United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
&EPA
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
TITLE:
DATE:
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
9610.16
Guidance On Federal Field Citation
Enforcement
October 6, 1993
OSWER
OSWER
OSWER
OSWER
DIRECTIVE
DIRECTIVE
DIRECTIVE
-------
Table of Contents
Transmittal Memorandum 1
Concurrence Memorandums 3
Revisions to the Directive 4
I. Federal Enforcement 5
II. Regional Program Elements 7
Selected Violations of Federal Underground Storage Tank Regulations 16
Expedited Enforcement Compliance Order and Settlement Agreement 26
Expedited Enforcement Compliance Order and Settlement Agreementfor Approved States 30
OSWER Directive 9610.16
-------
October 6, 1993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: UST Federal Field Citation Enforcement
FROM: David Ziegele, Director
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
TO: Waste Management Division Directors,
Regions 1-3 and 5-9
Water Division Directors, Regions 4 and 10
Regional Counsel, Regions 1-10
The Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) is today
issuing as OSWER Directive 9610.16 revised guidance for UST
federal field citation enforcement. This guidance replaces OSWER
Directive 9610.14, issued on April 9, 1992. During the past year
and one-half five additional regions have instituted field
citation programs, bringing the total number to eight. The
additional experience gained during this period has let EPA to
revise its federal field citation program.
In February of this year a conference on federal field
citations, sponsored by OUST, the Office of Enforcement (OE), and
the Office of General Counsel (OGC), was held in Denver, CO.
Attending from the regions were the UST regional program
managers, staff and attorneys. The purpose of the conference was
to review the federal field citation program and, based upon the
experience to date, revise and expand it as appropriate. The
Denver conference produced a list of recommendations for revision
of the program. OUST has coordinated this effort, getting
significant input from the regions, OE and OGC. Two drafts of
this document have been circulated for review during these past
few months.
Attached is the revised UST federal field citation guidance.
The major changes to the document are listed in an attachment to
this memo entitled, Revisions to Guidance for Federal Field
Citation Enforcement, October 1993. These changes broaden the
scope of the program by expanding its coverage to include
"environmentally sensitive" areas and by significantly increasing
the number of violations that are "citable" with field citations.
In addition, this guidance includes procedures for issuance of
field citations in approved and codified states, contains a
substitute citation form for use in approved states, and
specifies the limited circumstances in which EPA may issue
citations in such states. (If EPA issues field citations in
states which have been approved but not yet codified, the
regional inspector should use the substitute citation form marked
"For Approved States", writing down the comparable federal
violations cited in addition to the state violations cited.)
This guidance does not contain new information on the
issuance of field citations at federal facilities. A section for
this purpose has been reserved. In the interim, if a region
decides to issue a field citation at a federal facility, it
should carry no penalty. Additional topics discussed at Denver
which have not been incorporated into this document include the
tracking of field citations which have been issued, and the
OSWER Directive 9610.16
-------
deputizing of state or local government inspectors to issue
citations.
This revised UST federal field citation guidance has
received formal concurrence (copies attached) from the Office of
Enforcement and the Office of General Counsel. Special thanks to
all those who have participated in the extended process to
improve this guidance. Please contact Jerry Parker of my staff
(703 308-8884) with any questions or comments.
Attachments
cc: UST/LUST Regional Branch Chiefs
UST/LUST Regional Program Managers
Regional UST Attorneys
Susan O'Keefe, OE
Lisa K. Friedman, OGC
Milton Robinson, OE
Sheila Igoe, OGC
OUST Management Team (w/o attachments)
OUST Desk Officers (w/o attachments)
OSWER Directive 9610.16
-------
October 5, 1993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance for Federal Field Citation Enforcement
FROM: David Ziegele, Director
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
TO: Susan O'Keefe, Acting Enforcement Counsel for
RCRA Enforcement
RCRA Enforcement Division
Attached is the revised Guidance for Federal Field Citation
Enforcement. This guidance has been put together with the
assistance of your staff attorney. If your office accepts this
document in its current form please indicate your concurrence
below.
Thank you for your office's continuing participation in this
proj ect.
/x/ /s/ /d/
(concur) Susan O'Keefe (date)
Acting Enforcement Counsel
for RCRA Enforcement
October 5, 1993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance for Federal Field Citation Enforcement
FROM: David Ziegele, Director
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
TO: Lisa K. Friedman, Associate General Counsel
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Attached is the revised Guidance for Federal Field Citation
Enforcement. This guidance has been put together with the
assistance of your staff attorney. If your office accepts this
document in its current form please indicate your concurrence
below.
Thank you for your office's continuing participation in this
proj ect.
/x/ /s/ /d/
(concur) Lisa K. Friedman (date)
Associate General Counsel
OSWER Directive 9610.16
-------
REVISIONS TO GUIDANCE FOR FEDERAL FIELD CITATION ENFORCEMENT
OCTOBER 1993
The "Guidance for Federal Field Citation Enforcement" (OSWER Directive 9610.14) was issued in April
1992. Since then, several regions have implemented field citation programs and a national conference was
convened to review experiences and consider improvements. Based on extensive discussions with
regional staff and attorneys, the Office of General Counsel (OGC), and the Office of Enforcement (OE), a
number of revisions have been made. The revised document:
Discusses in greater detail the relation of field citations to the overall enforcement effort, and the
advantages of issuing field citations in certain circumstances.
Explains that field citations are an appropriate response to UST violations in environmentally
sensitive areas.
Emphasizes that if a region wishes to issue warnings as part of its enforcement program, the
warning may not be in the form of a field citation without a penalty.
Discusses the differences between issuing field citations in states that have received state program
approval and those that have not, namely, regions must cite state regulations in approved states.
The document also provides a model citation for use in approved states.
Contains a discussion of procedures and criteria for extending the deadline for compliance with
the terms of a field citation in limited circumstances.
Explains procedures to follow if settlement forms and penalties are to be sent to different
addresses.
Discusses the need for regional standard operating procedures (SOP) and suggests a number of
basic elements that should be included in the SOP.
Adds a number of violations and penalty amounts to the list of applicable violations, including
violations involving hazardous substance USTs where thresholds on the number of tanks and total
hazardous substance capacity at the facility are not exceeded.
Outlines basic procedures for issuing field citations on Indian lands, and reserves a section to
explain procedures for issuing field citations at federal facilities.
Encourages regions to engage in outreach activities in order to inform the regulated community
and the public about the field citation program.
Explains how the federal field citation program is related to the future development and
implementation of state and local field citation programs.
Adds language to the settlement agreement stating that, by signing, the owner or operator waives
any objections to EPA's jurisdiction.
In addition, some section of the guidance have been re-ordered and edited to improve readability and
ensure the logical organization of the document. Finally, outdated information on the development of the
field citation program has been replaced with more current information.
OSWER Directive 9610.16
-------
GUIDANCE FOR FEDERAL FIELD CITATION ENFORCEMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
October 1993
I. Federal Enforcement
Overview
The Office of Underground Storage Tanks' (OUST) program implementation approach is to build UST
programs at the state level since states will be primarily responsible for the enforcement of UST
regulations. Regions perform compliance inspections at UST sites or take enforcement actions, generally
in conjunction with or in the place of a state when the state lacks enforcement resources, and on Indian
Lands or at federal facilities.
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 levels, 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 re source-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.
While field citations were developed to expedite the enforcement process, they also encourage owners
and operators to come into compliance in an effective and resource-efficient manner. By removing the
incentive to expend their time and resources litigating the large penalties typical of more formal
enforcement actions, owners and operators who receive field citations should see a clear advantage in
focusing their energy and economic resources on achieving compliance. Thus, field citations are a critical
component of OUST's efforts to achieve high rates of compliance among regulated entities with minimal
expenditure of public and private resources.
This guidance is intended to help the regions establish and operate field citation programs, but should not
be construed to mandate the use of field citations in place of other existing enforcement mechanisms.
When an inspection is conducted, there are in essence three potential outcomes: (1) compliance (no
enforcement action taken), (2) non-compliance followed by issuance of warnings or field citations, or (3)
non-compliance followed by more traditional enforcement. (Of course, in theory there is a fourth
outcome, where there is non-compliance and no action is taken. However, this outcome is neither
common nor desirable.) Field citations therefore are not separate from more formal enforcement
mechanisms; they are complementary aspects of the enforcement program (Figure 1).
OSWER Directive 9610.16
-------
Figure 1. The Role Of Field Citations In Federal UST Enforcement (Idealized and Simplified
Process)
fMw \i-iyMmrx Rn iff«
-------
In February 1993, OUST, the Office of Enforcement, and the Office of General Counsel held a
conference to review the federal field citation program, assess its effectiveness, identify potential
improvements, and provide valuable "how-to" information to those regions in the process of developing
field citation programs. After presentation of data from the regions that had implemented field citation
programs, reports, and general discussion, the conference addressed a number of issues, including
implementation of regional programs, regional targeting and tracking procedures, standard operating
procedures, use of field citations at federal facilities and on Indian lands, and legal issues associated with
field citations.
One goal of the conference was to publicize the considerable success of field citations in those regions
where they had been used, and thus encourage all regions to initiate development of their own field
citation programs. Similarly, this guidance document has been revised as a result of input from
participants at the conference in order to reflect recent program experience and facilitate development of
regional field citation programs. The Office of General Counsel and the Office of Enforcement have
endorsed the use of field citations and have reviewed and concurred with all changes to the document.
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
This guidance provides a framework for allowing regions to address certain violations with field citations.
The guidance is intended to ensure that each region 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 the
attached list of violations. Regions may not include in their list violations not included in the attached list.
Consistency among regions will be further assured by training. The following criteria are generally
appropriate for selecting the violations to be cited:
Select violations which are clear-cut and easily verifiable.
Select violations which are easily correctable.
Select first-time violators only.
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 (e.g., "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 be
appropriate candidates for its field citation program given specific regional needs and resources, and list
OSWER Directive 9610.16
-------
the violations in the region's Standard Operating Procedures or use the attached list verbatim (see section
below on Regional Standard Operating Procedures). In selecting a preferred approach, a region may
choose to target a certain prevalent or high priority violation or violations, e.g., the leak detection
requirements. 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 enforces 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 the general parameters set forth here. Field citations provide an
additional enforcement tool, and inspectors must be instructed in how to respond when they find
violations which are addressed appropriately with field citations.
The proper use of field citations must be measured against the backdrop of the regions' existing authority
to issue warnings or pursue other existing enforcement measures for all violations of UST requirements.
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 or where payment of a more significant penalty may be more effective in achieving EPA's
enforcement goals.
This guidance is intended to provide a framework for the inspector's discretionary use of the field citation
enforcement option. Therefore, the guidance is phrased in terms of the action an inspector would take in
the typical case, but leaves room for exception if the circumstances in the inspector's judgment so
warrant.
The following discussion outlines the three basic enforcement options available to address violations of
UST requirements:
1. 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 which the region has determined are
appropriately addressed with a field citation are discovered. Field citations are designed to uniformly
address certain violations and promote a quick resolution of the violation with the assessment of a small
penalty. Therefore, when a region inspects 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. In order to keep the field citation program distinct from existing
enforcement programs, if a warning is issued, it may not be in the form of a field citation without a
penalty.
OSWER Directive 9610.16
-------
2. 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. However, if the
number of violations found at a site exceeds "x" (a number set by each region), the inspector
should forego issuing a field citation 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, suggests that a facility was seriously out of compliance and requires a more
formal enforcement response. At this point, a more formal enforcement response is likely to be
more effective than the use of field citations. As a general matter, a suggested threshold is
between three and ten violations.
This guidance does not suggest any predetermined cap on the cumulative dollar amount of
penalties that may be set out in a field citation. 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 effect that the total cumulative penalty amount proposed in a field citation may have
on settlement incentives. This amount should be below the point above which a violator no longer
has an incentive to correct the violations and pay the penalty instead of resisting compliance.
During joint inspections, regional inspectors should usually not cite for violations that are cited
by the state inspector where state penalties are at least equivalent.
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 penalties are at least equivalent with federal penalties. 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 about an enforcement initiative. 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.
Limiting the use of field citations to first-time violators makes sense if it appears to the inspector
that the citation and penalty will convince 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
OSWER Directive 9610.16
-------
fully conduct the inspection and thoroughly complete the inspection report. If a field citation is
not issued because the number of violations is above the threshold 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.
3. 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 or refer the case to the state for appropriate action. 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 enforcement methods also include
issuance of corrective action orders pursuant to 40 CFR Part 24 or civil 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. 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.
This guidance is phrased so that inspectors will know what action to take in the typical case. 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, inspectors are not bound to
follow this guidance. This approach is consistent with the guidance found in other EPA penalty policies
and procedures.
Guidance for Penalty Amounts
In order to ensure that penalty amounts applied by different regions for the same violations are consistent,
standard penalty amounts have been set by this guidance. These penalties are in the amounts of either
$50, $150, or $300. Consistency among regions is important to achieve fairness in the treatment of the
regulated community in selecting regional penalty amounts. 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 9610.16 10
-------
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.
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 form 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 a change.1 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 promote uniformity
across regions in the issuance of field citations.
The field citation form developed by OUST is entitled "Expedited Enforcement Compliance Order and
Settlement Agreement". There are two versions of the field citation form. The first version was designed
for use in states that have not yet received state program approval; it instructs inspectors to cite for
violations of the federal regulations. The second version of the form was designed for use in states that
have received state program approval; it instructs inspectors to cite for violations of the state regulations.
Otherwise, the two versions of the citation and the instructions for their use are identical. Because
inspectors in approved states still rely upon federal authorities for enforcement, the references to federal
authorities which appear on the second version still apply. A copy of each citation form and the
instructions for its use are attached at the end of this guidance.
Regions should specify in their SOP and on the citation form the location where the citation form and
penalty payment should be sent. Citation forms and penalties are often sent to different addresses.
Generally, penalties should be sent to the same location where enforcement monies are normally sent
within the region. The inspector should clearly explain this distinction to the violator if the locations to
which payment and the citation form should be sent are not the same.
Procedures For Issuance of Citations, Follow-up, and Extensions
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 given an opportunity to resolve the enforcement action expeditiously by correcting the
violation and settling for a lesser penalty amount than might be assessed according to the penalty policy if
formal administrative proceedings were initiated. The lower penalty amount reflects the time and expense
saved by the Agency over that normally incurred in utilizing more formal enforcement methods. If the
violator does not accept the settlement agreement within the time provided in the field citation, the
1 OUST approved an alternate citation form which provides for issuance of a Notice of Violation prior to issuance of
a compliance order and settlement agreement.
OSWER Directive 9610.16 11
-------
compliance order is automatically withdrawn. The Agency's policy is then to pursue other enforcement
options for the violations cited.
Thus, the violator has only two options: accept the field 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.
Follow-up enforcement is particularly crucial in environmentally sensitive areas, as these areas are most
likely to suffer severe adverse impacts from prolonged violations that increase the likelihood of a release.
While it is essential that the regions take steps to conduct follow-up inspections in those cases where the
violator does not settle and come into compliance, some program of follow-up inspections is also
important for monitoring those violators who do accept the settlement offer, pay the fine and certify that
they have achieved compliance. The regions should institute follow-up inspections at a subset of those
facilities that have reported a return to compliance as a result of a field citation, as appropriate, to assure
that owners and operators are taking the compliance actions that they claim to be taking. In addition, these
inspections can be used to determine whether the compliance actions are completed within the 30-day
period. Without proper follow-up, the region cannot be sure the field citation program is achieving its
goal of assuring compliance through cost-effective means.
There might be circumstances where a 30-day extension of the 30-day period provided to pay the fine and
correct the violations would be appropriate. The region should condition the grant of a 30-day extension
on the following: (1) the owner or operator files a formal request for the extension, (2) the owner or
operator demonstrates that there are factors beyond the control of the owner or operator that necessitate an
extension, and (3) the region believes that compliance will be achieved within the period of the extension.
The circumstances justifying the extension will typically involve unusual difficulties in obtaining parts or
securing and scheduling contractors to install equipment within the initial 30-day period, or delays in
securing loan approval to finance repairs. Merely neglecting to seek expert assistance or equipment in a
timely fashion should not in itself justify an extension. The region should document the reasoning for
granting any extension in the file.
In certain circumstances, the region might also consider extending the 30-day extension for cases in
which a force majeure event occurs. "Force majeure," for the purpose of this guidance, is defined as any
event arising from causes beyond the control of the owner/operator or of any entity controlled by the
owner/operator (including, but not limited to, the owner/operator's contractors and subcontractors) that
delays or prevents the performance of any obligation under the field citation, despite the owner/operator's
best efforts to fulfill the obligation. The owner/operator's "best efforts to fulfill the obligation" include
using best efforts to anticipate any potential force majeure event, and best efforts to address the effects of
any potential force majeure event (1) as it is occurring and (2) following the force majeure event, such
that the delay is minimized to the greatest extent possible.
Examples offeree majeure events include extreme weather conditions that render scheduled excavation
of tanks or piping impossible, or an act of God, such as flooding or an earthquake that disrupts normal
commerce. Events not constituting force majeure include, but are not limited to, financial inability to
perform any actions required by the field citation and unanticipated or increased costs or expenses
OSWER Directive 9610.16 12
-------
associated with the implementation of the field citation. The owner or operator should, nevertheless,
provide written justification for the second extension and the region should document its reason for
granting the extension for the file.
Regional Standard Operating Procedures
Each region should develop a set of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for the use of field citations.
The SOP generally should include information on what training is required for inspectors; what
procedures are required for issuing the citation and conducting follow-up activities; how to handle
requests for extensions; and what steps to follow when the terms of the field citation are not met. Training
requirements may include a list of required and advisable courses to be completed by each inspector prior
to certification. When providing guidelines for determining violations and penalties, the SOP should
include a list of citable violations and their associated penalties, or the regions must use the attached list
verbatim. If a region is using field citations in approved states, the region must include in its SOP a list of
state violations and penalties that corresponds to the attached list of federal violations and penalty
amounts eligible for field citations. Procedures for issuing the citation and follow-up should explain what
information the inspector needs to convey to the owner or operator, and set forth the steps to be followed
from issuance of the citation through settlement and case closure. The SOP should also indicate the
criteria to consider when determining if a 30-day extension will be granted for paying the fine and/or
coming into compliance, and separate criteria for determining whether an additional extension for a
period to be determined by the region under unusual circumstances is justified. Finally, the SOP should
indicate what steps, if any, should be completed before initiation of standard enforcement procedures
when the terms of the field citation are not met.
A number of additional topics may be included in the regional SOP, such as regional caps on the
maximum number of citable violations and penalty amount; procedures for setting up and maintaining a
file system; policies for interaction with other government agencies; procedures for targeting, notifying,
and entering facilities; tips on document identification and handling; and requirements for background
information. It is up to the region to decide what will be included in the SOP; the goal should be to
include sufficient information and guidance to allow effective and legally defensible implementation of
the program in accordance with the requirements outlined in this guidance.
Issuance of Field Citations at Hazardous Substance Tanks
Issuance of federal field citations is an appropriate response to violations involving hazardous substance
UST systems, as long as the violations also could be addressed with field citations at a petroleum UST
site. Field citations may be issued for such violations if certain conditions are met. Specifically, the
facility where the UST system is located should have no more than twelve tanks, and total hazardous
substance UST capacity at the facility should be less than 40,000 gallons. If the site exceeds either of
these recommended thresholds, more formal enforcement methods should be selected. The two thresholds
reflect the greater danger to human health and the environment potentially posed by violations that
increase the likelihood of releases from hazardous substance tanks.
OSWER Directive 9610.16 13
-------
Issuance of Field Citations on Indian Lands
If a region wishes to issue field citations against tribally owned or operated facilities, it should coordinate
with the Senior Legal Advisor of the Office of Federal Activities, within the Office of Enforcement,
before taking action. The Senior Advisor coordinates policy and management issues and legal issues in
consultation with the Office of General Counsel, and will be responsible for coordinating Headquarters
and regional review of the proposed enforcement action. (For further information, refer to the October 21,
1992 Office of Enforcement Memorandum from Thomas L. McCall, Jr. to Deputy Regional
Administrators, Enforcement Counsels, and Regional Counsels.)
Issuance of Field Citations at Federal Facilities
[Reserved.]
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 above, 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.
Outreach
Regions are encouraged to publicize their field citation programs while they are still in the developmental
stage, as well as when they actually begin issuing citations. It is important to inform the members of the
regulated community as well as the public that the programs are being developed so they know what to
expect, and to publicize violations addressed using citations, in order to demonstrate that the program is
being actively implemented. A variety of methods can be employed to publicize the program, including
public meetings, cooperation with trade associations, press releases, radio or television announcements,
and written outreach materials.
Developing State Field Citation Programs
OUST's ultimate goal is to see state and local governments develop the authorities and capabilities needed
to implement their own UST enforcement programs. As a way to help realize that goal, OUST is working
with the regions to issue federal field citations to demonstrate the success of this expedited enforcement
OSWER Directive 9610.16 14
-------
approach to the states. Federal field citations are therefore an interim step, to be used primarily until state
enforcement programs are fully developed. Federal field citations represent a low-cost method of
maintaining a field presence in states without their own field presence, and of improving state capabilities
by training state inspectors through joint inspections. All regions should develop the capability to issue
federal field citations and continuously work with states to streamline state enforcement processes, which
may include developing state and local field citation programs.
Helping states to develop their own field citation programs raises a number of questions. For example, the
regions will need to determine the mechanics of issuing federal field citations in states that have received
state program approval. When conducting enforcement activities in approved states, federal officials rely
upon federal statutory authority, but enforce the state regulatory requirements. Therefore, federal
inspectors in approved states will need to use the model citation OUST has developed for use in approved
states. Regions also will need to amend their SOPs to include all citable violations, identified in terms of
each approved state's regulatory requirements.
Purposes and Use of This Guidance
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.
This guidance and any internal procedures adopted for its implementation, are intended solely as guidance
for employees of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. They do not constitute rulemaking or final
Agency action by the Agency and may not be relied on to create a right or a benefit, substantive or
procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, by any person. The Agency may take action at variance with
this memorandum or its internal implementing procedures.
OSWER Directive 9610.16 15
-------
SELECTED VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
REGULATIONS
NOTE: This list of selected violations is NOT intended to be exhaustive
and, therefore, may not include all possible violations
Subpart B-UST Systems: Design, Construction, Installation, and Notification
Regulatory
Citation
§280.20(a)(l)
§280,20(a)(2)
§280.20(a)(2)(i)
§280.20(a)(2)(ii)
§280.20(a)(2)(iii)
§280,20(a)(2)(iv)
§280.20(a)(3)
§280.20(b)(l)
§280.20(b)(2)
§280.20(b)(2)(i)
§280.20(b)(2)(ii)
§280.20(b)(2)(iii)
§280.20 Performance standards for new UST systems
Violation
Installation of an improperly constructed
fiberglass-reinforced plastic tank
Installation of an improperly designed and
constructed metal tank that fails 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
steel-fiberglass-reinforced-plastic 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
§280.20(b)(2)(iv)
§280.20(c)(l) Failure to install any spill prevention system
Unit
Assessment1
(T)
(T)
(T)
(T)
(T)
(T)
(T)
(P)
(P)
(T)
(P)
(P)
(P)
(T)
Jjrv-T uilrAMU
from
Requirement
Major
Major
Major
Moderate
Moderate
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
Moderate
Moderate
Major
Major
A \JlVllt,«41
for
Harm
Major
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Major
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Major
Matrix
Value
$1500
$750
$750
$500
$500
$750
$750
$1500
$750
$750
$500
$500
$750
$1500
OSWER Directive 9610.16
16
-------
Regulatory
Citation
§280.20(c)(l)(i)
§280.20(c)(l)
§280.20(c)(l)(ii)
§280.20(d)
§280.20(d)
§280.20(e)
§280.20(e)(l)-(6)
Regulatory
Citation
§280.21(b)
§280.21(b)(l)(i)
§280.21(b)(l)(ii)
§280.21(b)(2)(i)
§280.21(b)(2)(ii)
... , .. Unit «"«.»««
Violation * j from
Assessment . ' ,
Requirement
Installation of inadequate spill prevention
equipment in a new tank
Failure to install any overfill prevention
system
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
Failure to provide complete certification of
UST installation
280.21 Upgrading of existing
Violation
Failure to meet all tank upgrade standards
Improper Installation of interior lining for
tank upgrade requirements
Failure to meet Interior lining Inspection
requirements for tank upgrade
Failure to ensure that tank is structurally
sound before installing cathodic protection
Failure to provide any monthly monitoring
of cathodic protection for tank upgrade
(T)
(T)
(T)
(T)
(P)
(F)
(F)
UST systems
Unit
Assessment1
(T)
(T)
(T)
(T)
(T/F)
Major
Major
Major
Varies2
Varies2
Moderate
Minor
Deviation
from
Requirement
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
A VlVAlMtll
for
Harm
Major
Moderate
Moderate
Varies2
Varies2
Minor
Minor
Potential
for
Harm
Major
Major
Moderate
Moderate
Major
Matrix
Value
$1500
$750
$750
see
matrix
see
matrix
$100
$50
Matrix
Value
$1500
$1500
$750
$750
$1500
§280.21(b)(2)(ii)
§280.21(b)(2)(iii)
§280.21(b)(2)(iv)
requirement
Failure to provide continuous monthly
monitoring of cathodic protection for tank
upgrade requirement
Failure to meet tightness test requirements
for a tank upgraded with cathodic protection
Failure to meet requirements for testing for
corrosion holes for a tank upgraded with
cathodic protection
(T/F) Moderate Minor $100
(T/F) Major Moderate $750
(T/F) Major Moderate $750
OSWER Directive 9610.16
17
-------
Regulatory
Citation
§280.21(c)
§280.21(c)
§280.21(d)
§280.2 l(d)<
Violation
Failure to install any cathodic protection for
metal piping upgrade requirements
Failure to meet tightness test requirements
for cathodically protected metal piping
Failure to provide spill prevention system for
an existing tank
Failure to provide overfill prevention system
for an existing tank
Unit
Assessment1
(P)
(P)
(T)
(T)
Deviation
from
Requirement
Major
Major
Major
Major
Potential
for
Harm
Major
Moderate
Major
Moderate
Matrix
Value
$1500
$750
$1500
$750
Regulatory
Citation
§280.22(a)
§280.22(a)
§280.22(c)
§280.22(c)
§280.22(e)-
(f)
§280.22(g)
280.22 Notification requirements
Violation
Failure to notify state or local agency within 30
days of bringing an UST system into use
Failure to notify designated state or local agency
of existing tank
Failure to identify on the submitted notification
form all known tanks at that site
Failure to submit a separate notification form for
all notified tanks that are located at a separate
place of operation
Failure to provide complete certification of all
requirements on the notification form
Failure to inform tank purchaser of notification
requirements
Unit
Assessment1
(T)
(T)
(F)
(F)
(F)
(T)
MJ%^ T KlUUMl
from
Requirement
Major
Major
Major
Major
Moderate
Major
A wivin-mtii
for
Harm
Major
Major
Moderate
Minor
Minor
Major
Matrix
Value
$1500
$1500
$750
$200
$100
$1500
1 Unit assessment refers to whether the penalty should be applied per tank (T) or facility (F). Where the
violation applies to piping (P), the assessment will depend on whether the piping is associated with one
tank or more than one tank.
2 Deviation from requirement and potential for harm will vary depending upon the specific code or
standard violation.
OSWER Directive 9610.16
18
-------
SUBPART C -- GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
Regulatory
Citation
280.30 Spill and overfill control
Violation
Deviation Potential
for
Matrix
Unit ,,
. .1 ironi iui ,, ,
Assessment . , Value
Requirement Harm
$98030^ Failure to take necessary precautions to prevent
overfill/spillage during the transfer of product
§280.30(b) Failure to report a spilVoverfill (F)
§280.30(b) Failure to Investigate and clean up a spill/overfill (F)
Major Major $1500
Major Major $1500
Major Major $1500
280.31 Operation and maintenance of corrosion protection
Regulatory
Citation
§280.3 l(a)
§280.3 l(b)(l)
§280.3 l(b)(l)
§280.3 l(b)(l)
§280.3 l(b)(2)
§280.3 l(c)
§280.3 l(d)
§280.3 l(d)
§280.32
§280.33(a)
§280.33(b)
Violation
Failure to operate and maintain corrosion
protection system continuously
Failure to ensure that cathodic protection
system is tested within 6 months of installation
Failure to ensure that cathodic protection
system is tested every 3 years thereafter
Failure to meet one 3-year test for cathodic
protection system
Failure to inspect cathodic protection system in
accordance with accepted codes
Failure to inspect impressed current systems
every 60 days
Failure to maintain any records of cathodic
protection inspections
Failure to maintain every record of cathodic
protection inspections
Unit
Assessment1
(F/T)
(F/T)
(T/F)
(T/F)
(T/F)
(T/F)
(T/F)
(T/F)
280.32 Compatibility
Failure to ensure that UST system is made of or
lined with materials compatible with substance (T/P)
stored
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
(T)
(T)
Deviation
from
Requirement
Major
Major
Major
Moderate
Major
Major
Major
Moderate
Major
Varies2
Varies2
Potential
for
Harm
Major
Major
Moderate
Minor
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Minor
Matrix
Value
$1500
$1500
$750
$100
$750
$750
$750
$100
Major $1500
Varies
Varies
see
matrix
see
matrix
OSWER Directive 9610.16
19
-------
Regulatory
Citation
§280.33(c)
§280.33(c)
§280.33(d)
§280.33(e)
§280.33(1)
Violation
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 cathodic protection system
within 6 months of repair of an UST system
Failure to maintain records of each repair to an
UST system
280.34 Reporting and recordkeeping
For violations of reporting and recordkeeping, see appropriate regulatory section
(e.g., reporting of releases will be under Subpart D).
Unit
Assessment1
(P)
(P)
(T)
(T)
(T)
Deviation
from
Requirement
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
Potential
for
Harm
Major
Major
Moderate
Moderate
Major
Matrix
Value
$1500
$1500
$750
$750
$1500
Unit assessment refers to whether the penalty should be applied per tank (T) or facility (F). Where the violation
applies to piping (P), the assessment will depend on whether the piping is associated with one tank or more than
one tank.
2 Deviation from requirement and potential for harm will vary depending upon the specific code or standard
violation.
SUBPART D -- RELEASE DETECTION
280.40 General requirements for all UST systems
Regulatory
Citation
§280.40(a)(l)
§280.40(a)(2)
§280.40(a)(3)
§280.40(b)
§280.40(c)
§280.40(d)
Violation
Failure to provide adequate release detection
method capable of detecting a release from tank
or piping that routinely contains product
Failure to install, calibrate, operate, or maintain
release detection method in accordance with
manufacturer's instructions
Failure to provide a release detection method
that meets the performance requirements in
§280.43 or §280.44
Failure to notify implementing agency when
release detection indicates release
Failure to provide any release detection method
by phase-in date
Failure to close any UST system that cannot
meet release detection requirements
Unit
Assessment1'
(T/F)
(T/F)
(F)
Deviation
from
Requirement
Major
Major
Major
Potential
for
Harm
Matrix
Value
Major $1500
Major $1500
Major $1500
(F)
(F)
(F)
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
$1500
$1500
$1500
OSWER Directive 9610.16
20
-------
280.41 Requirements for petroleum UST systems
§ 280.41(a)
§280.41(a)(l)
§280.41(a)(2)
§280.41(b)
A anui^ L\J nujiiiuji uuuva ai i^aai ^v^ij ->u uaya, i±
appropriate
Failure to conduct tank tightness testing every 5
years, if appropriate
Failure to conduct annual tank tightness testing,
if appropriate
Failure to use any underground piping
monitoring method
(T)
(T)
(T)
(P)
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
$1500
$1500
$1500
$1500
280.42 Requirements for hazardous substance UST systems
§280.42(a)
§280.42(b)
§280.42(b)(l)
§280.42(b)(2)
§280.42(b)(3)
§280.42(b)(4)
§280.44
§280.44(a)
§280.44(b)
§260.44(c)
Failure to provide release detection for an
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
280.44 Methods of release detection
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
(F)
(F)
(T)
(T)
(T)
(T)
for piping
(P)
(P)
(P)
(P)
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
$1500
$1500
$1500
$1500
$1500
$1500
$1500
$1500
$1500
$1500
280.45 Release detection recordkeeping
§280.45
§280.45
§280.45(a)
Failure to maintain any records of release
detection monitoring
Failure to maintain every record of release
detection monitoring
Failure to document all release detection
nprfnrmanrp Harms fnr 5 vpars afiter installation
(F)
(F)
(F)
Major
Moderate
Moderate
Major
Minor
Minor
$1500
$100
$100
OSWER Directive 9610.16
21
-------
Failure to maintain any results of sampling,
§280.45(b) testing or monitoring for release detection for at
least 1 year
Failure to maintain every result of sampling,
§280.45(b) testing or monitoring for release detection for at
least 1 year
CTOA A s/u\ Failure to retain results of tightness testing until
9zoU.4j(D) , , . . i i i
next test is conducted
§280.45(c)
§280.45(c)
Failure to document any calibration,
maintenance, and repair of release detection
Failure to document every calibration,
maintenance, and repair of release detection
(F) Major Major $1500
(F) Moderate Minor $100
(F) Major Major $1500
(F) Major Major $1500
(F) Moderate Moderate $500
1 Unit assessment refers to whether the penalty should be applied per tank (T) or facility (F). Where the
violation applies to piping (P), the assessment will depend on whether the piping is associated with one
tank or more than one tank.
SUBPART E - RELEASE REPORTING, INVESTIGATION, AND CONFIRMATION
280.50 Reporting of suspected release
Regulatory
Citation
§280.50(a)-
(c)
Regulatory
Citation
§280.52(a)-
(b)
Regulatory
Citation
§280.53(a)
§280.53(b)
§280.53(b)
Violation
Failure to report a suspected release within 24
hours to the implementing agency
Deviation
Unit from
Assessment1 Requirement
(F)
Major
280.52 Release investigation and confirmation steps
Violation
Failure to investigate and confirm a release (if
appropriate) using accepted procedures
Unit
Assess-
ment1
(F)
Deviation
from
Requirement
Major
280.53 Reporting and cleanup of spills and overfills
Violation
Failure to report a spill/overfill (if appropriate) to
implementing agency within 24 hours (or other
specified time period)
Failure to contain and immediately clean up a
spill/overfill of less than 25 gallons
Failure to contain and immediately clean up a
hazardous substance spill/overfill
Unit
Assess-,
ment1
(F)
(F)
(F)
Deviation
from
Requirement
Major
Major
Major
Potential
for Matrix
Harm Value
Major $1500
Potential
for Matrix
Harm Value
Major $1500
Potential
for Matrix
Harm Value
Major $1500
Major $1500
Major $1500
OSWER Directive 9610.16
22
-------
1 Unit assessment refers to whether the penalty should be applied per tank (T) or facility (F). Where the
violation applies to piping (P), the assessment will depend on whether the piping is associated with one
tank or more than one tank.
SUBPART F -- RELEASE RESPONSE AND CORRECTIVE ACTION
280.61 Initial Response
TT .,'-.- Deviation
unit
. A from
Assessment . ,
Requirement
, ,
Regulator?
., ..
Citation
, , ,.
Violation
i-ion^
§280.61
, ,
Regulatory
' .. ,.
Citation
§280.62
,
Regulatory
J?, ,.
Citation
§280.63
, ,
Regulatory
J?, ,.
Citation
Failure to take initial response actions within , ...
.- , . j ft i f A (F) Major
specified time penod after a release is confirmed
280.62 Initial Abatement Measures and Site Check
Deviation
,
Potential
for
Harm
, . .
Matrix
_7 ,
Value
,,. t,,snn
Major $1500
... ,
Violation
TT .,
Unit .,
. j ' from
Assessment .
Requirement
Major
Failure to submit report on initial abatement
measures within 20 days (or other specified time) (F)
of release confirmation
280.63 Initial Site Characterization
Deviation
Potential
for
Harm
,, , ,
Matrix
», ,
Value
Major $1500
. , ,.
Violation
TT .,
Unit
A i rrom
Assessment . ,
Requirement
Failure to submit report on initial site
characterization within 45 days (or other specified (F) Major
time) of release confirmation
280.64 Free Product Removal
' Deviation
~
Potential
tor
TT
Harm
__ , .
Matrix
,T ,
Value
Major $1500
§280.64 within 45
,,, , ,.
Violation
submit report on free report removal
ays (or other specified time) of release (F)
,T .,
Unit ~
* j irom
Assessment . ,
Requirement
Potential
tor
Harm
-, , ,
Matnx
,7 ,
Value
Failure to submit report on free report
ithin 45 days (or other specified time)
confirmation
Major
Major $1500
1 Unit assessment refers to whether the penalty should be applied per tank (T) or facility (F). Where the
violation applies to piping (P), the assessment will depend on whether the piping is associated with one
tank or more than one tank.
OSWER Directive 9610. 16
23
-------
SUBPART G OUT-OF-SERVICE UST SYSTEMS AND CLOSURE
280.72 Assessing the site at closure or change-in-service
, , Unit Deviation Potential '-**..
Regulatory _,, , , t. ,. .. Matrix
., ,. Violation Assess- from for ,, ,
Citation i _ . , Value
ntent Requirement Harm
sv.or.Tw \ Failure to measure (if required) for the presence of a ,, , , . , , . t,,snn
§280.72(a) , , ^ M ' . , (T/F) Major Major $1500
release before a permanent closure
c-,or, *,~,n.\ If contaminated soil, contaminated ground water, or free ,__, , , . , , . a,isnn
§280.72(b) , . . ,. ' - ., , , . ' .. (T/F) Major Major $1500
product is discovered, failure to begin corrective action
280.74 Closure records
§280.74 Failure to maintain closure records for at least 3 years (F) Major Major $1500
c-.or.-7,. Failure to maintain change-in-service records for at least , , , . , , . e,,-nn
§280.74 ° (F) Major Major $1500
1 Unit assessment refers to whether the penalty should be applied per tank (T) or facility (F). Where the
violation applies to piping (P), the assessment will depend on whether the piping is associated with one
tank or more than one tank.
SUBPART H -- FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
280.93 Amount and Scope of Required Financial Responsibility
_ , . Unit Deviation Potential
Regulatory _ , ,. . Matrix
J?. ... Violation Assess- from for '.
Citation . j.i « TT Value
ment Requirement Harm
i-Tonm/x Failure to comply with financial responsibility , , , . ,, , ,_
§280.93(a) . . V ^ ^ u + (F) Major Moderate $750
requirements by the required phase-in time
§280.93(a)(l)- Failure to meet the requirement for per-occurrence _, A. . , , , ,.
^ f- (F) Major Moderate $750
(2) coverage of insurance.
§280.93(b)(l)- Failure to meet the requirement for annual aggregate . ,, . ,, , ,,,_,
^ fj as & (F) Major Moderate $750
(2) coverage of Insurance.
c-,o« rv>/j\ Failure to review and adjust financial assurance after _. -. . , , , ,_,.,.
§280.93(1) .. J ,,.,. .TT (F) Major Moderate $750
acqumng new or additional USTs
280.94 Allowable Mechanisms and Combination of Mechanisms
, , Unit Deviation Potential ,_ '.
Regulatory _ , ,. ., ,, ,, Matrix
J?. ,. Violation Assess- trom tor ., ,
Citation j T. ^ TT Value
ment Requirement Harm
c-o/^r,^ Use of an unapproved mechanism or combination of , , , . , , , ,._
§280.94 , . ^ , * * f -i -u-1-*, (F) Major Moderate $750
mechanisms to demonstrate financial responsibility
280.95 Financial Test of Self-Insurance
,' . Unit Deviation Potential _, , ,
Regulatory .,, . ,. . Matrix
J?, ,. Violation Assess- trom tor _, ,
Citation , i , . . . TT Value
ment Requirement Harm
OSWER Directive 9610.16 24
-------
§280.95
Regulatory
Citation
§280.106(a)(l)
§280.106(a)(2)
§280.106(b)
Regulatory
Citation
§280.107
Use of falsified financial documents to pass financial
test of self-insurance
(F)
Major
Moderate $750
280.106 Reporting By Owner or Operator
Violation
Unit Deviation Potential
Assess- from for
ment1 Requirement Harm
Matrix
Value
Failure to report evidence of financial responsibility
to the implementing agency within 30 days of (F)
detecting a known or suspected release
Failure to report evidence of financial responsibility
to the implementing agency when new tanks are (F)
installed
Failure to report evidence of financial responsibility
to the implementing agency if the provider becomes
incapable of providing financial assurance and the (F)
owner or operator is unable to obtain alternate
coverage within 30 days.
280.107 Recordkeeping
Violation
Failure to maintain copies of the financial assurance
mechanism(s) used to comply with financial
responsibility rale and certification that the
mechanism is in compliance with the requirements
of the rule at the UST site or place of business
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Unit
Assess-
ment1
(F)
Minor $100
Minor $100
Minor $100
Deviation
from
Requirement
Moderate
Potential
for
Harm
Matrix
Value
Minor $100
1 Unit assessment refers to whether the penalty should be applied per tank (T) or facility (F). Where the
violation applies to piping (P), the assessment will depend on whether the piping is associated with one
tank or more than one tank.
OSWER Directive 9610.16
25
-------
Expedited Enforcement Compliance Order and Settlement Agreement
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION , MAIN STREET, USA
EXPEDITED ENFORCEMENT
COMPLIANCE ORDER AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
PART I: COMPLIANCE ORDER
PART II; SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
COMPLIANCE ORDER NO.
On
(Date of Violation)
At
(Name of Facility)
Time
_a.m./p.m.
(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
compliance with underground storage tank regulations
promulgated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 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:
40CFR
_Penalty $_
Nature of Violation:
40CFR
Penalty $
Nature of Violation:
40CFR
_Penalty $_
Nature of Violation:
Penalty Total $
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 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 the Settlement
The United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) offers this Settlement
Agreement under its expedited enforcement
procedures in order to settle the violations
found in the Compliance Order in Part I of this
form subject to the following terms and
conditions:
The Owner or Operator signing below certifies,
under civil and criminal penalties for making a
false submission to the United States
Government, that Owner or Operator has
corrected the violation(s) and enclosed 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
waives any objections to EPA's jurisdiction
with respect to the Compliance Order and this
Settlement Agreement, and 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
OSWER Directive 9610.16
26
-------
Agreement in Part II is not returned in correct form by the owner
or operator within 30 days of the date of signature below by the
Authorized Representative of EPA, this Compliance Order is
hereby withdrawn, without prejudice 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)
I hereby acknowledge receipt of this Compliance Order and
Settlement Agreement.
Date:
(Signature of Owner, Operator or On-site Representative)
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:
OSWER Directive 9610.16
27
-------
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 for violations of
underground storage tank regulations. However, the EPA encourages the expedited settlement of easily
verifiable violations of underground storage tank requirements, such as the violations cited in the
Expedited Enforcement Compliance Order and 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 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 comply
fully with the regulations, including correcting the violations that have been specifically identified by the
inspector. If EPA pursues administrative enforcement measures in order to correct the violation(s) or to
seek penalties, you will receive instructions describing your rights under the Consolidated Rules of
practice Governing the Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties and the revocation or Suspension 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.
OSWER Directive 9610.16 28
-------
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
Region
Main Street
USA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region
P.O.Box
Main Street
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
OSWER Directive 9610.16
29
-------
Expedited Enforcement Compliance Order and Settlement Agreement-for
Approved States
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION , MAIN STREET, USA
EXPEDITED ENFORCEMENT
COMPLIANCE ORDER AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
FOR APPROVED STATES
PART I: COMPLIANCE ORDER
PART II; SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
COMPLIANCE ORDER NO.
On
Time
(Date of Violation)
At
_a.m./p.m.
(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 compliance with underground storage
tank regulations promulgated under Subtitle I of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 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:
(State Reg.No.)
Penalty $
Nature of Violation:
(State Reg.No.)
Penalty $
Nature of Violation:
(State Reg.No.)
_Penalty $_
The United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) offers this Settlement Agreement under its
expedited enforcement procedures in order to settle
the violations found in the Compliance Order in Part I
of this form subject to the following terms and
conditions:
The Owner or Operator signing below certifies, under
civil and criminal penalties for making a false
submission to the United States Government, that
Owner or Operator has corrected the violations) and
enclosed 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 waives any objections to
EPA's jurisdiction with respect to the Compliance
OSWER Directive 9610.16
30
-------
Nature of Violation:
Penalty Total $
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 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 the Settlement Agreement in Part II is not
returned in correct form by the owner or operator within 30
days of the date of signature below by the Authorized
Representative of EPA, this Compliance Order is hereby
withdrawn, without prejudice 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)
I hereby acknowledge receipt of this Compliance Order and
Settlement Agreement.
Date:
(Signature of Owner, Operator or On-site Representative)
Order and this Settlement Agreement, and 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:
OSWER Directive 9610.16
31
-------
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 for violations of
underground storage tank regulations. However, the EPA encourages the expedited settlement of easily
verifiable violations of underground storage tank requirements, such as the violations cited in the
Expedited Enforcement Compliance Order and 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 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 comply
fully with the regulations, including correcting the violations that have been specifically identified by the
inspector. If EPA pursues administrative enforcement measures in order to correct the violation(s) or to
seek penalties, you will receive instructions describing your rights under the Consolidated Rules of
practice Governing the Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties and the revocation or Suspension 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.
OSWER Directive 9610.16 32
-------
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
Region
Main Street
USA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region
P.O.Box
Main Street
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
OSWER Directive 9610.16
33
------- |