source of  this
                     information must  be  Included, as  well  as the date  it  was
                     reported.  If  no data Is available to detenlne this  volume,
                     staff should choose the  unknown  category  which calls  for a
                     point  score of 200.   This represents  the  maximum  penalty
                     thus  penalizing the responsible party  for  failure  to  keep
                     accurate Inventory  records,  as Is required by law.

                9.   DAYS IM VIOLATION:

                     The days on which violations began  and ended should be noted
                     here.

                                       ADJUSTMENT FACTORS

                Adjustment factors  take  into account  other  factors related to the
                violator  which are not  reflected  In  base penalty calculations.
                These  adjustments  are   centered around the  responsible  party's
                ability to  pay penalties,  the relative  Impact  of the  penalty In
                deterring further violations,  and the  amount  of cooperation shown
                by the  responsible party.    These  factors  should  enhance
                deterrence  for  a particular  responsible party.    Application of
                the  adjustment  factors  is  cumulative,  more  than  one  factor may
                apply  in one case.   Adjustments  should be  made as described
                below.

                1.   GOOD PAITH ADJUSTMENTS:

                     When a  responsible  party violates  the Water Quality Act and
                     regulations,  he or she  should be encouraged  to come Into
                     compliance as quickly as possible.   In order to encourage
                     swift  remediation  of the  problem,  staff may  reduce  the
                     penalty  amount  based  on  the responsible party's  good faith
                     attempts to  initiate reclamation based on the following
                     criteria:

                          3051  - prompt and aggressive  initiation of reclamation,
                          generally through prompt  data  collection  and  reporting,
                          and effective remediation efforts.  Absence of willful,
                          repeated violations.   Period  of  violation must be less
                          than  two weeks from when the  responsible party knew or
                          should have known of the violation.

                          20* - reasonably prompt  but slightly  reluctant
                          initiation  of  reclamation.   Absence of  repeated
                          violations.

                           10* -  initiation of reclamation  with barely  acceptable
                     Exhibit V-36. New Mexico Environmental Improvrnent Division
                                  UST Penalty Assessment Policy (Page 2 of 8)
-------
                                                                          PAGE 141
         promptness.   Absence of  easily remedied violations such
         as  Immediately  stopping  the  source  of the  leak,
        , immediately skimming  the  free-floating product,  and
         other measures  which  will  prevent  the spread  of
         contamination.

     Staff  calculating the good faith  factor must specify on the
     worksheet what actions were considered in  the  analysis.  The
     good faith  factor  is  limited  to the responsible party's
     behavior only up to  the date the calculation  is  performed.
2.   HISTORY Or MOM-COMPLIANCE:

     Where a responsible  party has previously  violated  the Water
     quality Act  and regulations at the same or any other site,
     this  is  usually  clear  evidence that the  responsible party
     was  not  deterred by  the  previous enforcement  response.
     Unless  past  or present  violations were  caused by  factors
     entirely beyond the control  of  the  violator,  this is an
     indication  that the  penalty should be  adjusted upwards.  In
     evaluating  the following  -djustment factors a violation Is
     considered  "similar"  if  che  previous  enforcement  response
     should  have  alerted  the  responsible party to a  particular
     type of  problem.  A "prior" violation includes any act or
     omission for which a formal  enforcement  response  was  taken
     (ie. a notice of violation,  a warning letter,  lawsuit filed,
     or compliance order  issued), or  for which informal  written
     notice was  given  by  the Bureau  to  the violator.


     Increases for  history  of non-compliance  should be  nade as
     follows:

          30% - one or more  similar prior  violations  within the
          last  three years,  to  which the violator  responded
          reluctantly.

          20* - one or more  prior violations within the last five
          years to which  the  violator  responded reluctantly.

          10X -  one or more  prior  violations  which  were
          remediated promptly  and completely.


 3.   SIZE 0? THE COMPANY:

     Many of the Underground Storage  Tank  owners  in  New Mexico
     are Individuals  or small  companies  with limited capital
     reserves unable to  cover  both  remediation costs and a  large
     penalty.    Moreover,  for  a  small  company  with  a  small
       Exhibit V-36. New Mexico Environmental Improvment Division
                    UST Penalty Assessment Policy (Page 3 of 8)
-------
PAGE 142
                   operations budget, a lower penalty will undoubtedly provide
                   adequate deterrence, when compared  to a penalty for a much
                   larger company.   In order to  ensure  that funds  are available
                   for remediation and clean-up, and in  order  to  fairly assess
                   • penalty, staff may adjust  the  base  penalty for  the size of
                   the  company.   One  relatively simple method for estimating
                   the size  and  operating budget  of a  company is  determining
                   it* number of  employee*.   The penalty should be decreased by
                   the following  percent based on the number  of employees:
                        19 or fewer.
                        16 to 30....
                        31 to SO. . . .
.30*
.20*
.10*
                   The number  of  employees should not  be based solely on  the
                   number of  employees  at the  violating  facility,  but on  the
                   total  number  of  employees  of the  company, including  its
                   wholly-owned  subsidiaries and/or  parent  companies.   Staff
                   should clearly  explain the source of - this  data and should
                   not estimate in the absence of reasonable  information.  This
                   can be adjusted later  if  the company questions  or  complains
                   about the penalty, and then  provides Information supporting
                   a reduction.
                    Exhibit V-36. New Mexico Environmental Improvment -Division
                                  UST Penalty Assessment Policy (Page 4 of 8)
-------
                                                                        PAGE 143
               PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO REMEDIATE
    CONTAMINATION CAUSED  BY  LEAKING  UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS

This document sets forth  the  Underground Storage Tank Program's
policy  for  assessing  penalties for  failing  to  take appropriate
and necessary steps to contain and  remove or mitigate the damage
cased by an illegal discharge.  Water Quality Control Commission
Regulation 1-203 promulgated under  the Water Quality Control Act
(Section 74-6-1 et. seq. NMSA 1976) gives the authority  for such
an assessment.)

1}   Violations:  (Check all violations  which currently apply  to
     this case;  more  than one  may  apply)
          a.   Failure to initiate clean-up.
          b.   Major Settlement Agreement
               violations (le.  turning off
               remedial system, discharging
               contaminated water, etc.)
          c.   Failure to report a leak or  spill
          d.   Failure to use approved methods
               or technologies for clean-up.
          e.   Minor Settlement Agreement
               violations (le.  late monitoring
               reports, etc.)
          f.   Not in compliance with applicable
                                                 (200)
                                             (100 for each)
                                                  (75)
                                                  (50)

                                             (35  for each)
                                                  (20)
 2)
          rules,  regulations,  permits, and statutes
          (le.  NFPA  30.  EPA Interim  Prohibition  etc.)

Contamination of  ground  water  or  a water  supply:  (Check  one)

	 a.    Public  well, OR greater than  10 private (200)
          wells.  OR  plume less than  10O  feet  from
          a non-community well, OR  less  than  300
          feet  from  a community well.

	 b.    6 to  1O private wells affected  or        (ISO)
          immediately endangered, OR well is  in
          a sole  source  aquifer.

	 c.    1 to  5  private wells affected  or         (100)
          immediately endangered, OR contaminant
          plume Is 100 feet from  a  private well,
          OR surface water (used  for drinking water)
          is endangered.

	 d.    Private wells  affected, but alternate    (50)
          water supply Is available (able to  drill
          an uncontamlnated well  on-site' or
          able  to connect to a community or  city
          water supply).

	 e.    Ground water contaminated, but no        (20)
          use endangered In the immediate future.
     Exhibit V-36. New Mexico Environmental Improvment Division
                  UST Penalty Assessment Policy (Page 5 of 8)
-------
PAGE 144
                     Other threat to public health,  the  environment,
                     non-huaan health or life,  or  other  public nuisances:
                     (Check all which currently apply  to this case)
                         • a.
                          b.
                          c.
                          d.
Explosivlty >  100* LEL
     OR    30  - 100 * L2L

Toxic vapor* in excess of health
standards.
(100)
(50)

(100)
Contamination of  an irrigation well,     (20)
or surface water  (not used for drinking
water).
Other nuisances.   (Depending on severity,  10  -  SO)
                     Voluae of leak or discharge:  (Check one)
                          a.   < 100 gallons
                          b.   101 - 1000 gallons
                          c.   10O1 - 10,000 gallons
                          d.   > 10,001 gallons
                          e.   unknown, no data available
                                        (10)
                                        (SO)
                                        (ISO.)
                                        (200)
                                        (100)
                     Nuaber of days in violation
                     Adjust»ent Factors:  (Check all  which apply to this  case,
                     and fill In the appropriate percent  reductions).

                     __ a.   Good faith

                     	 b.   History of non-coapllance

                     _____ c.   Size of the coapany
                     Exhibit V-36.,New Mexico Environmental Improvment Division
                                  UST Penalty Assessment Policy (Page 6 of 8)
-------
                                                                         PAGE 145
                  PENALTY CALCULATION WORKSHEET
Nam* at UST case

Location of site

Sit* contact

Reviewer's name

Oat* of review
1.   Total points for all  violation* which currently
     apply to this case.

2.   Number of points which correspond to the  type
     of groundwater contamination  at  this aite.

3.   Total points for other threats  to public
     health and the environment.   Give a detailed
     description of factors considered in
     choosing the corresponding points.
 4.   Points corresponding to the volume of leale
     or discharge.   What la Che source of this data?
                                        SUBTOTAL
 9.    Number of days in violation.
      TOTAL BASE PENALTY
                (nuaber of days in violation X SUBTOTAL)
     Exhibit V-36. New Mexico Environmental Improvment Division
                  UST Penalty Assessment Policy (Page 7 of 8)
-------
PAGE 146
                 6.   Adjustment factors
                           Size of company (Give detailed reasons for adjustment).
                                                            Reduce by      X
                           Good faith (Give detailed reasons  for adjustment).
                                                            Reduce by 	X
                           History of non-compliance  (Give detailed reasons for
                           adjustment).
                                                           Increase  by 	15
                                                   TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS
                 Penalty due
                 Reviewer's signature.

                 Approved by:

                      Program  Manager.

                      Attorney 	
Date



Date

Date
                    Exhibit V-36. New Mexico Environmental Improvment Division
                                 USt Penalty Assessment Policy (Page 8 of 8)
-------
                                                                                    PAGE 147
PROGRAM DELEGATION

Memorandum of Understanding


   The  most  common  method of  delegating
program responsibility to a locality is through a
memorandum of understanding (MOU). The State
of New Mexico used an MOU to delegate certain
UST  program  responsibilities  to the  City  of
Albuquerque (Exhibit V-37). The MOU gives the
City of Albuquerque the authority to locate and
investigate  USTs within the county surrounding
Albuquerque. The City must prioritize sites where
contamination is found,  using the LUST ranking
form (Exhibit V-22), and must provide a prioritized
list to the State monthly.
   The MOU does not allow the City to undertake
formal enforcement actions against parties legally
responsible for contamination. However, the State
agrees to take enforcement actions against all sites
that  have  a priority ranking score  above a set
minimum.  Thus, the MOU benefits both parties.
The  State benefits by having  the City agree to
undertake   compliance   monitoring  activities,
relieving the State of this work.  (Albuquerque has
the highest concentration of tanks in the State.) The
City benefits by having the State  agree to use its
enforcement  powers against  serious  violations
within the county.
-------
PAGE 148
                                          MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
                                                    BETWEEN THE
                                    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT DIVISION OF THE
                                NEW MEXICO HEALTH  AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
                                                       AND THE
                                                CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE
                           WHEREAS, the Environmental Improvement Division of the New Mexico Health

                      and Environment Department ("NMEID") has authority under the Hazardous Waste

                      Act, SS 74-4-1 through 74-4-13 NMSA 1978 as amended by Laws 1987, Chapter 179, to

                      abate water pollution and other health threats resulting from leaking underground

                      storage tanks ("LUSTs") located in New Mexico; and

                           WHEREAS,  the  City  of  Albuquerque through  its  Environmental  Health

                      Department ("AEHD"), has authority under its municipal charter and under SS 3-43-1

                      and 34-43-2 NMSA 1978, to protect the health of the citizens of Albuquerque; and

                           WHEREAS, the investigation and remediation of ground-water contamination

                      caused by leaks of petroleum products from  LUSTs Is critical for the protection of

                      drinking water sources, the environment, and public health; and

                           WHEREAS, NMEID  and the City of Albuquerque wish to ensure that  their

                      respective resources are used effectively and  efficiently  in the investigation and

                      prosecution of LUST incidents; and

                           WHEREAS,  NMEID  and the  City  of Albuquerque wish to coordinate  their

                      deterrance and remediation efforts within Oernalillo County;

                           NOW,  THEREFORE, NMEID  and  the  City of Albuquerque  enter  into  this

                      Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") regarding the investigation and prosecution

                      of LUST incidents within Bernalillo County:

                                 1.   The AEHD, in  performing its  functions under this MOU, shall act

                      with the same authority  granted  the NMEID by the  Hazardous  Waste Act and

                      regulations promulgated pursuant thereto and shall comply with all provisions of the

                      regulations governing EID inspection and sampling attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
                        Exhibit V-37. New Mexico Health and Environment Department
                                        MOU with the City of Albuquerque (Page 1 of 5)
-------
                                                                                      PAGE  149
          2.   Notwithstanding the agency relationship between NMEID and AEHO
created by this MOU no  employee or agent of the City of Albuquerque shall be
construed as an employee of the State of New Mexico nor shall any employee of the
State of Hew Mexico b« construed as an employee of the City of Albuquerque  as a
result of activities performed under this MOU.
          3.   The State of New Mexico in the LUSTTF  grant proposal shall
request $100,000 to help the City of Albuquerque defray it expenses' incurred under
this MOU.
          4.   The City of Albuquerque shall hold the NMEID and the State of New
Mexico harmless from any liability resulting from acts  performed  by  employees or
agents of the City of Albuquerque pursuant to  this MOU. The State of New  Mexico
and the NMEID shall hold the City of Albuquerque harmless for any liability resulting
from acts performed by employees or agents  of  the NMEID  or the State of  New
Mexico pursuant to this MOU.
           5.    Within  thirty days after the date this MOU becomes effective,
NMEID and AEHD  wiU  meet to discuss and agree  upon  methods of  investigation,
parameters to be tested, and other necessary procedures.
           6.    In  the event that AEHD is denied entry to any site for which it is
delegated investigatory authority under this MOU, or is denied access to records or
other Information necessary to any investigation under this MOU, AEHD shall inform
 NMEID of the circumstances of such denial.  NMEID shall take any necessary  legal
 action  to compel entry to such sites  or access to such records  or information, and
 AEHD  will cooperate with NMEID in providing evidence needed In connection with
 such legal action.
           7.   All testing  and  analysis required  during  the course  of any
 investigation under this MOU shall be conducted by the Scientific Laboratory  Division

                                      -2-
    Exhibit V-37. New Mexico Health and Environment Department
                    MOU with the City of Albuquerque (Page 2 of 5)
-------
PAGE 150
                        of the Health and Environment Department.
                                  8.    Except as provided in paragraph JO of this MOU, AEHD will locate
                        and investigate,  to the  extent  possible,  underground storage  tank  sites  within
                        BemaliUo County where leaks may  have occurred, particularly at abandoned tank
                        locations and those located in environmentally sensitive valley areas where the depth
                        to groundwater is shallow.  AEHD will characterize the presence, typ«, and extent of
                        groundwater  contamination and assess the threat to the public health  posed  by
                        contamination of public or private wells and explosive or dangerous levels of vapors.
                                  9.    AEHD will prioritize sites where  contamination is found, using the
                        LUST  ranking form attached to this  MOU as  Exhibits, and provide to NMEID,
                        monthly, a prioritized list of all sites where contamination has occurred, where tanks
                        have been illegally abandoned, or where owners  have failed to  properly register
                        underground storage tanks with NMEID.  AEHD will also provide NMEID with-any
                        reports or studies arising from these investigations.
                                 10.    NMEID  will continue to exercise full authority over underground
                        storage tank sites at  facilities or  on land owned by the City of Albuquerque or
                        Bemalillo County.
                                 11.    NMEID  will Integrate the  prioritized list of sites within  Bemalillo
                        County into the state-wide priority ranking maintained by NMEID.
                                 12.    The office of the general counsel  of the Health and Environment at
                        the request of NMEID and according  to the  priorities established by NMEID will take
                        enforcement actions against parties legally responsible for  contamination in the order
                        determined by the priority ranking for the State.  The City  of Albuquerque  has no
                        duty nor authority to prosecute, litigate or  take any enforcement action under MOU.
                        NMEID will also attempt to assure that all  sites which have a priority ranking score
                        of  50 or more receive enforcement or further investigation and to provide emergency
                                                             -3-
                         Exhibit V-37. New Mexico Health and Environment Department
                                          MOU with the City of Albuquerque (Page 3 of 5)
-------
                                                                                      PAGE 151
response to those sites scoring greater than 80.
         13.    In the event of litigation in any LUST case, NMEID and AEHD will
cooperate In  providing any  testimony,  including  expert  testimony, that  may be
necessary for proper litigation of the case.  In the event experts not employed by
NMEID or AEHD are necessary, such experts shall be procured and paid by NMEID.
          U.     NMEID  will use federal LUST Trust  Funds  (LUSTTF), when  they
become available, to contain and remediate contamination  from LUSTs and to
provide funds for alternative drinking water supply or relocation where necessary.
NMEID will abate pollution at such sites through use of  LUSTTF  funds in  an  order
determined,by the UST priority ranking system for the State.
          IS.     NMEID and  AEHD will exchange  information relevant to LUST sites
in Bernalillo  County on a monthly basis.  The  parties will  coordinate training to
develop skills in LUST remediation, investigation, and case development.
          16.    Any settlement agreements in LUST  cases shall  be solely between
NMEID and the responsible party or parties.
          17.    AEHD will conduct any post-settlement monitoring required fay any
settlement agreement in LUST cases arising out of Bernalillo County.
          18.    This MOU shall be effective upon the date signed by the last signing
 person whose signature is required as  indicated by the signature lines herein, and may
 be terminated by either party upon thirty days written notice to tne other party.
   Exhibit V-37. New Mexico Health and Environment Department
                    MOU with the City of Albuquerque (Page 4 of 5)
-------
PAGE 152
                    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT     CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE
                    DIVISION
MICHAEL J. BpRKHART, Director

              £
                                                          ROMO, Chief Administrative Officer
                    Dated:
                                   Dated:     ~
                                                     Recommended:
^tOUlS W?KQSK,Deputy General
    Counsel •
   Health and .Environment Department
                                                     SARAH, B. K OTC H1A tf.Director
                                                     Albuquerque Environmental Health •
                                                      Department
                                                     Dated:
                                                     Reviewed:
                                               o
                                                           Fol«y, City
                                                     Dated!
                                                     Reconnended: ...
                                                     Frank H. Martinez,         i-'
                                                     Deputy Chiat Adminiatracive Officer
                                                     Dated:
                                                      -5-
                      Exhibit V-37. New Mexico Health and Environment Department
                                     MOU with the City of Albuquerque (Page 5 of 5)
-------
                                     APPENDIX

                         LIST OF INTERVIEWEES
CALIFORNIA

California State officials

Roger Johnson
California State Water Resources
Control Board
901P Street, P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95801
(916) 322-0210

Dave Barker
Senior Water Resources Control Engineer
San Diego Regional Water Quality
Control Board
9771 Claremont-Mesa Street, Suite B
San Diego, CA 92124-1331
(619) 265-5114

Peter Johnson
Regional Water Quality Control Board,
San Francisco Division
 1111 Jackson Street, Room 6040
Oakland,  CA  94607
(415) 451-7232

County and city officials

 Bruce Benike
 UST Program Manager
 Contra Costa County Department of
 Health Services
 1111 Ward Street
 Martinez, CA 94553
 (415) 646-4416

 Gary M. Carozza
 Environmental Health Services
 Fresno County Department of Health
 P.O. Box  11867
 Fresno, CA 93775
 (209) 445-3357
Robert B. Holden
Supervising Environmental Health Officer
San Luis Obispo County Health Department
P.O.BOX 1489
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
(805) 549-5544
Phil Duffy
Assistant Director
Office of Environmental Health
San Mateo County
Department of Health Services
590 Hamilton Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
(415) 363-4305
Gary Schmitz
Chief, South County Fire Authority
666 Elm Street
San Carlos. CA 94070
(415) 593-8016
 Randy Miller
 Hazardous Materials Inspector
 San Luis Obispo Fire Department
 748 Pismo Street
 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
 (805) 549-7380
 Victoria Gallagher
 San Diego County Department of Health
 1700 Pacific Highway
 San Diego, CA  92101-2417
 (619)236-2237.
-------
MARYLAND
Maryland State officials.

Bernard Bigham
Hazardous and Solid Waste Management
Administration
Department of Environment
201 West Preston Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
(301) 225-5649

Herbert Meade
Hazardous and Solid Waste Management
Administration
Department of Environment
201 West Preston Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
(301) 225-5649

Edwin C. Weber
Hazardous and Solid Waste Management
Administration
Department of Environment
201 West Preston Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
(301) 225-5649

Montgomery County officials

Lieutenant Dan Wetsel
Fire Marshal
101 Monroe  Street
Rockville, MD  20850
(301) 251-2440

Jim Caldwell
Department of Environmental Protection
101 Monroe  Street
Rockville, MD 20850
(301) 251-2440

Prince Georges County officials

Thomas Cooksey, Fire Inspector
Bureau of Fire Prevention .
4318 Rhode  Island Avenue
Brentwood, MD 20722
 (301)699-2955
 Major Stanley L. Poole, Jr.
•Bureau of Fire Prevention
 4318 Rhode Island Avenue
 Brentwood, MD  20722
 (301) 699-2955

 Captain James G. Tauber
 Supervisor, Bureau of Fire Prevention
 4318 Rhode Island Avenue
 Brentwood, MD  20722
 (301) 699-2955

Baltimore County officials

 John Carrigan, Building Inspector Supervisor
 Department of Permits/Licenses
 111 W. Chesapeake Avenue
 Towson, MD  21204
 (301) 494-3953

 Dick Seim, Plans Review
 Department of Permits/Licenses
 111 W. Chesapeake Avenue
 Towson, MD  21204
 (301) 494-3610

 Jerry Sierwieski
 Waste Management Section
 Department of Environmental Protection
 401 Bosley Ave., Room 416
 Towson, MD  21204
 (301) 494-3768

Baltimore City officials

 Bromwin Phillips
 Neighborhood Progress Administration
 Department of Housing and Community
 Development
 222 E. Saratoga St., #100
 Baltimore, MD 21202
 (301) 396-3460

 Lieutenant T. Crue, Fire Marshal
 1100 Hillen Street
 Baltimore, MD 21202
 (301) 396-5755
-------
MASSACHUSETTS
MINNESOTA
Massachusetts State officials

Joseph O'Keefe
Office of the State Fire Marshal
Department of Public Safety
1010 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02215
(617) 566-4500

Greg Mooney
Office of the State Fire Marshal
Department of Public Safety
 1010 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02215
(617) 566-4500

Frank Sciannameo
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
 Quality Engineering
 1 Winter Street
 Boston, MA 02108
 (617) 292-5648

 Helen Waldorf
 Massachusetts Department of Environmental
 Quality Engineering
 1 Winter Street
 Boston, MA 02108
 (617) 292-5648

Yarmouth City officials

 William A. Greene, Jr.
 Deputy Chief Yarmouth Fire Department
 96 Maine Street
 South Yarmouth, MA 02664
 (617) 398-2212
Minnesota State officials

 Steve Lee
 Director's Office
 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
 520 Lafayette Road North
 StPaul, MN 55155
 (612) 296-7278

 Roger Stead
 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
 520 Lafayette Road North
 St. Paul, MN 55155
 (612) 296-7957

 John N. Hoick
 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
 520 Lafayette Road North
 St. Paul, MN 55155
 (612) 296-7743
-------
NEW MEXICO
TEXAS
New Mexico State officials

Karl Souder
Program Manager
UST Section
New Mexico Environmental Improvement
Division
P.O. Box 968
Santa Fe, NM  87504
(505) 827-0188

Peter Maggiore
Remedial Action Coordinator
UST Section
New Mexico Environmental Improvement
Division
P.O. Box 968
Santa Fe, NM  87504
(505) 827-0188
RHODE ISLAND
Rhode Island State officials

Howard Cohen
Office of Legal Services
Department of Environmental Management
9 Hayes Street
Providence, RI 02908
(401) 277-2771

Saverio Mancieri
Division of Groundwater and Freshwater
Wetlands
Department of Environmental Management
83 Park Street
Providence, RI 02903
(401) 277-2234
Texas State officials

Dwight Russell
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087 Capitol Station
1700 North Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78711
(512) 463-7830

John Jameson
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087 Capitol Station
1700 North Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78711
(512) 463-7830

City of Austin officials

John Parrish
City of Austin
Department of Environmental Protection
P.O. Box 1088
Austin, TX 78767
(512) 499-2737

Craig Carson
City of Austin
Department of Environmental Protection
P.O. Box 1088
Austin, TX 78767
(512) 499-2737

Linda Arredondo
Coordinator, UST Program
City of Austin
Department of Environmental Protection
P.O. Box 1088
Austin, TX 78767
(512) 499-2737
-------
-------