vvEPA
United Slates
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DfRECTIVE NUMBER: 9610.16
TITLE: Guidance for Federal Field
Citation Enforcement
APPROVAL DATE: October 6, 1993
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6, 1993
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
Q FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
Office of Underground
Storage Tanks (OUST)
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER Directive 9610.11 "UST/LUST Enforcement
Procedures Guidance Manual"
OSWER Directive 9610.12 "U.S. EPA Penalty Guidance for
Violations of UST Regulations"
OSWER OSWER OSWER
'E DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE D
-------
Agency
Washington, DC 20460
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
1. Directive Number
9610.16
2. Originator Information
Name of Contact Person
Parlor
Mail Code
5402W
Offce
JUST
Telephone Code
703-308-8884
3. Title
Guidance for Federal Field Citation Enforcement
4. Summary of Directive (include brief statement of purpose)
Provides guidance to U.S. EPA Regional Offices on setting up and implementing a
federal field citation program. Field citations represent a new enforcement tool
to be used in certain situations where owners/operators of underground storage
tanks violate UST regulations
underground storaee tanks, enforcement, citation, penalty, settlement offer
a. Does This Directive Supersede Previous Directive(s)'
Yes What directive (number, title) 9610.14
b. Does It Supplement Previous Directive(s)?
X
U.S. EPA Penalty Guidance for Violations of~nST Regulations
Yes What directive (number, title) 9610.12
7. Draft Level
A - Signed by AA/DAA
B - Signed by Office Director
C - For Review & Comment
D - In Development
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters?
Yes
X
No
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format Standards.
9. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator c£hjUio4ijK~r\sO(^~ (*jfi f*s> Jf>
Shushona Clark, OUST Directives Coordinator
r\
Date
10. Name and Title of Approving Official
David Ziegele, Director, OUST
Date
EPA Form 1315-17 (Rev. 5-87) Previous editions are obsolet
OSWER
OSWER
OSWER
VE DIRECTIVE
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
OSWER Directive 9610.16
GUIDANCE FOR
FEDERAL FIELD CITATION
ENFORCEMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
October 1993
-------
OSWER Directive 9610.16
GUIDANCE FOR FEDERAL FIELD CITATION ENFORCEMENT
I. Federal Enforcement
Overview
The Office of Underground Storage Tanks' (OUST) program implementation
approach is to build UST programs at the state level since states will be primarily
responsible for the enforcement of UST regulations. Regions perform compliance
inspections at UST sites or take enforcement actions, generally in conjunction with or in
the place of a state when the state lacks enforcement resources, and on Indian Lands or
at federal facilities.
One enforcement option is the use of field citations, "traffic ticket"-styled citations
issued on-site by inspectors, generally carrying a penalty. Field citations are currently
being used by a number of environmental programs on the federal, state, and local levels,
including UST programs. In the experience of many state and local UST enforcement
programs, field citations are extremely useful in addressing many prevalent, clear-cut
violations that are relatively easy to correct. Addressing these violations using established
enforcement methods, such as formal administrative proceedings under 40 CFR Part 22,
requires a greater commitment of staff time and resources, which may be difficult to
obtain or which must compete with time and resources that staff directs toward releases
or violations that are not appropriately addressed by the field citation program. When a
citation program is properly designed, violators issued citations for clear-cut violations
have greater incentive to correct problems and pay penalties than to contest. Thus, in
appropriate circumstances, field citation enforcement is less resource-intensive than
traditional methods of UST enforcement. Resources are saved as citations are issued on
the spot, and preparation of formal legal documents and procedures, such as
administrative appeals, are minimized.
While field citations were developed to expedite the enforcement process, they
also encourage owners and operators to come into compliance in an effective and
resource-efficient manner. By removing the incentive to expend their time and resources
litigating the large penalties typical of more formal enforcement actions, owners and
operators who receive field citations should see a clear advantage in focusing their energy
and economic resources on achieving compliance. Thus, field citations are a critical
component of OUST's efforts to achieve high rates of compliance among regulated
entities with minimal expenditure of public and private resources.
This guidance is intended to help the regions establish and operate field citation
programs, but should not be construed to mandate the use of field citations in place of
other existing enforcement mechanisms. When an inspection is conducted, there are in
essence three potential outcomes: (1) compliance (no enforcement action taken), (2)
-------
OSWER Directive 96L0.16
non-compliance followed by issuance of warnings or field citations, or (3) non-compliance
followed by more traditional enforcement. (Of course, in theory there is a fourth
outcome, where there is non-compliance and no action is taken. However, this outcome
is neither common nor desirable.) Field citations therefore are not separate from more
formal enforcement mechanisms; they are complementary aspects of the enforcement
program. (See Figure 1)
Field citations and more formal enforcement are procedurally distinct, but they
share an identical objective: increasing the rate of regulated community compliance.
Each should be chosen when the appropriate conditions for its use exist. For example,
field citations should be chosen when the violation is clear-cut, easily verifiable, easily
correctable, and on the list of citable violations. Generally, field citations should only be
issued to first-time violators. More formal enforcement must be pursued for all other
violations. If a field citation is ignored, or the owner or operator otherwise refuses to
settle, more formal enforcement should be pursued.
UST program staff and legal counsel from several regions participated in a
workgroup effort to develop procedures for federal enforcement using field citations.
This guidance document is a result of that effort. It attempts to serve the workgroup
participants' interest in using field citations in a variety of circumstances and addresses
concerns that an enforcement program be fairly and uniformly applied across regions.
Some key components of the field citation program are identical from region to region.
However, the flexibility provided in this guidance and the relationship between field
citations and existing enforcement capabilities should provide considerable room for
accommodating local needs. On this score, it is important to emphasize that field
citation enforcement will not supplant existing enforcement options. Discretion to
exercise existing options for warnings and other enforcement tools remains unchanged by
the introduction of field citations, which should blend into regional enforcement choices.
Also, regions will continue to select which violations or facilities to target, within the
parameters of this guidance, based on local needs and subject to previously issued
enforcement guidance. Finally, the availability of federal field citations should not
diminish the regions' efforts to assist states and localities in building strong UST
enforcement programs.
In February 1993, OUST, the Office of Enforcement, and the Office of General
Counsel held a conference to review the federal field citation program, assess its
effectiveness, identify potential improvements, and provide valuable "how-to" information
to those regions in the process of developing field citation programs. After presentation
of data from the regions that had implemented field citation programs, reports, and
general discussion, the conference addressed a number of issues, including
implementation of regional programs, regional targeting and tracking procedures,
standard operating procedures, use of field citations at federal facilities and on Indian
lands, and legal issues associated with field citations.
-------
Figure 1:
THE ROLE OF FIELD CITATIONS IN FEDERAL UST ENFORCEMENT
[IDEALIZED AND SIMPLIFIED PROCESS]
Compliance
Targeting
Scheme
Joint Inspections
with States
FIELD
CFTATIONS
Administrative
Complaint
1
Compliance &
Settlement
Noncompliance
No Settlement
Continued
Noncompliance =
Unilateral Order
Compliance &
Penally Paid =
CAFO
Continued
Noncompliance = Civil
Judicial Enforcement
O
C/5
a
a
Refer to guidance for appropriate violations to be addressed by field citations.
-------
OSWER Directive 9610.16
One goal of the conference was to publicize the considerable success of field
citations in those regions where they had been used, and thus encourage all regions to
initiate development of their own field citation programs. Similarly, this guidance
document has been revised as a result of input from participants at the conference in
order to reflect recent program experience and facilitate development of regional field
citation programs. The Office of General Counsel and the Office of Enforcement have
endorsed the use of field citations and have reviewed and concurred with all changes to
the document.
II. Regional Program Elements
Guidance for regions is presented in the following sections. The guidance should
be considered in the context of the region's overall enforcement strategy and priorities.
Selecting Appropriate Violations
This guidance provides a framework for allowing regions to address certain
violations with field citations. The guidance is intended to ensure that each region
develops its list of appropriate violations judiciously and implements its program
reasonably by providing a list of violations appropriate for field citations and guidelines
for selection among violations. Each region should select violations to be cited only from
those on the attached list of violations for which a penalty amount is indicated.
Consistency among regions will be further assured by training.
The following criteria are generally appropriate for selecting the violations to be
cited:
• Select violations which are clear-cut and easily verifiable.
• Select violations which are easily correctable.
• Select first-time violators only.
Determining which violations are appropriate for a field citation program requires
considerable discretion. Experience shows that field citation programs work most
effectively in achieving compliance if the violations are clear-cut and the inspectors
exercise little discretion in citing the violations. Established field citation programs have
found that easily identifiable violations (e.g., "either they have it or they don't") require
the least amount of inspector judgment in the field, making it easier to provide clear
guidance to inspectors and facilitate consistency among inspectors. On the other hand,
the regions may believe that certain violations, while clear-cut, are very serious in terms
of environmental harm threatened and require a more formal enforcement response.
The list of violations appropriate for the field citation program, which accompanies this
-------
OSWER Directive 9610.16
guidance, relieves the regions of some of the burden of making these decisions.
However, it is the responsibility of each region to designate which of these violations will
be appropriate candidates for its field citation program given specific regional needs and
resources, and list the violations in the region's Standard Operating Procedures or use
the attached list verbatim (see section below on Regional Standard Operating
Procedures).
In selecting a preferred approach, a region may choose to target a certain
prevalent or high priority violation or violations, e.g., the leak detection requirements.
This may be a good strategy for a region to use if a state program lacks enforcement
authority or regulations in a certain program area and the region needs to fill a key gap
in coverage or send an important message to violators. However, if a region enforces in
the place of the state, the region may find it advantageous to include all appropriate
violations in the field citation enforcement program, as long as they meet the above-
referenced criteria.
Guidance for When to Use Citations
This guidance establishes procedures for issuing citations, and describes some
appropriate circumstances for inspectors to issue citations. Since the inspector is the one
who must implement the program in the field, the regions must clearly establish the
extent of discretion allowed to inspectors in determining whether to issue field citations
within the general parameters set forth here. Field citations provide an additional
enforcement tool, and inspectors must be instructed in how to respond when they find
violations which are addressed appropriately with field citations.
The proper use of field citations must be measured against the backdrop of the
regions' existing authority to issue warnings or pursue other existing enforcement
measures for all violations of UST requirements. Although the primary objective of any
enforcement program is to achieve compliance, formal enforcement mechanisms, such as
those found in 40 CFR Part 22, normally will be more appropriate in particular
circumstances. These circumstances include, among others, instances involving repeat
violations or where payment of a more significant penalty may be more effective in
achieving EPA's enforcement goals.
This guidance is intended to provide a framework for the inspector's discretionary
use of the field citation enforcement option. Therefore, the guidance is phrased in terms
of the action an inspector would take in the typical case, but leaves room for exception if
the circumstances in the inspector's judgment so warrant.
The following discussion outlines the three basic enforcement options available to
address violations of UST requirements:
-------
OSWER Directive 9610.16
Warnings
Although warnings can be useful as a first step in the enforcement process,
regional inspectors generally should consider issuing citations in all cases
where violations which the region has determined are appropriately
addressed with a field citation are discovered. Field citations are designed
to uniformly address certain violations and promote a quick resolution of
the violation with the assessment of a small penalty. Therefore, when a
region inspects a facility, inspectors should consider issuing a field citation
rather than a warning for a violation or violations which the region has
determined may be an appropriate candidate for its field citation program.
In order to keep the field citation program distinct from existing
enforcement programs, if a warning is issued, it may not be in the form of
a field citation without a penalty.
Citations
There are several situations in which inspectors will typically issue citations:
• Inspectors may issue citations for as many violations as are identified at a
site. However, if the number of violations found at a site exceeds "x" (a
number set by each region), the inspector should forego issuing a field
citation and use more formal, existing enforcement methods instead.
Once a region has selected its list of violations appropriate for the field citation
program and trained inspectors in procedures for issuing field citations, inspectors may
routinely issue field citations for all appropriate violations found at a facility. Each
region will have the discretion to place an upper limit on the number of violations that
may be cited at one site. The threshold should be set below the point beyond which the
number of violations, regardless of the nature of those violations, suggests that a facility
was seriously out of compliance and requires a more formal enforcement response. At
this point, a more formal enforcement response is likely to be more effective than the
use of field citations. As a general matter, a suggested threshold is between three and
ten violations.
This guidance does not suggest any predetermined cap on the cumulative dollar
amount of penalties that may be set out in a field citation. However, there is a natural
cap to the extent that each region will be foregoing issuing field citations if the number of
citable violations at a site exceeds a number fixed by the region (see preceding section).
The region may want to consider the practical effect that the total cumulative penalty
amount proposed in a field citation may have on settlement incentives. This amount
should be below the point above which a violator no longer has an incentive to correct
the violations and pay the penalty instead of resisting compliance.
-------
8 OSWER Directive 9610.16
• During joint inspections, regional inspectors should usually not cite for
violations that are cited by the state inspector where state penalties are at
least equivalent.
As states are the primary enforcers in the program, regions usually will take
enforcement actions only in the circumstances noted in the first paragraph of this
guidance document. Therefore, it is likely that during joint inspections regional
inspectors will defer to the state program's regulations or authorities and not cite for
violations that state inspectors cite. Generally, this will be the case where state penalties
are at least equivalent "with federal penalties. On the other hand, there may be cases
where a field citation would serve an important federal enforcement objective, for
example, sending a signal to the regulated community about an enforcement initiative. In
these cases, a field citation or other federal enforcement measure might reinforce the
state's message.
• Inspectors will usually issue citations to first-time violators only. If upon
follow-up inspection a cited violation has not been corrected, the inspector
should generally use Part 22 procedures, or, if a later inspection uncovers a
different violation, the inspector should not use a field citation.
Limiting the use of field citations to first-time violators makes sense if it appears
to the inspector that the citation and penalty will convince a violator to bring a facility
into compliance and to keep it in compliance. The inspector should be guided by the
goal of the field citation program, which is to achieve rapid and re.source-efficient
compliance, rather than to penalize owners and operators for regulatory violations.
When conducting inspections, it is critical that the inspector fully conduct the inspection
and thoroughly complete the inspection report. If a field citation is not issued because
the number of violations is above the threshold for field citations, or the field citation
settlement form is not returned, the Agency may choose to pursue standard enforcement
based on the inspection report. Therefore, while field citations may expedite the
correction and penalty phases of enforcement, the quality and effort applied to the
underlying inspection should not be abbreviated.
Standard Enforcement
If an inspector discovers not only violations that are appropriate for the field
citation program, but other violations as well, the inspector should address all of the
violations at the site using more formal, existing enforcement methods or refer the case
to the state for appropriate action. As used in this guidance, more formal enforcement
typically refers to the procedures for issuing administrative complaints/compliance orders
(including those assessing civil penalties) and conducting the administrative enforcement
process governed by 40 CFR Part 22, the Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the
Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties and the Revocation or Suspension of
-------
9 OSWER Directive 9610.16
Permits ("Part 22" or "CROP"). CROP outlines the major steps in the administrative
adjudication process and presents the various authorities and duties of Agency officials in
the process. More formal enforcement methods also include issuance of corrective action
orders pursuant to 40 CFR Part 24 or civil judicial enforcement of the UST
requirements.
In selecting those violations which are appropriate for field citations, the regions
will, in effect, also be identifying violations which, because of their potential for
environmental harm or other characteristics (i.e., not clear-cut), should be addressed
using the more formal, existing enforcement mechanisms. The more formal enforcement
methods may also be the appropriate response in some circumstances where field
citations would otherwise be appropriate (for example, if the total number of individual
violations which are appropriate for a field citation surpasses the threshold for multiple
violations or are repeated). Another case where a clear-cut violation might be addressed
by more formal enforcement is the case of a clear-cut but not easily correctable violation.
In these cases, a field citation may not serve the goal of encouraging compliance and
might appear to treat the violator mildly compared to penalties applicable under the
penalty policy. In general, the regions will need to assess how to maximize resources
while bringing as many facilities into compliance as possible.
This guidance is phrased so that inspectors will know what action to take in the
typical case. When in the exercise of their enforcement discretion they determine that
deviation from this guidance will result in more effective compliance or a more efficient
use of enforcement resources, inspectors are not bound to follow this guidance. This
approach is consistent with the guidance found in other EPA penalty policies and
procedures.
Guidance for Penalty Amounts
In order to ensure that penalty amounts applied by different regions for the same
violations are consistent, standard penalty amounts have been set by this guidance.
These penalties are in the amounts of either $50, $150, or $300. Consistency among
regions is important to achieve fairness in the treatment of the regulated community in
selecting regional penalty amounts. In the case of multiple violations, penalties should be
totaled. In general, field citation programs set penalty amounts according to the severity
of each violation or category of violations. Penalties should be assessed per facility
rather than per tank.
The size of the penalties attached to violations is important to the success of a
field citation program. Penalties that are relatively high (e.g., greater than $500 per
violation) may discourage owners and operators from agreeing to settle. On the other
hand, penalties need to be high enough to convince owners and operators that EPA is
serious about obtaining compliance and deterring others when issuing field citations. In
-------
10 OSWER Directive 9610.16
general, the field citation program should operate optimally when the penalties are
geared primarily to achieving compliance rather than to penalizing violators.
Form of the Citation
While each region will have considerable discretion in tailoring its field citation
program within the boundaries set forth in this guidance, the regions must use the
approved field citation form or obtain approval for any region-specific citation form from
OUST in writing, after first having obtained approval of Regional Counsel. OUST will
obtain concurrence for any proposed change from both the Office of General Counsel
and the Office of Enforcement before authorizing such a change.1 This approach will
ensure that the field citations used are legally supportable and designed to accommodate
the program elements described in this guidance. In addition, use of a standard citation
form will promote uniformity across regions in the issuance of field citations.
The field citation form developed by OUST is entitled "Expedited Enforcement
Compliance Order and Settlement Agreement". There are two versions of the field
citation form. The first version was designed for use in states that have not yet received
state program approval; it instructs inspectors to cite for violations of the federal
regulations. The second version of the form was designed for use in states that have
received state program approval; it instructs inspectors to cite for violations of the state
regulations. Otherwise, the two versions of the citation and the instructions for their use
are identical. Because inspectors in approved states still rely upon federal authorities for
enforcement, the references to federal authorities which appear on the second version
still apply. A copy of each citation form and the instructions for its use are attached at
the end of this guidance.
Regions should specify in their SOP and on the citation form the location where
the citation form and penalty payment should be sent. Citation forms and penalties are
often sent to different addresses. Generally, penalties should be sent to the same
location where enforcement monies are normally sent within the region. The inspector
should clearly explain this distinction to the violator if the locations to which payment
and the citation form should be sent are not the same.
Procedures For Issuance of Citations, Follow-up, and Extensions
The field citation represents the issuance of an order pursuant to RCRA § 9006 to
address violations listed in RCRA § 9006(d), coupled with a short-form settlement
agreement. Each region, as it determines is appropriate, must delegate to individual
inspectors the authority necessary to issue the citation form. The violator is given an
1 OUST approved an alternate citation form which provides for issuance of a Notice of Violation prior
to issuance of a compliance order and settlement agreement.
-------
11 OSWER Directive 9610.16
opportunity to resolve the enforcement action expeditiously by correcting the violation
and settling for a lesser penalty amount than might be assessed according to the penalty
policy if formal administrative proceedings were initiated. The lower penalty amount
reflects the time and expense saved by the Agency over that normally incurred in utilizing
more formal enforcement methods. If the violator does not accept the settlement
agreement within the time provided in the field citation, the compliance order is
automatically withdrawn. The Agency's policy is then to pursue other enforcement
options for the violations cited.
Thus, the violator has only two options: accept the field citation or risk more
formal enforcement proceedings. If a violator refuses to accept the terms of the field
citation or if it is determined that a violator has not fully complied with the terms of a
signed settlement agreement, follow-up enforcement should be initiated by EPA. Such
follow-up enforcement should be more stringent than the field citation settlement terms
in order to achieve compliance and ensure the integrity of the field citation program.
Follow-up enforcement is particularly crucial in environmentally sensitive areas, as these
areas are most likely to suffer severe adverse impacts from prolonged violations that
increase the likelihood of a release.
While it is essential that the regions take steps to conduct follow-up inspections in
those cases where the violator does not settle and come into compliance, some program
of follow-up inspections is also important for monitoring those violators who do accept
the settlement offer, pay the fine and certify that they have achieved compliance. The
regions should institute follow-up inspections at a subset of those facilities that have
reported a return to compliance as a result of a field citation, as appropriate, to assure
that owners and operators are taking the compliance actions that they claim to be taking.
In addition, these inspections can be used to determine whether the compliance actions
are completed within the 30-day period. Without proper follow-up, the region cannot be
sure the field citation program is achieving its goal of assuring compliance through cost-
effective means.
There might be circumstances where a 30-day extension of the 30-day period
provided to pay the fine and correct the violations would be appropriate. The region
should condition the grant of a 30-day extension on the following: (1) the owner or
operator files a formal request for the extension, (2) the owner or operator demonstrates
that there are factors beyond the control of the owner or operator that necessitate an
extension, and (3) the region believes that compliance will be achieved within the period
of the extension. The circumstances justifying the extension will typically involve unusual
difficulties in obtaining parts or securing and scheduling contractors to install equipment
within the initial 30-day period, or delays in securing loan approval to finance repairs.
Merely neglecting to seek expert assistance or equipment in a timely fashion should not
in itself justify an extension. The region should document the reasoning for granting any
extension in the file.
-------
12 OSWER Directive 9610.16
In certain circumstances, the region might also consider extending the 30-day
extension for cases in which a force majeiire event occurs. "Force majeure" for the
purpose of this guidance, is defined as any event arising from causes beyond the control
of the owner or operator or of any entity controlled by the owner or operator (including,
but not limited to, the owner or operator's contractors and subcontractors) that delays or
prevents the performance of any obligation under the field citation, despite the owner or
operator's best efforts to fulfill the obligation. The owner or operator's "best efforts to
fulfill the obligation" include using best efforts to anticipate any potential force majeure
event, and best efforts to address the effects of any potential force majeure event (1) as it
is occurring and (2) following the force majeure event, such that the delay is minimized to
the greatest extent possible.
Examples of force majeure events include extreme weather conditions that render
scheduled excavation of tanks or piping impossible, or an act of God, such as flooding or
an earthquake that disrupts normal commerce. Events not constituting force majeure
include, but are not limited to, financial inability to perform any actions required by the
field citation and unanticipated or increased costs or expenses associated with the
implementation of the field citation. The owner or operator should, nevertheless,
provide written justification for the second extension and the region should document its
reason for granting the extension for the file.
Regional Standard Operating Procedures
Each region should develop a set of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for the
use of field citations. The SOP generally should include information on what training is
required for inspectors; what procedures are required for issuing the citation and
conducting follow-up activities; how to handle requests for extensions; and what steps to
follow when the terms of the field citation are not met. Training requirements may
include a list of required and advisable courses to be completed by each inspector prior
to certification. When providing guidelines for determining violations and penalties, the
SOP should include a list of citable violations and their associated penalties, or the
regions must use the attached list verbatim. If a region is using field citations in
approved states, the region must include in its SOP a list of state violations and penalties
that corresponds to the attached list of federal violations and penalty amounts eligible for
field citations. Procedures for issuing the citation and follow-up should explain what
information the inspector needs to convey to the owner or operator, and set forth the
steps to be followed from issuance of the citation through settlement and case closure.
The SOP should also indicate the criteria to consider when determining if a 30-day
extension will be granted for paying the fine and/or coming into compliance, and separate
criteria for determining whether an additional extension for a period to be determined by
the region under unusual circumstances is justified. Finally, the SOP should indicate
what steps, if any, should be completed before initiation of standard enforcement
procedures when the terms of the field citation are not met.
-------
13 OSWER Directive 9610.16
A number of additional topics may be included in the regional SOP, such as
regional caps on the maximum number of citable violations and penalty amount;
procedures for setting up and maintaining a file system; policies for interaction with other
government agencies; procedures for targeting, notifying* and entering facilities; tips on
document identification and handling; and requirements for background information. It
is up to the region to decide what will be included in the SOP; the goal should be to
include sufficient information and guidance to allow effective and legally defensible
implementation of the program in accordance with the requirements outlined in this
guidance.
Issuance of Field Citations at Hazardous Substance Tanks
Issuance of federal field citations is an appropriate response to violations involving
hazardous substance UST systems, as long as the violations also could be addressed with
field citations at a petroleum UST site. Field citations may be issued for such violations
if certain conditions are met. Specifically, the facility where the UST system is located
should have no more than twelve tanks, and total hazardous substance UST capacity at
the facility should be less than 40,000 gallons. If the site exceeds either of these
recommended thresholds, more formal enforcement methods should be selected. The
two thresholds reflect the greater danger to human health and the environment
potentially posed by violations that increase the likelihood of releases from hazardous
substance tanks.
Issuance of Field Citations on Indian Lands
If a region wishes to issue field citations against tribally owned or operated
facilities, it should coordinate with the Senior Legal Advisor of the Office of Federal
Activities, within the Office of Enforcement, before taking action. The Senior Advisor
coordinates policy and management issues and legal issues in consultation with the Office
of General Counsel, and will be responsible for coordinating Headquarters and regional
review of the proposed enforcement action. (For further information, refer to the
October 21, 1992 Office of Enforcement Memorandum from Thomas L. McCall, Jr. to
Deputy Regional Administrators, Enforcement Counsels, and Regional Counsels.)
Issuance of Field Citations at Federal Facilities
[Reserved.]
-------
14 OSWER Directive 9610.16
Hearing Requirements
Subtitle I of RCRA provides for an opportunity for a hearing where an order is
issued -- the hearing process is outlined in Part 22. As described above, the field citation
has been designed as a compliance order and short-form settlement agreement.
The field citation compliance order is not an adjudicatory proceeding under 40
CFR Part 22. The violator has no right to a hearing under Part 22, since those
procedures have not been invoked through issuance of a field citation. Violators who
accept the terms of the settlement offer will have expressly waived their rights to a public
hearing under § 9006 of RCRA. If the violator does not accept the settlement offer, the
compliance order is withdrawn.
A region initiating administrative actions against a violator should follow the Part
22 procedures if a violator forgoes the settlement offered through the field citation
process. The federal procedures guidance (OSWER Directive 9610.11 "UST/LUST
Enforcement Procedures Guidance Manual") describes appropriate procedures in detail.
Judicial enforcement may also be appropriate in certain instances, in which case the
region should follow appropriate referral procedures for judicial actions.
Outreach
Regions are encouraged to publicize their field citation programs while they are
still in the developmental stage, as well as when they actually begin issuing citations. It is
important to inform the members of the regulated community as well as the public that
the programs are being developed so they know what to expect, and to publicize
violations addressed using citations, in order to demonstrate that the program is being
actively implemented. A variety of methods can be employed to publicize the program,
including public meetings, cooperation with trade associations, press releases, radio or
television announcements, and written outreach materials.
Developing State Field Citation Programs
OUST's ultimate goal is to see state and local governments develop the authorities
and capabilities needed to implement their own UST enforcement programs. As a way
to help realize that goal, OUST is working with the regions to issue federal field citations
to demonstrate the success of this expedited enforcement approach to the states.
Federal field citations are therefore an interim step, to be used primarily until state
enforcement programs are fully developed. Federal field citations represent a low-cost
method of maintaining a field presence in states without their own field presence, and of
improving state capabilities by training state inspectors through joint inspections. All
regions should develop the capability to issue federal field citations and continuously
-------
15 OSWER Directive 9610.16
work with states to streamline state enforcement processes, which may include developing
state and local field citation programs.
Helping states to develop their own field citation programs raises a number of
questions. For example, the regions will need to determine the mechanics of issuing
federal field citations in states that have received state program approval. When
conducting enforcement activities in approved states, federal officials rely upon federal
statutory authority, but enforce the state regulatory requirements. Therefore, federal
inspectors in approved states will need to use the model citation OUST has developed
for use in approved states. Regions also will need to amend their SOPs to include all
citable violations, identified in terms of each approved state's regulatory requirements.
Purposes and Use of This Guidance
This guidance is intended to provide overall direction for establishing regional
field citation programs. As such, the role of the guidance is to enunciate the general
principles that should underlie an appropriately designed field citation program; further
details not contained in this guidance will be developed and transmitted to program staff
through subsequent training or guidance.
This guidance and any internal procedures adopted for its implementation, are
intended solely as guidance for employees of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
They do not constitute rulemaking or final Agency action by the Agency and may not be
relied on to create a right or a benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or
in equity, by any person. The Agency may take action at variance with this
memorandum or its internal implementing procedures.
-------
16 OSWER Directive 9610.16
SELECTED VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS
Regulatory
Citation
SUBPART
§280.20(a) (1)
§280.20(a)(2)
§280.20(a)(2)(i)
§280.20(a)(2)(ii)
§280.20(a)(2)(iii)
§280.20(a)(2)(iv)
§280.20(a)(3)
§280.20(b)(1)
§280.20(b)(2)
§280.20(b)(2)(i)
§280.20(b)(2)(ii)
§280.20(b)(2)(iii)
§280.20(b)(2)(iv)
§280.20(c)
§280.20(c)(1)(i)
§280.20(c)(1)(ii)
§280.20(d)
i)280.20(d)
§280.20(e)
Violation
B - UST SYSTEMS: DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, AND NOTIFICATION
§280.20 Performance standards for new UST systems
Installation of an improperly constructed fiberglass-reinforced plastic tank
Installation of an Improperly designed and constructed metal tank that fails to meet corrosion protection
standards
Installation of a metal tank with unsuitable dielectric coating
Installation of an Improperly designed cathodic protection system for a metal tank
Improper installation of cathodic protection system for a metal tank
Improper operation and maintenance of tank cathodic protection system
Installation of an improperly constructed steel-fiberglass-relnforced-plastic tank
Installation of improperly constructed fiberglass-reinforced plastic piping
Failure to provide any cathodic protection for metal piping
Installation of piping with unsuitable dielectric coating
Installation of improperly designed cathodic protection for metal piping
Improper installation of cathodic protection system for piping
Improper operation and maintenance of cathodic protection system for metal piping
Failure to use a spill prevention system and an overfill prevention system
Installation of inadequate spill prevention equipment in a new tank
Installation of inadequate overfill prevention equipment in a new tank
Failure to install tank in accordance with accepted codes and standards
Failure to install piping in accordance with accepted codes and standards
Failure to provide any certification of UST installation
Violations
Appropriate for
Field Citations
(Penalty Amount)
$300
$300
$150
$300
$150
$150
$300
$300
$300
$150
$300
$150
$150
$300
$150
$150
$150
$150
$150
-------
17 OSWER Directive 9610.16
SELECTED VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS (continued)
Regulatory
Citation
SUBPART B -
§280.21(8)
§280.21 (b)
§280.21 (b)(1)(l)
§280.21 (b)(1)(ll)
§280.21 (b)(2)(l)
§280.21 (b)(2)(ll)
§280.21 (b) (2) (III)
§280.21 (b) (2) (iv)
§280.21 (c)
§280.21 (c)
§280.21 (d)
§280.22(a)
or
§280.22(b)
§280.22(c)
Violation
- UST SYSTEMS: DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, AND NOTIFICATION (continued)
28021 Upgrading of existing UST systems
Failure to perform replacement, upgrade, or closure for existing substandard tank systems
Failure to meet all tank upgrade standards
Improper Installation of Interior lining for tank upgrade requirements
Failure to meet Interior lining Inspection requirements for tank upgrade
Failure to ensure that tank Is structurally sound before Installing cathodlc protection
Failure to conduct monthly release detection monitoring for upgraded tank under 1 0 years of age
Failure to meet tightness test requirements for a tank upgraded with cathodlc protection
Failure to meet requirements for testing for corrosion holes for a tank upgraded with cathodic protection
Failure to install any cathodic protection for metal piping upgrade requirements
Failure to meet piping tightness test requirements for metal piping after upgrade with cathodic protection
Failure to provide spill or overfill prevention system for an existing tank
280.22 Notification requirements
Failure to notify state or local agency within 30 days of bringing an UST system into use
Failure to notify designated state or local agency of existing tank
Failure to submit a separate notification form identifying all known tanks for each site where tanks are located
Violations
Appropriate for
Field Citations
(Penally Amount)
$300
$300
$150
$150
$150
$300
$150
$150
$300
$150
$300
$300
$300
$150
-------
18 OSWER Directive 9610.16
SELECTED VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS (continued)
Violations
, Appropriate for
Regulatory . Field Citations
Citation Violation (Penalty Amount)
SUBPART B ~ UST SYSTEMS: DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, AND NOTIFICATION (continued)
§280.22(e) Failure to certify on notification form UST system requirements of proper installation, cathodic protection, $150
financial responsibility, and release detection
§280.22(f) Failure to provide installer certification of compliance with installation requirements on notification form $150
§280.22(g) Fajlure to inform tank purchaser of notification requirements
SUBPART C - GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
280.30 Spill and overfill control
§280.30(a) Failure to take necessary precautions to prevent overfill/spillage during the transfer of product ' $300
§280.30(b) Failure to report a spill/overfill
§280.30(b) Failure to investigate and clean up a spill/overfill
280.31 Operation and maintenance of corrosion protection
§280.31 (a) Failure to operate and maintain corrosion protection system continuously $150
§280.31 (b) Failure to ensure proper operation of cathodic protection system $150
§280.31 (c) Failure to inspect impressed current systems every 60 days $150
§280.31 (d) Failure to maintain records of cathodic protection inspections $50
280.32 Compatibility
§280.32 Failure to ensure that UST system is made of or lined with materials compatible with substance stored $150
-------
19 OSWER Directive 9610.16
SELECTED VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS (continued)
Regulatory
Citation
SUBPART C
§280.33(8)
§280.33(b)
§280.33(c)
§280.33(c)
§280.33(d)
§280.33(0)
§280.33(f)
(For violations of reporting
§280.34(a)(1)
or
§280.34(a)(1)
§280.34(b)(1)
§280.34(b)(2)
§280.34(b)(3)
§280.34(b)(4)
§2B0.34(c)(1)
or
§280.34(c) (2)
Violation
- GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS (continued)
280.33 Repairs allowed
Failure to repair UST system In accordance with accepted codes and standards
Failure to repair fiberglass-reinforced UST in accordance with accepted codes and standards
Failure to replace metal piping that has released product
Failure to repair fiberglass-reinforced piping in accordance with manufacturers specifications
Failure to ensure that repaired tank systems are tightness tested within 30 days of completion of repair
Failure to test cathodlc protection system within 6 months of repair of an UST system
Failure to maintain records of each repair to an UST system
280.34 Reporting and recordkeeplng
and recordkeeping, see appropriate regulatory section (e.g., reporting of releases will be under Subpart D)).
Failure to submit notification for UST system
Failure to submit certification of a new installation with notification form
Failure to maintain analysis of site corrosion potential If corrosion protection equipment is not used
Failure to maintain corrosion protection equipment operation documentation
Failure to maintain documentation of UST system repairs
Failure to maintain documentation of compliance with release detection requirements
Failure to maintain records at UST site and immediately available for Inspection
Failure to maintain records at a readily available alternative site
Violations
Appropriate for
Field Citations
(Penalty Amount)
$150
$150
$150
$150
$300
$150
$50
$300
$300
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
-------
20 OSWER Directive 9610.16
SELECTED VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS (continued)
Regulatory
Citation
Violation
Violations
Appropriate for
Field Citations
(Penalty Amount)
SUBPART D -- RELEASE DETECTION
280.40 General requirements for all UST systems (Applies only to petroleum tanks)
§280.40(a) Failure to provide adequate release detection method
§280.40(b) Failure to notify implementing agency when release detection indicates release
$300
§280.40(c)
§280.40(d)
§280.41 (a)
or
§280.41 (a) (1)
or
§280.41 (a) (2)
§280.41 (b)(1) (I)
§280.41 (b)(1) (II)
§280.41 (b) (2)
§280.42(a)
§280.42(b)
§280.42(b)(1)
§280.42(b) (2)
(j280.42(b)(3)
t,280.42(b)(4)
Fajlure to provide any release detection method by phase-In date
Failure to dose any UST system that cannot meet release detection requirements
280.41 Requirements for petroleum UST systems
Failure to monitor tanks at least every 30 days, if appropriate
Failure to conduct tank tightness testing every 5 years, if appropriate
Failure to conduct annual tank tightness testing, if appropriate
Failure to equip pressurized piping with automatic line leak detector
Failure to have annual line tightness test or perform monthly monitoring on pressurized piping
Failure to conduct line tightness test or use monthly monitoring on suction piping
280.42 Requirements for hazardous substance UST systems
Failure to provide release detection for an existing hazardous substance tank system
Failure to provide adequate release detection for a new hazardous substance UST system
Failure to provide adequate secondary containment of tank for a hazardous substance UST
Failure to provide adequate double-walled tank/adequate lining for a hazardous substance UST
Failure to provide adequate external liners for a hazardous substance UST
Failure to provide adequate secondary containment of piping for a hazardous substance UST
$150
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
-------
21 OSWER Directive 9610.16
SELECTED VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS (continued)
Regulatory
Citation
SUBPART D
§280.43(0)
§280.43(a)(1)-(6)
§280.43(b)
§280.43(b)(1)-(4)*
§280.43(c)
§280.43(d)
§280.43(d)(1)-(2)
$280.43(6)
§280.43(e)(1)-(7)*
§280.43(f)
§280.43(f)(1)-(8)®
§280.43(g)
§280.44
§280.44(a)
or
§280.44(b)
§280.44(c)
Violation
- RELEASE DETECTION (continued)
280.43 Methods of release detection for tanks
Inadequate operation or maintenance of Inventory control
Inadequate operation or maintenance of manual tank gauging
Inadequate operation or maintenance of tank tightness testing
Inadequate operation or maintenance of automatic tank gauging
. Inadequate operation or maintenance of vapor monitoring
Inadequate operation or maintenance of ground-water monitoring
Inadequate operation or maintenance of Interstitial monitoring
280.44 Methods of release detection for piping
Failure to provide any release detection for underground piping
Failure to provide adequate line leak detector system for underground piping
Failure to provide adequate line tightness testing system for underground piping system
Inadequate use of applicable tank release detection methods
Violations
Appropriate for
Field Citations
(Penalty Amount)
$300
$50 each
$300
$50 each
$150
$300
$150 each
$300
$150 each
$300
$150 each
$300
$300
$150
$150
$150
'if citing more than 3 subsections, cite instead §280.43(b) or §280.41 (a)
"if citing more than 1 subsection, cite instead §280.43(e)
'u'lf citing more than 1 subsection, cite instead §280.43(f)
-------
22 OSWER Directive 9610.16
SELECTED VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS (continued)
Regulatory
Citation
Violation
§280.45(b)
§280.45(c)
Fajlure to maintain results of sampling, testing or monitoring for release detection for at least 1 year or failure to
retain results of tightness testing until next test Is conducted
Failure to document calibration, maintenance, and repair of release detection
Violations
Appropriate for
Field Citations
(Penalty Amount)
SUBPART D - RELEASE DETECTION (continued)
280.45 Release detection recordkeeping
§280.45 Failure to maintain records of release detection monitoring
§280.45(a) Failure to document all release detection performance claims for 5 years after installation
$150 ,
$50
$50
$50
SUBPART E - RELEASE REPORTING, INVESTIGATION, AND CONFIRMATION
280.50 Reporting of suspected release
i280.50(a)-(c) Failute to report a suspected release within 24 hours to the implementing agency
§280.52(a)-(b)
280.52 Release investigation and confirmation steps
Failure to investigate and confirm a release (if appropriate) using accepted procedures
§280.53(a)
§280.53(6)
§280.53(6)
280.53 Reporting and cleanup of spills and overfills
Failure to report a spill/overfill (if appropriate) to implementing agency within 24 hours (or other specified time period)
Failure to contain and immediately clean up a spill/overfill of less than 25 gallons
Failure to contain and immediately clean up a hazardous substance spill/overfill
-------
23 OSWER Directive 9610.16
SELECTED VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS (continued)
Regulatory
Citation
Violation
§280.63
§280.64
Failure to perform initial abatement measures and submit report within 20 days (or other specified time) of release
confirmation
Failure to submit report on initial site characterization within 45 days (or other specified time) of release confirmation
Failure to perform free product removal and submit report within 45 days (or other specified time) of release
confirmation
Violations
Appropriate for
Field Citations
(Penalty Amount)
SUBPART F - RELEASE RESPONSE AND CORRECTIVE ACTION
§280.61 Failure to take initial response actions within specified time period after a release is confirmed
§280.62
SUBPART G - OUT-OF-SERVICE UST SYSTEMS AND CLOSURE
280.70 Temporary closure
§280.70(a) FaUure to continue operation and maintenance of corrosion protection system In a temporarily closed tank $150
system
§280.70(a)
§280.70(b)
§2B0.70(b)(1)-(2)
§2B0.70(c)
§280.71 (a)
§280.71 (b)
§280.71 (b)
§280.71 (c)
Failure to continue operation and maintenance of release detection in a temporarily closed tank system
Failure to comply with temporary closure requirements for a tank system for 3 or more months
Failure to permanently close or upgrade a temporarily closed tank system after 12 months
280.71 Permanent closure and changes-In-service
Failure to notify Implementing agency of a closure or change-in-service
Failure to remove all liquids and sludges for tank closure
Failure to remove closed tank from the ground or fill tank with an Inert solid for tank closure
Failure to empty and clean tank system and conduct a site assessment prior to a change-in-service
$300
$300
$150 each
$300
$300.
$300
$300
-------
24 OSWER Directive 9610.16
SELECTED VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS (continued)
Regulatory
Citation
Violation
Violations
Appropriate for
Field Citations
(Penalty Amount)
SUBPART G - OUT-OF-SERVICE UST SYSTEMS AND CLOSURE (continued)
280.72 Assessing the site at closure or change-In-service
§280.72(a) Failure to measure (rt required) for the presence of a release before a permanent closure
§280.72(6) If contaminated soil, contaminated ground water, or .free product is discovered, failure to begin corrective action
§280.74
§280.74
SUBPART
§280.93(a)
§280.93(a)(1)-(2)
§280.93(b)(1)-(2)
§280.93(f)
§280.94
§280.95
§280.106(a)(1)
§280.106(8) (2)
§280.1 06(b)
§280.107
280.74 Closure records
Failure to maintain closure records for at least 3 years
Failure to maintain change-In-service records for at least 3 years
H - FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Failure to comply with financial responsibility requirements by the required phase-in time
Failure to meet the requirement for per-occurrence coverage of insurance.
Failure to meet the requirement for annual aggregate coverage of insurance.
Failure to review and adjust financial assurance after acquiring new or additional USTs
Use of an unapproved mechanism or combination of mechanisms to demonstrate financial responsibility
Use of falsified financial documents to pass financial test of self-insurance
Failure to report evidence of financial responsibility to the implementing agency within 30 days of detecting a
known or suspected release
Failure to report evidence of financial responsibility to the Implementing agency if the provider becomes
Incapable of providing financial assurance and the owner or operator Is unable to obtain alternate coverage
within 30 days.
Failure to report evidence of financial responsibility to the implementing agency when new tanks are installed
Failure to maintain copies of the financial assurance mechanism (s) used to comply with financial responsibility
$300
$300
$150
$150
$150
$150
$150
$150
$150
$150
$150
rule and certification that the mechanism is in compliance with the requirements of the rule at the UST site or
place of business
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION , MAIN STREET, USA
EXPEDITED ENFORCEMENT
COMPLIANCE ORDER AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
PART I: COMPLIANCE ORDER
PART O: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
COMPLIANCE ORDER NO.
On
At
Time
(Date of Violation)
(a.m. or p.m.)
(Name of Facility)
(Address of Facility)
Facility Identification Number
Name of Owner, Operator or
On-site Representative
(Circle one)
(Address of Owner, Operator, or On-Site Representative)
An authorized representative of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) inspected this facility to determine compli-
ance with underground storage tank regulations promulgated under
Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42
U.S.C. § 6912 et seq.). During this inspection, the following
violations of underground storage tank regulations were found, with
corresponding penalty amounts:
40CFR
Penalty $.
Nature of Violation:
40CFR
Penalty $.
Nature of Violation:
40CFR
Penalty $.
Nature of Violation:
Penalty Total $
The owner or operator of the above facility is hereby ordered to
correct the violations and pay the penalties described above.
This Compliance Order is not an adjudicatory proceeding under 40
CFR Part 22, the Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the
Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties and the Revocation or
Suspension of Permits, but is issued solely with reference to the
Settlement Agreement in Part n of this form. If the Settlement
Agreement in Part n is not returned in correct form by the owner or
operator within 30 days of the date of signature below by the
Authorized Representative of EPA, this Compliance Order is hereby
withdrawn, without prejudice to EPA's ability to file additional
enforcement actions for the above or any other violations.
I have personally observed the above violations and find the owner
or operator in violation of the above-referenced UST regulations.
Date:
(Signature of Authorized Representative of EPA)
I hereby acknowledge receipt of this Compliance Order and Settle-
ment Agreement.
Date:
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offers
this Settlement Agreement under its expedited enforcement proce-
dures in order to settle the violations found in the Compliance Order
in Pan I of this form subject to the following terms and conditions:
The Owner or Operator signing below certifies, under civil and
criminal penalties for making a false submission to the United States
Government, that Owner or Operator has corrected the violation(s)
and enclosed a certified check for $ in pay meat of the full
penalty amount, as described in the Compliance Order.
Upon EPA final approval of this Settlement Agreement, EPA will
take no further action against the Owner or Operator for the violations
described in the Compliance Order. EPA does not waive any
enforcement action by EPA, the State, or Indian tribe or authorized
tribal organization where the facility is located or any local agencies
for any other past, present or future violations of the underground
storage tank requirements or any other violations under any other
statute not described in the Compliance Order.
Also, upon EPA final approval of this Settlement Agreement, the
Owner or Operator waives the opportunity for a public hearing
pursuant to Section 9006 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act.
This Settlement Agreement is binding on the EPA and the Owner or
Operator signing below. The Owner or Operator signing below
waives any objections to EPA's jurisdiction with respect to the
Compliance Order and mis Settlement Agreement, and consents to
EPA's final approval of this Settlement Agreement without further
notice. This Settlement Agreement is effective upon EPA's final
approval below. Upon final approval, EPA shall mail a copy of the
approved Settlement Agreement to the Owner or Operator signing
below.
Final approval of the Settlement Agreement is in the sole discretion
of the Regional Administrator, Region , EPA, or authorized
delegate.
SIGNATURE BY OWNER OR OPERATOR:
Name (print)
Tide (print)
Signature Date:
FINAL APPROVAL BY EPA:
Name (print)
Title (print)
Signature
Date:
(Signature of Owner, Operator or On-site Representative)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION , MAIN STREET, USA
EXPEDITED ENFORCEMENT
COMPLIANCE ORDER AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
INSTRUCTIONS
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has authority under Section 9006 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to
issue compliance orders and pursue civil penalties for violations of underground storage tank regulations. However, the EPA encourages
the expedited settlement of easily verifiable violations of underground storage tank requirements, such as the violations cited in the Expedited
Enforcement Compliance Order and Settlement Agreement for which these instructions are provided, by agreeing to these settlement terms
that include expedited correction of the violation and payment of penalties.
You may resolve the cited violations quickly by signing and returning the Settlement Agreement and paying the penalty amount within 30
days of the issuance of the Compliance Order. You must correct the violations within 30 days of the issuance of the Compliance Order. EPA,
at its discretion, may grant one 30 day extension for the period to come into compliance where the owner or operator satisfactorily
demonstrates that it is technically infeasible or impracticable to achieve compliance within 30 days. The Settlement Agreement is binding
on EPA and the Owner or Operator upon EPA final approval. Upon EPA final approval of the Settlement Agreement, a copy of which will
be returned to you, EPA will take no further action against you for these violations. EPA will not accept or approve any Settlement Agreement
returned more than 30 days after the date of the Compliance Order unless an extension has been granted by EPA. This Compliance Order
is not an adjudicatory proceeding under 40 CFR Part 22, the Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the Administrative Assessment of
Civil Penalties and the Revocation or Suspension of Permits, but is issued solely with reference to the Settlement Agreement in Pan II of this
form.
If you do not return the Settlement Agreement with payment of the penalty amount 30 days after issuance, unless an extension has been granted
by EPA, the Compliance Order will be automatically withdrawn, without prejudice to EPA's ability to file additional enforcement actions
for the above or any other violations. Failure to return the Settlement Agreement within the approved time does not relieve you of the
responsibility to comply fully with the regulations, including correcting the violations that have been specifically identified by the inspector.
If EPA pursues administrative enforcement measures in order to correct the violations) or to seek penalties, you will receive instructions
describing your rights under the Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties and the
Revocation or Suspension of Permits (40 CFR Part 22).
You are required under the Settlement Agreement to certify that you have corrected the violations found in the Compliance Order and paid
the penalty amount. The payment for the penalty amountmustbe in the form of'a certified check payable to the " Treasurer of the United
States of America," with the number of the Compliance Order written on the check.
The Settlement Agreement and copy of the check shall be sent to: Payment of the penalty amount shall be sent to:
Underground Storage Tank Program U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region
Region _ P.O. Box _
Main Street Main Street
USA USA
By the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and upon EPA'sfinal approval of the Settlement Agreement, you waive the opportunity for a public
hearing pursuant to Section 9006 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. EPA will treat any response to the citation, other than
acceptance of the Settlement Offer, as an indication that the recipient is not interested in pursuing this expedited settlement procedure.
Final approval of the Settlement Agreement is at the sole discretion of the Regional Administrator, Region , EPA, or authorized delegate.
rt ~
If you have any questions, you may contact the EPA Regional Office of Underground Storage Tanks at .
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION , MAIN STREET, USA
EXPEDITED ENFORCEMENT
COMPLIANCE ORDER AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
PART I: COMPLIANCE ORDER
PART D: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
COMPLIANCE ORDER NO.
On
Time
(Date of Violation)
(a.m. or p.m.)
At.
(Name of Facility)
(Address of Facility)
Facility Identification Number
Name of Owner, Operator or
On-site Representative
(Circle one)
(Address of Owner, Operator,
An authorized representative of ^ .__ -.^ .
Protection Agency (EPA) mspectetf tniifaciKty to determine compB-4
ance with underground storage tank tegB&tions
Subtitle I of die Resource Conservation aa&Rtscovery Artqf
U.S.C.§6912etseq.). Duringthi:
of underground storage tank regulations were found, wi
ing penalty amounts. Because the state pro
approval, violations are cited in terms of the
(State Reg. No.)
tnis Settlement Agreement, EPA will
the Owner or Operator for the violations
Compliance Order. EPA does not waive any
Nature of Violation:
(State Reg. No.)
Nature of Violation:
(State Reg. No.)
Nature of Violation:
The owner or operator of the above facility is hereby ordered to
correct the violations and pay the penalties described above.
This Compliance Order is not an adjudicatory proceeding under 40
CFR Part 22, the Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the
Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties and the Revocation or
Suspension of Permits, but is issued solely with reference to the
Settlement Agreement in Part n of this form. If the Settlement
Agreement in Part n is not returned in correct form by the owner or
operator within 30 days of the date of signature below by the
Authorized Representative of EPA, this Compliance Order is hereby
withdrawn, without prejudice to EPA's ability to file additional
enforcement actions for the above or any other violations.
I have personally observed the above violations and find the owner
or operator in violation of the above-referenced UST regulations.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offers
this Settlement Agreement under its expedited enforcement proce-
dures in order to settle the violations found in the Compliance Order
in Part I of this form subject to the following terms and conditions:
The Owner or Operator^tpHBgbelow certifies, under civil and
criminal penalties for mflkiBgafcttfc submission to the United States
Government, that Owner^Operator has corrected the violation(s)
and enclosed a certified chedbfoEjES in payment of the full
penalty amouatj-jis cUsscnolfif Itt^e Compliance Order.
take no
described
enfbrceaitetaction by EPA, the State, or Indian tribe or authorized
tribal organna^i where dacfliiitality is located or any local agencies
ast, preseippf%oSpjaolations of the underground
requirepentl^^^^^lia: violations under any other
»& the'CompMijiSe Order.
Wtiiis Settlement Agreement, the
opportunity for a public hearing
: Resource Conservation and Recovery
ilementH|freement is binding on the EPA and the Owner or
ng below. The Owner or Operator signing below
bjections to EPA's jurisdiction with respect to the
ice Order and this Settlement Agreement, and consents to
'Alpfinal approval of this Settlement Agreement without further
ice. This Settlement Agreement is effective upon EPA's final
iroval below. Upon final approval, EPA shall mail a copy of the
approved Settlement Agreement to the Owner or Operator signing
below.
Final approval of the Settlement Agreement is in the sole discretion
of the Regional Administrator, Region , EPA, or authorized
delegate.
SIGNATURE BY OWNER OR OPERATOR:
Name (print)
Title (print)
Signature Date:
Date:
(Signature of Authorized Representative of EPA)
I hereby acknowledge receipt of this Compliance Order and Settle-
ment Agreement.
Date:
FINAL APPROVAL BY EPA:
Name (print)
Tide (print)
Signature
Date.
(Signature of Owner, Operator or On-site Representative)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION , MAIN STREET, USA
EXPEDITED ENFORCEMENT
COMPLIANCE ORDER AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
INSTRUCTIONS
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has authority under Section 9006 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to
issue compliance orders and pursue civil penalties for violations of underground storage tank regulations. However, the EPA encourages
the expedited settlement of easily verifiable violations of underground storage tank requirements, such as the violations cited in the Expedited
Enforcement Compliance Order and Settlement Agreement for which these instructions are prq^ff^^^agreeing to these settlement terms
that include expedited correction of the violation and payment of penalties.
You may resolve the cited violations quickly by signing
days of the issuance of the Compliance Order. You m
at its discretion, may grant one 30 day extension
demonstrates that it is technically infeasible or it
on EPA and the Owner or Operator upon I
be returned to you, EPA will take no further action ac
returned more than 30 days after the dafaoft&Cpmplii&ice Order
is not an adjudicatory proceeding undef'40 C&RJ&^22, the Co,
Civil Penalties and the RevocatioKm&vsp^iori of Permits, butjjjjjguec
f >-f v » ff,f$f'Sr$y :?$s?»i&§»k,
form.
irning the Settlement
violations withi
come int
------- |