United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
oEPA
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9630.1
TITLE: UST State Grant Guidance '86
APPROVAL DATE: October 1986
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1986
ORIGINATING OFFICE: OUST
S FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER OSWER OSWER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
> EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9630.1
TITLE: UST State Grant Guidance '86
APPROVAL DATE: October 1986
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1986
ORIGINATING OFFICE: OUST
S FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents):
OS WER OS WER OS WER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
vvEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
Interim Directive Number
9630.1
Originator Information
Name of Contact Person
Susan Mann
Lead Office rS
LJ OUST
1 — 1 OERR (_] OWPE
D OSW Q AA.QSWER
Mail Code
WH-562A
Telephone Number
382-7970
Approved for Review
Signature of Office Director
jf y£
/'I IT* ff j ^.>"
Date / /
Title
FY' 86 State LUST Grant Guidance
Summary of Directive
The Guidance specifies eligibility to receive UST grant funds.
In accordance with grant regulations, a minimum 5% State match is
required. UST grants are performance-based grants, similar to the
RCRA grants. FY '86 State UST grant funds were distributed to the
Regions according to the grant allocation mechanism described fully
in the Guidance. Each Region will receive a "base" allotment of
$100,000 per State to be used by the States for the high priority
tasks identified in the Guidance. In addition to the "base" allot-
ment, each Region will receive a second, discretionary allotment
of $25,000 per State.
Type of Directive {Manual. Policy Directive, Announcement, etc.)
Grant Guidance
Status
D Draft
0 Final
LJ New
1 1 Revision
Does this Directive Supersede Previous Directive(s)? | | Yes
If "Yes" to Either Question, What Directive (number, title)
No Does It Supplement Previous Directive(s)? | | Yes Jffl No
Review Plan
D AA-OSWER
CD OERR
L~H OSW
LlJ OUST
LJ OWPE
I—I Regions
D OECM
D OGC
D OPPE
D
Other (Specify)
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format
Signature of Lead.C
6*
Jffice Directives Officer
iJ^L^ ^^_
Signature of OSWER^irectives Officer
Date
4f^.7f ££
Date
EPA Form 1315-17 (10-85)
-------
9630.1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
18(985
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: FY'86 State LUST Giant Guidance
FROM: Jack w- McGrav
Assistane Adinistrator
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
Attached is the FY'86 State LUST Grant Guidance. The Grant
Guidance Workgroup met several times during the last six months
to develop this document. Staff from seven EPA Headquarters' -
offices, the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials, 11 States and seven EPA Regions partici-
pated in the final Workgroup meeting. At that meeting, the
States and Regions agreed with the priorities of the Guidance
and the grant allocation mechanism. Highlights of the Guidance
are discussed below.
Among other things, the Guidance specifies that in order for
a State to be eligible to receive LUST grant funds, the Governor
is to have designated an agency to receive LUST notifications
(as mandated by §9002 of the 1984 Amendments). In accordance with
grant regulations, a minimum 5% State match is required. LUST
grants are to be performance-based grants, similar to the RCRA
grants. FY'86 State LUST grant funds will be distributed to
the Regions according to the grant allocation mechanism described
fully in the Guidance. Each Region will receive a "base" allot-
ment of $100,000 per State to be used by the States for the high
priority tasks identified in the Guidance. In addition to the
"base" allotment, each Region will receive a second, discretionary
allotment of $25,000 per State. This discretionary allotment
may be used to: (1) contribute further to the high priority
tasks, (2) support Regional LUST activities and/or support
contracts of benefit to the States, and (3) fund lesser priority
tasks.
-------
9630.1
- 2 -
To facilitate timely negotiation and award of grant funds
to the States, I :recommend that you take an active role in
contacting your States and initiating the grant process for the
FY'86 State LUST^grants.
Attachments
cc: OSWER Office Directors
Harvey Pippin (GAD/OERM)
LUST Coordinators, Regions I-X
Designated State LUST Notification Agencies
State LUST Grant Guidance Workgroup
-------
9630.1
FY'86 State LUST Grant Guidance
I. INTRODUCTION "~
On November 8, 1984 the President signed into law the
Hazardous & Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-616). The
Amendments establish a program under a new Subtitle I of RCRA for
regulation of leaking underground storage tanks (LUST). Subtitle I
provides for the development and implementation of a comprehensive
regulatory program for underground storage tanks that contain
"regulated substances." Underground storage tanks include any tank
with 10% of the volume below ground, including volume in attached
piping. "Regulated substances" include any substances defined as
"hazardous substances" under Superfund (CERCLA §101(14)) (except
substances regulated as hazardous wastes under RCRA Subtitle C) and
all liquid petroleum products (including crude oil).
This program is not part of the Subtitle C hazardous waste
program for which States can receive authorization under
section 3006 of RCRA or for which State financial assistance is
available under section 3011 of RCRA. The LUST program is entirely
separate from the Subtitle C hazardous waste program; the definition
of "regulated substances" explicitly excludes Subtitle C hazardous
waste.
Section 9004 establishes the authority for a State LUST
delegation program and section 2007(f)(2) authorizes appropriation
of funds for State grants. For FY'86, the President's Budget
Request to Congress includes $7 million in State grant funds for
the LUST program.
II. STATE LUST GRANTS
Authority
The statutory authority (RCRA §2007(f)(2)) for this grant
program . is not specific in directing the manner in which funds
are to be allocated among States. The Act simply requires that
the grants be "... for purposes of assisting States in development
and implementation of approved State underground storage, release,
detection, prevention and correction programs under Subtitle I."
Grant Regulations and Guidance
For FY'86 we intend to rely on the existing grant regulations
of 40 CFR Parts 30 and 35, Subpart A. These regulations require a
minimum grant match from the States of 5%. During FY'86 we will
decide whether it is necessary or desirable to develop specific
Subtitle I grant regulations. Also during FY'86 we intend to
develop a multi-year funding strategy that would consider requiring
-------
9630.1
' - 2 -
funded States to: (1) gradually increase the match over several
fiscal years; and (2) investigate alternative mechanisms, in lieu
of the Federal grant, to fund their programs.
This guidance is to provide the criteria and procedures for
allocation of grant funds for State LUST program activities in FY'86.
As a supplement to the grant regulations, the guidance is to be
used in developing and reviewing grant applications, awarding grants
and monitoring grant activities. The purpose of the grant funds
is to assist States in developing and implementing an approvable
State LUST program.
Specific activities funded under each State's annual grant work
program will be negotiated individually by the Regional Offices.
Regions should begin working with their States in developing draft
grant applications in July so that final applications may be sub-
mitted in August. This will give the Regions time to review and
approve them so that timely grant awards can be made. Each State
will be expected to make specific task commitments as part of its
grant agreement. Commitments should reflect the task priorities
stated in this guidance. In addition, for each major task funded,
the grant agreement must identify the resources (dollars and FTE)
associated with that task. Grants are to be performance-based .as
in the RCRA State authorization program with quarterly work commit-
ments clearly tied to resources. All available grant funds should
be obligated to the States in FY'86. States should expend all funds
in FY'86. Any remaining FY'86 grant funds not obligated by the
Regions in FY'87 will be reprogrammed or returned to the Treasury.
The grant funds appropriated for FY'86 under section 2007(f)(2)
may only be used for LUST grant eligible activities; i.e., those
activities which are: (1) necessary to develop and implement an
approvable State LUST program and (2) allowable for funding.
(See OMB Circular A-87 and 40 CFR 30.410.) Where States are not
seeking program approval, the Administrator or Regional Administrator
may use funds not awarded or committed to an applicant to supplement
awards to other applicants or to support a Federal program required
in the absence of an acceptable State program. Funds may not be
diverted from Subtitle C to support Subtitle I activities or vice
versa.
State Eligibility
Section 9002(b)(l) requires the Governor of each State to
designate an appropriate State agency or department or local
agencies or departments to receive notifications submitted pursuant
to section 9002. As a matter of policy, only State agencies that
have been designated by their Governors to receive LUST notifica-
tions will be eligible to receive a LUST grant in FY'86. Federal
grant funds may not pass through the designated agency to substate
or local government offices.
-------
9630.1
- 3 -
Allotment Mechanism
The Presideatis Budget Request to Congress for FY'86
includes $7 million in State grant funds for the LUST program.
To avoid penalizing States where LUST programs are further
developed, while offering incentive to States not as advanced
in their program development, grant funds will be divided into
two allotments. Each Region will receive a "base" allotment
(i.e., $100k/State) to be used first for implementation of high
priority tasks. (See Fundable Tasks 1-5 below.) In addition,
each Region will receive a second allotment (i.e., $25k/ State).
At its discretion the Region will use this second allotment to
support the lesser priority tasks. Note that neither allotment
represents any kind of State entitlement; Regions are not
obliged to award a grant to every State or a particular amount
to any State.
After completion of all high priority tasks in each State,
remaining funds from the Region's "base" allotment will go into
the Region's discretionary allotment. Regional discretionary
funds may be used by the Region to contribute to any fundable
activity for any State or used for Regional LUST activities to •
benefit the States. Regional discretionary funds may be used
for funding contract activity that supports the LUST program
where the Region requests'reprogramming by the Comptroller.
All funds should be obligated by the Regions in FY'86.
Regional FY'86 State LUST Grant Allotments
Region
Base
Total
$5,600k
Discretionary
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
$600k
400k
600k
800k
600k
500k
400k
600k
700k
400k
$150k
100k
150k
200k
150k
125k
100k
150k
175k
100k
$ 750k
500k
750k
1,000k
750k
625k
500k
750k
875k
500k
$l,400k
$7,000k
Fundable Tasks
This section discusses fundable tasks for FY'86 State LUST
grants. Tasks are prioritized. States must undertake and work
toward the completion of at least the first task in order to be
eligible for FY'86 funding under Section 2007. After the first
five tasks are completed or planned for, any (or all) other
tasks may be undertaken. States need not undertake all of the
-------
9630.1
_ 4 -
first five tasks in FY '86. Completion of all of the first five
tasks will not disqualify States from funding for other tasks.
Appropriate outputsTfor individual States will be determined by
negotiations between State and Regional Office staff, considering
the nature and extent of the program the State wants to establish
and the needs within the State. These State/Regional negotiations
should begin as soon as possible so the grants may be awarded in
October 1985.
Program Task Priorities
Task 1:
Task 2:
Task 3:
Task 4 :
Task 5:
Process LUST notifications. Develop an automated
or manual notification information data management
and analysis system. [Headquarters is investigating
development of model software with a core program
to retrieve aggregate information for data requested
on the Federal form. This program would be made
available to the States.] Process notification
forms into the system. Provide contractor support
for notifiers1 assistance. Print and distribute
notification forms. (Printing and distribution costs
should not exceed 30% of the State grant allocation.)
Develop statutory and regulatory authority for State
LUST program. Begin State LUST program organizational
and institutional initiatives and develop necessary
State and local agency coordination to carry out the
program. Where statutory authority exists it should
be submitted to the Region (LUST coordinator) for
review. States may begin development of their regu-
lations as EPA develops its regulations. Where
appropriate, States may begin drafting their applica-
tions for EPA approval of State LUST program.
Promote compliance with Federal Interim Prohibition
through mechanisms such as: (1) conducting reviews
of local government construction permits, (2) developing
memoranda of understanding with the Fire Marshal's
offices to monitor underground tank installations,
(3) implementing a field inspection program, and
(4) certifying tank installations. Assist. EPA in
implementing Federal program in absence of approved
State LUST program; e.g., enforce interim prohibition.
Investigate/develop alternative State funding
mechanism such as user charges or State taxes.
Promote compliance by disseminating regulatory
information to affected parties and the general
public and providing technical assistance to
LUST notifiers.
Task 6:
Develop/initiate program for certification of
installers.
tank
-------
9630.1
Task 7: Secure technical assistance and training for State
personnel for LUST program implementation; e.g.,
trainTng for State personnel in inventory control
techniques, tank inspections, groundwater monitoring,
tank closure, and corrective action techniques.
Task 8: Other tasks may be funded where the above (1-7) have
been adequately addressed.
III. FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONSHIP (Grant Award/Grant
Administration)
States or Regional Offices may initiate the grant process.
States may submit draft grant applications to the Regions or the
Regions can provide draft work plans to their States for consider-
ation. Headquarters will, as a courtesy to the Region, review
these when requested. As soon as executed, a copy of each grant
agreement and application (including work program) should be
sent to Truett V. DeGeare, Chief, State Programs Branch, (WH-563-B),
Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C. 20460.
In accordance with grant regulations, the Region must hold
at least one on-site review during the year. We recommend two
be scheduled. Therefore, Regions should plan a mid-year and/or
end-of-year review with the States. An end-of-year review may
be conducted or combined with the review of the FY'87 grant
application. Regions may arrange for more frequent reviews.
The comprehensive program review should be held at mid-year
for each State and should examine progress towards completion
of fundable tasks. Regions should also specify program follow-up
procedures whereby States respond, on a quarterly timetable, to
the Region's findings. Reviews should identify: (1) weaknesses
in the State's program; (2) areas where the Region may help the
State; (3) approaches that could be shared with other States,
and (4) suggested improvements in the Federal LUST program.
Copies of all program review reports for FY'86 should be submitted
to Truett V. DeGeare, Chief, State Programs Branch, (WH-563-B),
Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C. 20460, within 30 days of
completion of the report.
Reporting Requirements
Headquarters is currently considering requesting aggregate
data from tank notifications. Examples of aggregate numbers that
might be requested include: total tanks in use (petroleum and
hazardous substances), total tanks out of use since 1974, total
steel tanks, total fiberglass tanks, etc. This data may be used
as a basis for a revised FY'87 or FY'88 allocation mechanism. We
will provide more information on 'this in later guidance. No other
reporting is contemplated as yet.
-------
9630.1
- 6 -
Future Funding
Development of the FY'87 Guidance will take into account
data obtained frofff-the notification process. It is likely that,
in FY'87, grant funds will be increased and that there will be
no significant increase in State grant match requirement. We
will continue to pursue the development of a multi-year funding
strategy, including the investigation of Federal/State roles at
various funding levels and other State support (e.g., partial
funding, peer matching and loan of personnel).
------- |