United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
oEPA
DfRECTIVE NUMBER: 5610.13
Guidance for Federal Field Citation
Enforcement
APPROVAL DATE:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORIGINATING OFFICE: Office of Underground
Storage Tanks (OUST)
m FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER OSWER OSWER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DfRECTIVE NUMBER: $610.15
TITLE: Guidance for Federal Field Citation
Enforcement
APPROVAL DATE:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORIGINATING OFFICE: Office of Underground
Storage Tanks (OUST)
S FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents):
OS WER OSWER OS WER
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
Unitcu oidics environ men ia I rroiecuon
Washington, DC 20460
OSWER Directive initiation Request
1. Directive Number
9610.13
2. Originator Information
Name of Contact Person
Jerry Parker
Mail Code
OS-410
Office
OSWER/OUST
Telephone Code
475-7263
3. Title
Guidance for Federal Field Citation Enforcement
4. Summary of Directive (include brief statement of purpose)
provides guidance to EPA Regional enforcement personnel on taking
field citation enforcement actions against UST owner/operators who
violate the Federal UST requirements
5. Keywords
field citations, expediting enforcement, underground storage tanks
6a. Does This Directive Supersede Previous Oirective(s)
b. Does It Supplement Previous Directive(s)?
X
No
No
Yes What directive (number, title)
Yes What directive (number, title)
7. Draft Level
A - Signed by AA/DAA
8 - Signed by Office Director
C - For Review & Comment
0 - In Development
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters?
Yes
No
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format Standards.
9. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator
JSĞ^^7 ~M^~^
Beverly 'Thomas , OUST Directives Coordinator
10. Name and(Title\of Approving Official, ^
\\ K?C\y x (J^~<\^
David Vq/Ziegele,^-Actirtg Director, OUST
Date i
^ihi
Date - -I
y^/Vi
EPA Form 1315-17 (Rev. 5-87) Previous editions are obsolete.
OSWER OSWER OSWER O
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
OSWER Dir. 9610.13
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR 2 0199! OFF1CCOF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
Subject: UST Federal Field Citation Enforcement
(l Luv \^ (
From: David W. Ziegele, N^ztlng Dir
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
To: Waste Management Division Directors,
Regions I-III and V-IX
Water Division Directors, Regions IV and X
Regional Counsel, Regions I-X
Back on September 12, 1990, OUST sent for Regional review a
draft federal field citation and guidance for its use. We
received back thoughtful comments from many of you. A number of
changes have been made in the main document along with its
attachments. In this process of revision we have worked very
closely with the Office of General Counsel (OGC) and have
received their concurrence on the final set of documents.
Attached is the federal field citation guidance in final
form, along with short-form wordings of selected federal UST
regulations, and a sample citation form. We hope to be able to
provide a training for Regional inspectors and attorneys within
the next couple of months. Training is a very important part of
this effort.
Thanks again to all who participated in this effort. Please
contact Jerry Parker of my staff (FTS 475-7263) with any
questions or comments.
Attachments
cc: Regional Program Managers
Lisa K. Friedman, OGC
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
OSWER Dir. 9610.13
GUIDANCE FOR FEDERAL FIELD CITATION ENFORCEMENT
I. Federal Enforcement
Overview
OUST's program approach is to build UST programs at the State level since
States will be primarily responsible for the enforcement of UST regulations. Regions
may perform general compliance inspections at UST sites or take enforcement actions in
certain circumstances, generally in the place of or in conjunction with a State when the
State lacks enforcement resources, and on Indian Lands or at Federal facilities. In these
specific cases, the Regions must develop an enforcement strategy that addresses targeted
violations while maximizing scarce time and resources.
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
level, 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 significant commitment of staff time and resources, which is
either difficult to obtain or which must compete with time and resources that staff directs
toward releases or violations that may pose more immediate or significant environmental
harm. 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.
Use of field citations will not displace existing enforcement tools, such as warnings
and orders, but will provide the inspector with another tool for situations where these
enforcement approaches may be less effective. OUST believes that a field citation
program is a viable and useful tool for Federal enforcement and several Regions have
expressed interest in adopting field citation enforcement programs.
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 address
concerns that an enforcement program be fairly and uniformly applied across Regions.
Some key components of the field citation are identical from Region to Region, such as
the language of the citation. 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.
-------
OSWER Dir. 9610.13
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
need targeting, based on local needs and subject to previously issued enforcement
guidance. Finally, the availability of field citations should not diminish the Regions'
efforts to assist States and localities in building UST enforcement programs.
Responsibilities of OUST
During the workgroup session, OUST agreed to provide the Regional offices with
support in these specific areas:
OUST has coordinated with the Office of General Counsel to develop a
uniform citation format to be used by all the Regional offices.
OUST has developed this guidance for program details, including a list of
potential violations to be addressed through the field citation program,
derived from the Federal UST regulations, and options for setting penalty
amounts.
OUST has made use of field citations consistent with the penalty policy
(OSWER Directive 9610.12 "U.S. EPA Penalty Guidance for Violations of
UST Regulations") and the Federal procedures manual (OSWER Directive
9610.11 "UST/LUST Enforcement Procedures Guidance Manual").
OUST will assist in inspector training efforts. As the success of a field
citation program depends upon the skills of inspectors, it is crucial that
inspectors receive training in field citation enforcement techniques and
specific guidance on when and how to use the citations. OUST has
developed an inspector training manual for States and localities that it will
adapt for Federal use to train inspectors in issuing citations and performing
related duties. OUST will make the manual available to all the Regions
and will help to tailor the manual to the specific Regional programs.
OUST will also coordinate any inter-Regional training efforts.
NOTE TO REGIONAL STAFF: Inspectors may also require training in the technical
issues related to UST inspections; this training will need to be obtained prior to field
citation training.
-------
OSWER Dir. 9610.13
II. Regional Program Elements
Guidance on program details for Regions is presented in the following sections.
The guidance should be considered in the context of the Regions' overall enforcement
strategy and priorities.
Selecting Appropriate Violations
The Regions described a range of problems they would potentially address using
field citations. In order for field citations to be useful in a range of situations, the
Regions need the ability to determine which violations of the Federal UST regulations to
address using field citations. Since field citations in various forms have been used
effectively in diverse jurisdictions, this guidance provides a framework for allowing
Regions to address different violations within the field citation effort. The guidance is
intended to ensure that each of the Regions develops its list of appropriate violations
judiciously and implements its program reasonably by providing a baseline list of
violations appropriate for field citations and guidelines for selection among violations.
Each Region should select violations to be cited from violations included in this list.
Assuring consistency among Regions will be provided further by training.
The following are appropriate criteria for selecting the violations to be cited:
Select violations which are clear-cut and easily verifiable, but which pose
little immediate threat of environmental harm (i.e., relatively minor
violations).
Target violations selected according to commonness of occurrence and or
program priority, such as release detection preventive requirements.
Identify violations by relevant, objective criteria, such as those violations
included in the penalty policy with base penalties of $500 or less.
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 (i.e., "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 facilitating 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. If
the choice is to cite only relatively minor violations, selecting low-penalty violations from
the penalty policy appears to be a reasonably objective way to start a program offering
consistency with the penalty policy.
-------
OSWER Dir. 9610.13
In selecting a preferred option, a Region may choose to target a certain prevalent
or high piiority violation or violations. 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 is to be enforcing 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 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 general parameters set forth here. Field citations provide an additional
enforcement tool, and inspectors must be instructed how to respond when violations
appropriate for using field citations are found.
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. When determining when to forego field
citations in favor of more formal, existing enforcement procedures, this guidance advises
that field citations are most useful when the primary enforcement objective dictated by
the situation is achieving compliance expeditiously. When, in the judgement of the
inspector, penalizing a violator is the foremost goal to be accomplished by the
enforcement action, the remedies provided by 40 CFR Part 22 generally will be more
appropriate. These more formal procedures are described more fully below.
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 describes the three basic enforcement options available
to address violations of UST requirements:
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 are discovered. Field citations are designed to uniformly
address certain violations and promote a quick resolution of the violation
and assessment of a small penalty. Therefore, where a Region is inspecting
a facility, the field citation should be used rather than a warning.
-------
OSWER Dir. 9610.13
Citations
There are several situations in which inspectors will typically issue citations:
Inspectors should issue citations for as many violations as are identified at a
site; there is no limit to the number of violations that may be cited at a
single facility. However, if the number of violations found at a site exceeds
"x" (a number set by each Region), the inspector may forego field citations
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 should
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 citations issued
at a site (the number of violations that may be cited at one site). The threshold should
be set below the point where the number of violations, regardless of the nature of those
violations, proves that a facility was seriously out of compliance and requires a more
formal enforcement response. Even if the facility had only multiple recordkeeping
violations, this approach could be taken in order to send a message to the regulated
community. This number should also be near the point where a typical violator no
longer has an incentive to correct the violations and pay the penalty instead of resisting
compliance. At this point, a more formal, existing enforcement response is likely to be
more effective than use of field citations. As a general matter, a suggested threshold is
between three and ten violations.
During joint inspections, Regional inspectors will usually not cite for
violations that are cited by the State inspector where State sanctions are at
least equivalent.
As States are the primary enforcers in the program, Regions usually will take
enforcement actions only in certain circumstances. 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 sanctions are at least equivalent with Federal sanctions. 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 that we
take interest in a specific kind of violation. 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.
-------
OSWER Dir. 9610.1-3
Fidd citations are generally most appropriate for addressing first-time violators; if
the same violations are found again during a second inspection, Part 22 enforcement
procedures should be initiated. Limiting the use of field citations to first-time violators
makes sense if it appears to the inspector that the citation and penalty have not
convinced 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 resource-effective compliance, rather than to penalize owners and operators
for regulatory violations.
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 because the more
serious violation shows that the facility cannot simply be handled by field citation
procedures. As used in this guidance, more formal enforcement typically refers to the
procedures for issuing administrative 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 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.
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 in Part 22. The more formal
enforcement methods may also be the appropriate response in some circumstances where
field citations would otherwise be appropriate (for example, if violations which are
appropriate for a field citation in themselves surpass 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 non-correctable violation (e.g., a tank
was not purged before being removed). In these cases, a field citation will 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 best 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. Inspectors are not bound to follow this guidance, however, 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.
This approach is consistent with the guidance found in other EPA penalty policies and
procedures.
-------
OSWER Dir. 9610.13
Guidance for Penalty Amounts
The Regions will have some discretion to assign penalty amounts to violations
selected from the baseline list. The Regions have the option of selecting a uniform
penalty amount or establishing an incremental scale of penalty amounts according to the
seriousness of the violation or category of violations (e.g., $X-$2X-$3X). In the case of
multiple violations, penalties are totaled. In general, field citation programs set penalty
amounts according to the severity of each violation or category of violations. In other
words, penalties are set higher or lower according to the degree of environmental harm
that might occur as a result of a specific violation. For example, lack of daily monitoring
records might be considered less serious than a lack of monitoring wells.
The size of the penalties attached to violations is important to the success of a
field citations 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, Regions should set penalties high enough to catch the attention of owners and
operators. In general, the field citation program should operate optimally when the
penalties are geared primarily to achieving rapid compliance rather than to penalizing for
the violation. This principle might guide the Regions to setting relatively low, uniform
penalties.
Because each Region has the discretion to set the range of penalty amounts, there
is no predetermined cap on the cumulative amount of penalties assessed. 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 issues
underlying a cap on the total cumulative amount of penalties that may be incurred by a
single owner or operator, i.e., keeping the amount relatively low might encourage more
settlements. This determination is a matter of judgement, and, as the program is
implemented, experience.
As a general recommendation, the range of $100 to $500 should meet most
Regions' needs and be consistent with experience in other programs that have employed
field citations to enforce their environmental regulations. Regions are also encouraged to
consult each other and to coordinate with Headquarters in order to set uniform penalties
where appropriate.
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 or obtain approval for any Region-specific citation form from
Regional Counsel and the Office of General Counsel. This approach will ensure that the
field citations used are legally supportable and designed to accommodate the program
-------
OSWER Dir. 9610.13
elements described in this guidance. In addition, use of a standard citation form will
guarantee some uniformity across Regions in the issuance of field citations.
The field citation represents the issuance of an order pursuant to RCRA §9006 to
address violations listed in RCRA §9006(d), and essentially is a short-form settlement
agreement. The violator is notified of the violation and given an opportunity to resolve
the violation expeditiously by agreeing to correct the violation and by settling for a lesser
penalty amount than might be assessed according to the penalty policy if Part 22
proceedings are initiated. The lower penalty assessment reflects the time and expense
saved by the Agency over that normally incurred in pursuing more formal enforcement
methods, although it also compromises the size of the fine it could legally collect. The
violator has only two options: accept the field citation or risk more formal enforcement
proceedings if the Agency decides to pursue the violations.
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. The field citation has been designed
as a short-form settlement agreement. Achieving a settlement through a field citation
should eliminate the need for a hearing.
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.
Training
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.
-------
OSWER Dir. 9610.13
SHORT-FORM WORDINGS OF SELECTED FEDERAL REGULATIONS
The following short-form wordings for field citations were developed from the Federal
underground storage tank regulations and constitute a baseline list of violations which may be
appropriate for use in a Federal field citation program.
Regulatory
Citation Violation
280.20 Performance standards for new UST systems
280.20(a)(2) Failure to cathodically protect a tank
280.20(b)(2) Failure to cathodically protect metal piping
280.20(c) Failure to use a spill prevention system
280.20(c) Failure to use an overfill prevention system
280.21 Upgrading of existing UST systems
280.21(b)(l)(i) Failure to install interior lining for tank upgrade requirements
280.21 (b)(2) Failure to meet tank upgrade requirements for cathodic protection
280.21 (b)
(2)(iii) Failure to meet tightness test requirements for an upgraded, cathodically protected
tank
280.2 l(c) Failure to install cathodic protection for metal piping upgrade requirements
280.21 (d) Failure to provide spill prevention system for an existing tank
280.21 (d) Failure to provide overfill prevention system for an existing tank
280.22 Notification requirements
280.22(a) Failure to notify agency within 30 days of bringing UST system into use
280.22(c) Failure to identify all USTs on notification form
280.22(e)(l) Failure to certify on notification form that UST system was installed properly
280.22(e)(2) Failure to certify on notification form that UST system is cathodically protected
-------
OSWER Dir. 9610.13
280.22(e)(3) Failure to certify financial responsibility on notification form
280.22(e)(4) Failure to certify proper release detection use for UST system on notification form
280.22(f) Failure to provide installer certification of compliance with installation
requirements on notification form
280.22(g) Failure to notify purchaser of UST system of notification requirements.
280.30 Spill and overfill control
28030(b) Failure to report a spill
280.30(b) Failure to report an overfill
280.30(b) Failure to investigate a spill
280.30(b) Failure to investigate an overfill
280.30(b) Failure to clean up a spill
280.30(b) Failure to clean up an overfill
28031 Operation and maintenance of corrosion protection
280.31 (a) Failure to properly operate and maintain corrosion protection system
280.31(b)(l) Failure to properly test corrosion protection system
280.3 l(c) Failure to properly inspect impressed current cathodic protection system
280.3 l(d) Failure to maintain records of cathodic protection inspections or testing
28033 Repairs allowed
280.33 (d) Failure to have repaired UST system tightness tested as required
280.33 (e) Failure to test UST system cathodic protection system within 6 months of repair
280.33 (f) Failure to maintain repair records for operating life of UST
28034 Reporting and recordkeeping
280.34(a)(l) Failure to submit notification for UST system
10
-------
OSWER Dir. 9610.13
280.34(a)(l) Failure to submit certification of a new installation with notification form
280.34(a)(2) Failure to report a release to the agency
280.34(a)(3) Failure to submit corrective action plans to the agency
280.34(a)(4) Failure to submit notification before a permanent UST closure or change in
service
280.34(b)(l) Failure to maintain analysis of site corrosion potential if corrosion protection
equipment is not used
280.34(b)(2) Failure to maintain corrosion protection equipment operation documentation
280.34(b)(3) Failure to maintain documentation of UST system repairs
280.34(b)(4) Failure to maintain documentation of compliance with release detection
requirements
280.34(b)(5) Failure to maintain results of site investigation following a permanent closure
280.34(c) Failure to provide records at UST site or alternative site for inspection by
implementing agency
280.40 General requirements for all UST systems
280.40(a) Failure to provide adequate release detection for UST system
280.40(b) Failure to notify agency of indicated release
280.40(c) Failure to provide adequate release detection by phase-in date
280.41 Requirements for petroleum UST systems
280.41 (a) Failure to monitor tank for releases as required
280.41(b) Failure to use approved release monitoring method for piping
280.43 Methods of release detection for tanks
280.43(a) Inadequate operation or maintenance of inventory control
280.43(b) Inadequate operation or maintenance of manual tank gauging
280.43 (c) Inadequate operation or maintenance of tank tightness testing
11
-------
OSWER Dir. 9610.13
280.43(d) Inadequate operation or maintenance of automatic tank gauging
280.43(e) Inadequate operation or maintenance of vapor monitoring
280.43(f) Inadequate operation or maintenance of ground-water monitoring
280.43(g) Inadequate operation or maintenance of interstitial monitoring
280.44 Methods of release detection for piping
280.44(a) Inadequate application of line leak detector system for underground piping
280.44(b) Inadequate application of line tightness testing system for underground piping
280.44(c) Inadequate application of UST release detection methods
280.45 Release detection recordkeeping
280.45(a) Failure to maintain records of release detection monitoring
280.45 (b) Failure to maintain results of a sampling, testing, or monitoring as required
280.45(c) Failure to retain record of calibration, maintenance, and repair of release detection
equipment
280.52 Release investigation and confirmation steps
280.52(a) Failure to conduct tightness test(s) to investigate suspected leak(s)
280.52(b) Failure to examine and measure an UST site for suspected leak(s)
280.70 Temporary closure
280.70(a) Failure to operate and maintain corrosion protection in a temporarily closed UST
system
280.70(a) Failure-to operate and maintain release detection as required in a temporarily
closed UST system
280.70(b)(l) Failure to leave vent lines open and functioning during temporary UST closure
280.70(b)(2) Failure to cap and secure all UST related equipment for temporary closure
12
-------
OSWER Dir. 9610.13
280.72 Assessing the site at closure or change-in-service
280.72(a) Failure to measure for the presence of a release before a permanent closure
280.74 Closure Records
280.74 Failure to maintain proper closure records
13
-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION
MAIN STREET
USA
EXPEDITED ENFORCEMENT
COMPLIANCE ORDER AND OFFER OF SETTLEMENT
OSWERDii. 9610.13
PARTI
COMPLIANCE ORDER
PART II
OFFER OF SETTLEMENT
COMPLIANCE ORDER NO.
On
Time
(Date of Violation)
(a.m. or p.m.)
At
(Name of Facility)
(Address of Facility)
Name of Owner, Operator or
On-site Representative
(Circle one)
Facility License/Permit Number.
an authorized representative of the United States Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) inspected this facility to determine compliance
with underground storage tank regulations promulgated under Subtitle
^the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C.
|2 et seq.). During this inspection, the following violations of
round storage tank regulations were found, with corresponding
penalty amounts:
40CFR
Penalty S
Nature of Violation:
40CFR
Penalty $
Nature of Violation:
40CFR
Penalty $
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 being issued with reference to the Offer of
Settlement in Part II of this form. If the Offer of Settlement in Part II
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 by
EPA 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-reference underground storage tank
regulations.
ignature of Authorized Representative of EPA)
Date:
I hereby acknowledge receipt of this Compliance Order and Offer of
Settlement.
Date:
(Signature of Owner, Operator or On-site Representative)
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) makes this
Offer of Settlement under its expedited enforcement procedures 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 signing below certifies, undercivil and criminal
penalties for making a false submission to the United States Govern-
ment, that Owner or Operator has corrected the violation(s) and
enclosed a certified check for $ in payment of the full
amount of penalties, as described in the Compliance Order.
Upon EPA final approval of this Offer of Settlement, EPA will take no
further action against the Owner or Operator for the violations de-
scribed in the Compliance Order. EPA does not waive any enforcement
action by EPA, the State where the facility is located or any local
agencies for any other past, present or future violations of the under-
ground storage tank requirements or any other violations under any
other statute not described in the Compliance Order.
Also, upon EPA final approval of this Offer of Settlement, the Owner
or Operator waives the opportunity for a public hearing pursuant to
Section 9006 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Final approval of the Offer of Settlement is in the sole discretion of the
Regional Administrator, Region , EPA, or authorized delegate.
SIGNATURE BY OWNER OR OPERATOR:
Name and Title (print)
Signature Date:
FINAL APPROVAL BY EPA:
Name and Tide (print)
Signature
Date:
-------
UNITED STATES OSWERDir.9510.13
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION
MAIN STREET
USA
EXPEDITED ENFORCEMENT
COMPLIANCE ORDER AND OFFER OF SETTLEMENT
INSTRUCTIONS
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has authority under Section 9006 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to issue
compliance orders and pur sue civil penalties for violations of under ground 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 Offer of Settlement for which these instructions are provided.
You may resolve the cited violations quickly by correcting the violations, signing and returning the Offer of Settlement, and paying the penalty
amounts, all within 30 days of the issuance of the Compliance Order. Upon EPA final approval of the Offer of Settlement, 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 Offer of Settlement
returned more than 30 days after the date of the Compliance Order.
If yon do not return the Offer of Settlement withpayment of the penalty amounts, 30 days after issuance, the Compliance Order will be withdrawn.
without prejudice by EPA to file additional enforcement actions for the above or any other violations. You are nonetheless required to correct
the violations cited in the Compliance Order. 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 Assess-
ment of Civil Penalties and the Revocation or Suspension of Permits (40 CFR Part 22).
You tire required under the Offer of Settlement to certify that you have corrected the violationsfound in the Compliance Order and paid the penalty
amounts. The payment for the penalty amounts must be in the form of a certified check payable to the "United States of America," with the number
ofthz Compliance Order written on the check. The Settlement Offer and check shall be sent to:
Underground Storage Tank Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region
Main Street
USA
By tiie terms of the Offer of Settlement, and upon EPA'sfinal approval of the Offer of Settlement, you waive the opportunity for a public hearing
pursuant to Section 9006 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Fined approval of the Offer of Settlement is in the sole discretion of the Regional Administrator, Region , EPA, or authorized delegate.
Ifyc u have any questions, you may contact the EPA Regional Office of Underground Storage Tanks at .
------- |