United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
&EPA
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9630.7
TITLE: FY-92 STATE UST PROGRAM GRANT GUIDANCE
APPROVAL DATE: MAY 2 9 !99i
EFFECTIVE DATE: MAY 2 9 !99i
ORIGINATING OFFICE: Office of Underground
Storage Tanks (OUST)
0 FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER OSWER OSWER
fE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
OHice of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9630.7
TITLE: FY-92 STATE UST PROGRAM GRANT GUIDANCE
APPROVAL DATE:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
MAY 2 9 199!
MAY 2 9 !9?l
ORIGINATING OFFICE: office of Underground
Storage Tanks (OUST)
0 FINAL 6
D DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER OS WE Ft OSWER
'E DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
CLPP/V Washington, DC 20460
ocrM QSWER Directive Initiation Request 9
2. Originator Information
Name of Contact Person
Louis M. Williams
Mail Code Office
OS-420(WF) 03
Telei
ffiR/OUST 30!
rective Number
530.7
shone Code
B-8886
3. Title
FY-92 State Program Grant Guidance
4. Summary of Directive (include brief statement of purpose)
Provides the criteria and procedures for allocation of grant funds
for State underground storage tank (UST) program activities in FY-92.
5. Keywords
Underground Storage Tanks, Grants
6a. Does This Directive Supersede Previous Directive(s)?
No
b. Does It Supplement Previous Directive(s
7. Draft Level
A - Signed by AA/DAA X
)'!
_X_NO
8 - Signed by Office Director
Y Yes What directive (num
Directive 9 SI
David Ziegele, Acting Director, OUST/^->e<\[, < (\A^— 4/->_^
Date 1 1
Date ,
*) ^
-------
i
u:
O
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAY 2 9 !S9i
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9630.7
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: FY 199/5N\UST, Grant2-Guidance
FROM:
TO:
David XaegeAe, Acting Director
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
Regional Program Managers
Attached is the final UST FY 1992 Grant Guidance, per our
agreement in San Diego in February. This guidance is nearly
identical to last year. The few comments received on the draft
guidance provided to you last month raised some concerns about
the leak detection enforcement and compliance reporting form
attached to the guidance. Although we're still working on this
form, we have decided to attach the latest draft for your
information; we will finalize the form and instructions later
after further discussion with you.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
April 1, 1991 OSWER DIRECTIVE 9630.7
FY 1992 STATE UST PROGRAM 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 92. As a supplement to the grant
regulations under 40 CFR Sections 31 and 35, this 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
accordance with national guidance adapted to individual State
situations in order to stimulate and assist State program
development and implementation, monitor progress, and evaluate
grant fund expenditures.
Additional implementation guidance may be found in the "FY
1992 Agency Operating Guidance" (EPA, March 1991), in the OSWER
Directive 9610.5 -"FY 1989 - FY 1990 Transition Strategy for the
UST Program," OSWER Directive 9610.5-1 "Transition Tasks List,"
and the "Policy on Performance-Based Assistance" (EPA 1985).
II. PURPOSE OF STATE UST PROGRAM GRANTS
The purpose of the UST grant program is to assist States in
developing and implementing effective State-run UST regulatory
programs for the prevention, detection, and correction of leaking
underground storage tanks containing petroleum and hazardous
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 the development of State programs. Many States have already
developed or are developing mechanisms; i.e., tank fees, gas
taxes, etc., to provide a consistent State funding base for their
prevention programs.
In addition to State program grants, EPA is developing a
variety of implementation tools for use by States, and is
providing a forum for States to share information and experience
concerning UST programs. EPA is also providing Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) Trust Fund monies to States to
assist in cleaning up leaking tanks. Under the LUST Trust Fund
Cooperative Agreement Guidelines States are expected to make
reasonable progress during FY 91 toward submitting a completed
application to EPA for approval of their UST prevention,
corrective action, and financial responsibility programs under
Section 9004 of RCRA. A State's success in making reasonable
progress toward submitting a complete application may be grounds
for increasing State access to the Trust Fund in FY 92.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9630.7
The only solution to the problem of leaking tanks is for States
to implement prevention programs which, over time, will result in
a drastic reduction in the number of leaking tanks.
The emphasis of EPA's program implementation is on the long
term, and the transition period will be characterized by the
continuing growth of a national UST program realized through the
building of State and local programs. It is EPA's objective to
focus Federal resources and efforts on improving existing
programs and facilitating the development of new State programs.
In FY 92 additional phased-in requirements will take effect. EPA
will work in tandem with States to improve performance and to
promote Total Quality Management in specific program areas such
as enforcement, inspections, site assessments, and corrective
actions.
III. FY 92 NATIONAL PRIORITIES AND FUNDABLE TASKS
NATIONAL PRIORITIES:
The highest priority goals for the coming year are to (1)
Develop approve State UST regulatory programs; (2) focus
compliance and enforcement on leak detection requirements and (3)
improve the quality of corrective actions. We recognize that
accomplishment of the corrective action quality improvement goal
will be primarily addressed under the LUST Trust Fund cooperative
agreements. Therefore, although it is an eligible activity under
the UST grant, it is not addressed specifically (or as a
priority) in this UST guidance document.
The following are the fundable priority tasks for FY 92 UST
grants. The priority tasks have not been changed from FY 91 UST
Program Grant Guidance except that we have clarified our priority
for-leak detection compliance campaign activities. EPA
recognizes that completion of these tasks is a process requiring
a multi-year effort. For each task, specific outputs for
individual States will be determined by negotiations between the
States and the EPA Regional Office, taking into account the
nature and extent of program needs in that State and the national
priorities. (Also the activities listed after each of the
priority UST grant tasks are for illustration only, they are not
required to be met in order to accomplish the priority task.
Required activities are those actually negotiated between the
Region and State.)
States do not have to conduct activities in all four
fundable task categories although that approach is encouraged.
On the other hand, a State should not exclusively be doing
activities under, for example, Task 3 and 4, if it has not
previously conducted activities under Tasks 1 or 2. It is
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9630.7
anticipated that much of the work under Task 1, State program
development, will have been completed during FY 91 and the focus
of activities during FY 92 will be on the remaining three tasks.
Furthermore, EPA expects
that each State will engage in some compliance and enforcement
activities, particularly those that are part of the Leak
Detection Enforcement Campaign. Regions may choose to focus on
Region-specific environmental priorities as well. For example,
the Administrator's call for Federal Facility environmental
compliance for sites within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed could be
a priority in Region III.
Priority Tasks
Task 1: STATE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT.
o Develop/revise State authorities and regulations
for the State UST program in order to meet Federal
standards.
o Investigate/develop mechanisms to fund the State
program
o Apply for a State UST program grant for FY 93
o Develop State authorities and procedures for an
adequate compliance monitoring and enforcement
program.
o Maintain an on-going tank notification program and
capability to report aggregate data derived from
the notification requirements to EPA on an annual
basis.
o Secure technical assistance and training for State
and local personnel for UST program
implementation.
- o Investigate/initiate development of a State- fund
to help owners/operators meet financial
responsibility requirements.
Task 2: PROGRAM APPROVAL APPLICATION
o Develop draft and/or final application for State
program approval, and submit to the EPA Regional
Office.
Task 3: OUTREACH EFFORTS TO PROMOTE COMPLIANCE
o Promote compliance with Federal and State
requirements through outreach efforts designed to
disseminate regulatory and technical information
to local governments and the regulated community.
o Suggested priority areas include information on
standards for leak detection.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9630.7
Task 4: COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
o Identify, investigate and resolve violations of
the Federal regulations.
o Operate and enforce existing State UST programs
o Suggested priority area is leak detection (such as
Leak Detection Enforcement Campaign activities.)
o Conduct transition tasks as specified in OSWER
Directive 9610.5-1.
IV. ALLOCATION OF STATE GRANT FUNDS
We expect the total FY 92 State grant allocation to be $9
million. (This figure is based on the President's budget
currently being considered by Congress.)
The grant funds will be allocated to the Regions at the rate
of $162.5 thousand per State (plus Puerto Rico and the District
of Columbia) and $137.5 thousand for the remaining territories.
Regions have the ability to move funds among their States and
territories.
Regional Allotments for FY 92 State UST Program Grants
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Reaion
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
$ 975K
625K
975K
1300K
975K
812. 5K
650K
975K
1062. 5K
650K
$9000K
V.
STATE MATCH
FY 1991 State UST program grants will require a minimum of
25% grant match from the States. Of course, the State match can
include in-kind contributions. States are encouraged to provide
information on the size of their commitment of total resources to
the program, even when this exceeds 25%.
VI.
GRANT ADMINISTRATION
Grant application
The State or Region may initiate the grant process. A State
may submit a draft grant application to the Region, or the Region
may provide a draft work plan to its States for consideration.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9630.7
Grant Negotiations
Specific activities funded under each State's grant work
plan will be determined through negotiations with 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. Regions should negotiate with States
to provide the information needed for all required reporting,
with particular attention to: (1) UST Closures - UST-4A1 & 4A2;
(2) Emergency Responses - UST 4C1 & 4C2; (3) Site Investigations
- UST-4D2 & 4D3, (4) removal of the Transition Requirements - UST
-3, (5) an annual report of aggregate tank data derived from
the State notification data base and (6) State release detection
compliance activities. (See attachments)
Designated State agencies may enter into intergovernmental
agreements with substate or local government agencies and thereby
provide funds for the performance of specified tasks (40 CFR
Section 31.36). The designated State agency retains the ultimate
responsibility for ensuring that such funds are properly expended
in accordance with Federal requirements. Substate agencies that
intend to contract out for services must comply with applicable
procurement requirements (40 CFR Part 31).
Grant Awards
All available grant funds should be obligated to the States
in FY 92. States should make every effort to use grant monies
during the allotted period. Otherwise, FY 91 carryover may be
awarded at the Regional Administrators' discretion to other high
priority UST activities.
UST program grant funds may only be used for eligible
activities, i.e., those which are: (1) necessary to develop and
implement an approvable State UST program, and (2) allowable for
funding (see OMB circular A-87 and CFR 31.22).
When a State does not seek program approval, the Regional
Administrator may use funds not awarded or committed to that
State to supplement awards to other States or to support a
Federal program conducted in the absence of an acceptable State
program. Funds may not be diverted from Subtitle I or D to
support Subtitle C activities, nor visa versa.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9630.7
Suggested Grant Award Schedule for FY 92 (May vary by Region)
April-June Develop draft FY 92 grant applications (Regions and
States)
July Regions begin grant negotiations with States
August States submit final grant applications
By Sept. 30 Regions have processed grant up to point of award
October Regions begin 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 each State, and forward to OUST/HQ a copy
of each State's performance evaluation final report. Regions may
arrange with States for more frequent reviews.
The comprehensive program review for each State should
discuss progress toward completion of funded tasks. Reviews
should identify:
1. areas of success including approaches that could be
shared with other States;
2. areas for improvement in the UST program;
3. areas where EPA assistance could be helpful, including
a plan for action;
4. areas where EPA or other Federal agencies are the cause
of the problems which should be addressed by EPA.
Copies of all State program evaluation reports and end-of-
year grant reports for FY 91 should be sent to Mike Williams
Chief, Implementation Branch, OUST, within 30 days of completion
of the report.
State Reporting Requirements
All States should report in a timely and accurate fashion
the data needed for the quarterly activities report and the STARS
report for the EPA UST program. Regions will need to relay this
data to OUST/HQ within 10 working days of the end of each fiscal
quarter (QI, January 12; QII, April 13; QIII, July 13; QIV
October 12). Regions and States may develop reporting schedules
that allow them to meet these deadlines. Regions shall request
that States report annually on aggregate data from their
notification data systems.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
FY 92 QUARTERLY ACTIVITIES REPORT
State
Region
Quarter
OUST
G-l
G-2
G-4
TF-1
TF-2
TF-3
TF-3
TF-3
TF-4
TF-4
TF-4
STARS
UST-
1A
UST-
1B
UST-
2A1
UST-
2A2 .
UST-
2A3
UST-
2B 1
UST-
2B2
UST-
2B3
States submitting complete
applications for State program
approval.
Number of States with
authorized programs.
Number of closed tanks
Number of reported
confirmed releases.
Number of emergency
responses taken .
LUST cleanups initiated:
petroleum, (Responsible
party lead).
LUST cleanups initiated:
petroleum, (State lead with
TF money).
LUST cleanups initiated:
petroleum, (State lead with
State money).
Tank releases under control:
petroleum, (Responsible
party lead).
Tank releases under control:
petroleum, (State lead with
TF money).
Tank releases under control:
petroleum, (State lead with
State money).
Cumulative
last quarter
Actions this
quarter
Corrections to
previous data
Cumulative
total
Page 1
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
FY 92 QUARTERLY ACTIVITIES REPORT
State
Region
Quarter
TF-5
TF-5
— *F-5
TF-6
UST-
2C1
UST-
2C2
UST-
2C3
Site cleanups completed:
petroleum, (Responsible
party lead).
Site cleanups completed:
petroleum, (State lead
with TF money).
Site cleanups completed:
petroleum, (State lead
with State money).
Sites with enforcement
actions
Cumulative
last quarter
Actions this
quarter
Corrections to
previous data
Cumulative
total
Page 2
-------
Kxc
n Site Keport
Please list cumulative activity and corrections to
previous quarters' information for any site where
more than $100,000 of LUST Trust Fund.money is
planned to be spent.
State:
Region:
Quarter:
When was expend!- Amount Amount Amount Judgments/ Costs
Site Name or Description ture planned? Planned Obligated Outlayed Settlements Recovered
For nil Trust Fund sites, give total dollar
amount of all judgments and settlements.
For all Trust Fund sites, give total costs
recovered from all judgments and settlements.
Plcnsc give any information about sites where
permanent alternative water supplies were
provided or citizens were relocated.
Site Name or Description
Permanent alternative water supply?
Supply any additonal information.
Were citizens relocated?
Supply any additonal information.
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
LEAK DETECTION COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTING
FY1992
STATE
REGION
LD-1 How many facilities received
information on how to comply with
the federal leak detection
requirements via outreach and
information dissemination?
LD-2A How many USTs were required to
submit verification of leak detection
compliance (e.g., self certification
on permit applications or
submission of evidence of
compliance such as tank/piping test
results, or other similar methods.)?
LD-2B How many tanks required to submit
verification were in compliance with
the leak detection requirements?
LD-3A How many new or existing tanks
required to comply with State and
federal leak detection requirements
did the State inspect?
LD-3B How many were in compliance with
federal and State requirements?
LD-4 How many facilities received
informal enforcement actions (e.g.,
warning letters, show cause
meetings, etc.)?
LD-5 How many facilities received formal
enforcement documents such as
complaints, civil referrals, or field
citations with penalties?
Cumulative
Last Quarter.
. Actions
this Quarter.
Corrections to
last Quarter.
Cumulative
this Quarter.
------- |