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
-------
------- |