oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9630.3
TITLE: Flnal FY 1988 State UST Grant Guidance
APPROVAL DATE: Aprlll 1987
EFFECTIVE DATE: April', 1987
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
SbcFINAL
: D DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents):
Office of Underground Storage
Tanks (OUST)
OSWER OSWER OSWER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
&EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington. DC 20460
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
1. Directive Number
9630.3
2. Originator Information
Name of Contact Person
El lie McCann
Mail Code
WH 562A
Office
OUST
Telephone Number
3. Title
Final FY 1988 States UST Grant Guidance
4. Summary of Directive flnc/ude brief statement of purpose)
See Attachment
5. Keywords
6a. Does this Directive Supersede Previous Directives)? | | Yes |M No What directive (number, title)
i. floes It Supplement Previous Directives)? Q Yes |p No What Directive (number, title)
..Draft Level
D A — Signed by AA/DAA
Dfl-Si
Signed by Office Director
DC-
For Review & Comment
Din
Development
his Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format
. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator
Betty Arnold, Managment Analyst
Date
Name and Title of Approving Official
Date
OS WER OS WER OS WER
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE L
-------
OSWER DIR. 9630.3
OSWER DIRECTIVE INITIATION REQUEST
Summary of Directive
This guidance provides the total anticipated grant amount for state
UST program activities in FY 88, the criteria and procedures for allocation
to the Regions, and guidance to assist the Regions in reviewing grant
applications, awarding grants, and monitoring grant activities.
The FY 88 state UST grant guidance priorities are: 1) state program
development, 2) state program approval application, and 3) compliance
monitoring and enforcement.
-------
I
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
APR I 1967
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OSWER DIR. 9630.3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
SUBJECT: FY 88/State .ffgT Grant Guidance
/^ Jgfc
FROM: J. Wlnston^Porter
Assistant Administrator
Regional Administrators
Regions I - X.
This memorandum transmits the FY 88 State UST Grant Guidance
It provides the total anticipated amount available for UST state
program grant activities in FY 88, the criteria and procedures
for allocation to the Regions, and guidance to assist the Regions
in reviewing grant applications, awarding grants, and monitoring
grant activities.
The only new information in this guidance is the grant
amount and allocation scheme for FY 88. As it turns out, the
total grant amount for EPA is the same as last year (i.e., $7
million), and the allocation for each region is also the same as
last year. The remaining text consists of a reiteration of the
priorities, measures, and targets contained in the FY 88 Agency
Operating Guidance, plus a reiteration of the discussion about
grants administration that was in last year's grant guidance.
Attachment
cc: Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I-III, V-X
Water Management Division Director, Region IV
Regional UST Coordinators
OSWER Office Directors
Harvey Pippin
-------
OSWER DIR. 9630.3
FY 88 STATE UST GRANT GUIDANCE
I. PURPOSE OF GRANT GUIDANCE
This guidance provides the criteria and procedures for
allocation of grant funds- for state underground .storage tank
(UST) program activities in FY 1988. As a supplement to the
grant regulations under 40 CRF Sections 30-45, the guidance is to
be used in developing and reviewing grant applications, awarding
grants, and monitoring grant activities. Regional Offices are
responsible for negotiating grant agreements with states in a
manner to ensure relevance of national guidance to individual
state situations, progress in state program development, and
accountability for grant fund expenditures.
Additional implementation guidance may be found in "The
Interim Prohibition: Guidance for Design and Installation of
Underground Storage Tanks" (EPA, August 1985), and in the
"FY 1988 Agency Operating Guidance" (EPA, March 1987). Addi-
tional procedural guidance may be found in the "Policy on Per-
formance-Based Assistance" (EPA, May 1985).
II . PURPOSE OF STATE UST PROGRAM GRANTS
The UST grant program is for the purpose of assisting states
in developing and implementing effective state-run UST regulatory
programs for the prevention, detection, and correction of leaking
underground tanks containing petroleum and chemical substances.
It should be noted that Congress intended that federal grant
funds in the UST Program be used as "seed" money to assist states
with development of state programs. There are no plans for sub-
stantial long-term federal funding of state-run programs, and states
are expected to develop their own funding mechanisms.
In addition to state program grants, EPA is developing a
variety of implementation tools for use by States, and providing
a forum for States to share information and experience concerning
UST programs. EPA is also providing LUST Trust Fund monies to
States to assist in cleaning up leaking tanks. After the Federal
regulations become effective in June 1988, however, access to the
LUST Trust Fund will become more limited for those States that
are making little progress in developing regulatory programs for
the prevention of leaking tanks.
Ill. FY 88 NATIONAL PRIORITIES AND FUNDABLE TASKS
The following are fundable tasks for FY 88 grants, listed
in priority order. As discussed in the FY 1988 Agency Operating
-------
OSWER DIR. 9630.3
-2-
Guidance, the first three tasks are national priorities for this
year's state grants.
For each task, specific outputs for individual states must be
determined by negotiations between the state and the EPA regional
office, taking into account the nature and extent of program
needs in that state and the national priorities.
Highest Priority Tasks;
Task 1: STATE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT. Develop/revise state
authorities and requirements for state UST program in
order to meet federal standards. Investigate/develop
mechanisms to fund the state program. Develop state
authorities and procedures for an adequate compliance
monitoring and enforcement program, and for an on-going
tank notification program. (Work on developing coopera-
tive agreements for the LUST Trust Fund is a fundable
task under the State Program Grant.)
Task 2: PROGRAM APPROVAL APPLICATION. Develop draft or final
application for state program approval, and submit to
the EPA Regional Office.
Task 3: COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT. Assist EPA to
identify, investigate, and resolve violations of the
Interim Prohibition requirements and the new federal
regulations.
Other Fundable Tasks;
Task 4: VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE. Promote voluntary compliance with
federal requirements by disseminating regulatory and
technical information to local governments and the regu-
lated community.
Task 5: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING. Secure technical
assistance and training for state and local personnel
for UST program implementation.
Task 6 STATE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION. Operate and enforce an
existing state UST program. This task may be funded
only after the above (1-5) tasks have been adequately
addressed .
IV. ALLOCATION OF STATE GRANT FUNDS
We expect the total FY 88 state grant allocation to be $7
million.
As in the past two years, the grant funds will be allocated
to the regions at the rate of $125k/state. The objective for
this year is to maintain a minimum funding level for all states,
-------
OSWER DIE. 9630.3
-3-
in order to keep the momentum going in the development of state
programs. Regions have the ability to move funds among states.
However, Regions should notify OUST of States that have lost 10%
or more compared to last year's grant.
Regional Allotments for FY 88 State UST Grants
Region 1
2
" 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
$ 750k
500k
750k
1000k
750k
625k
500k
750k
875k
500k
$7,000k
V. STATE MATCH
FY 1988 State program grants will require a minimum 25% grant
match from the States. Of course, the State match can include
in-kind contributions.
VI. GRANT ADMINISTRATION
available to review
Grant Application
The state or region may initiate the grant process. A state
may submit draft grant applications to the region, or the region
can provide a draft work plan to its states for consideration.
When requested by a region, OUST staff is
draft grant applications.
Grant Negotiations
Specific activities funded under each state's grant work
program will be negotiated by the region. In accordance with the
Agency's policy on performance-based grants, each state will be
expected to make specific task commitments as part of its grant
agreement. Commitments should reflect the priorities stated in
this guidance. In addition, for each major task funded, the
grant agreement must identify the resources (dollars and FTEs)
associated with that task, together with quarterly work commitments
For the first time in FY 88, regions and states must now
negotiate numerical targets for the measures contained in EPA's
Strategic Planning and Management System. (See attachment for FY
88 SPMS measures.)
-------
-4-
OSWER DIR. 9630.3
Designated state agencies may enter into intergovernmental
agreements with substate or local government agencies to provide
funds for the performance of specified tasks (40 CFR Section 33.260)
The designated state agency retains the ultimate responsibility for
ensuring that such funds are properly expended in accordance with
federal reguirements . Substate agencies that intend to contract
out for service must comply with applicable procurement require-
ments (40 CFR Part 33).
Grant Awards
All available grant funds should be obligated to the states in
FY 88. FY 87 carryover funds will be awarded at the Regional
Administrator's discretion for high priority UST activities.
UST program grant funds may only be used for eligible activi-
ties, i.e., those which are: (1) necessary to develop and imple-
ment an approvable state UST program, and (2) allowable for fund-
ing (see OMB circular A-87 and 40 CFR 30.410).
Where states are not seeking program approval, the Regional
Administrator may use funds not awarded or committed to a state
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 I to support
Subtitle C activities, nor vice versa.
As soon as executed, a copy of each grant agreement and
application (including work program) should be sent to Ellie
McCann, State Programs Manager, OUST.
Grant Award Schedule for FY88
April - June
July
August
By Sept. 30
October
Develop draft FY 88 grant applications (Region
or State).
Region begins grant negotiations with states.
States submit final grant applications.
Region has processed grant up to point of award
Region begins to award grants.
Grant Oversight
In accordance with Agency policy, the region must conduct at
least one on-site review. Regions should plan a mid-year and/or
end-of-year review with the States, and forward to OUST a copy
of each state's performance evaluation final report. Regions
may arrange with states for more frequent reviews.
-------
OSWER DIR. 9630.3
-5-
The comprehensive program review for each state should
discuss progress toward completion of fundable tasks. Reviews
should identify:
1 . approaches that could be shared with other states;
2. areas where the region needs to assist the state;
3. suggested improvements in the federal UST program; and
4. weaknesses in the state's program.
Regions should also specify program follow-up procedures.
Copies of all State program evaluation reports and end-of-
year grant grant reports for FY 88 should be sent to Ellie McCann,
State Programs Manager, OUST, within 30 days of completion of the
report.
State Reporting Requirements
Our program goal for FY 87 was for all states to have
operational notification data management systems in place by
September 30, 1987. A State is presumed to have an operational
notification data management system if it can answer all of the
following questions based on notification data within 15 working
days of an EPA request:
1. # tank notifications received.
type, size, use, age and location of these tanks.
2. For tanks taken out of operation after 1/1/74:
type, size, age, and location of tank;
type and quantity of tank contents;
date taken out of operation.
3. For tanks brought into use after 5/8/85:
type, size, use, age and location;
# tanks in compliance with Interim Prohibition.
All states must also report the data needed for regional
reporting on the SPMS measures for the UST program. States must
also report on their progress toward numerical targets for these
measures. (See Attachement for FY 88 SPMS measures.) Since
regions must relay this data to OUST by Day 9 after the end of
the federal fiscal quarter, states must report the data to the
region by the last day of each quarter. Dates for states to
report their best available data are therefore: December 31,
March 31, June 30, and October 7. The purpose of this exercise is
to report the best available data by the specified date. Any un-
reported work from the last few days of one quarter may be reported
as part of the following quarter's work. An extra few days are
allowed at the end of the fourth quarter to capture all real-time
data for the fiscal year.
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Program: Underground Storage Tanks
OSWER DIR. 96W.3
OBJECTIVE
MEASURE
SPMS CODE FREQUENCY
Support development of, and
review and decide on, UST state
program applications, in order
to both encourage state-run
programs and ensure adequate
national consistency.
Identify, investigate and
respond to violations of the
Interim Prohibition and new
federal regulations, in order
to encourage compliance.
(Interim Prohibition ceases to
exist when federal regulations
are promulgated.)
State Program Approval (UST-1)
Report on the following by State:
States implementing a comprehensive State UST program prior
to application for program approval.
States submitting draft applications and receiving
review and comment from the Region.*
- For partial program, i.e., either petroleum or chemical
- For complete program, i.e., both petroleum and chemical
Enforcement of Interim Prohibition & New Regulations (UST-2)
Report on the following by State and Region separately:
Number of facilities inspected.* (Target combines regional
and state inspections, but information is reported separately
for regions and states.)
Number of facilities with violations identified.
Number of facilities against which an enforcement action
has been filed.
Number of facilities that brought tanks into compliance,
or fixed or properly Installed tanks, as a result of formal
enforcement actions or other actions.
* This measure requires regional targets.
UST-1(a)
UST-1(b)
UST-2(a)
UST-2(b)
UST-2(c)
UST-2(d)
Q 1/2,3,4
By Region
Q 3,4
By Region
Q 1,2,3,4
By Region
Q 1,2,3,4
By Region
Q 1,2,3,4
By Region
Q 1,2,3,4
By Region
OSWER-15
-------
OSWER DIE. 9630.3
UST PROGRAM DEFINITIONS
UST-1: STATE PROGRAM APPROVAL
(a) States implementing a comprehensive state UST program prior to application for program approval: means
that the state now has a comprehensive state program that includes leak detection and corrective action
(clean-up) programs. This means that, in the judgment of the Region, the State's UST program is 'of suffi-
cient quality and scope to be likely to receive eventual approval from EPA. OUST will be discussing this
definition in more detail with the Regional UST Coordinators in order to make this evaluation consistent.
(b) States submitting draft applications and receiving review and comment from the Region; means that a state
has submitted a draft application for program approval and that EPA has given the State at least written
comment on the draft application. Information reported should indicate whether the draft application is
for a partial program (either petroleum or chemical tanks) or a complete program (both petroleum and
chemical tanks).
UST-2: ENFORCEMENT OF INTERIM PROHIBITION & NEW REGULATIONS
(a) Number of facilities inspected: means inspection of an UST facility with any tanks subject to UST require-
ment to determine whether the tanks and underground piping meet all relevant state or federal requirements.
An example of a facility is a gasoline service station, which is counted as one facility regardless of the
number of tanks involved. Inspections to be counted include EPA conducted inspections, contractor inspection
under EPA direction, or state inspections, and all those conducted under federal interim prohibition, new
federal regulations, or existing state regulations. (Show numbers separately for inspections by the State
or by EPA/EPA contractors.) (Quarters 2, 3 and 4 are reported cumulatively.)
(b) Number of facilities with violations identified: means that the region or state has determined that there
has been a violation of federal interim prohibition, new federal regulations, or existing state UST regu-
lation. "State UST regulations" does not include fire codes, but instead refers to state UST regulations
as defined in Ha). (Show numbers separately for violators identified by state or regional staff.)
(Quarters 2, 3, & 4 are reported cumulatively.)
OSWER-16
-------
OSWER DIR. 9630.3
UST PROGRAM DEFINITIONS
(c) Number of facilities against which an enforcement action has been filed: means that EPA or the state has
taken formal enforcement action(s) in response to all non-paperwork violations of requirements under the
undeground storage tank program. Formal enforcement actions encompass filed actions under RCRA §9006,
including administrative complaints, initial administrative orders, final administrative orders (consent
or contested) and filed civil judicial actions, and filed judicial actions pursuant to RCRA §7002, and
state equivalents. (Show numbers separately for enforcement actions by state or EPA.) (Quarters 2, 3,
and 4 are reported cumulatively.)
(d) Number of facilities that brought tanks into compliance, or fixed or properly installed tanks, as a result
of formal enforcement actions or other actions: means the number of UST facilities with tanks in violation
of applicable federal or state requirements or with damaged or leaking tanks that, as a result of formal
enforcement actions or other actions by EPA or the state, have been brought into compliance or been otherwise
fixed. For example, this includes any of the following actions: tanks have been removed from the ground or
emptied and cleaned according to acceptable practices; tanks have been retrofitted or replaced in conformance
with federal or state standards; or the tank(s) in violation was removed or not installed. Since this is
intended as a measure of direct environmental results, it does not include facilities that only corrected
paperwork violations, such as violations of recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Correcting violations
of facility management requirements is important to our prevention program, but they are not included in
this measure of environmental results. Formal enforcement actions are defined under 2(c) above. Examples
of "other actions" include documented communications and Trust Fund Corrective Action Orders. Written
documentation of actions taken and the result should be maintained by the initiating federal or state
agency. (Show numbers separately for results from actions by the state or EPA.) (Quarters 2, 3, and 4
are reported cumulatively.)
OSWER-17
------- |