5t»tt»
0«-et
-------
vv EPA
SIMM
Environment!) Protection
Agency
Self W«t» ind
Emergency Retponte
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9610.14
TITLE: Guidance for Federal Field
Citation Enforcement
APPROVAL DATE: April 9, 1992
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 1992
ORIGINATING OFFICE: office of Underground
Storage Tanks (OUST)
E FINAL
O DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER Directive 9610.11 "UST/LUST Enforcement
Procedures Guidance Manual"
OSWER Directive 9610.12 "U.S. EPA Penalty Guidance
for Violations of UST Regulations"
OSWER OSWER OSWER
" DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Di
-------
QSWER Directive Initiation Request
IpHdMtofl
9610.14
Guidance for Federal Field Citation Enforcement
\. iummwy el 6»ective (include bntf iwement ol purpo**)
Provides guidance to U.S. EPA Regional Offices on setting up and implementing
a federal field citation program. Field citations represent a new enforcement tool
to be used in certain situations where owners/operators of underground storage tanks
violate UST regulations.
J.
tanks, enforcement citation, penalty, settlement offer
»reviou»DirectJveU)» I I F==!
b. DOM 1n$ Olr
I NO
X Ym Wh«t
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
-» (992 OSWER Directive 9610.14
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: UST Federal Field^Citation Enforcement
FROM: David W.
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
One year ago, on March 20, 1991, OUST issued the UST federal
field citation guidance to the Regions. Today we issue the
revised field citation guidance. During the past year we have
been able to incorporate into this document the wisdom gained
from actual field experience of issuing field citations in
Regions VI, VIII, and X. In addition our office has received
valuable input from the Regional UST attorneys, the Office of
Enforcement, and the Office of General Counsel. Drafts of this
revised guidance have undergone close scrutiny by the Regions
throughout the year.
Attached is the revised UST federal field citation guidance.
It includes short-form wordings of those violations for which
field citations may be used, along with the suggested penalty
amount for each violation. Regions are reminded that violations
not a part of this list should not be cited with field citations.
Also included with the guidance is a sample citation form.
Regions must use this approved citation form or obtain approval
for any Region-specific form from OUST, in writing.
This revised UST federal field citation guidance has
received formal concurrence from the Office of Enforcement and
the Office of General Counsel. Special thanks to these attorneys
as well as to all other persons who participated in the extended
process of improving this guidance. Please contact Jerry Parker
of my staff (FTS 703 308-8884) with any questions or comments.
Attachment
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
cc: Regional Branch Chiefs
Regional Program Managers
Regional UST Attorneys
Kathie A. Stein, OE
Mimi Newton, OE
Lisa K. Friedman, OGC
Charles Openchowski, OGC
OUST Management Team (w/o attachment)
OUST Desk Officers (w/o attachment)
-------
OSWER Directive 9610.14
GUIDANCE FOR
FEDERAL FIELD CITATION
ENFORCEMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
April 1992
-------
OSWER Directive 9610.14
GUIDANCE FOR FEDERAL FIELD CITATION ENFORCEMENT
I. Federal Enforcement
Overview
The Office of Underground Storage Tanks' (OUST) program approach is to build
UST programs at the State level since States will be primarily responsible for the
enforcement of UST regulations. Regions perform general compliance inspections at
UST sites or take enforcement actions, 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 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 greater commitment of staff time and resources, which may be
difficult to obtain or which must compete with time and resources that staff directs
toward releases or violations that are not appropriately addressed by the field citation
program. When a citation program is properly designed, violators issued citations for
clear-cut violations have greater incentive to correct problems and pay penalties than to
contest. Thus, in appropriate circumstances, field citation enforcement is less resource-
intensive than traditional methods of UST enforcement. Resources are saved as citations
are issued on the spot, and preparation of formal legal documents and procedures, such
as administrative appeals, are minimized.
Use of field citations will not displace existing enforcement tools, such as warnings
and orders, but will provide the inspector with an alternative enforcement tool. 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 program are identical from Region to Region,
-------
OSWER Directive 9610.14
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. 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, within the parameters of this guidance, 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 and the Office
of Enforcement to develop a model citation format.
• OUST has developed this guidance, including a list of potential violations
derived from the Federal UST regulations, to be addressed through the
field citation program.
• 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 to train Federal inspectors in
issuing citations and performing related duties. OUST will help to tailor
the manual to the specific needs of Regional programs, and will coordinate
multi-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 Directive 9610.14
II. Regional Program Elements
Guidance for Regions is presented in the following sections. The guidance should
be considered in the context of the Region's overall enforcement strategy and priorities.
Selecting Appropriate Violations
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 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 (see
attached). Regions may not expand the list of violations that can be cited in a field
citation. Consistency among Regions will be further assured by training.
The following generally are appropriate criteria for selecting the violations to be
cited:
• Select violations which are clear-cut and easily verifiable.
• Select violations which are easily correctable.
• Do not select those violations which occur in environmentally sensitive
areas, for example, at USTs above drinking water sources.
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 facilitate consistency among inspectors. On the other hand,
the Regions may believe that certain violations, while clear-cut, are very serious in terms
of environmental harm threatened and require a more formal enforcement response.
The list of violations appropriate for the field citation program, which accompanies this
guidance, relieves the Regions of some of the burden of making these decisions.
However, it is the responsibility of each Region to designate which of these violations will
-------
OSWER Directive 9610.14
be appropriate candidates for its field citation program given specific Regional needs and
resources.
In selecting a preferred approach, a Region may choose to target a certain
prevalent or high priority 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 the above-referenced criteria.
Guidance for When to Use Citations
This guidance establishes procedures for issuing citations, and describes some
appropriate circumstances for inspectors to issue citations. Since the inspector is the one
who must implement the program in the field, the Regions must clearly establish the
extent of discretion allowed to inspectors in determining whether to issue field citations
within general parameters set forth here. Field citations provide an additional
enforcement tool, and inspectors must be instructed in 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 LIST requirements. Although the primary objective of any
enforcement program is to achieve compliance, formal enforcement mechanisms, such as
those found in 40 CFR Part 22, normally will be more appropriate in particular
circumstances. These circumstances include, among others, instances involving repeat
violations, facilities located in environmentally sensitive areas or where payment of a
more significant penalty may be more effective in achieving EPA's enforcement goals. In
the case of environmentally sensitive areas, for example, a Region should not use its field
citation program for violations at facilities which may pose a serious environmental
hazard because they are in an environmentally sensitive area. These areas may include
sites above drinking water sources. Inspectors should try to determine before they arrive
at a particular facility whether they are dealing with an environmentally sensitive location,
and, therefore, whether a field citation should be used if certain violations which may
pose a serious environmental threat are discovered. One way of doing this is to work
closely with the State within which the violation exists, as it may have substantial
knowledge and experience in delineating areas that are environmentally sensitive.
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.
-------
OSWER Directive 9610.14
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, when a Region is inspecting
a facility, inspectors should consider issuing a field citation rather than a
warning for a violation or violations which the Region has determined may
be an appropriate candidate for its field citation program.
Citations
There are several situations in which inspectors will typically issue citations:
• Inspectors may issue citations for as many violations as are identified at a
site; 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 should generally 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 may
routinely issue field citations for all appropriate violations found at a facility. Each
Region will have the discretion to place an upper limit on the number of violations that
may be cited at one site. The threshold should be set below the point beyond which the
number of violations, regardless of the nature of those violations, 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
enforcement response is likely to be more effective than use of field citations. As a
genera] matter, a suggested threshold is between three and ten violations.
• During joint inspections, Regional inspectors should usually not cite for
violations that are cited by the State inspector where State sanctions are at
least equivalent.
-------
OSWER Directive 9610.14
As States are the primary enforcers in the program, Regions usually will take
enforcement actions only in the circumstances noted in the first paragraph of this
guidance document. Therefore, it is likely that during joint inspections Regional
inspectors will defer to the State program's regulations or authorities and not cite for
violations that State inspectors cite. Generally, this will be the case where State 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.
Field citations are generally most appropriate for addressing first-time violators; if
the same violations are found again during a second inspection, Pan 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-efficient compliance, rather than to penalize owners and operators for
regulatory violations. When conducting inspections, it is critical that the inspector fully
conduct the inspection and thoroughly complete the inspection report. If a field citation
is not issued because the violations are above the thresholds for field citations, or the
field citation settlement form is not returned, the Agency may choose to pursue standard
enforcement based on the inspection report. Therefore, while field citations may
expedite the correction and penalty phases of enforcement, the quality and effort applied
to the underlying inspection should not be abbreviated.
Standard Enforcement
If an inspector discovers not only violations that are appropriate for the field
citation program, but other violations as well, the inspector should address all of the
violations at the site using more formal, existing enforcement methods. As used in this
guidance, more formal enforcement typically refers to the procedures for issuing
administrative complaints/compliance orders (including those assessing civil penalties) and
conducting the administrative enforcement process governed by 40 CFR Part 22, the
Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the Administrative Assessment of Civil
Penalties and the Revocation or Suspension of Permits ("Part 22" or "CROP"). CROP
outlines the major steps in the administrative adjudication process and presents the
various authorities and duties of Agency officials in the process. More formal
-------
8 OSWER Directive 9610.14
enforcement methods may also include issuance of corrective action orders pursuant to
40 CFR Part 24 or judicial enforcement of the UST requirements.
In selecting those violations which are appropriate for field citations, the Regions
will, in effect, also be identifying violations which, because of their potential for
environmental harm or other characteristics (i.e., not clear-cut), should be addressed
using the more formal, existing enforcement mechanisms. The more formal enforcement
methods may also be the appropriate response in some circumstances where field
citations would otherwise be appropriate (for example, if the total number of individual
violations which are appropriate for a field citation surpasses the threshold for multiple
violations or are repeated). Another case where a clear-cut violation might be addressed
by more formal enforcement is the case of a clear-cut but not easily correctable violation
(e.g., a tank was not purged before being removed). In these cases, a field citation may
not serve the goal of encouraging compliance and might appear to treat the violator
mildly compared to penalties applicable under the penalty policy. In general, the
Regions will need to assess how to maximize resources while bringing as many facilities
into compliance as possible.
The following criteria should be considered by inspectors when issuing citations in
the field:
• Field citations generally are inappropriate in environmentally sensitive
areas, for example, at USTs above drinking water sources.
• Field citations generally are inappropriate for anyone other than first time
violators.
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.
Guidance for Penalty Amounts
In order to ensure that penalties assessed by different Regions for the same
violations are consistent, standard suggested penalty amounts have been set by this
guidance. Consistency among Regions is important to achieve fairness in the treatment
of the regulated community in Regional penalty assessments. In the case of multiple
violations, penalties should be totaled. In general, field citation programs set penalty
amounts according to the severity of each violation or category of violations. Penalties
should be assessed per facility rather than per tank.
-------
OSWER Directive 9610.14
The size of the penalties attached to violations is important to the success of a
field citation program. Penalties that are relatively high (e.g., greater than $500 per
violation) may discourage owners and operators from agreeing to settle. On the other
hand, penalties need to be high enough to catch the attention of owners and operators.
In general, the field citation program should operate optimally when the penalties are
geared primarily to achieving compliance rather than to penalizing violators.
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.
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
OUST in writing, after first having obtained approval of Regional Counsel. OUST will
obtain concurrence for any proposed change from both the Office of General Counsel
and the Office of Enforcement before authorizing such change. This approach will
ensure that the field citations used are legally supportable and designed to accommodate
the program elements described in this guidance. In addition, use of a standard citation
form will guarantee some uniformity across Regions in the issuance of field citations.
The field citation developed by OUST is entitled "Expedited Enforcement
Compliance Order and Settlement Agreement". The field citation represents the
issuance of an order pursuant to RCRA §9006 to address violations listed in RCRA
§9006(d), coupled with a short-form settlement agreement. Each Region, as it
determines is appropriate, must delegate to individual inspectors the authority necessary
to issue the citation form. The violator is ordered to correct the violation and given an
opportunity to resolve the enforcement action 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 formal administrative or judicial proceedings were initiated. The
lower penalty assessment reflects the time and expense saved by the Agency over that
normally incurred in pursuing more formal enforcement methods; it also compromises
the size of the fine EPA could potentially collect. If the violator does not accept the
settlement agreement within the time provided in the field citation, the compliance order
is automatically withdrawn. The Agency's policy is then to pursue other enforcement
actions for the violations cited. The violator has only two options: accept the field
-------
10 OSWER Directive 9610.14
citation or risk more formal enforcement proceedings. If a violator refuses to accept the
terms of the field citation or if it is determined that a violator has not fully complied with
the terms of a signed settlement agreement, follow-up enforcement should be initiated by
EPA. Such follow-up enforcement should be more stringent than the field citation
settlement terms in order to achieve compliance and ensure the integrity of the field
citation program.
Hearing Requirements
Subtitle I of RCRA provides for an opportunity for a hearing where an order is
issued - the hearing process is outlined in Part 22. As described in the foregoing section,
the field citation has been designed as a compliance order and short-form settlement
agreement.
The field citation compliance order is not an adjudicatory proceeding under 40
CFR Part 22. The violator has no right to a hearing under Part 22, since those
procedures have not been invoked through issuance of a field citation. Violators who
accept the terms of the settlement offer will have expressly waived their rights to a public
hearing under § 9006 of RCRA. If the violator does not accept the settlement offer, the
compliance order is withdrawn.
A Region initiating administrative actions against a violator should follow the Part
22 procedures if a violator forgoes the settlement offered through the field citation
process. The Federal procedures guidance (OSWER Directive 9610.11 "UST/LUST
Enforcement Procedures Guidance Manual") describes appropriate procedures in detail.
Judicial enforcement may also be appropriate in certain instances, in which case the
Region should follow appropriate referral procedures for judicial actions.
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 or guidance.
-------
Regulatory
Citation
OSWER Directive £
SELECTED VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS
Violations
Appropriate for
Field Citations
Violation (Penalty Amount)
SUBPART B
§280.20(a)(1)
§280.20(a) (2)
§280.20(a) (2) (i)
§280.20(a)(2)(ii)
§280.20(8) (2)(iii)
§280.20(8) (2)(lv)
$280.20(8) (3)
§280.20(b)(1)
$280.20(b)(2)
§280.20(b)(2)(I)
§280.20(b)(2)(ll)
5280.20(b)(2)(iii)
§280.20(b)(2)(lv)
§280.20(c)
§2B0.20(e)(1)(l)
$280.20(c)(1)(ll)
§280.20(d)
$280.20(d)
§280.20(6)
UST SYSTEMS: DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, AND NOTIFICATION
$280.20 Performance atandarda for new UST systems
Installation of an Improperly constructed fiberglass-reinforced plastic tank
Installation of an Improperly designed and constructed metal tank that falls to meet corrosion protection standards
Installation of a metal tank with unsuitable dielectric coating
Installation of an improperly designed cathodic protection system for a metal tank
Improper Installation of cathodic protection system for a metal tank
Improper operation and maintenance of tank cathodic protection system
Installation of an Improperly constructed stsel-flberglass-relnfbrced-plastlo tank
Installation of Improperly constructed fiberglass-reinforced plastic piping
Failure to provide any cathodic protection for metal piping
Installation of piping with unsuitable dielectric coating
Installation of improperly designed cathodic protection for metal piping
Improper Installation of cathodic protection system for piping
Improper operation and maintenance of cathodic protection system for metal piping
Failure to use a spill prevention eyatem and an overfill prevention system
Installation of Inadequate spill prevention equipment In a new tank
Installation of Inadequate overfill prevention equipment In a new tank
Failure to Install tank In accordance with accepted codes and standards
Failure to Install piping In accordance with accepted codes and standards
Failure to provide any certification of UST Installation
$300
$150
SI 50
SI 50
SI 50
SI 50
-------
OSWER Directive 9610.14
SELECTED VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS (continued)
Regulatory
Citation
Violation
Violations
Appropriate for
Field Citations
(Penalty Amount)
$300
SUBPART B - UST SYSTEMS: DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, AND NOTIFICATION (continued)
280.21 Upgrading of existing UST systems
§280.21 (b) Failure to meet all tank upgrade standards
$280.21 (b)(l)(i) Improper Installation of Interior lining (or tank upgrade requirements
$280.21 (b)(1)(ll) Failure to meet Interior lining Inspection requirements for tank upgrade
$280.21 (b)(2)(i) Failure to ensure that tank Is structurally sound before Installing cathodlc protection
$280.21 (b)(2)(ii) Failure to provide any monthly monitoring of cathodic protection for tank upgrade requirement
$280.21 (b)(2)(ii) Failure to provide continuous monthly monitoring of cathodic protection for tank upgrade requirement
$280.21 (b)(2)(ill) Failure to meet tightness test requirements for a tank upgraded with cathodic protection
$280.21 (b)(2)(lv) Failure to meet requirements for testing lor corrosion holes for a tank upgraded with cathodic protection
$280.21 (e) Failure to Install any cathodic protection for metal piping upgrede requirements
$280.21 (c) Failure to meet tightness test requirements for cathodlcalry protected metal piping
$280.21 (d) Failure to provide spill or overfill prevention system for an existing lank
$300
$280.22(8)
or
$280.22(0)
$280.22(0)
280.22 Notification requirements
Failure to notify state or local agency within 30 days of bringing an UST system Into use
Failure to notify designated etate or local agency of existing tank
Failure to submit a separate notification form Identifying all known tanks for each site where tanks are located
$300
$300
$150
-------
OSWER Directive 9
SELECTED VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS (continued)
Violations
Appropriate for
Regulatory Field Citations
Citation Violation (Penalty Amount)
SUBPART B - UST SYSTEMS: DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, AND NOTIFICATION (continued)
§280.22(e) Failure to certify on notification form UST system requirements of proper Installation, cathodlc protection, $190
financial responsibility, and release detection
§280.22(t) Failure to provide Installer certification of compliance with Installation requirements on notification form $150
§280.22(g) Failure to inform tank purchaser of notification requirements
SUBPART C - GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
280.30 Spill and overfill control
§280.30(a) Failure to take necessary precautions to prevent overfill/spillage during the transfer of product $300
§280.30(b) Failure to report a spill/overfill
§280 30(b) Failure to investigate end clean up a spill/overfill
280.31 Operation and maintenance of corrosion protection
§280.31 (a) Failure to operate and maintain corrosion protection system continuously $150
§280.31 (b) Failure to ensure proper operation of cathodlc protection system $150
§280.31 (c) Failure to Inspect Impressed current systems every 60 days $150
§280.31 (d) Failure to maintain records of cathodlc protection Inspections $50
280.32 Compatibility
§280 32 Failure to ensure that UST system Is made of or lined with materials compatible with substance stored
-------
OSWER Directive 9610.14
SELECTED VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS (continued)
Violations
Appropriate for
Regulatory Field Citations
Citation Violation (Penalty Amount)
SUBPART C - GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS (continued)
§280.33(8)
§280.33(0)
§280.33(0)
§280.33(c)
§280.33(d)
§280.33(0)
§280.33(1)
280.33 Repairs allowed
Failure to repair UST system In accordance with accepted codes and standards
Failure to repair fiberglass-reinforced UST In accordance with accepted codes and standards
Failure to replace metal piping that has released product
Failure to repair fiberglass-reinforced piping In accordance with manufacturers specifications
Failure to ensure that repaired tank systems are tightness tested within 30 days of completion of repair
Failure to test cathodlc protection system within 6 months of repair of an UST system
Failure to maintain records of each repair to an UST system
$150
$150
$150
$300
$150
$50
280.34 Reporting and recordkeeplng
(For violations of reporting and recordkeeping. see appropriate regulatory section (e.g.. reporting of releases will be under Subpart D)).
§280.34(a)(1) Failure to submit notification for UST system $300
or
§2B0.34(a)(1) Failure to submit certification of a new Installation with notification form $300
§2B0.34(b)(1) Failure to maintain analysis of site corrosion potential K corrosion protection equipment Is not used $50
§280.34(b)(2) Failure to maintain corrosion protection equipment operation documentation $50
§2B0.34(b)(3) Failure to maintain documentation of UST system repairs $50
§2B0.34(b) (4) Failure to maintain documentation of compliance with release detection requirements $50
§280.34(c)(1) Failure to maintain records at UST site and Immediately available for Inspection $50
or
§280.34(c)(2) Failure to maintain records at a readily available alternative site $50
-------
OSWER Directive 9
SELECTED VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS (continued)
Regulatory
Citation
Violations
Appropriate for
Field Citations
Violation (Penally Amount)
SUBPART D - RELEASE DETECTION
280.40 General requirements for all UST systems (Applies only to petroleum tanks)
J280.40(a) Failure to provide adequate release detection method
$2B0.40(b) Failure to notify Implementing agency when release detection Indicates release
§280 42(e)
§28042(b)
§28042(b)(1)
§28042(b)(2)
§280.42(b)(3)
§280.42(b)(4)
280.42 Requirements for hazardous substance UST systems
Failure to provide release detection for en existing hazardous substance tank system
Failure to provide adequate release detection for a new hazardous substance UST system
Failure to provide adequate secondary containment of tank for a hazardous substance UST
Failure to provide adequate double-walled tank/adequate lining for a hazardous substance UST
Failure to provide adequate external liners for a hazardous substance UST
Failure to provide adequate secondary containment of piping for a hazardous substance UST
$300
$280.40(c)
§280.40(d)
§280.41 (a)
or
§ 280.41 (a)(1)
or
§280.41 (a) (2)
§280.4t(b)(1)(l)
§280.41 (b)(1)(ll)
§280.41 (b)(2)
Failure to provide any release detection method by phase-In date
Failure to close any UST system that cannot meet release detection requirements
280.41 Requirements for petroleum UST systems
Failure to monitor tanks at least every 30 days, If appropriate
Failure to conduct tank tightness testing every 5 years, If appropriate
Failure to conduct annual tank tightness testing. If appropriate
Failure to equip pressurized piping with automatic line leak detector
Failure to have annual tank tightness test or perform monthly monitoring on pressurized piping
Failure to conduct line tightness test or use monthly monitoring on suction piping
$150
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
-------
OSWER Directive 9610.14
SELECTED VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS (continued)
Regulatory
Citation
SUBPART D
§280.43(8)
§280.43(a)(1).(6)
§2B0.43(b)
S280.43(b)(1)-(4)*
§280.43(0)
§280.43(d)
§280.43(d)(1)-(2)
§280.43(6)
§280.43(e)(1)-(7)'
§280.43(1)
§280.43(I)(1)-(8J®
§280.43(g)
§280.44
§280.44(a)
or
§280.44 (b)
§280.44(0)
Violation
- RELEASE DETECTION (continued)
280.43 Methods of release detection for tanks
Inadequate operation or maintenance of Inventory control
Inadequate operation or maintenance of manual tank gauging
Inadequate operation or maintenance of tank tightness testing
Inadequate operation or maintenance of automatic tank gauging
Inadequate operation or maintenance of vapor monitoring
Inadequate operation or maintenance of ground-water monitoring
Inadequate operation or maintenance of Interstitial monitoring
280.44 Methods of release detection for piping
Failure to provide any release detection for underground piping
Failure to provide adequate line leak detector system for underground piping
Failure to provide adequate line tightness testing system for underground piping system
Inadequate use of applicable tank release detection methods
Violations
Appropriate for
Field Citations
(Penalty Amount)
$300
$50 each
$300
$50 each
$150
$300
$150 each
$300
$150 each
$300
$150 each
$300
$300
$150
$150
$150
If citing more than 3 subsections, cite Instead §280.43(b) or §280.41 (a)
*lf citing more than 1 subsection, cite Instead §280.43(e)
®" -fling more than 1 subsection, cite Instead §280.43(1)
-------
OSWER Directive 9
SELECTED VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS (continued)
Violation*
Appropriate for
Regulatory Field Citations
Citation Violation (Penalty Amount)
SUBPART D - RELEASE DETECTION (continued)
280.45 Release detection recordkeeplng
$280.45 Failure to maintain records of release detection monitoring $150
§280.45(a) Failure to document all release detection performance claims tor 5 years after Installation $50
§280.45(b) Failure to maintain results of sampling, testing or monitoring for release detection for at least 1 year or failure to $50
retain results of tightness testing until next test Is conducted
§2B0.45(c) Failure to document calibration, maintenance, and repair of release detection $50
SUBPART E - RELEASE REPORTING, INVESTIGATION, AND CONFIRMATION
280.50 Reporting of suspected release
$280.50(a)-(c) Failure to report a suspected release within 24 hours to the Implementing agency
280.52 Release Investigation and confirmation steps
§280.52(a)-(b) Failure to Investigate and confirm a release (If appropriate) using accepted procedures
280.53 Reporting and cleanup of epllls and overfills
§280.53(a) Failure to report e spill/overfill (if appropriate) to implementing agency within 24 hours (or other specified time period)
§280.53(6) Failure to contain and immediately clean up a spill/overfill of less than 25 gallons
$280 53(b) Failure to contain and Immediately clean up a hazardous substance spill/overfill
-------
OSWER Directive 9610.14
SELECTED VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS (continued)
Regulatory
Citation
Violation
§280.70(a)
Failure to continue operation and maintenance of corroelon protection eystem In a temporarily closed tank
system
Violations
Appropriate for
Field Citations
(Penalty Amount)
SUBPART F - RELEASE RESPONSE AND CORRECTIVE ACTION
§280.61 Failure to take Initial response actions within specified time period after a release Is confirmed
§280.62 Failure to submit report on Initial abatement measures within 20 days (or other specified time) of release confirmation
§280.63 Failure to submit report on Initial site characterization within 45 days (or other specified time) of release confirmation
§280.64 Failure to submit report on free report removal within 45 days (or other specified time) of release confirmation
SUBPART G - OUT-OF-SERVICE UST SYSTEMS AND CLOSURE
280.70 Temporary closure
$150
§280.70(8)
§280.70(0)
§280.70(b)(1)-(2)
§280.70(c)
§280.71(a)
§280.71 (b)
§280.71 (b)
§280.71 (c)
Failure to continue operation and maintenance of release detection In a temporarily closed tank system
Failure to comply with temporary closure requirements for a tank eystem for 3 or more months
Failure to permanently close or upgrade a temporarily closed tank system after 12 months
280.71 Permanent closure and changes-In-service
Failure to notify Implementing agency of a closure or change-in-service
Failure to remove all liquids and sludges for tank closure
Failure to remove closed tank from the ground or fill tank with an inert solid for tank closure
Failure to empty and clean tank system and conduct a site assessment prior to a change-in-service
$300
$300
$150 each
-------
OSWER Directive 9
SELECTED VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS (continued)
Regulatory
Citation
Violation
§280.74
§280.74
280.74 Closure records
Failure to maintain closure records for at least 3 years
Failure to maintain change-In-service records for at least 3 years
Violations
Appropriate for
Field Citations
(Penalty Amount)
SUBPART G - OUT-OF-SERVICE UST SYSTEMS AND CLOSURE (continued)
280.72 Assessing the site at closure or change-In-service
§280.72(8) Failure to measure (if required) for the presence of a release before a permanent closure
§280.72(b) If contaminated soil, contaminated ground water, or free product Is discovered, failure to begin corrective action
$300
$300
SUBPART H
§280 93(a)
§28093(a)(1)-(2)
§28093(b)(1)-(2)
§280.93(f)
§280.94
§28095
§280 106(a)(1)
§280106(a) (2)
§280.106(b)
§280.107
- FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Failure to comply with financial responsibility requirements by the required phase-in time
Failure to meet the lequirement for per-occurrence coverage of insurance
Failure to meet the requirement for annual aggregate coverage of Insurance
Failure to review and adjust financial assurance after acquiring new or additional UST8
Use of an unapproved mechanism or combination of mechanisms to demonstrate financial responsibility
Use of falsified financial documents to pass financial test of self-Insurance
Failure to report evidence of financial responsibility to the Implementing agency within 30 days of detecting a known or
suspected release
Failure to report evidence of financial responsibility to the implementing agency when new tanks are installed
Failure to report evidence of financial responsibility to the implementing agency if the provider becomes incapable of
providing financial assurance and the owner or operator is unable to obtain alternate coverage within 30 days.
Failure to maintain copies of the financial assurance mechanism(s) used to comply with financial responsibility rule and
certification that the mechanism is in compliance with the requirements of the rule at the UST site or place of business
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION , MAIN STREET, USA
EXPEDITED ENFORCEMENT
COMPLIANCE ORDER AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
PART I: COMPLIANCE ORDER
PART U: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
COMPLIANCE ORDER NO.
On
Time
(Date of Violation)
(a.m. or p.m.)
At.
(Name of Facility)
(Address of Facility)
Facility Identification Number
Name of Owner, Operator or
On-site Representative
(Circle one)
(Address of Owner, Operator, or On-Site Representative)
An authorized representative of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) inspected this facility to determine compli-
ance with underground storage tank regulations promulgated under
Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Actof 1976(42
U.S.C. § 6912 et seq.). During this inspection, the following
violations of underground storage tank regulations were found, with
corresponding penalty amounts:
=R Penalty $
mnuie of Violation:
40CFR
Penalty S.
Nature of Violation:
40CFR
Penalty $.
Nature of Violation:
Penalty Total S
The owner or operator of the above facility is hereby ordered to
correct the violations and pay the penalties described above.
This Compliance Order is not an adjudicatory proceeding under 40
CFR Pan 22, the Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the
Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties and the Revocation or
Suspension of Permits, but is issued solely with reference to the
Settlement Agreement in Pan II of this form. If the Settlement
Agreement in Pan 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 to EPA's ability to file additional
enforcement actions for the above or any other violations.
I have personally observed the above violations and find the owner
or operator in violation of the above-referenced UST regulations.
Date:
Signature of Authorized Representative of EPA)
mti-eby acknowledge receipt of this Compliance Order and Settle-
ment Agreement
Date:
(Signature of Owner. Operator or Orvslte Representative)
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offers
this Settlement Agreement under its expedited enforcement proce-
dures in order to settle the violations found in the Compliance Order
in Pan I of this form subject to the following terms and conditions:
The Owner or Operator signing below certifies, under civil and
criminal penalties for making a false submission to the United States
Government, that Owner or Operator has corrected the violaiion(s)
andenclosed a certified check for $ in payment of the full
penalty amount, as described in the Compliance Order.
Upon EPA final approval of this Settlement Agreement. EPA will
take no further action against the Owner or Operator for the violations
described in the Compliance Order. EPA does not waive any
enforcement action by EPA, the State where the facility is located or
any local agencies for any other past, present or future violations of
the underground storage tank requirements or any other violations
under any other statute not described in the Compliance Order.
Also, upon EPA final approval of this Settlement Agreement, the
Owner or Operator waives the opportunity for a public hearing
pursuant to Section 9006 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act
This Settlement Agreement is binding on the EPA and the Owner or
Operator signing below. The Owner or Operator signing below
consents to EPA's final approval of this Settlement Agreement
without further notice. This Settlement Agreement is effective upon
EPA's final approval below. Upon final approval. EPA shall mail a
copy of the approved Settlement Agreement to the Owner or Operator
signing below.
Final approval of the Settlement Agreement is in the sole discretion
of the Regional Administrator, Region , EPA, or authorized
delegate.
SIGNATURE BY OWNER OR OPERATOR:
Name (print)
Title (print)
Signature Date:
FINAL APPROVAL BY EPA:
Name (print)
Title (print)
Signature
Date:
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION , MAIN STREET, USA
EXPEDITED ENFORCEMENT
COMPLIANCE ORDER AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
INSTRUCTIONS
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has authority under Section 9006 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to
issue compliance orders and pursue civil penalties far violations of underground storage tank regulations. However, the EPA encourages
the expedited settlement of easily verifiable violations of under ground storage tank requirements, such as the violations cited in the Expedited
Enforcement Compliance Order and Settlement Agreement for which these instructions are provided, by agreeing to these settlement terms
that include expedited correction of the violation and payment of penalties.
You may resolve the cited violations quickly by signing and returning the Settlement Agreement and paying the penalty amount within 30
days of the issuance of the Compliance Order. You must correct the violations within 30 days of the issuance of the Compliance Order. EPA,
at its discretion, may grant one 30 day extension for the period to come into compliance where the owner or operator satisfactorily
demonstrates that it is technically infeasible or impracticable to achieve compliance within 30 days. The Settlement Agreement is binding
on EPA and the Owner or Operator upon EPA final approval. Upon EPA final approval of the Settlement Agreement, a copy of which will
be returned to you, EPA will take no further action against you for these violations. EPA will not accept or approve any Settlement Agreement
returned more than 30 days after the date of the Compliance Order unless an extension has been granted by EPA. This Compliance Order
is not an adjudicatory proceeding under 40 CFR Part 22. the Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the Administrative Assessment of
Civil Penalties and the Revocation or Suspension of Permits, but is issued solely with reference to the Settlement Agreement in Part II of this
form.
If you do not return the Settlement Agreement with payment of the penalty amount 30 days after issuance, unless an extension has been granted
by EPA, the Compliance Order will be withdrawn, without prejudice to EPA's ability to file additional enforcement actions for the above
or any other violations. Failure to return the Settlement Agreement within the approved time does not relieve you of the responsibility to
rarity fully wj/A the regulations, including correcting the violations that have been specifically identified by the inspector. If EPA pursues
listrative enforcement measures in order to correct the violations) or to seek penalties, you will receive instructions describing your
under the Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing theAdministrativeAssessmentofCivilPenaltiesandtheRevocationorSuspension
of Permits (40 CFR Part 22).
You are required under the Settlement Agreement to certify that you have corrected the violations found in the Compliance Order and paid
the penalty amount. The payment for the penalty amount must be in the form of a certified check payable to the " Treasurer of the United
States of America," with the number of the Compliance Order written on the check.
The Settlement Agreement and copy of the check shall be sent to: Payment of the penalty amount shall be sent to:
Underground Storage Tank Program U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region
Region _ P.O. Box _
Main Street Main Street
USA USA
By the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and upon EPA's final approval of the Settlement Agreement, you waive the opportunity for a public
hearing pursuant to Section 9006 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. EPA will treat any response to the citation, other than
acceptance of the Settlement Offer, as an indication that the recipient is not interested in pursuing this expedited settlement procedure.
Final approval of the Settlement Agreement is at the sole discretion of the Regional Administrator. Region . EPA. or authorized delegate.
If you have any questions, you may contact the EPA Regional Office of Underground Storage Tanks at .
------- |