Appendix A 

Configuration and Cost Assumptions for Airport Hydrant Fuel Distribution 

Systems (AHFDSs) and UST Systems with Field-Constructed Tanks (FCTs) 

 
A-1 

This appendix provides detailed descriptions of the costs of the proposed rule as they pertain to 

UST systems with field-constructed tanks (FCTs) and airport hydrant fuel distribution systems 

(AHFDSs). The appendix begins with a broad overview of these two tank types and the costs 

they will incur as a result of the proposed rule, and then provides a detailed breakdown of cost 

calculations. 

A.1 Description of FCTs and AHFDSs 

In addition to conventional underground storage tank (UST) systems, regulatory revisions of the 

proposed rule would affect two additional classes of tanks: 

• Underground storage tank systems and ancillary equipment that are a part of an 

airport hydrant fuel distribution system used to fuel aircraft (AHFDSs). These 

systems do not have a dispenser at the end of the piping run, but instead have a 

pressurized hydrant (fill stand). 

• UST systems with field-constructed tanks (FCTs) that have a capacity greater 

than 50,000 gallons and are constructed onsite. 

EPA believes that large commercial and military airports employ AHFDSs, but most commercial 

systems typically use aboveground storage tanks for these systems. Similarly, existing 

underground FCTs appear to be used only by federal facilities (primarily Department of 

Defense); commercial facilities requiring bulk storage appear to use above-ground systems. 

A review of existing state regulations suggests that 57 percent of FCTs and 40 percent of 

AHFDSs are currently located in states that regulate these systems in a manner consistent with 

the regulatory revisions of the proposed rule (i.e., these state programs already require 

compliance with state regulations that are roughly consistent with the proposed rule).1

 We 

therefore assume that 43 percent of FCTs and 60 percent of AHFDSs will incur additional costs 

due to the removal of deferrals associated with the proposed rule. For simplicity, however, 

detailed cost discussions in this appendix adjust for baseline regulatory compliance only after 

calculation of all costs. 

A.2 Key Cost Components of the Removal of Deferrals – Preferred Option 

Both AHFDSs and FCTs are currently deferred from most of the requirements in 40 CFR Part 

280. However, the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) requirements of 40 

CFR Part 112 (as well as some existing state regulations) require these systems and tanks to be 

subject to structural standards relatively consistent with the regulatory revisions of the proposed 

rule, and will therefore not require substantial capital upgrades. In addition, the majority of costs 

associated with the removal of deferrals from both these types of tank systems are associated 

with meeting the proposed release detection requirements. 

 1

 Industrial Economics, Inc., “Preliminary Assessment and Scoping of Data Related to Potential Revisions 

to the UST Regulations,” Work Assignment 1-25, Tasks 2-4, February 21, 2009, Appendix A, Exhibits 4 and 5. 

 
A-2 

Release Detection Requirements 

Our analysis assumes that 50 percent of FCTs do not use an automatic tank gauge (ATG) for 

release detection, and would be required to conduct annual precision testing under the proposed 

rule. We also assume that those FCTs that do use ATGs do not currently conduct monthly 

release detection monitoring nor conduct annual operability tests of their ATGs. Therefore, we 

assume that the proposed rule will impose costs associated with these activities on owners of 

FCTs. In addition, those FCTs with ATGs currently operating at a leak rate between 0.3 and 1.0 

gallon per hour and between 1.0 and 2.0 gallons per hour will be required to conduct tri-annual 

and bi-annual precision testing, respectively, to achieve the proposed release detection 

requirements. 

Our analysis assumes that no release detection methods are currently installed in the piping 

associated with FCTs. We assume that all piping associated with FCTs will need to undergo 

semiannual precision testing to achieve the proposed release detection requirements. 

For the tanks associated with AHFDSs, our analysis assumes that 50 percent do not currently 

have ATGs installed and will need to install them to achieve the proposed release detection 

requirements. In addition, we assume that those tanks with ATGs installed do not currently 

conduct monthly release detection monitoring or annual operability tests of their ATGs. The 

proposed rule will impose costs associated with these activities on all owners and operators of 

AHFDSs. 

Finally, we assume that no release-detection method is currently installed in the piping of 

AHFDSs. We therefore assume that all AHFDS piping must undergo semiannual precision 

testing to achieve the proposed release detection requirements. 

Other Requirements 

Removing deferrals for AHFDSs and FCTs will also require these systems to comply with 

Subparts B, C, E, G, and H of 40 CFR Part 280.2 Furthermore, AHFDSs and FCTs will incur 

costs associated with other requirements of the proposed rule that will apply to all UST systems. 

These include: walkthrough inspections; overfill prevention equipment tests; spill prevention 

equipment tests; testing after repairs; notification of ownership change; recordkeeping associated 

with compatibility; and operator training.3

 Lastly, these systems will have to incur costs with a 

one-time notification of existence to the implementing agency. 

 2

 Subpart H requires owners and operators of regulated USTs to demonstrate financial responsibility (FR). 

EPA assumes that the two commercial airport facilities with AHFDSs will be able to demonstrate FR through the 

use of the financial test, and would therefore incur no cost to obtain financial assurance. The two commercial 

facilities would incur reporting and recordkeeping costs associated with filing proof of financial responsibility. EPA 

estimates this cost to consist of 0.25 technical labor hour (at $73.80/hr) and 0.1 clerical labor hour (at $39.11/hr) per 

year per facility, for a total of $45 across the two facilities. EPA assumes that the other AHFDSs and FCTs are 

owned or operated by federal entities, which would exempt them from the requirements of Subpart H. 

3

 While EPA plans on requiring secondary containment on new tanks and piping, based on EPA’s 

discussion with various parties, EPA is assuming no new installations of underground FCTs and tanks being 

installed at AHFDSs are aboveground storage tanks (ASTs). As a result, we assume that there are no costs 

associated with requiring secondary containment for new tanks (since no new underground tanks are assumed to be 

 
A-3 

Exhibit A-1 presents a breakdown of costs incurred by AHFDSs and FCTs as a result of the 

proposed rule. 

Exhibit A-1 – Cost Summary, Preferred Option 

REQUIREMENT 

COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH 

AHFDSS ($ MILLIONS) 

COSTS ASSOCIATED 

WITH FCTS ($ MILLIONS) 

TOTAL COSTS

 ($ MILLIONS) 

Release detection (including 

management costs) $22.0 $5.3 $27.2 

All other requirements 

associated with the removal 

of deferrals (Subparts B, C, 

E, and G) 

$0.1 $0.04 $0.1 

Other requirements of the 

proposed rule (Walkthrough 

inspections; overfill 

prevention equipment tests; 

spill prevention equipment 

tests; testing after repairs to 

spill and overfill prevention 

equipment, and interstices; 

operator training; one-time 

notification of existence) 

$0.5 $0.4 $0.8 

Total $22.5 $5.7 $28.2

Note: These figures are adjusted for baseline regulatory compliance (i.e., only 43 percent of FCTs 

and 60 percent of AHFDSs incur costs associated with the removal of deferrals). However, these 

figures are not discounted to reflect the proposed three-year phase-in period associated with the 

removal of deferrals. With discounting, the total costs associated with regulating AHFDSs and FCTs 

under the preferred option are $22.6 million ($18 million for AHFDSs and $4.6 million for FCTs). 

Columns and/or rows may not sum exactly due to rounding. 

A.3 Key Cost Components of the Removal of Deferrals – Alternative Option 1 

Alternative Option 1 imposes more extensive release detection requirements on both FCTs and 

AHFDSs than the Preferred Option.4

 For FCTs, those tanks utilizing an ATG operating at a leak 

rate greater than 0.2 gallon per hour, or without an existing ATG, will be required to undergo a 

 

installed for these systems). For AHFDS piping, EPA does not believe secondary containment with interstitial 

monitoring is appropriate due to the extreme length of AHFDS piping runs, which complicates the need to slope 

piping back to a containment sump, and the need for steel piping given the high pressures (since corrosion due to 

water in the interstitial space is hard to prevent or control). As a result, EPA is not requiring secondary containment 

for piping associated with these systems; therefore, we also assume that there are no costs associated with 

requirement secondary containment for new piping. 

4

 EPA assumes that FCTs and AHFDSs would meet the current release detection requirements by using 40 

CFR 280.43(h) Other methods. Specifically, EPA assumes that tanks would be required to monthly detect a leak 

rate of 0.2 gallon per hour, and piping would be required to monthly detect a leak rate of 3 gallon per hour (in lieu of 

an automatic line leak detector) with an annual test of 0.1 gallon per hour. Furthermore, in estimating costs for these 

systems, EPA assumes that DoD will have third-party vendors come on-site to conduct the periodic tests. 

 
A-4 

monthly precision test at 0.2 gallon per hour. In addition, monthly release detection monitoring 

and annual operability tests of existing ATGs operating at 0.2 gallon per hour. Testing 

requirements for piping associated with FCTs will also be required, and are assumed to be 

identical to those required for AHFDSs described below. 

For AHFDSs, Alternative Option 1 requires that all piping undergo both a monthly precision test 

at 3.0 gallons per hour, as well as an annual precision test at 0.1 gallon per hour. Requirements 

concerning the installation of ATGs, monthly release detection monitoring, and annual 

operability tests are identical to the Preferred Option. Costs incurred under the other subparts are 

also identical to the Preferred Option. Exhibit A-2 presents a breakdown of costs incurred by 

AHFDSs and FCTs because of the proposed regulatory requirements under Alternative Option 1. 

Exhibit A-2 – Cost Summary, Alternative 1 

REQUIREMENT 

COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH 

AHFDSS ($ MILLIONS) 

COSTS ASSOCIATED 

WITH FCTS ($ MILLIONS) 

TOTAL COSTS 

($ MILLIONS) 

Release detection (including 

management costs) $141.8 $40.4 $182.1 

All other requirements 

associated with the removal 

of deferrals (Subparts B, C, 

E, and G) 

$0.1 $0.04 $0.1 

Other requirements of the 

proposed rule (Walkthrough 

inspections; overfill 

prevention equipment tests; 

spill prevention equipment 

tests; testing after repairs to 

spill and overfill prevention 

equipment, and interstices; 

operator training; and onetime notification of 

existence) 

$0.6 $0.6 $1.2 

Total $142.5 $41.0 $183.5

Note: These figures are adjusted for baseline regulatory compliance (i.e., only 43 percent of FCTs 

and 60 percent of AHFDSs incur costs associated with the removal of deferrals). However, these 

figures are not discounted to reflect the proposed three-year phase-in period associated with the 

removal of deferrals. With discounting, the total cost of this requirement under Alternative 1 is $153 

million ($120 million for AHFDSs and $33 million for FCTs). 

Columns and/or rows may not sum exactly due to rounding.

 
A-5 

A.4 Detailed Cost Analysis – Release Detection 

Release detection requirements represent a majority of all costs pertaining to FCTs and AHFDSs. 

It is also the most complex part of the cost calculations, with numerous inputs and parameters. 

Exhibit A-3 displays these values as well as the assumptions or basis behind them.5

Exhibit A-3 

INPUT/PARAMETER VALUE SOURCE/BASIS 

Number of FCTs 239 See Chapter 2 

Percent of FCTs without existing ATGs 50% EPA assumption 

Percent of FCTs with existing ATGs 50% 100% less 50% of FCTs without existing ATGs 

Percent of FCTs with existing ATGs 

operating at 0.2 gallon per hour 25% EPA assumption 

Monthly release detection monitoring 

cost for ATGs $5.24 ATG monthly costs, ICR Cost Inputs, Tab 11 

Annual operability test cost for ATGs $72.89 

Annualized cost for ATG operability tests, 

Cost Model Inputs 3-22-10 “Revised Costs” for 

Operability tests for release detection 

methods 

Percent of FCTs with existing ATGs 

operating at more than 0.2 gallon per 

hour 

75% 100% less 25% of FCTs with existing ATGs 

operating at 0.2 gallon per hour 

Percent of FCTs with existing ATGs 

operating at more than 0.2 gallon per 

hour operating at 0.3 – 1.0 gallon per 

hour 

50% EPA assumption 

Percent of FCTs with ATGs operating at 

more than 0.2 gallon/ hour operating 

at 1.0 – 2.0 gallons/hour 

50% 

100% less 50% of FCTs with existing ATGs 

operating at more than 0.2 gallon per hour 

operating at 0.3 – 1.0 gallon per hour 

Average FCT size 250,000 

gallons EPA assumption 

Percent of FCTs with “long” associated 

piping of one mile 100% EPA assumption 

Percent of FCTs with “short” 

associated piping of 300 feet 0% 100% less 100% of FCTs with “long” associated piping of one mile 

Percent of FCTs with “short” 

associated piping using electronic line 

leak detectors 

50% EPA assumption 

Percent of FCTs with “short” 

associated piping using mechanical line 

leak detectors 

50% 100% less 50% of FCTs with “short” associated 

piping installing electronic line leak detectors 

Electronic line leak detector 

installation cost $77 TO 3003 TDD#9, page 8, annualized over 20 years with a 7 percent discount rate 

Mechanical line leak detector 

installation cost $23 TO 3003 TDD#9, page 8, annualized over 20 

years with a 7 percent discount rate 

 5 Due to major data limitations, except otherwise indicated, the assumptions used to model these systems 

are based on EPA’s best professional judgment.

 
A-6 

INPUT/PARAMETER VALUE SOURCE/BASIS 

Annual line leak detector line tightness 

cost $114 ICR page 63, Exhibit 1 

Line leak detector annual operability 

test cost $75 

Annualized cost for LLD operability tests, Cost 

Model Inputs 3-22-10 “Revised Costs” for 

Operability tests for release detection 

methods 

Number of AHFDSs 162 See Chapter 2 

Number of tanks per AHFDS 8 See Chapter 2 

Percent of tanks associated with 

AHFDSs with existing ATGs 50% EPA assumption 

Percent of tanks associated with 

AHFDSs without existing ATGs 50% 100% less 50% of tanks associated with AHFDSs with existing ATGs 

Installation cost for an ATG with eight 

probes (suitable for an AHFDS with 

eight associated tanks) 

$1,276 

Conversation with OUST, May 5, 2010: 

Annualized cost of: $4,051, cost of ATG with 

one probe (from TO 3003 TDD#9, page 8); 

plus eight hours of labor at $75/hour for 

installation; plus $1,352 per probe for seven 

additional probes 

Percent of AHFDSs using precision 

testing of piping as their release 

detection mechanism 

100% EPA assumption 

Number of miles per AHFDS (piping 

run) 5 EPA assumption 

Number of “sections” per mile of 

piping in an AHFDS 2 EPA assumption 

Percent of AHFDSs using an automatic 

line leak detector at 3.0 gallons per 

hour as their release detection 

mechanism 

0% 

100% less 100% of AHFDSs using precision test 

of piping as their release detection 

mechanism 

Average precision test cost – tanks $8,566 

Average of the estimated precision testing 

costs for a 250,000 gallon tank as provided via 

three methods: Vista, Mass. Tech., and 

Varec. Vista costs $6,500 per tank, Mass. 

Tech. costs $2,000 - $25,000 depending on 

the size of the tank ($6,839 for a 250,000 

gallon tank), and Varec costs $8,200 - $28,000 

depending on the size of the tank ($12,358 

for a 250,000 gallon tank). 

Average precision test cost – piping run $96,600 

Average of the estimated precision testing 

costs for a piping run of five miles, with two 

sections per mile, provided via three 

methods: HCNA, Vista, and Varec. HCNA costs 

$5,500 per section, Vista costs $5,000 per 

section, and Varec costs $7 per foot.*

 

*The proposed rule differentiates release detection requirements by requiring precision testing and 

ATGs to monitor tanks and piping systems at a certain gallon per hour standard. Although it takes 

longer to complete a precision test at a lower leak rate, we do not cost out the downtime 

associated with these precision tests. We do not cost out this downtime because, as virtually all 

FCTs and AHFDSs are located at Department of Defense (DoD) facilities, it is likely that these 

facilities both have a plan in place to prevent the loss of essential functions during routine 

maintenance such as a precision test and that these facilities do not have perpetual operations 

that would incur costs when forced to stop for a precision test. In addition, we believe that it is 

 
A-7 

INPUT/PARAMETER VALUE SOURCE/BASIS 

reasonable to assume that these DoD facilities will have backup systems in place such that routine 

maintenance would not impede operations. Similarly, for the few commercial airport facilities 

with AHFDSs, we assume that the precision testing can be scheduled during facility downtime, so 

that no additional costs associated with a longer precision test are incurred. 

Release Detection for FCTs – Preferred Option 

Release detection costs for FCTs can be broken down into costs related to tanks and costs related 

to the piping associated with FCTs. Under the proposed release detection requirements for FCTs, 

FCTs are required to utilize an acceptable release detection method, which entails any of the 

following: 

• an ATG operating at a leak rate of 0.2 gallon per hour; 

• annual precision testing at a leak rate of 0.5 gallon per hour; 

• an ATG operating at a leak rate of 0.3 to 1.0 gallon per hour, and precision testing 

at 0.1 gallon per hour every three years; or 

• an ATG operating at a leak rate of 1.0 to 2.0 gallons per hour, and precision 

testing at 0.1 gallon per hour every two years.6

We use the assumptions described in Exhibit A-3 to calculate the release detection costs 

associated with FCTs. 

Given the assumptions that 50 percent of all FCTs have existing ATGs, and of these, 25 percent 

operate at a leak rate of 0.2 gallon per hour, we calculate monthly release detection monitoring 

costs of $1,879 (239*0.5*0.25*$5.24*12) and annual operability test costs of $2,178 

(239*0.5*0.25*$72.89). Thus, FCTs with ATGs currently operating at a leak rate of 0.2 gallon 

per hour incur a cost of $4,056 annually. 

We assume that remaining FCTs with existing ATGs operate at leak rates of either 0.3 to 1.0 

gallon per hour or 1.0 to 2.0 gallons per hour, and must therefore also include a tri-annual or biannual precision test, respectively. We also assume that the remaining universe of FCTs with 

existing ATGs is divided evenly between the two groups. For those with existing ATGs 

operating at a leak rate of 0.3 to 1.0 gallon per hour, we calculate monthly release detection 

monitoring costs of $2,818 (239*0.5*0.75*0.5*$5.24*12), annual operability test costs of $3,266 

(239*0.5*0.75*0.5*$72.89) and bi-annual precision testing costs of $191,927 

(239*0.5*0.75*0.5*$8,566/2). Thus, FCTs with ATGs currently operating at a leak rate of 0.3 to 

1.0 gallon per hour incur a cost of $198,011 annually. 

 6

 Under the proposed rule, FCTs can also use any other monitoring method approved by the implementing 

agency as a method of release detection. For modeling purposes, however, we assume, that owners or operators will 

only use the methods listed above. 

 
A-8 

For FCTs with existing ATGs operating at a leak rate of 1.0 to 2.0 gallons per hour, we calculate 

similar monthly release detection monitoring and annual operability test costs, and tri-annual 

precision testing costs of $127,951 (239*0.5*0.75*0.5*$8,566/3). Thus, FCTs with ATGs 

currently operating at a leak rate of 1.0 to 2.0 gallons per hour incur a cost of $134,036 

($127,951+$2,818+$3,266) annually. 

For the 50 percent of existing FCTs without ATGs currently installed, we assume that an annual 

precision test is conducted. The total cost incurred by these FCTs annually is $1,023,612 

(239*0.5*$8,566). 

We assume that all FCTs have one mile of associated piping, which is subject to the release 

detection requirements applicable to AHFDSs (see below). The total costs incurred by the piping 

associated with FCTs is $9,234,960, or 239*$96,600/5 (standard testing costs apply to a fivemile-long piping run)*2 (testing is performed semiannually). 

Total FCT release detection costs are $10,594,675, of which over 87 percent are related to the 

piping associated with these systems. 

Release Detection for FCTs – Alternative Option 1 

Under Alternative Option 1, for modeling purposes, we assume that FCTs will be able to meet 

release detection requirements by either using an ATG operating at a leak rate of 0.2 gallon per 

hour, or by conducting a monthly precision test. 

Those FCTs with existing ATGs operating at a leak rate of 0.2 gallon per hour will incur costs 

similar to those incurred under the Preferred Option: $4,056. However, FCTs with existing 

ATGs operating at a greater leak rate must undergo monthly precision testing. The total annual 

costs are $9,212,507 (239*0.5*0.75*$8,566*12). In addition, those FCTs without existing ATGs 

must also undergo monthly precision testing, which total $12,283,343 annually 

(239*0.5*$8,566*12). Finally, piping associated with FCTs must undergo the same testing 

requirements as AHFDSs under Alternative Option 1 (239*$96,600/5 (standard testing costs 

apply to a five-mile-long piping run)*13 (monthly testing plus an annual test, or $60,027,240). 

Under Alternative Option 1, total costs for release detection associated with FCTs are 

approximately $81,527,000, with over 70 percent of this related to the associated piping. 

Release Detection for AHFDSs – Preferred Option 

Release detection costs for AHFDSs can be divided into tank costs and associated piping costs. 

We assume that all tanks associated with AHFDSs will utilize an ATG operating at a leak rate of 

0.2 gallon per hour as the release detection method (i.e., none will use a precision test). 

Furthermore, we assume that 50 percent of the systems have ATGs already installed on them, 

while ATGs would have to be installed on the remainder. For those systems with existing ATGs, 

we calculate monthly release detection monitoring costs to be $40,746 (162*8*0.5*$5.24*12) 

and annual operability test costs for the ATGs to be $47,233 (162*8*0.5*$72.89). Total annual 

costs for these tanks are thus $87,979. 

 
A-9 

For the other 50 percent of existing tanks associated with AHFDSs that lack ATGs, we calculate 

annualized ATG installation costs to be $103,333 (162*0.5*$1,276). Monthly release detection 

monitoring and annual operability test costs for the ATGs are identical to those stated above. 

Total annual costs for these tanks are thus $191,312 ($87,979+$103,333). Overall, total annual 

costs for all tanks associated with AHFDSs are $279,291 ($87,979+$191,312). 

The Preferred Option would require that the piping of AHFDSs undergo semiannual precision 

testing.7

 Total annual costs for the precision testing of piping associated with AHFDSs are 

$31,298,400, or 162*2*$96,600. 

We calculate total annual release detection costs incurred by AHFDSs to be $31,577,691, of 

which over 99 percent are related to the piping associated with AHFDSs. 

Release Detection for AHFDSs – Alternative Option 1 

Under Alternative Option 1, release detection for AHFDSs consists of a monthly precision test at 

3.0 gallons per hour as well as an annual precision test at 0.1 gallon per hour. Because we do not 

differentiate costs for precision tests by their leak rate (see Note 1 in Exhibit A-3), this is the 

equivalent of 13 precision tests annually. Total costs for tanks associated with AHFDSs do not 

change between the Preferred Option and Alternative Option 1: they remain $279,291. The cost 

of 13 precision tests annually for AHFDS piping is $203,439,600, or 162*13*$96,600. 

Under Alternative Option 1, total annual costs for release detection associated with AHFDSs are 

$203,718,891, of which over 99 percent are related to the piping associated with AHFDSs. 

Management Costs Associated with Release Detection – Preferred Option

In addition to the direct costs of the proposed release detection requirements, we also estimate 

management costs associated with the regulation. These management costs consist of five 

percent overhead costs associated with government/contractor program management, ten percent 

government contracting costs, and one percent base support costs.8

 Altogether, we estimate a 

sixteen percent management cost associated with release detection. 

Sixteen percent of total FCT release detection costs is $1,695,948. Sixteen percent of total 

AHFDS release detection costs is $5,052,431. Total annual management costs associated with 

release detection are thus $6,747,579. In sum, under the Preferred Option, release detection 

costs for FCTs and AHFDSs, including management costs, are $48,919,945. 

 7

 The proposed rule also allows owners and operators of AHFDSs to use alternate release detection 

methods: automatic line leak detector capable of detecting a leak at 3.0 gallons per hour at 10 psi line pressure 

within 1 hour or equivalent plus quarterly interstitial monitoring; continuous interstitial monitoring; or another 

method approved by the implementing agency. For modeling purposes, however, we assume that owners or 

operators will only use the methods listed above. 

8

 Bulk Field Construct UST Testing Summary and Pipeline Testing Cost Summary provided by DESC 

March 8, 2010, in “EPA Cost Summary.xlsx.” 

 
A-10 

Management Costs Associated with Release Detection – Alternative Option 1

Sixteen percent of total FCT release detection costs under Alternative Option 1 is $13,043,678. 

Sixteen percent of total AHFDS release detection costs under Alternative Option 1 is 

$32,595,023. Total management costs associated with release detection under Alternative Option 

1 are thus $45,638,701. In sum, under Alternative Option 1, release detection costs for FCTs and 

AHFDSs, including management costs, are $330,885,403. 

A.5 Detailed Cost Analysis – Subparts B, C, E, G 

Subpart B

Subpart B concerns the design, construction, installation, and notification of new FCTs and 

AHFDSs. We assume, however, that no new FCTs or AHFDSs will be installed. Thus, the 

requirements associated with Subpart B incur no costs.9

Subpart C

EPA assumes that both FCTs and AHFDs are already equipped with corrosion protection (i.e., 

constructed of: non-corrodible material, coated and cathodically protected steel according to a 

code of practice developed by a nationally recognized association or independent testing 

laboratory, fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP), or steel tank clad with FRP).10 EPA assumes 

continual monthly and annual inspections for corrosion protection. As a result, EPA assumes no 

incremental costs will occur associated with the cathodic protection inspection of Subpart C. 

However, we do assume that AHFDSs and FCTs will incur a recordkeeping cost associated with 

these inspections. 

To estimate recordkeeping costs, we assume that each owner/operator will incur approximately 

$3.91 in labor cost (0.1 clerical hours) and approximately $0.10 in operation and maintenance 

costs. As each FCT is required to comply with this requirement, the annual cost for FCTs is 

$958.66 (approximately $4.01*239 FCTs). AHFDSs incur similar costs for maintaining records, 

which total $649.80 per year ($4.01*162 AHFDSs) (note that minor rounding affects these 

calculations). 

Subpart C also requires owners and operators to maintain repair records. This consists of: (1) 

gathering information on each repair; (2) conducting a tightness test 30 days after repair; and (3) 

maintaining records. EPA assumes three percent of FCTs and AHFDSs require repair 

annually.11 Gathering information on repair requires one technical hour of labor ($73.80), while 

maintaining records requires 0.1 clerical hour of labor ($3.91) and $0.10 in operation and 

maintenance costs. 

 9

 EPA assumes that existing systems already meet spill, overfill, and corrosion protection requirements 

(based on meeting with DESC on February 18, 2010). 

10 Based on a meeting between EPA/OUST and Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) on February 18, 

2010. 

11 OUST 2007 ICR.

 
A-11 

For FCTs, we assume that tightness testing performed after a repair costs $1,750.12 The total 

costs for FCTs to test and maintain records are $13,105.39 ($73.80+$1,750+$4.01*7.17, which is 

three percent of 239 existing FCTs). Total FCT costs for Subpart C are then $14,064.05. 

For AHFDSs, tightness testing following a repair must occur for every tank within the system. 

Given our assumption of an average of eight tanks associated with each AHFDS, we calculate 

costs associated with this portion of subpart C for AHFDSs to be $68,418.15 

($73.80+$1,750*8+$4.01*4.86, which is three percent of 162 existing AHFDSs). Total AHFDS 

costs for Subpart C are then $69,067.95. 

Subpart E 

Subpart E requires owners and operators to report to the implementing agency suspected or 

actual releases of regulated substances, release investigation and confirmation, and reporting and 

cleanup of spills and overfills. Gathering information occurs on two levels – the facility level and 

the contractor level. Facilities are assumed to use one managerial hour and four technical hours 

on gathering information ($385.94 total), as well as $2,653 in operation and maintenance costs. 

We assume contractors use five managerial hours, 31 technical hours, and 15 clerical hours 

($3,328.13 total) with no operation and maintenance costs. We assume five percent of all FCTs 

suspect a release each year.13 In addition, we assume 60 percent of facilities with suspected 

releases report them, which requires 0.25 managerial hours ($22.69) and $0.43 in operation and 

maintenance costs. Three percent of all FCTs are assumed to report a fill or overfill, and three 

percent are also assumed to notify the agency in the event that they are unable to clean up a spill. 

These notification costs are identical: 0.5 managerial hours ($45.37 and $3.00 in operation and 

maintenance costs). Total FCT costs for Subpart E are then $76,945.84, or the sum of 

($385.94+$2,653+$3,328.13*11.95, or five percent of 239), and ($22.69 + $0.43 + $45.37 + 

$45.37 + $3.00 + $3.00 * 7.17, or three percent of 239). 

AHFDSs incur identical costs to FCTs for compliance with Subpart E, with the only difference 

that there are 162 existing AHFDSs as compared to 239 existing FCTs. Total AHFDS costs for 

Subpart E are $52,155,76, or the sum of ($385.94+$2,653+$3,328.13*8.1, or five percent of 

162), and ($22.69+$0.43+$45.37+$45.37+$3.00+$3.00*4.86, or three percent of 162). 

Subpart G 

Subpart G requires that owners and operators conduct a site assessment of the excavation zone, 

as well as provide notification of the closure or change-in-service. In addition, owners and 

operators must maintain records after permanent closure or change-in-service for at least three 

years, and mail records to the implementing agency if they are unable to maintain them on site. 

We assume that one FCT will close every five years.14 Notification of closure or change-in- 12 Email from George Thuemling at Varec, October 23, 2009. 

13 PCCI, “Summary of the Preliminary Assessment of Baseline and Cost Impacts Associated with Deferred 

UST Systems,” July 2008, Attachments 6 and 11, Note 3.

14 Information provided by OUST, March 17, 2010. 

 
A-12 

service requires 0.25 managerial hours ($22.69) and $3.00 for operation and maintenance costs. 

Site assessment of the excavation zone takes place on two levels—the facility level and the 

contractor level. The facility level requires 2.75 managerial hours ($249.56) and $2,333 for 

operation and maintenance costs. The contractor level requires 6 managerial hours, 40 technical 

hours, and 18 clerical hours ($5,113.86). Maintaining records requires 0.1 hours of clerical time 

($3.91) and $0.10 for operation and maintenance costs. We assume that records for all FCTs will 

be maintained on site, and will not be mailed to an implementing agency. Total FCT costs for 

Subpart G are calculated as $1,545.22. (($22.69+$3.00+$2,333+$249.56+$5,113.86+$4.01)* 

0.0008368). Note that this calculation multiplies the costs enumerated above by 0.0008368, or 

the number of FCTs closing every five years (1/(239*5)). 

Subpart G for AHFDSs is similar to that for FCTs. We assume that one AHFDS will close every 

five years.15 In addition, unlike FCTs, we assume that closing AHFDSs cannot maintain records 

on site, and will have to mail them to them implementing agency at a cost of 0.5 clerical hours 

($19.56) and $3.00 in operation and maintenance costs. Thus, total AHFDS costs for Subpart G 

are $1,549.73 (($22.69+$3.00+$2,333+$249.56+$5,113.86+$4.01+$19.56+$3.00)*0.0012346). 

Note that this calculation multiplies the costs enumerated above by 0.0012346, or the number of 

AHFDSs closing every five years (1/(162*5)). 

A.6 Detailed Cost Analysis – Other New Regulatory Requirements 

If deferrals are removed from AHFDS and FCT systems, additional requirements under the 

proposed regulations also become mandatory for these systems. This section summarizes the 

methodology for valuing those requirements. Note that the estimates in this section are generally 

consistent with the timing and costs required for other types of tanks (see Chapter 3), but reflect 

a different labor rate more consistent with work performed at DoD facilities. 

Walkthrough Inspections

The proposed regulation requires monthly walkthrough inspections for all tanks, including FCTs 

and AHFDSs. For FCTs, the walkthrough inspection, which includes the cost of repairs, if 

necessary, requires 50 minutes of technical labor ($63.47)16 plus $0.13 in time value of money 

costs.17 In addition, recordkeeping for this requirement costs $4.01 in total (0.1 hour of clerical 

labor at $3.91 and $0.10 in operation and maintenance costs). As walkthrough inspections are 

required monthly under both the Preferred Option and Alternative Option 1, the annual cost of 

this requirement for FCTs is $188,258.71 (($63.47+$0.13+$4.01)*239*12). 

For AHFDSs, the walkthrough inspection requires 85 minutes of technical labor ($124.20)18 as 

well as $1.32 in time value of money costs.19 In addition, recordkeeping for walkthrough 

 15 Information provided by OUST, March 17, 2010. 

16 Information provided by OUST, December 11, 2009. 

17 This is an annual cost stemming from costs incurred due to finding problems earlier under the regulatory 

requirements as compared with the baseline. See Appendix D for discussion on the time value of money.

18 Information provided by OUST, March 22, 2010. 

 
A-13 

inspections for AHFDSs are identical to those for FCTs. The annual cost of this requirement for 

AHFDSs is $213,605.82 (($124.20+$1.32+$4.01)*162*12). 

Overfill Prevention Equipment Tests

Under the Preferred Option, the proposed regulation requires overfill prevention equipment tests 

for all tanks, including FCTs and AHFDSs, every three years. The testing component costs $214 

annually per tank. In addition, there is a time value of money cost of $11.00.20 Recordkeeping for 

this requirement costs $4.01 ($3.91 for 0.1 hours of clerical labor and $0.10 in operation and 

maintenance costs). We calculate total annual costs for FCTs for the requirement to be 

$18,244.81 (($214+$11.99+$4.01)*239/3). 

Costs for overfill prevention equipment tests are similar for AHFDSs, except that overfill 

prevention equipment tests take place on a by-tank basis. Since we assume eight tanks per 

AHFDS, the total testing cost at one AHFDS is approximately $1,800 (($214+$11.00)*8). 

Correspondingly, total annual costs for AHFDSs for this requirement are $97,418.00 

(($1,800+$4.01)*162/3). 

Under Alternative Option 1, overfill prevention equipment tests would be required every year. 

The time value of money cost in this case is $3.92.21 Total annual costs for overfill prevention 

equipment tests for FCTs and AHFDSs would be $336,113.37 ((($214+$3.92+$4.01)*239) + 

($1,743+$4.01)*162)). 

Spill Prevention Equipment Tests 

Under the Preferred Option, the proposed regulation requires annual spill prevention equipment 

tests for all tanks, including FCTs and AHFDSs. The testing component, which does not include 

the cost of repair, costs $125 per spill prevention equipment unit, as well as $3.34 in time value 

of money costs.22 As with the other requirements, there is a $4.01 recordkeeping component 

($3.91 for 0.1 hours of clerical labor and $0.10 in operation and maintenance costs). For FCTs, 

the total annual cost of this requirement is $31,631.67 ($125+$3.34+$4.01*239). We assume 

that the tanks associated with AHFDSs do not have spill prevention equipment, and therefore do 

not require any spill prevention equipment tests.23 

 19 This is an annual cost stemming from costs incurred due to finding problems earlier under the regulatory 

requirements as compared with the baseline. See Appendix D for discussion on the time value of money. 

20 This is an annual cost associated with the cost of finding issues requiring repair three years earlier as a 

result of requiring operability tests every year. See Appendix D for discussion on the time value of money. 

21 The time value of money cost falls since tests are required each year. For more information on how the 

time value of money is calculated, see Chapter 3 and Appendix D. 

22 This is an annual cost associated with the cost of finding issues requiring repair three years earlier as a 

result of requiring the tightness test every year. See Appendix D for discussion on the time value of money.

23 The underground storage tanks associated with AHFDSs are typically intermediate tanks that are fed by 

larger tanks through permanently connected piping. 

 
A-14 

Under Alternative Option 1, spill prevention equipment would have to be replaced every three 

years, rather than being tested annually. The cost of replacing a spill bucket is $2,000 and the 

recordkeeping component applies for each replacement, so the total annual cost is calculated by 

annualizing the cost of a $2,000 replacement plus $4.01 in recordkeeping every three years. This 

cost is $182,508, or $763.63 ($2,004.01 annualized over three years with a seven percent 

discount rate) times 239. 

Testing after Repairs to Spill and Overfill Prevention Equipment

The proposed regulation requires spill prevention equipment testing, overfill prevention 

equipment testing, and the recordkeeping associated with both of these activities for all tanks that 

have undergone repairs, including FCTs and AHFDSs. We assume that 15.6 percent of all spill 

prevention equipment requires repairs every year, as the average spill prevention equipment test 

pass rate is 84.4 percent.24 We also assume that 21.4 of all overfills require repairs every year, as 

the average overfill equipment test pass rate is 78.6 percent.25 The testing costs associated with 

these tests are the same as those stated in earlier sections. For FCTs, the total annual cost for 

testing spill prevention equipment after repairs is $4,810.05 (($125+$4.01)*37.28, or 15.6 

percent of 239 FCTs), and the total annual cost for testing overfill prevention equipment after 

repairs is $11,150.40 (($214+$4.01)*51.15, or 21.4 percent of 239 FCTs). The total cost for this 

requirement for FCTs comes out to $15.960.45. 

The tanks associated with AHFDSs do not have spill prevention equipment. However, since the 

overfill prevention equipment tests is performed on a per-tank basis, each AHFDS requiring a 

repair incurs the testing cost for each of its tanks. We assume an average of eight tanks 

associated with each AHFDS. Thus, for AHFDSs, the total annual cost for testing overfill 

prevention equipment after repairs is $59,490.67 (($214*8+$4.01)*34.67, or 21.4 percent of 162 

AHFDSs). 

Ownership Change Notification

The proposed regulation requires notification of ownership changes from all facilities changing 

ownership. Each of these notifications requires 0.25 managerial hours, or $22.69. We assume 

that one percent of all FCTs (2.39 FCTs) will change ownership every year. Thus, the total 

annual cost for FCTs pertaining to this requirement is $54.22 ($22.69*2.39). 

The costs incurred under this requirement are identical for AHFDSs. The total annual cost for 

AHFDSs is $36.75, or $22.69*1.62 (one percent of existing AHFDSs). 

Recordkeeping Associated with Compatibility 

EPA assumes that existing AHFDSs and FCTs are not storing regulated substances blended with 

more than ten percent alcohol, and therefore, owners and operators of these systems would not 

 24 Based on information on test pass rates for spill bucket sumps. 

25 Based on information on test pass rates for overfill alarms, flow restrictors, and automatic shutoff 

devices. 

 
A-15 

choose to demonstrate compatibility with those fuel blends. However, the proposed regulation 

would require that owners and operators retain equipment records for all new and replaced 

equipment. EPA assumes that all owners and operators of these systems will incur this cost 

annually as part of annual maintenance and replacement of UST system components. This 

recordkeeping cost is $1.88 per record, plus $0.01 to permanently store the record. Total annual 

recordkeeping costs associated with compatibility are $2,895 ($1.89 * 239 FCTs + $1.89 * 162 

AHFDSs * 8 UST systems per AHFDS). 

Operator Training

The operator training requirement includes both the costs of testing and training operators, as 

well as associated recordkeeping. Testing and training costs include both yearly and first-year 

costs. First-year costs are initial training costs incurred by all facilities. Yearly costs are costs of 

training new staff necessary to serve as operators. These costs are calculated according to the 

methodology below. 

For modeling purposes, we assume that each facility will require one Class A (managerial labor, 

facilities), one Class B (technical labor, facilities), and three Class C (military pay grade of E-6) 

operators.26 For Class A and B operators, we assume 20 percent “test out” and do not require 

training.27 For those testing out, the facility incurs the cost of a test (assumed to be $60), as well 

as the 1.5 hours necessary to take the test.28,29 Because only 20 percent of operators “test out,” 

the test costs are, on average, $39.22 for Class A operators and $34.14 for Class B operators, or 

$60 plus (1.5* the labor rate)*0.2. For the 80 percent that cannot “test out,” each operator must 

take a no-cost online training that culminates in a final exam. The final exam costs $169, and the 

training process requires ten hours of time.30 Thus, the cost for operator training for those not 

testing out is $861.18 for Class A operators and $725.58 for Class B operators, or $169 plus (10* 

the labor rate)*0.8. 

Class C operators are assumed to be trained by Class B operators. This training is assumed to 

take one hour of time for the Class B operator, as well as one hour each for the Class C operators 

being trained. Thus, the costs per facility for training Class C operators are $144.83, or $73.80 

(Class B operator hourly rate) plus $66.56 (the hourly rate for three Class C operators). The total 

one-year cost for a facility then, incurred in the first year that the Operator Training requirement 

 26 Assumption provided by OUST, September 8, 2009. 

27 Assumption provided by OUST, September 10, 2009. 

28 See Industrial Economics, Inc. “Draft Methodology for Assessing Cost-Effectiveness of Operator 

Training Options,” Work Assignment 1-19, Task 4, December 30, 2008, page 12, Exhibit 2. Tests range from $45 to 

$75; $60 is the average test cost. 

29 See http://www.iccsafe.org/certification/ust-ast/2009UST-AST.pdf, 1.5 hours is the length of California’s 

test. 

30 See http://www.petroleumtrainingsolutions.com/resources/ColoradoAB.pdf, the Colorado “webinar.” 

The exam requires approximately two hours, and the training consists of two four-hour sessions, for a total of ten 

hours. 

 
A-16 

goes into effect, is $1,804.49, which, in its annualized form and including recordkeeping costs, is 

$170.33. 

Yearly costs stem from turnover among operators, and the need to train new operators. Assuming 

a turnover rate of 22 percent per year for all operators, and that 20 percent of new Class A and 

Class B operators continue to “test” out while all new Class C operators must receive initial 

training, we obtain yearly costs of $332.84: (0.2*0.8*$861.18 plus 0.2*Class A labor rate) plus 

(0.2*0.8*$725.58 plus 0.2*Class B labor rate) plus ($140.35/3*0.66).31 

For FCTs, operator training incurs a total annual cost of $119,299.92, or $170.33 plus $328.83 

*239. For AHFDSs, operator training incurs a total annual cost of $80,864.38, or $170.33 plus 

$328.83*162. 

One-Time Notification of Existence

The proposed rule requires owners and operators of AHFDSs and FCTs to provide a one-time 

notification to appropriate implementing agencies that their systems exist. EPA assumes that it 

will take 15 minutes of managerial labor to prepare and submit the notification. For AHFDSs, 

total annual costs is $3,675 (162 * 0.25 * $90.75). Annualized over a 20-year regulatory 

horizon, these costs are $347 per year. For FCTs, total annual costs is $5,422 (239 * 0.25 * 

$90.75). Annualized over a 20-year regulatory horizon, these costs are $512 per year. 

 31 We assume turnover rates for all classes to be between 20 and 24 percent per year; 22 percent is the 

average turnover rate. For Class C operators, this means that there is an annual turnover of 66 percent since we 

assume three Class C operators per FCT/AHFDS.

 
Draft Work Product - Do Not Cite Or Circulate 

Appendix B 

Estimation of Affected UST Universe and Baseline State Regulations 

 
B-1 

B.1 Assumptions used for Universe Affected by Each Proposed Change

For each requirement, only facilities in states that do not already require each regulation will be 

required to comply. This appendix presents EPA/OUST’s assumptions regarding the proportion 

of facilities that will be subject to additional costs in these states. 

The proportions presented below include all conventional UST facilities and EGTs. Airport 

hydrant field distribution systems (AHFDSs) and UST systems with field constructed tanks 

(FCTs) exist in addition to the number of systems counted by EPA and require the following 

under the proposed rule: walkthrough inspections; overfill prevention equipment testing; spill 

prevention equipment testing; spill and overfill prevention equipment, and interstitial integrity 

testing after repairs; change of ownership notification; operator training; and one-time 

notification of existence. 

EGTs are included among conventional USTs, except in the case of Alternative Option 2, where 

the deferrals remain in place. In that instance, we exclude EGTs from the universes affected 

under operability testing, addition of SIR/CITLD to regulations with performance criteria, and 

adjustment of release detection leak rate probabilities. Under the Preferred Option and 

Alternative Option 1, we include EGTs in the universes of those calculations. 

B.1.1 Release Prevention

Walkthrough Inspections 

• Requirement applies per facility. 

• All facilities will be required to comply. 

• In states where some walkthrough inspections are already required, owners and operators 

will be required to conduct additional walkthrough inspections. For example, if a state 

currently requires owners/operators to do one walkthrough inspection per year, they will 

now be required to conduct 11 additional walkthrough inspections per year. 

Overfill prevention equipment tests 

• Requirement applies per UST system. 

• One overfill device per UST system. 

• All facilities with overfill devices (i.e., all facilities) are required to comply. 

Spill prevention equipment tests 

• Requirement applies per UST system. 

• One set of spill prevention equipment (e.g., spill bucket) per UST system. 

 
B-2 

• OUST assumes that 10 percent of existing spill prevention equipment is double-walled 

and has a self-monitoring mechanism to detect potential releases. 

• Remaining 90 percent of spill prevention equipment will need to test. 

Interstitial integrity tests 

• Requirement applies per UST system. 

• According to an analysis performed by E2

 Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 5, 19.76 percent of 

the universe of UST systems uses interstitial monitoring. OUST assumes that 95 percent 

of these use continuous sensors, pressure, vacuum or liquid filled leak detection 

monitoring mechanisms, and therefore do not need to perform an integrity test. 

Consequently, 0.99 percent of the universe of tanks will require this test. 

• The same analysis shows that 18.30 percent of piping uses interstitial monitoring. OUST 

assumes that 10 percent of pipes use continuous pressure, vacuum or liquid filled leak 

detection monitoring mechanisms, and therefore do not need to perform an integrity test. 

Consequently, 16.47 percent of piping systems will require this test. 

Spill prevention equipment test after repair 

• Requirement applies per UST system. 

• OUST assumes that 75 percent of spill prevention equipment is replaced, rather than 

repaired. 

• OUST assumes that spill prevention equipment requires repair every 4 years, such that 25 

percent of the universe is affected each year. 

• Implies 6.25 percent of UST systems require testing each year. 

Overfill prevention equipment test after repair 

• Based on an analysis performed by E2

 Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 7, OUST assumes that 

100 percent of tanks have an overfill device. 

• OUST assumes that these devices require repairs every 5 years. This implies 20 percent 

of the universe is affected each year. 

• OUST assumes that 75 percent of these repairs result in replacement rather than repair. 

• Implies five percent of UST systems require testing each year. 

Interstitial integrity test after repair 

 
B-3 

• Results of analyses and assumptions used for interstitial integrity testing suggest that 0.99 

percent of the universe of UST systems uses a type of monitoring that would require 

integrity testing (see above). 

• OUST assumes that an UST requires repair once every 20 years. This means five percent 

of the universe is affected each year. Together these assumptions imply 0.05 percent of 

UST systems require this type of testing each year. 

• Similarly, 16.47 percent of piping uses a type of monitoring that would require interstitial 

integrity testing. 

• OUST assumes that piping requires repair once every 5 years, which means 20 percent of 

the universe is affected each year. Together, these assumptions imply 3.29 percent of 

piping systems require this type of testing each year. 

Eliminate flow restrictors in vent lines as overfill prevention option for all new tanks and when 

overfill devices are replaced 

• Requirement applies per UST system. 

• OUST assumes that UST systems are replaced every 20 years. This means five percent 

of the universe is replaced each year. 

• OUST assumes that 13 percent of all new tanks would have installed flow restrictors. 

This implies that the total universe affected by this requirement each year is 0.65 percent. 

• Correspondingly, at the midpoint of population turnover, which occurs in Year 10, 6.5 

percent of the universe will be affected by this requirement. 

B.1.2 Release Detection

Operability test for automatic tank gauges (ATGs) 

• Requirement applies per UST system. 

• According to an analysis performed by E2

 Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 5, 33.66 percent of 

the universe of UST systems uses an automatic tank gauge as their release detection 

method. 

• Each UST system using an automatic tank gauge is required to comply. 

Operability test for interstitial monitoring 

• Requirement applies per UST system. 

• According to an analysis performed by E2

 Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 5, 19.76 percent of 

the universe of UST systems uses interstitial monitoring. However, OUST assumes that 

five percent of tanks with interstices use manual testing and therefore would not be 

 
B-4 

required to conduct operability tests. As a result, we estimate that 18.77 percent of the 

universe of UST systems is required to comply with this requirement. 

Operability test for line leak detection (LLD) 

• Requirement applies per UST system. 

• This requirement applies to all UST systems that use pressurized piping delivery systems. 

• According to an analysis performed by E2 Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 5, 82.44 percent of 

the universe of UST systems uses a pressurized piping product delivery system. Of these, 

33.42 percent use electronic line leak detection, and 66.58 percent use mechanical line 

leak detection. As a result, EPA estimates that 27.55 percent of all UST systems use 

electronic line leak detection for their pressurized piping delivery system. EPA assumes 

that all of these systems will incur the cost of operability testing and the associated costs 

related to necessary repairs that may result from the testing. 

• In addition, for the 54.89 percent of all UST systems that use mechanical line leak 

detection for their pressurized piping product delivery system, EPA assumes that they are 

currently conducting an annual operability test. For modeling purposes, however, EPA 

does include the costs associated with any necessary repairs to the mechanical line leak 

detector that may result from this test. 

Elimination of vapor and groundwater monitoring as release detection methods 

• Requirement applies per UST system. 

• According to an analysis performed by E2 Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 5, five percent of 

the universe of UST systems uses vapor monitoring, and 5.51 percent of the universe of 

UST systems uses groundwater monitoring. Of these, 1.07 percent use only groundwater 

monitoring; 1.54 percent use only vapor monitoring; and 2.56 percent use both 

groundwater and vapor monitoring. 

• Each UST system using vapor or groundwater monitoring as their primary release 

detection method is required to comply. 

Add SIR or CITLD to certain regulations with performance criteria 

• Requirement applies per UST system 

• According to an analysis performed by E2

 Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 5, 12.96 percent of 

the universe of UST systems uses statistical inventory reconciliation. 

• OUST assumes 15 percent of these UST systems will be affected because they currently 

use methods that report only qualitative SIR results. Furthermore, OUST assumes that of 

these, only 25 percent will incur costs to comply with this requirement (i.e., these will 

need to change service providers to obtain quantitative SIR results). As a result, this 

requirement affects 0.05 percent of the universe of UST systems. 

 
B-5 

Adjust release detection probability of detection and false alarm for automatic tank gauges 

• Requirement applies per UST system 

• According to an analysis performed by E2 Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 5, 33.66 percent of 

the universe of UST systems uses an automatic tank gauge as a release detection method. 

• Each UST system using an automatic tank gauge is required to comply. 

Adjust release detection probability of detection and false alarm for line leak detection 

• Requirement applies per UST system 

• This requirement applies to those UST systems using pressurized piping product delivery 

systems. 

• According to an analysis performed by E2

 Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 5, 82.44 percent of 

the universe of UST systems uses a pressurized piping product delivery system, and 

33.42 percent of the universe of UST systems uses electronic line leak detection. As a 

result, the 27.55 percent of the universe of UST systems that use electronic line leak 

detection and a pressurized piping product delivery system must comply with this 

requirement. 

Adjust release detection probability of detection and false alarm for SIR 

• Requirement applies per UST system 

• According to an analysis performed by E2 Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 5, 12.96 percent of 

the universe of UST systems uses statistical inventory reconciliation. OUST assumes 15 

percent of these UST systems will be affected because they currently use methods that 

report only qualitative SIR results. As a result, 1.94 percent of the universe of UST 

systems would have to comply with this requirement. 

Adjust release detection probability of detection and false alarm for CITLD 

• Requirement applies per UST system 

• According to an analysis performed by E2

 Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 5, 33.66 percent of 

the universe of UST systems uses an automatic tank gauge as a method of release 

detection. Of the UST systems using an automatic tank gauge as a method of release 

detection, OUST assumes that 75 percent use CITLD. As a result, 25.25 percent of the 

universe of UST systems must comply with this requirement. 

 
B-6 

Require response to interstitial monitoring alarms 

• Requirement applies per UST system 

• According to an analysis performed by E2 Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 5, 19.76 percent of 

the universe of UST systems contains tanks using interstitial monitoring, and 18.30 

percent of the universe of UST systems contains piping using interstitial monitoring. 

• OUST assumes that three percent of alarms associated with tanks and ten percent of 

alarms associated with piping activate annually. This implies that each year, 0.59 percent 

of the UST universe consists of tanks using interstitial monitoring with alarms activating, 

and 1.83 percent of the UST universe consists of piping using interstitial monitoring with 

alarms activating. 

• Correspondingly, 2.42 percent of the UST universe must comply with this requirement. 

Remove deferrals for EGTs 

• All EGTs in states that have not already removed deferrals must comply with this 

requirement. 

• OUST estimates that three percent of all UST systems are EGTs. This does not include 

nuclear EGTs. 

B.1.3 Other

Remove deferrals for AHFDSs 

• All AHFDSs with associated UST systems must comply with this requirement. 

• OUST estimates that 162 AHFDSs have associated UST systems and will be affected by 

this requirement.1

Remove deferrals for FCTs 

• All FCTs must comply with this requirement. 

• OUST estimates that 239 FCTs will be affected by this requirement.2

 

Notification of ownership changes 

 1

 See Industrial Economics, Inc., “Preliminary Assessment and Scoping of Data Related to Potential 

Revisions to the UST Regulations; Tasks 2-4, Work Assignment 1-25,” November 20, 2008. There are 201 airport 

hydrant fuel distribution systems owned by the Department of Defense and 40 airport hydrant fuel distribution 

systems located at commercial airports. Of these, 162 are not fueled by above-ground storage tanks (two commercial 

airport facilities have UST systems, along with 160 of the 201 Department of Defense systems). 

2

 Ibid. 

 
B-7 

• Requirement applies per facility. 

• According to an analysis performed by E2

 Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 27, on average, 

approximately ten percent of facilities undergo an ownership change each year. 

Closure of lined tanks that cannot be repaired according to a code of practice 

• Requirement applies per UST system. 

• According to an analysis performed by E2

 Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 5, five percent of all 

UST systems are lined tanks. 

• According to an analysis performed by E2 Inc. under TO 3003, TDD 17, twelve percent 

of UST systems with lined tanks do not pass an inspection per year. Furthermore, 23 

percent of the UST systems that cannot pass an inspection cannot be repaired in 

accordance with a code of practice. 

• OUST assumes that 10 percent of lined tanks are inspected each year. 

• As a result, 0.01 percent of the universe of UST systems must comply with this 

requirement. 

Requirements for determining compatibility 

• For existing UST systems, owners must be able to maintain records to demonstrate that 

their UST system is compatible with the fuel stored. In order to do this, owners must 

have existing records indicating what equipment has already been installed, and that 

equipment is compatible with alcohol blends greater than ten percent. EPA assumes that 

ten percent of existing owners would have adequate installation records. EPA also 

assumes these owners would maintain records and demonstrate compatibility on a per 

UST system basis. 

• For all new and replaced equipment, owners must maintain records for the life of the 

UST system, including date of installation or replacement, manufacturer, and model. 

EPA assumes one instance of equipment replacement per system per year. 

B.1.4 Energy Policy Act-related Provisions

Operator training 

• Requirement applies per facility. 

• Requirement applies to all facilities in Indian country. OUST estimates that there are 

currently 958 facilities in Indian country. 

Secondary containment for new and replaced tanks 

 
B-8 

• Requirement applies per UST system. 

• Requirement applies to all UST systems in Indian country. 

• OUST assumes that USTs are replaced every 20 years. This implies five percent of the 

universe is replaced each year. 

• According to a Tribal Data Analysis performed by E2

 Inc., 72.36 percent of tanks in 

Indian country are single-walled. 

• This means that in year 10, at the midpoint of population turnover, 36.18 percent of all 

tanks will have been required to comply with this requirement. 

Threshold at which piping must be replaced rather than repaired 

• Requirement applies per UST system. 

• Requirement applies to all UST systems in Indian country. 

• OUST assumes that interstitial piping needs to be repaired every five years. 

• According to a Tribal Data Analysis performed by E2 Inc., 60.30 percent of piping 

associated with UST systems is single-walled. 

• Because EPA’s supplemental piping analysis suggests that no systems would incur 

incremental costs under a requirement to replace all piping if more than 50 percent of 

piping is replaced, no systems in Indian country are affected. 

Under-dispenser containment for all new dispensers 

• Requirement applies per UST system. 

• Two under-dispenser containment devices per UST system. 

• Requirement applies to all UST systems in Indian country. 

• OUST assumes that an UST system is replaced every 20 years. This means five percent 

of the universe is replaced each year. 

• According to an analysis performed by E2

 Inc, if 5 percent of the universe is replaced 

each year, 4.85 percent of the UST systems in Indian country must comply with this 

requirement each year. 

• This means that at year 10, the midpoint of population turnover, 48.50 percent of the UST 

systems in Indian country will have complied with this requirement. 

 
B-9 

B. 2 Assessment of State Regulatory Universes 

This section provides information on current state regulatory environments as they pertain to the 

proposed requirements of the regulatory universe. Within the tables below, each requirement of 

the proposed rule has a value for each state. Where the cell for a given state and requirement pair 

contains a zero, this indicates that the state does not have a similar requirement already in place. 

Where the cell for a given state and requirement pair contains a value, the meaning of this value 

varies according to the requirement in question: 

• Walkthrough inspections – the monthly frequency within which inspections are required 

(a “12” in a cell indicates that the state requires annual walkthrough inspections, a “1” in 

a cell indicates that the state requires monthly walkthrough inspections) 

• Overfill prevention equipment tests – the monthly frequency within which testing is 

required 

• Spill prevention equipment tests – the monthly frequency within which testing is required 

• Interstitial integrity tests – the monthly frequency within which testing is required 

• Spill prevention equipment test after repair – a “1” in a cell indicates that the state 

requires testing after repair 

• Overfill prevention equipment test after repair – a “1” in a cell indicates that the state 

requires testing after repair 

• Interstitial integrity test after repair – a “1” in a cell indicates that the state requires 

testing after repair 

• Eliminate flow restrictors in vent lines as overfill prevention option for all new tanks and 

when overfill devices are replaced – a “1” in a cell indicates that the state has this 

requirement in place 

• Operability test for ATGs – the monthly frequency within which testing is required 

• Operability test for interstitial monitoring – the monthly frequency within which testing is 

required 

• Operability test for vapor monitoring – the monthly frequency within which testing is 

required 

• Operability test for groundwater monitoring – the monthly frequency within which 

testing is required 

• Operability test for mechanical line leak detection – the monthly frequency within which 

testing is required 

 
B-10 

• Operability test for electronic line leak detection – the monthly frequency within which 

testing is required 

• Adding SIR/CITLD to regulations with performance criteria – a “1” in a cell indicates 

that the state has this requirement in place 

• Adjusting release detection leak rate for ATGs – the required leak rate probability of 

detection and false alarm (Pd/Pfa) within the state 

• Adjusting release detection leak rate for LLDs – the required leak rate probability of 

detection and false alarm (Pd/Pfa) within the state 

• Adjusting release detection leak rate for SIR – the required leak rate probability of 

detection and false alarm (Pd/Pfa) within the state 

• Adjusting release detection leak rate for CITLD – the required leak rate probability of 

detection and false alarm (Pd/Pfa) within the state 

• Deferrals removal for EGTs – a “1” in a cell indicates that the state has this requirement 

in place 

• Deferrals removal for AHFDSs – a “1” in a cell indicates that the state has this 

requirement in place 

• Deferrals removal for FCTs – a “1” in a cell indicates that the state has this requirement 

in place 

• Notification of ownership change – a “1” in a cell indicates that the state has this 

requirement in place 

• Closure of lined tanks that cannot be repaired according to a code of practice – a “1” in a 

cell indicates that the state has this requirement in place 

• Response to interstitial monitoring alarms – a “1” in a cell indicates that the state has this 

requirement in place 

• Operator training – a “1” in a cell indicates that the state has this requirement in place 

• Secondary containment for new and replaced tanks – a “1” in a cell indicates that the 

state has this requirement in place; “0” indicates that it does not. For modeling purposes, 

EPA is applying this requirement only to Indian country. 

• Threshold for pipe replacement – the percentage threshold for pipe replacement within 

the state. For modeling purposes, EPA is applying this requirement only to Indian 

country. 

 
B-11 

• Under-dispenser containment – a “1” in a cell indicates that the state has this requirement 

in place. For modeling purposes, EPA is applying this requirement only to Indian 

country. 

Subsequent to the completion of this analysis, EPA identified several changes in state 

regulations that affect its estimates of the cost of the proposed rule. These are as follows: 

• Walkthrough inspections: TN revised from one to three; 

• Overfill prevention equipment testing: RI revised from six to 24, TX revised from one to 

zero; 

• Interstitial integrity testing: NC revised from 12 to 36, RI revised from 24 to zero. 

EPA estimates that, in total, the changes to these inputs increase the total cost of the proposed 

rule by approximately $5 million. EPA will update its RIA for the final rule to reflect these and 

any further changes to state regulatory requirements that have since occurred.

 
Proposed Regulatory Change*

State State name 

Walkthrough inspections 

Overfill prevention equipment tests 

Spill prevention equipment tests 

Interstitial integrity tests 

Spill prevention equipment test after repair 

Overfill prevention equipment test after repair 

Interstitiintegrity after rep

AK Alaska 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 AL Alabama 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 AR Arkansas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AS American Samoa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AZ Arizona 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CA California 1 12 12 36 0 0 1 CO Colorado 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 CT Connecticut 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DC District of Columbia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DE Delaware 0 0 12 12 0 0 1 FL Florida 0 0 12 36 0 0 1 GA Georgia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GU Guam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HI Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IA Iowa 0 0 0 24 0 0 1 Tribal Tribal lands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ID Idaho 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 IL Illinois 0 0 0 36 0 0 1 IN Indiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KS Kansas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KY Kentucky 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LA Louisiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MA Massachusetts 1 36 0 0 0 0 0 MD Maryland 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 ME Maine 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 MI Michigan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MN Minnesota 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 MO Missouri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MP 

Northern Mariana Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

MS Mississippi 0 12 12 12 0 1 1 

 
Proposed Regulatory Change*

State State name 

Walkthrough inspections 

Overfill prevention equipment tests 

Spill prevention equipment tests 

Interstitial integrity tests 

Spill prevention equipment test after repair 

Overfill prevention equipment test after repair 

Interstitiintegrity after rep

MT Montana 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 NC North Carolina 0 0 36 36 0 0 1 ND North Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NE Nebraska 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NH New Hampshire 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 NJ New Jersey 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 NM New Mexico 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 NV Nevada 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NY New York 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 OH Ohio 12 12 0 12 0 0 1 OK Oklahoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OR Oregon 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 PA Pennsylvania 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 PR Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RI Rhode Island 24 24 0 0 0 0 1 SC South Carolina 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 SD South Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TN Tennessee 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 TX Texas 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 UT Utah 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 VA Virginia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VI Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VT Vermont 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 WA Washington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WI Wisconsin 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 WV West Virginia 0 0 0 36 0 0 1 WY Wyoming 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 * Subsequent to the completion of this analysis, EPA identified several changes in state regulations that affect its estimates of the cost of the proposed rule. 

walkthrough inspections - TN revised from one to three; overfill prevention equipment testing - RI revised from six to 24, TX revised from one to zero; int

NC revised from 12 to 36, RI revised from 24 to zero. EPA estimates that, in total, the changes to these inputs increase the total cost of the proposed rule by 

million. EPA will update its RIA for the final rule to reflect these and any further changes that have since occurred. 

 
Proposed Regulatory Change

State State name 

Operability test - ATGs 

Operability test - IM 

Operability test - vapor monitoring 

Operability test - groundwater monitoring 

Operability test - ELLD 

Operability test - MLLD 

Add SIR/ CITLD 

Adjusting release detection leak rates - ATG 

Adjusting release detection leak rates - LLD 

Adjusting release detection leak rates - SIR 

Adjusting release detection leak rates - CITLD 

AK Alaska 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 AL Alabama 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 AR Arkansas 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 AS American Samoa 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 AZ Arizona 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 CA California 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 CO Colorado 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 CT Connecticut 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 DC 

District of Columbia 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 

DE Delaware 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 FL Florida 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 GA Georgia 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 GU Guam 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 HI Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 IA Iowa 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 Tribal Tribal lands 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 ID Idaho 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 IL Illinois 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 IN Indiana 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 KS Kansas 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 KY Kentucky 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 LA Louisiana 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 MA Massachusetts 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 MD Maryland 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 ME Maine 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 MI Michigan 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 MN Minnesota 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 

 
Proposed Regulatory Change

State State name 

Operability test - ATGs 

Operability test - IM 

Operability test - vapor monitoring 

Operability test - groundwater monitoring 

Operability test - ELLD 

Operability test - MLLD 

Add SIR/ CITLD 

Adjusting release detection leak rates - ATG 

Adjusting release detection leak rates - LLD 

Adjusting release detection leak rates - SIR 

Adjusting release detection leak rates - CITLD 

MO Missouri 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 MP 

Northern Mariana Islands 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 

MS Mississippi 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 MT Montana 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 NC North Carolina 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 ND North Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 NE Nebraska 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 NH New Hampshire 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 NJ New Jersey 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 NM New Mexico 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 NV Nevada 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 NY New York 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 OH Ohio 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 OK Oklahoma 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 OR Oregon 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 PA Pennsylvania 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 PR Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 RI Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 SC South Carolina 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 SD South Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 TN Tennessee 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 TX Texas 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 UT Utah 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 VA Virginia 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 VI Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 VT Vermont 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 WA Washington 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 WI Wisconsin 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 WV West Virginia 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 

 
Proposed Regulatory Change

State State name 

Operability test - ATGs 

Operability test - IM 

Operability test - vapor monitoring 

Operability test - groundwater monitoring 

Operability test - ELLD 

Operability test - MLLD 

Add SIR/ CITLD 

Adjusting release detection leak rates - ATG 

Adjusting release detection leak rates - LLD 

Adjusting release detection leak rates - SIR 

Adjusting release detection leak rates - CITLD 

WY Wyoming 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 0.95/.05 

 
Proposed Regulatory Change 

State State name 

Notification of ownership change 

Closure of irreparable lined tanks 

Response to interstitial monitoring alarms 

Operator training 

Secondary containment - new and replaced tanks (Indian Country Only) 

Threpipe repla(%) 

AK Alaska 1 0 0 1 0 AL Alabama 1 0 0 1 0.05 AR Arkansas 1 0 0 1 0.05 AS American Samoa 1 0 0 1 0 AZ Arizona 0 0 0 1 0.25 CA California 1 0 1 1 0 CO Colorado 1 0 0 1 0.5 CT Connecticut 1 1 0 1 0 DC District of Columbia 1 0 0 1 1 DE Delaware 1 1 1 1 0 FL Florida 1 1 1 1 0 GA Georgia 0 0 0 1 0.25 GU Guam 1 0 0 1 0 HI Hawaii 1 0 0 1 0 IA Iowa 1 0 1 1 0.1 Tribal Tribal lands 0 0 0 0 0 0 ID Idaho 0 0 0 1 0 IL Illinois 1 1 1 1 0.2 IN Indiana 1 1 0 1 0.5 KS Kansas 1 0 0 1 0 KY Kentucky 1 0 0 1 0 LA Louisiana 1 0 0 1 0.25 MA Massachusetts 1 0 0 1 0 MD Maryland 1 1 0 1 0.4 ME Maine 1 1 0 1 0 MI Michigan 1 1 0 1 0.5 MN Minnesota 1 1 1 1 0.1 MO Missouri 1 0 0 1 0 MP Northern Mariana Islands 1 0 0 1 0 

 
Proposed Regulatory Change 

State State name 

Notification of ownership change 

Closure of irreparable lined tanks 

Response to interstitial monitoring alarms 

Operator training 

Secondary containment - new and replaced tanks (Indian Country Only) 

Threpipe repla(%) 

MS Mississippi 1 0 1 1 1 MT Montana 1 0 0 1 0.5 NC North Carolina 0 0 1 1 0 ND North Dakota 0 0 0 1 0.1 NE Nebraska 1 0 0 1 0.1 NH New Hampshire 1 1 0 1 1 NJ New Jersey 1 0 0 1 0 NM New Mexico 1 0 0 1 0.05 NV Nevada 0 0 0 1 1 NY New York 1 0 0 1 1 OH Ohio 1 1 1 1 0 OK Oklahoma 1 1 0 1 0.2 OR Oregon 1 0 0 1 1 PA Pennsylvania 1 1 0 1 0.5 PR Puerto Rico 1 0 0 1 0 RI Rhode Island 1 0 1 1 1 SC South Carolina 0 0 0 1 0.25 SD South Dakota 1 0 0 1 0.25 TN Tennessee 1 0 0 1 1 TX Texas 1 0 0 1 0.2 UT Utah 1 0 0 1 0.99 VA Virginia 1 0 0 1 0.5 VI Virgin Islands 0 0 0 1 0 VT Vermont 1 1 0 1 0 WA Washington 1 0 0 1 0 WI Wisconsin 1 0 0 1 0.2 WV West Virginia 1 0 1 1 0.5 WY Wyoming 1 0 0 1 1 

 
Appendix C 

Analysis of Piping Replacement Thresholds 

 
1 

 October 28, 2009 

MEMORANDUM | December 31, 2009 

TO Cho-Yi Kwan, EPA 

FROM Cynthia Manson, IEc 

SUBJECT Assessment of Piping Systems Affected (on Tribal Lands)Under Different Potential 

Regulatory Thresholds (WA 2-25, Task 8) 

This document outlines IEc’s methodology for estimating the number of units affected by 

secondary containment regulations on piping on Tribal Lands. The accompanying 

spreadsheet (“Calculations”) is organized to identify the distribution of piping repairs of 

different lengths. 

KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND INPUTS FOR REVIEW 

Below we outline key elements and assumptions that drive the analysis. The most 

important elements are the total number of pipes requiring repair in a year, and the 

patterns of repairs for different piping types: 

1. Number of Events: Based on information provided by EPA,1

 we estimate that 

20 percent of Tribal piping systems (442 systems) require repair in a year (piping 

repairs required once in five years). This differs significantly from our previous 

assumption that piping repairs occur when releases occur. Using end-of-year 

data and autopsy data, we previously estimated that approximately 24 releases 

occur on Tribal lands and 31percent of those releases are related to piping, for a 

total of approximately 7 releases.

2. Distribution of Piping Systems by Type: Previous data provided by EPA 

indicate that, of the piping systems located on Tribal lands (2208), 54 percent are 

fiberglass systems, 22 percent are flex-pipe systems, and 25 percent are steel pipe 

systems.

3. Fiberglass Repairs: Conversations with John Kneece and Marcel Moreau are 

consistent with earlier information collected, and indicate that: 

a. Fiberglass piping is “virtually always” damaged as a result of “trauma” – 

or some accident that damages the pipe (e.g., a backhoe). We interpret 

this to mean that roughly 90 percent of fiberglass piping is repaired to 

correct trauma. 

b. Trauma-related repairs to fiberglass pipe typically involve small (roughly 

5-foot or less) sections of pipe. 

c. Repairs not related to trauma are related to “failure” – or structural issues 

related to the piping. For fiberglass this is nearly always a problem with 

glue, and the entire run must be replaced/repaired. We assume that 10 

 

1

 PEI indicated that repairs to the interstitial space of piping (including repairs of secondarily-contained piping sumps) 

occur once every five years. We assume this repair frequency for all piping systems. 

 
2 

 October 28, 2009 

percent of fiberglass repairs therefore involve replacement of 100 feet

(100 percent) of piping. 

4. Flex-pipe Repairs: Conversations with John Kneece and Marcel Moreau are 

also consistent with earlier information collected, and indicate that: 

a. Flex-piping is damaged as a result of trauma “most” of the time. We 

interpret this to mean that roughly 80 percent of flex-piping is repaired 

to correct trauma. 

b. Trauma-related repairs to flex-piping require replacement of an entire 

portion (section) of a piping run; based on conversations with EPA, we 

estimate that a typical UST would have one section of 50 feet and three 

section of 16.7 feet. We therefore assume that a typical repair would 

involve 16.7 feet of flex-piping. 

c. Repairs due to failure in flex-piping typically involve connection or 

compatibility issues; in both cases the entire run must be replaced. We 

assume that 20 percent of flex-piping repairs therefore involve 

replacement of 100 feet (100 percent) of piping. 

5. Steel Pipe Repairs: A conversation with John Kneece on October 9, 2009 is 

again, consistent with earlier, more general conversations, and indicates that: 

a. The majority (75 percent) of repairs to steel piping is associated with 

failure; only 25 percent of repairs to steel piping are related to trauma. 

b. For all repairs to steel piping, the length of pipe requiring repair varies 

across lengths with equal probability, though trauma-related repairs are 

typically smaller than failure-related repairs. We therefore assume that 

100 percent of trauma-related repairs range from 10 to 50 feet in length. 

For failure related repairs, we assume that 50 percent of failure-related 

repairs range from 10 to 50 feet in length. We assume that the 

remaining 50 percent of failure-related repairs are greater than 50 feet 

in length.

6. Full Replacement Threshold: Consistent with earlier cost analysis, we assume 

that repairs over 50 feet would result in full replacement of pipes in the baseline. 

Prior analysis suggested that the breakeven point was roughly 58 feet, but this is 

subject to uncertainty, and we use 50 feet in this analysis.

KEY ANALYTIC ASSUMPTIONS 

While we have information on the number of repairs required (see item 1 above) we must 

estimate the distribution of these repairs across piping types. To accomplish this, we 

assume the following: 

• Trauma-related repairs are distributed proportionately across facilities and 

piping. We assume that these events occur randomly, and therefore, they would occur 

equally across piping types. To satisfy the proportions of trauma:failure repairs for 

each piping type (as described in items 3 through 5 above), we determine that 54 

percent of repairs (238) are trauma-related. 

 
3 

 October 28, 2009 

• Based on the assumptions outlined above, we assume that the following pipes 

would be replaced in the baseline, and are unaffected by the rule: 

o All fiberglass failure-related repairs; 

o All flex-pipe failure-related repairs; 

o All steel pipe failure-related repairs over 50 feet (50 percent of all 

steel pipe failure-related repairs). 

• Steel pipe replacement curve: to approximate steel pipe repairs without 

programming a continuous curve, we evenly distribute baseline repair lengths 

across five 8-foot intervals ranging from 10 feet to 50 feet. 

RESULTS 

The analysis concludes the following: 

• Of 442 repairs to pipes on Tribal lands, 235 involve steel pipes, 142 involve 

fiberglass pipes, and the remaining 65 involve flex-pipes.

• The 142 fiberglass pipe repairs (32 percent of all repairs) are unaffected by the 

rule, because they are either too short (i.e., five feet or less) to trigger a threshold, 

or are already replaced in the baseline. 

• Another 101 repairs (23 percent) are unaffected by the rule because they 

represent full replacement in the baseline (13 flex-pipe replacements and 88 steel 

pipe replacements). 

• The remaining 199 (45 percent) repairs could potentially trigger full replacements 

under the rule, depending on the threshold. At a threshold of 10 feet, all 199 

repairs, including 52 trauma-related repairs to flex-pipe, would require 

replacement. At thresholds equal to or great than 20 feet, only steel piping (88 

piping systems) is affected by the rule. 

Exhibit 1 below summarizes the number of systems affected (i.e., the number of systems 

that would require replacement instead of repair) at different regulatory thresholds. 

EXHIBIT 1: ANNUAL NUMBER OF SYSTEMS AFFECTED UNDER DIFFERENT REGULATORY THRESHOLDS 

THRESHOLD NUMBER OF SYSTEMS AFFECTED TYPE OF SYSTEMS AFFECTED 

10% threshold 199 (45%) Steel (147 systems) 

Flex-pipe (52 systems) 

15% threshold 170 (38%) Steel (118 systems) 

Flex-pipe (52 systems) 

20% threshold 88 (20%) Steel (88 systems) 

25% threshold 88 (20%) Steel (88 systems) 

40% threshold 29 (7%) Steel (29 systems) 

50% threshold 0 (0 %) None 

 
Appendix C 

Analysis of Piping Replacement Thresholds 

[continued] 

 
 

 

3 October 2008 

MEMORANDUM | 3 October 2008 

TO Cho Yi Kwan and Timothy Roberts, U.S. EPA 

FROM Neal Etre and Cynthia Manson, Industrial Economics, Inc. 

SUBJECT Methodology for Secondary Containment for Piping (Work Assignment 1-19, Task 5) 

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Underground Storage Tanks 

(OUST) is currently exploring options related to federal rulemaking action(s) associated 

with implementing provisions of Title XV, Subtitle B of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(entitled the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2005). The Energy Policy 

Act expands eligible uses of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund 

and includes provisions regarding inspections, operator training, delivery prohibition, 

secondary containment and financial responsibility, and cleanup of releases that contain 

oxygenated fuel additives. 

Concerning secondary containment, the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) specifically amends 

Section 9003 of the SWDA to require states receiving Subtitle I funding to implement 

secondary containment measures for USTs located within 1,000 feet of any existing 

community water system or any existing potable drinking water well (secondary 

containment provision) or require financial responsibility for manufacturers and 

installers. Currently, EPA is exploring options associated with implementing the 

secondary containment provision. 

One option under consideration requires secondary containment for “replaced” piping, 

but not for “repaired” piping. In order to implement this requirement, EPA needs a clear 

definition for when piping is considered to be “replaced.” Currently, EPA’s “Grant 

Guidelines to States for Implementing the Secondary Containment Provisions of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005”, published in November 2006, allows states to determine the 

definition of “replaced” piping. An EPA definition of replaced piping would in some 

cases take the place of state definitions. 

To assist EPA in exploring this option, Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc) is 

developing an approach for assessing the cost to a typical UST facility based on the 

following definitions for “replaced” piping: 

• Piping replacement defined by a fixed footage of piping; 

• Piping replacement defined by a fixed percentage of the overall piping length; and 

• Piping replacement defined by a fixed percentage of the cost of replacing the 

entire piping run with secondary containment. 

This memorandum outlines a draft methodology for assessing costs to a typical UST 

facility based on the three options for defining “replaced” piping. After a brief discussion 

on the secondary containment provision and owner/operator behavior, we outline a 

BACKGROUND AND 

INTRODUCTION 

 
2 

3 October 2008 

preliminary methodology to analyze the differences in potential costs to a “typical” UST 

facility associated with the different definitions of “replaced” piping. To explain the 

methodology, we use previously collected EPA data and additional research conducted 

under this effort. Finally, we present some initial findings based on available cost data, 

and note key limitations, uncertainties, and potential next steps. 

Note that we developed this memorandum as a companion to an Excel-based model that 

will allow EPA to explore the potential costs associated with the definitions for 

“replaced” piping. The model will provide EPA with the flexibility to adjust the various 

assumptions, including costs, length of piping, and the definition triggers for “replaced” 

piping. 

Secondary containment for piping refers to release prevention and release detection 

systems for piping connected to UST systems. The 2006 Grant Guidelines state that 

release prevention involves piping having an inner and outer barrier. The release 

detection system involves monitoring the interstitial space between the inner and outer 

barriers for evidence of a leak or release of regulated substances.1

 Many UST facilities 

that do not have secondary containment use “single-walled” piping. Without the 

additional leak barrier and opportunity for straightforward monitoring, single-walled 

piping presents a higher potential for releases of regulated substances to the environment. 

The EPAct secondary containment provision requires the installation of secondary 

containment for “replaced” piping, but not “repaired” piping. If an owner/operator’s 

actions trigger the definition of “replaced” at a facility with single-wall piping, then the 

owner would be required to install secondary containment for the entire piping run, and 

not just replace the portion that required maintenance. For the replacement definitions 

investigated in this analysis, EPA has determined that a piping run includes the piping 

from a single tank to its associated dispensers. A typical facility has multiple piping runs. 

If a replacement was triggered, the owner/operator would only be required to replace the 

affected piping run.2

 For a repair of single-walled piping, an owner would not install 

secondary containment. Therefore, the key determent in both cost to facilities and the 

number of facilities affected by the secondary containment provision is the definition of 

“replaced” piping. 

This initial effort focuses on the cost to a typical facility that may result from a secondary 

containment requirement; therefore, it is important to understand the factors that drive 

owner/operator decisions related to repairing UST piping. In some cases, 

owner/operators choose to repair damaged sections of piping, and at other times, they 

decide to replace the entire piping run (i.e., the run of piping from one tank to one or 

more dispensers) or all of the piping at the facility, regardless of regulatory requirements. 

Ideally, a well-focused regulation would require secondary containment in all cases 

where an owner-operator would have replaced piping under any circumstances, while 

minimizing the number of times that a small repair would trigger a total piping 

replacement. Based on EPA’s prior research and additional discussions with UST 

 

1

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “Grant Guidelines to States for Implementing the Secondary Containment 

Provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.” November 2006 

2

 Cho Yi Kwan, EPA. Personal Communication. May 2008. 

FACTORS THAT AFFECT 

OWNER/OPERATOR 

DECISION-MAKING 

 
3 

3 October 2008 

equipment installers, we identified several factors that drive this decision-making process, 

including:3

• Existing single-walled piping type. According to the installers, the existing 

piping material is the most important factor in determining whether to repair a 

section of piping or to replace the entire piping run. In general, three types of 

single-walled piping exist: 

o Fiberglass piping. Single-walled fiberglass piping is non-reactive 

and relatively reliable. Leaks can occur at joints, if the piping was 

installed improperly. Problematic sections of single-walled 

fiberglass piping can be effectively repaired if the owner/operator 

chooses to do so. Typically, installers cut out the section in need of 

repair plus an extra margin, and then glue in a new piece of 

fiberglass piping. Secondarily contained fiberglass is commonly in 

use. 

o Flexible piping (flexpipe). Single-walled flexpipe is typically a 

polyurethane pipe coated with anti-corrosive material, installed as 

large continuous line between sumps (25 to 100 feet long). It can be 

installed within concrete conduit or imbedded in gravel; one 

installer estimated that the conduit was used at half of flexpipe sites 

he had evaluated. Single-walled flexpipe technology is not 

frequently installed and has been found to deteriorate when placed 

in long-term contact with fuel. Single-walled flexpipe may be 

repaired, but requires a transition sump at the repair site. Flexpipe 

in conduits may be slightly less expensive to repair than flexpipe 

installed without a conduit, because it requires less excavation. 

According to the installers contacted for this effort, they rarely 

repair single-walled flexpipe, as it is likely to fail in the future. 

Typically, the installers encourage replacing all of the single-walled 

flexpipe at the facility. One installer noted that repairing singlewalled flexpipe “is not an option.”4,5 Although less frequently 

installed than secondarily contained fiberglass piping, secondarily 

contained flexpipe is currently in use. 

 

3

 As part of this effort, IEc reviewed previous EPA research on the activities and costs associated with the installation, repair, 

and replacement of single and secondarily contained piping. The prior research reported on the results of interviews with 

UST equipment installers from the Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI). E2

 (for EPA) conducted a series of phone surveys 

with seven installers located around the U.S under Task Order No. 1010 – General Technical and Programmatic Support in 

Implementing the Energy Policy Act of 2005 Task 1010-04 – Technical Research/Analysis And Summarize Information Subject 

4 – Secondary Containment Subtasks SC-03 and SC-04. June and July 2006. In addition, to supplement this research, IEc 

attempted to contact the same installers (and held discussions with three of them) in an effort to seek additional 

information and clarify their previous responses. We derive our description of the decision-making factors and later, cost 

data, from this research. 

4

 For a discussion on the problems associated with flexible piping, see “Fact Sheet: Thermoplastic Flexible Piping in 

Underground Tank Systems.” Maryland Department of the Environment, Oil Control Program. 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/LandPrograms/Oil_Control/USThome/index.asp 

5

 Duane Grippe, O'Day Equipment LLC. Personal Communication. July/August 2008. 

 
4 

3 October 2008 

o Steel piping. Steel piping is typically found at older sites, often in 

rural areas. It is susceptible to corrosion when not adequately 

protected through cathodic protection methods. The installers 

contacted for this effort indicated that they almost never repair steel 

piping; instead, they encourage replacement of all piping at the 

facility.6

• Cause and extent of the problem. One of the most common causes for piping 

damage is the accidental piercing of a pipe section by mechanical equipment such 

as a backhoe. For single-walled fiberglass piping damaged by equipment, 

installers typically repair the broken section. It is rarer for the installers to repair 

single-walled flexpipe damaged by equipment and more typical to replace all of 

the single-walled flexpipe at the facility. Depending on the extent of the issues, 

other problems such as leaking joints or in-pipe corrosion may require the 

replacement of the entire piping run, regardless of piping type. One installer noted 

that when a bad glue job is detected at a facility with fiberglass piping, he 

typically recommends replacing the entire run, because the poor glue job likely 

affects all of the joints and pipes in the system. 

• Location of the problem along the piping run. Problems located in the 

dispenser sump (found under the dispenser) or in the flex connector (found at the 

tank and the end of the piping run) may be easier to repair because they require 

less excavation. A leak found in the middle of the piping run may be difficult to 

find and require extensive excavation to locate the problem. When extensive 

excavation has already taken place, the marginal cost of installing piping with 

secondary containment is modest. 

• Overall cost of repair. When the cost of replacement is comparable to the cost of 

repair, it often makes better fiscal sense for the owner/operator to replace the 

single-walled piping to reduce future repair costs and liability concerns. This is a 

personal decision made by the owner/operators, but the installers indicated that 

facilities typically replace single-walled piping during renovations. 

• Existing state regulation. Presently, at least 19 states require some form of 

secondary containment for piping. Depending on the state, owners may have 

limited options to repair existing single-walled piping.7

 It is expected that as a 

result of the EPAct Guidelines, more states will enact secondary containment 

provisions for piping. For example, Colorado’s secondary containment provision 

recently went into effect on August 1, 2008. The provision defines “replaced” as 

repairing over 50 feet in length or 50 percent of the costs of replacing the entire 

piping run with secondary containment. 

 

6

 In addition, 40 CFR part 280.33(c) does not allow the repair of steel piping that has released product. 

7 Underground Storage Tank Guide. Thomson Publishing Company. 2008. 

 
5 

3 October 2008 

The installers contacted for this effort stated that they strongly recommend the use of 

secondary containment (regardless of piping type) and stress to their clients its benefits, 

namely better leak protection and monitoring. The installers emphasize to clients that 

while the costs of installing secondary containment may be higher, the benefits associated 

with reduced leaks and the peace of mind provided by secondary containment far 

outweigh the additional costs. They estimate that secondary containment has become the 

industry standard for newly installed piping and that anytime they need to replace an 

entire piping run, they would install secondary containment. This implies that the use of 

single-walled piping will likely be phased out over time in most states.8

 The rate at which 

the phase-out occurs will likely depend on EPA’s and states’ definition(s) of “replaced” 

piping established under the secondary containment provision. Since the industry 

generally rates single-walled steel and flexible piping as less effective products, it is 

likely that they will continue to be phased out regardless of EPA’s rulemaking. 

However, facilities may be less inclined to replace single-walled fiberglass piping, as it 

has a relatively low failure rate. In order to substantially reduce the number of facilities 

using single-walled fiberglass piping, EPA may wish to set a strict standard for the 

definition of “replaced” to target these facilities. An additional benefit of this approach 

would be that the stricter standard would likely catch facilities that use steel and flexpipe 

as well. EPA will have to weigh its options carefully, as a strict standard may result in an 

undue burden on some facilities. 

In this section, we present our preliminary methodology for assessing costs to a typical 

UST facility based on the three options for defining “replaced” piping. For each of the 

options presented below, we compare the cost of replacing the entire piping run to the 

baseline costs that the facility would incur in absence of the secondary containment for 

piping provision. As mentioned above, our discussions with installers suggest that for 

single-walled flexpipe and single-walled steel piping, a typical UST facility would 

replace its failed piping with secondary containment, regardless of how the standard 

defines “replaced.” Therefore, we focused our effort on developing an assessment for 

typical facilities that use single-walled fiberglass piping, since they are the group most 

likely to repair their piping.9

ASSUMPTIONS USED TO DEMONSTRATE THE METHODOLOGY 

EPA’s prior research gathered cost information from installers on various UST 

installation and repair practices. The installers caution that these cost estimates, based on 

specifications given to them by the researchers, are their best efforts given limited 

information about the facility.10 Given the wide variations in costs, we employ the midpoint values presented in the EPA research. Where values are not available, we 

supplement with information from our discussions with the installers. In practice, high 

variability in equipment costs and site specific conditions result in a wide range of costs. 

 

8

 We talked with installers from California, Colorado, and South Dakota. California has required secondary containment for 

piping since the 1980s. Colorado recently (August 1, 2008) enacted new secondary containment requirements for piping. 

South Dakota currently does not require secondary containment for piping. 

9

 While a specific facility may decide to repair steel piping or single-wall flex-piping with a single-wall option, these 

facilities are likely to have fewer options for repair than a facility with fiberglass piping; therefore the difference between 

“repair” and “replace” is more important to facilities with fiberglass systems. 

10 Researchers gave the installers the following specifications to base their costs on: three USTs per facility; 300 feet per 

piping run; and four dispensers. EPA gathered cost information in the summer of 2006. Given the wide variation and 

uncertainty in the cost estimates, we do not adjust the costs provided to EPA for inflation. 

PRELIMINARY 

METHODOLOGY 

AND EXAMPLE 

RESULTS 

 
6 

3 October 2008 

The Excel-based model that accompanies this memorandum provides the flexibility to 

adjust these cost estimates and other facility-based assumptions. Exhibit 1 present 

assumptions used to characterize a typical UST facility. We selected these assumptions 

based on those previously developed by EPA.11 To verify the reasonableness of these 

assumptions, we presented them to the installers, who generally agreed that they 

represented a typical site. 

EXHIBIT 1 ASSUMPTIONS USED TO DESCRIBE A TYPICAL UST FACIILTY 

METRIC ASSUMPTION 

Number of tanks per facility (i.e., number of piping runs) 3 

Typical length of single-walled fiberglass piping per facility (feet) 300 

Typical length of piping run per tank (feet) 100 

Source: 

Task Order No. 1010 – General Technical and Programmatic Support in Implementing the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 Task 1010-04 – Technical Research/Analysis And Summarize Information 

Subject 4 – Secondary Containment Subtasks SC-03 and SC-04. June and July 2006. 

The baseline cost to repair a section of single-walled fiberglass piping depends largely on 

two factors: 

• The location of the section of pipe in need of repair. According to the 

installers, if the repair is in the area of the dispenser sump or flex connector, the 

costs associated with repair ranges from $250 to $1,500, an average of $667.12 

Typically, these repairs do not require extensive (or expensive) excavation. Since 

the annualized costs over 10 years for these repairs ($95) are relatively low and 

they impact a relatively small area at the facility, they will not likely trigger the 

“replaced” requirement under the definition options explored in this 

memorandum. We therefore assume that the only repairs that may trigger the 

“replaced” definition involve pipe buried in concrete. 

• The size of the repair. The larger the damaged section of piping, the more 

expensive the repair job. Installation requires additional excavation, piping length, 

equipment, and paving. 

Exhibit 2, below, presents the assumptions used to develop estimates of baseline repair 

costs and the cost to replace the entire piping run with secondary containment (i.e., 

secondarily contained fiberglass piping plus interstitial monitoring costs). Based on 

previous EPA research, we estimate annualized cost to repair 10 feet of single-walled 

fiberglass piping to be $641. For each additional 5-foot section, we estimate the 

annualized cost to run an additional $214. Therefore, for example, the annualized cost to 

repair a 25-foot section of single-walled fiberglass pipe totals $1,283 [(3 x $214) + $641]. 

 

11 Task Order No. 1010 – General Technical and Programmatic Support in Implementing the Energy Policy Act of 2005 Task 

1010-04 – Technical Research/Analysis And Summarize Information Subject 4 – Secondary Containment Subtasks SC-03 and 

SC-04. June and July 2006. 

12 Task Order No. 1010 – General Technical and Programmatic Support in Implementing the Energy Policy Act of 2005 Task 

1010-04 – Technical Research/Analysis And Summarize Information Subject 4 – Secondary Containment Subtask SC-04. June 

2006. 

 
7 

3 October 2008 

EXHIBIT 2 ASSUMPTIONS USED TO CALCULATE POTENTIAL COSTS OF SECONDARY CONTAINMENT 

The baseline assumes that a typical facility, in the absence of a secondary containment 

provision, would repair existing single-walled fiberglass piping up to a certain length. At 

a threshold length, the owner determines that it is more cost-effective to replace the run of 

single-walled piping with secondary containment. Because of variations in 

owner/operator preferences and tolerance for risk, the installers had difficulty identifying 

a specific pipe length or cost point that would trigger the replacement of the piping run. 

For this exercise, we make an initial screening-level assumption that if repairs cost more 

than 75 percent of the cost to replace the piping run, then the owner/operator would 

ACTIVITY COST RANGE AVERAGE ANNUALIZEDa

BASELINE 

Baseline repair costs (for replacing 10 

feet of single-walled fiberglass piping)b,c $1,200 - $12,500 $4,500d $641 

Baseline repair costs for additional five 

feet of single wall piping $1,000 - $2,000 $1,500 $214 

CAPITAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH REPLACING ENTIRE 100 FOOT PIPING RUN WITH SECONDARY CONTAINMENT 

Excavation costs $1,600 - $2,000 $1,800 $256 

Material costse $3,400 - $6,400 $4,900 $698 

Labor costs $3,900 - $5,200 $4,550 $648 

Paving $2,200 - $2,800 $2,500 $356 

Electrical $1,100 - $3,200 $2,150 $306 

Interstitial monitoring equipmentf - $3,000 $427 

Total Annualized Costs $2,691 

Notes: 

a Capital costs were annualized over 10 years (i.e., the expected time required to pay off the project) 

using OMB’s approved discount rate of seven percent. OMB Circular A-94. b Includes the cost of excavation, cutting damaged pipe, installing new pipe, and repaving. This analysis 

assumes that no additional sumps have been added to the system during the repair. c

 EPA research estimated the average repair for fiberglass piping is seven feet. To simplify this analysis, 

we round up to 10 feet. Discussions with installers confirm that the cost range is comparable. d

 Based on the average repair cost reported for single-walled fiberglass piping with excavation of 

concrete with rebar. 

e Material costs include 100 feet of secondarily contained fiberglass, and all necessary pipe fittings, 

connections, and valves. 

f This may overestimate costs of installing interstitial monitoring, as many facilities may already have 

adequate leak detection in place. 

Sources: 

Task Order No. 1010 – General Technical and Programmatic Support in Implementing the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005 Task 1010-04 – Technical Research/Analysis And Summarize Information Subject 4 – 

Secondary Containment Subtasks SC-01, 03 and 04. June/July 2006. 

Robert Renkes. Petroleum Equipment Institute. Personal Communication. June 2008. 

Duane Grippe, O'Day Equipment LLC. Personal Communication. July/August 2008. 

Jerry Thomas. C.E. Thomas Company. Personal Communication. July 2008. 

Ken Korneychuck, Eaton Sales and Service Co. Personal Communication. August 2008. 

 
8 

3 October 2008 

choose replacement (with secondary containment) regardless of regulations.13 Therefore, 

if the total cost of repair exceeds the 75 percent threshold, we assume no incremental 

costs to the facility would result from the secondary containment provision. For example, 

if the annualized cost of repair exceeds $2,018 [0.75 x $2,691], we assume the 

owner/operator chooses to replace the entire piping run with secondary containment in 

the baseline, and the regulation would cause no change in costs. 

As shown in Exhibit 2, we estimate the annualized cost to replace single-walled fiberglass 

piping with secondary containment to be $2,691. This includes the cost to excavate, 

install secondarily contained piping, and repave the site. We also include the potential 

costs of installing interstitial monitoring equipment, as this is a requirement for secondary 

containment. Note that we investigated the most recent OUST ICR in an attempt to 

gather the operations and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with interstitial 

monitoring. The ICR does not clearly identify O&M costs specific to interstitial 

monitoring for piping. Moreover, it is not clear that a requirement for interstitial 

monitoring would represent an additional monitoring requirement, or a replacement for 

some current monitoring activity. As a result, for this illustrative effort, we assume no 

O&M costs attributable to interstitial monitoring. The Excel model contains a 

placeholder (set at 0) should EPA wish to test scenarios with O&M costs for interstitial 

monitoring for piping.14 

METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH AND EXAMPLE RESULTS 

We define the costs of the secondary containment provision for piping as the incremental 

cost associated with triggering the definition of “replaced.” Simply put, if the repair 

triggers the regulatory requirement for replacement of the piping run, the incremental cost 

is the difference between the replacement costs and the baseline repair costs. However, 

if, as stated previously, the baseline cost exceeds 75 percent of the replacement costs, we 

then assume that a facility would have replaced the piping regardless of the rule. 

Therefore, no incremental cost is assigned to the facility.15

In contrast to most regulatory analyses, in this case, the baseline cost of repairs drives the 

incremental costs, since replacement costs remain constant and it is the difference 

between these replacement costs and the repair costs that would have been incurred 

without the regulation that is measured. Below, we present the preliminary methodology 

for calculating the incremental cost to a typical facility for the three “replaced” piping 

definitions. We use the example data derived from EPA research to demonstrate our 

approach. 

Option 1: Piping replacement defined by a fixed footage of piping 

Under the first definition option, “replaced” piping is determined by a fixed footage of 

piping. In this case, the trigger to require the installation of secondary containment is 

based on the length of the piping section in need of repair. We first select a threshold 

value that triggers the definition of “replaced” piping. For this exercise, we chose a 

 

13 We select 75 percent because one installer indicated that this was a reasonable threshold. Note that in the Excel model 

accompanying this memorandum, the user will have the flexibility to adjust the point at which the facility chooses to 

replace piping instead of repair. 

14 Underground Storage Tanks: Technical and Financial Requirements, and State Program Approval Procedures, EPA ICR 

Number 1360.08. 

15 For facilities with steel and single-walled flexible piping, we assume that operators would replace their piping regardless 

of whether it is required by EPA. 

 
9 

3 October 2008 

threshold value of 25 feet – that is, once a piping repair job spans 25 feet in length, a 

facility is required to replace the entire run of piping (in this case, we assume the piping 

run is 100 feet in length). Based on this trigger threshold, Exhibit 3 presents our 

approach to estimating the incremental costs associated with Option 1. 

EXHIBIT 3 ILLUSTRATIVE RESULTS: REPLACEMENT IS DETERMINED BY A FIXED FOOTAGE (25 FEET) 

LENGTH OF REPAIR RELATIVE TO 

A 25 FOOT THRESHOLD 

LENGTH 

OF REPAIR 

(FEET) 

ANNUALIZED COST OF 

REPLACING PIPING RUN 

WITH SECONDARY 

CONTAINMENT 

ANNUALIZED COST 

TO REPAIR SINGLE 

WALLED 

FIBERGLASS PIPING 

ANNUALIZED 

INCREMENTAL COST 

OF SECONDARY 

CONTAINMENT 

Repair length is below threshold 10 $2,691 $641a $0a

Repair length is at threshold 25 $2,691 $1,281 $1,410 

Repair length is above threshold 35 $2,691 $1,709 $982 

Repair length is substantially above 

threshold 50 $2,691 $2,349 $0b

Notes:

a This scenario assumes that the owner/operator would choose to repair the single-walled piping and, therefore, would 

incur no incremental costs for secondary containment. 

b In this scenario, the annualized cost of a 50-foot repair would be $2,349, which represents more than 75 percent of the 

annualized cost to replace piping run with secondary containment. We assume that this facility would replace the entire 

piping run in the absence of the rule and, therefore, incurs no incremental costs for secondary containment. 

Exhibit 3 demonstrates the cost to a typical facility when “replaced” piping is determined 

by a fixed footage. The facility with a short repair length of 10 feet does not trigger the 

replacement standard; thus it incurs no incremental costs. On the contrary, the facility 

with the length of repair at the threshold realizes a high incremental cost, because it 

would be forced to replace its piping, while the cost of repairs remains relatively low. 

When repair length is beyond the threshold (e.g., the facility with the 35 foot repair), the 

incremental cost of replacement is lower, because its repair costs would have been 

relatively high. Finally, when repair length is substantially greater than 25 feet, the repair 

cost exceeds the point at which the operator would likely have chosen to replace the pipes 

in absence of the rule. In this case the annualized cost of a 50-foot repair would be 

$2,349, which represents more than 75 percent of the cost of replacement. Therefore, we 

assume that this facility would have replaced pipes in the absence of the rule and incurs 

no incremental costs. This example shows that the incremental costs are sensitive to the 

change in repair length, particularly around the threshold value. 

Option 2: Piping replacement defined by a fixed percentage of the overall piping 

length 

Under the second definition option, “replaced” piping is determined when a certain 

percentage of the total piping run is replaced. Our approach to this option is very similar 

to Option 1, only we add a step to the calculation. The first step is to convert the 

threshold percentage to a length of piping. For example, we assume under Option 1 that a 

typical piping length is 100 feet. The incremental cost calculation first converts the 

percentage of piping to feet by multiplying the length of the piping run by the percentage. 

As a result, under the previous example, a 25 percent threshold is equivalent to 25-foot 

 
10 

3 October 2008 

threshold. In the Excel-based model, the user has the option to change the typical length 

of a piping run to explore how this definition differs from Option 1. To highlight the 

change in pipe run length, Exhibit 4 illustrates Option 2 based on a 25 percent threshold 

for “replaced” piping and typical pipe run length of 125 feet. Note that because we 

increase the length of the piping run, the annualized cost of replacing the entire run with 

secondary containment also increases.16

EXHIBIT 4 ILLUSTRATIVE RESULTS: REPLACEMENT IS DETERMINED BY A FIXED PERCENTAGE OF 

OVERALL PIPING LENGTH (25%) WITH A PIPING LENGTH OF 125 FEET 

PERCENTAGE OF PIPING REPAIRED 

RELATIVE TO A 25 PERCENT 

THRESHOLD 

PERCENTAGE 

OF PIPING 

LENGTH 

ANNUALIZED COST OF 

REPLACING PIPING RUN 

WITH SECONDARY 

CONTAINMENTa

ANNUALIZED COST 

TO REPAIR SINGLE 

WALLED 

FIBERGLASS PIPING 

ANNUALIZED 

INCREMENTAL COST 

OF SECONDARY 

CONTAINMENT 

Percentage of piping length is 

below threshold 10% $3,364 $747b

 $0b

Percentage of piping length is at 

threshold 25% $3,364 $1,548 $1,815 

Percentage of piping length is 

above threshold 30% $3,364 $1,815 $1,548 

Percentage of piping length is 

substantially above threshold 50% $3,364 $2,883 $0c

Notes:

a We assume a linear relationship between annualized replacement costs and piping length. 

b This scenario assumes that the owner/operator would choose to repair the single-walled piping and, therefore, would 

incur no incremental costs for secondary containment. 

c In this scenario, the annualized cost of repairing 50 percent of the piping run would be $2,883, which represents more 

than 75 percent of the annualized cost to replace piping run with secondary containment. We assume that this facility 

would replace the entire piping run in the absence of the rule and, therefore, incurs no incremental costs for secondary 

containment. 

Exhibit 4 demonstrates how changing the length of a typical piping run alters incremental 

costs under Option 2. By extending the pipe length, we increase the size of the area in 

need of repair and the overall costs to replace the piping run with secondary containment. 

As expected the incremental cost of replacement increases as pipe length increases. 

Option 3: Piping replacement determined by a fixed percentage of the cost of 

replacing the entire piping run with secondary containment 

Under the third definition option, “replaced” piping is determined by a fixed percentage 

of the cost of replacing the entire piping run with secondary containment. For this 

approach, we estimate a cost threshold to determine when a facility must install 

secondary containment. Exhibit 5 presents the results of our approach to this option. 

Based on a 25 percent cost threshold, we determine that any repairs over $673 [0.25 x 

$2,691] would trigger the secondary containment requirement. As in the previous 

options, those over the 75 percent cost threshold do not incur incremental costs associated 

 

16 We assume a linear relationship between annualized replacement costs and piping length. 

 
11 

3 October 2008 

with secondary containment provision, since we assume they wouldreplace their pipes in 

the absence of the rule. 

EXHIBIT 5 ILLUSTRATIVE RESULTS: REPLACEMENT IS DETERMINED BY A FIXED PERCENTAGE (25%) 

OF THE COST OF REPLACING THE ENTIRE PIPING RUN WITH SECONDARY 

CONTAINMENT 

PERCENTAGE RELATIVE TO A 25 

PERCENT COST THRESHOLD 

PERCENTAGE 

OF COST OF 

PIPING RUN 

ANNUALIZED COST OF 

REPLACING PIPING RUN 

WITH SECONDARY 

CONTAINMENT 

ANNUALIZED COST 

TO REPAIR SINGLE 

WALLED 

FIBERGLASS PIPING 

ANNUALIZED 

INCREMENTAL COST 

OF SECONDARY 

CONTAINMENT 

Percentage of cost is below 

threshold 10% $2,691 $269a

 $0a

Percentage of cost is at threshold 25% $2,691 $673 $2,018 

Percentage of cost is above 

threshold 30% $2,691 $807 $1,884 

Percentage is substantially above 

threshold 80% $2,691 $2,153b

 $0b

Notes:

a This scenario assumes that the owner/operator would choose to repair the single-walled piping and, therefore, would 

incur no incremental costs for secondary containment. 

b Since 80 percent of the annualized costs of replacing the entire run ($2,153) exceeds the 75 percent cost-effectiveness 

threshold, we assume that this facility would replace the entire piping run in the absence of the rule and, therefore, incurs 

no incremental costs for secondary containment. 

LIMITATIONS 

The three definitions for “replaced” piping provide EPA with several options as it 

considers the goals and scope of a proposed rulemaking action on secondary containment. 

As EPA considers the merits of each option, it is important recognize the key limitations 

of this methodological approach, including: 

• Data may not be representative of a typical UST facility. In 2006, EPA 

collected UST installation and cost data from seven UST equipment installers, 

several of which we followed up with as part of this effort. Since not all installers 

provided information for all cost areas, the sample size of the data is small and 

represents the experience of only a few equipment installers. The collection effort 

focused on one-on-one phone discussions, not a more systematic survey method to 

guarantee the installers received the same questions. As such, the cost data and 

other assumptions represent the experiences and opinions of a few installers 

contacted by EPA. To the extent that their experiences differ from the general 

population of equipment installers, the data may not adequately represent a typical 

UST facility.17 

 

17 Similarly, other assumptions, such as the length of piping per facility, may not adequately represent the typical UST 

facility. In fact, some installers told EPA that facilities may contain substantially more piping than the 300 feet presented 

in this analysis. 

 
12 

3 October 2008 

• Data may not capture site-specific costs. According to the installers, facilityspecific conditions such as geographic location, soil type, and facility size 

determine the types of equipment installed at UST facilities. To account for sitespecific variability, facilities may need to purchase different or additional 

equipment. For example, some states, such as Wisconsin and Montana, require 

the installation of interstitial monitoring for new sumps installed during a piping 

replacement job.18 Facilities in these states bear the additional costs of the 

installation and operation and maintenance costs of interstitial monitoring. The 

current methodology does not attempt to account for potential site-specific 

characteristics. To the extent that these characteristics drive costs at a facility, we 

may mischaracterize costs as typical. 

• Data may not capture potential variability in operator behavior. To simplify 

the methods for this preliminary approach to secondary containment, we 

generalize operator behavior down to a few simple decision rules, based on the 

discussions with the installers. For example, we assume that, in general, operators 

will not attempt to repair damaged steel piping and single-walled flexpipe. To the 

extent owner/operators act differently than the installers suggested, the model may 

mischaracterize operator choices and behaviors. 

• Cost estimates do not include efforts to find leaks when owner suspects a 

problem. Several of the installers suggested that the costs associated with 

discovering the location of leaks can be an important factor in determining 

whether an owner/operator decides to replace piping.19 To find leaks in piping, 

installers typically drill pilot holes or conduct more extensive excavations. If the 

cost to discover the leak is high enough, it may be more cost-effective for the 

owner to replace the defective or damaged piping entirely. This effort does not 

account for these costs or their potential impact on owner/operator behavior. 

This approach provides EPA with a reasonable starting point as it considers a rulemaking 

under EPAct’s secondary containment provision. While the example data provide 

context to evaluate the options for defining “replaced” piping, the accompanying Excel 

tool gives EPA the ability to evaluate how changes in key assumptions result in changes 

to expected costs to a facility. As EPA refines this approach, it may wish to consider the 

following: 

• Importance of threshold values. An evaluation of the sample results shows that 

the threshold value that triggers the replacement of piping in both the baseline and 

the regulatory scenario has a significant impact on the incremental cost to the 

facility. Facilities just under the threshold are not required to replace piping, and 

therefore, do not bear any costs associated with a potential rule. A facility on the 

threshold bears the highest costs of a potential rule, as the difference between 

replacement cost and repair costs is greatest. As a facility’s repair costs increase 

(as a result of larger or more extensive repair), the incremental cost to replace 

 

18 Duane Grippe, O'Day Equipment LLC. Personal Communication. July/August 2008. 

19 It is important to note that one installer disagreed with this statement and felt that locating leaks was relatively simple 

and inexpensive. Ken Korneychuck, Eaton Sales and Service Co. Personal Communication. August 2008. 

CONSIDERATIONS 

AND POTENTIAL 

NEXT STEPS 

 
13 

3 October 2008 

piping decreases. At an higher threshold, it is practical for the facility to replace 

pipes rather than repair them. The magnitude of both threshold values will have a 

significant impact on the number of facilities affected by a secondary containment 

rulemaking and the cost they bear as a result of the rule. 

• Refinement of data on operator behavior and potential costs. EPA may wish 

to consider a systematic data collection effort to gather more detailed information 

on the costs associated with repair and replacement of UST piping, and on the 

prevalence of different types of piping currently in place. The current cost data, 

derived from a relatively informal discussion with a small sample of equipment 

installers, may mischaracterize typical costs and behaviors at UST facilities. In 

addition, EPA may wish to conduct further analyses to improve estimates of the 

frequency in which facilities conduct piping repairs versus replacement when a 

problem is discovered. This effort could involve additional interviews or 

collection of information from a focus group of installers in different regions. 

• Identification of the number of potentially affected facilities. The current 

effort focuses on isolating potential impacts of the secondary containment 

provision at a typical UST facility. The next logical step is to assess the number 

and location of facilities that may be affected by potential secondary containment 

requirements. This may be a challenging effort, as data categorizing the types of 

piping employed at facilities may not be readily available. Information on state 

regulations should inform this effort. 

• Incorporation of behavior associated with finding leaks when owners suspect 

a problem. As stated above, for a facility with a suspected pipe leak, the cost 

associated with discovering the location of the leak, while not part of the explicit 

repair or replacement cost, is likely a factor in determining whether an 

owner/operator decides to replace piping in the baseline scenario, regardless of 

regulation. Owner/operators who find it more cost-effective to replace piping due 

to the expense of finding a leaking pipe would incur no incremental costs resulting 

from the secondary containment provision. EPA may therefore wish to consider 

methods to incorporate this decision-making behavior into the cost model. This 

effort would likely require the collection of additional information, including: 

o Information on the processes used to locate suspected leaks in piping; 

o Costs associated with efforts to find suspected pipe leaks; 

o Information on the decision-making behavior of owner/operators and 

the extent to which the cost of locating suspected leaks influences their 

decision to repair or replace piping; and 

o The typical number of facilities that may suspect leaking pipes in a year. 

 
Appendix D 

Methodology for Calculating Compliance Costs 
D-1

D.1 Universal Assumptions Regarding a Typical UST Facility 

 For modeling purposes, EPA (based on its professional judgment) assumes that a typical 

(average) conventional UST system is configured as follows: 

Exhibit D-1: Universal cost model assumptions 

Variable Total per Facility 

Tanks per facility: 2.74 tanks 2.74 tanks 

Pipes per tank: 1 pipe 2.74 pipes 

Feet per pipe: 100 feet 274 feet 

# of under-dispenser containment (UDC) 

per tank: 2 UDCs ~ 5.5 dispensers 

# of fill pipes per tank: 1 fill pipe 2.74 fill pipes 

# of spill prevention equipment per fill pipe: 

1 spill prevention 

equipment 

2.74 spill prevention 

equipment 

# of turbine sumps per tank: 1 turbine sump 2.74 turbine sumps 

In addition, we assume that the baseline number of existing tanks is 611,449 tanks (based on 

FY2009 data).1

 We also assume that the baseline number of tanks remain constant over time (i.e., new 

facilities will replace closures).2

 This assumption simplifies the analysis by establishing a constant 

nominal compliance cost per year. 

D.2 Labor Rates 

The facility labor costs presented herein reflect labor, overhead, and fringe benefits rates that EPA 

believes best reflect a “typical” UST facility. These labor rates are representative of skilled labor costs at 

motor fuel retailers, which own and operate roughly 80 percent of the universe of UST systems.3

 We 

present these calculations in Exhibit D-2.

 1

 Assuming 2.74 tanks per facility, this is equivalent to a total of 223,157 facilities that have USTs 

nationwide. (See “Summary of Key Data from State Public Record Postings,” E2, Incorporated, Task Order No. 

1010 – Subtask A1-06C Technical Directive No. 36, Table 1.) 

2

 Recent trends in the number of active USTs reported to EPA have shown a declining trend; in most recent 

years the net decline in the UST system population has been roughly 1.4 percent, with closures more than offsetting 

replacements and new installations. If this trend continues, the annual costs of the regulation will likely decrease 

over time as fewer systems require compliance. However, in absence of other data, we assume that new installations 

and upgrades will offset all closures, and that annual compliance costs will remain constant. 

3

 These rates are based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”) and the Office of Management 

and Budget (“OMB”). These rates differ from the labor rates contained in OUST’s 2007 Information Collection 

Request (ICR) 1360.08. The labor rates listed in the ICR are reflective of economy-wide average wages, benefits, 

and overhead, and may overstate costs because they reflect industries with highly skilled labor requirements and 

benefits (e.g., law firms.) 

 
D-2

Exhibit D-2: Labor Rates Used in Central Cost Estimates

Labor Category SOC Code 

Labor Rates Before Overhead 

and Benefits Loaded Labor Rate1

Legal5 23-1011 $53.17 $93.69 

Managerial4 11-0000 $32.85 $51.31 

Technical4 53-1021 $18.04 $28.18 

Clerical4 43-9061 $11.37 $17.76 

Technical for operability tests5 49-2094 $23.68 $36.99 

 

OMB overhead2 12% 

BLS fringe benefits3 28.30% 

Notes: 

1. Rates are calculated according to (labor rate)*(1/(1-benefits factor))*(1+overhead factor) 

2. Overhead factor comes from Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, p. D-7 

3. Fringe benefits factor comes from Bureau of Labor Services Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, September 

2009. Table 10: All workers, service-providing industries 

4. Managerial, technical, and clerical wages are based on the May 2008 National Industry-Specific Occupational 

Employment and Wage Estimates for NAICS 447100 – Gasoline States from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/naics3_447000.htm). For the managerial labor category, EPA uses the standard 

occupational category (SOC) code for all management occupations (11-0000) to capture all types of managers that may 

work at gas stations (e.g., chief executives, marketing managers, food service managers). For the technical labor category, 

EPA uses SOC code 53-1021 (first-line supervisors/managers of helpers, laborers, and material movers). For the clerical 

labor category, EPA uses SOC code 43-9061 (general office clerks). 

5. Legal and technical labor to conduct operability tests are based on the May 2008 National Occupational Employment 

and Wage Estimates – United States from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/oes_nat.htm). EPA uses the national wage estimates for these two labor categories 

because they were unavailable under the industry-specific wage estimates for NAICS 447100. 

The costs presented in this appendix reflect our central cost estimates. For sensitivity analyses, we 

recalculated costs using the labor rates presented in Exhibit D-3 and D-4. A discussion of these labor 

rates, and the results of the sensitivity analyses can be found in Chapter 3.5 of the main text. 

Exhibit D-3: Labor Rates Used in Upper Cost Estimates 

Labor Category BLS Labor Category3

Labor Rates Before 

Overhead Loaded Labor Rate1

Legal SOC 23-1011 - Lawyers $59.98 $100.17 

Managerial 

Management, professional, and 

related (service industries) 

$54.34 $90.75 

Technical Professional and technical services $44.19 $73.80 

Clerical Office and administrative support $23.42 $39.11 

Technical for operability tests Professional and technical services $44.19 $73.80 

 

Benefits and overhead2 67% of wage rate 

 

1. Rates are calculated according to (1 + benefits and overhead rate)*(labor rate). 

2. Overhead rate used is 67 percent from OUST Information Collection Request 1360.08 from October 24, 2007. See U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, “Underground Storage Tanks: Technical and Financial Requirements, and State Program 

Approval Procedures,” Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 1360.08, October 24, 2007. 

3. Upper Estimate relies BLS Employer Costs For Employee Compensation, September 2008 for Managerial (Table 9, 

Management, Professional, and Related); Technical and Technical for operability testing (Table 10, Professional and 

Technical Services (Service Industries)); and Clerical (Table 11, Office and Administrative Support); and BLS National 

Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2008 for Legal (23-1011 Lawyers). 

 
D-3

Exhibit D-4: Labor Rates Used in Lower Cost Estimates 

Labor Category BLS Labor Category4

Labor Rates Before 

Overhead and Benefits Loaded BLS Labor Rate1

Legal 23-1011 $59.98 $89.09 

Managerial 41-1011 $15.66 $23.26 

Technical 53-1021 $18.04 $26.80 

Clerical 53-6031 $9.22 $13.70 

Technical for operability tests 49-2094 $23.68 $35.17 

 

OMB overhead2 12% 

BLS fringe benefits3 24.60% 

Notes: 

1. Rates are calculated according to (labor rate)*(1/(1-benefits factor))*(1+overhead factor) 

2. Overhead factor comes from Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, p. D-7. 

3. Benefits rate is 24.6 percent of wages, as reported in BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, September 2008. 

Table 10: Trade, transportation, and utilities - retail trade. 

4. Lower Estimate relies on BLS Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wages, NAICS 447000 - Gasoline 

Stations, May 2008 for: Managerial (41-1011 First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Retail Sales Workers): Technical (53-1021 

First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Helpers, Laborers, and Material Movers, Hand); Clerical (53-6031 Service Station 

Attendants); and BLS National Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2008 for Technical for operability testing (49-

2094 Electrical and Electronics Repairers, Commercial and Industrial Equipment) and Legal (23-1011 Lawyers). Assumes 

that service station attendants perform walkthrough inspections. 

D.3 Time Value of Money Costs 

Time Value of Money (“TVM”) costs are indirect costs to owners and operators that arise as a 

consequence of the proposed rule. These costs arise because as more frequent testing of equipment leads 

to earlier identification and correction of problems related to UST systems, owners and operators incur 

costs earlier than they would in the absence of the rule.4

 In the near term, requirements such as operability 

tests of release detection methods are likely to identify equipment issues (i.e., technical problems that may 

or may not already have leaks associated with them) that would not have been identified in baseline 

activities in the same time frame.5

 

As an initial step toward estimating these costs, EPA used the model presented in Exhibit D-5. When a 

test detects a problem, equipment can be replaced or repaired; when a test does not detect a problem, the 

owner or operator does not incur any costs. It is clear that these costs depend on the proportion of the time 

that each test or walkthrough inspection detects a problem. For each part of the proposed rule that requires 

a test, EPA calculates a weighted-average expected cost that accounts for the types of equipment tested. 

These weighted-average costs are assumed to reflect the expected annual costs of equipment repair or 

replacement associated with each test; that is, they reflect the costs that an owner or operator would incur 

after operating their equipment for one year. We further assume that these costs scale linearly over time: 

 4

 Note that this is also true for the walkthrough inspections being proposed as part of the rule. 

5

 Baseline activities include periodic regulatory inspections, and other requirements that exist before the 

proposed rule becomes effective. These activities also include anything that owners and operators might do in the 

absence of the proposed rule. 

 
D-4

if a test occurs every three years instead of annually, we assume that the repairs and replacements 

identified by testing every three years will cost three times more than those identified by annual tests.6

Exhibit D-5: Calculation of Weighted-Average Cost of Repairs and Replacement per Annual Test 

After obtaining an expected cost for the repairs and replacements required per test, we calculate the 

expected costs for repairs and replacements under the baseline and the proposed rule. We assume that 

testing under the proposed rule will identify any equipment in disrepair with absolute certainty, i.e., every 

test performed under the proposed rule identifies issues with 100 percent probability. In the baseline, we 

assume that baseline activities do not identify all issues that require repair or replacement. As a 

consequence, owners and operators enjoy a benefit under the baseline: a problem not identified in the 

baseline can be addressed farther in the future, which allows the owner or operator to employ those funds 

in some other manner. 

To calculate the cost of repairs and replacements under the baseline, we assume that baseline activities 

succeed in identifying issues a percent of the time per year; they fail to do so with b = 1- a probability. 

Such a setup is commonly known as a binomial or Bernoulli experiment and is described by a binomial 

distribution. In these types of problems, only two outcomes (referred to as “successes” and “failures”) are 

possible. In this case, success implies that a problem is detected, while failure implies that a problem is 

not detected. 

Since we assume that testing under the proposed regulation always identifies all issues and that costs 

accumulate over time, the outcome is certain: every test causes the owner or operator to incur the 

weighted-average cost of repairs or replacement associated with that test. For example, if we calculate a 

weighted-average cost of repair or replacement of $100 cost per annual test for a hypothetical 

requirement, each annual test under the proposed rule will generate $100 in cost. 

Under the baseline, existing activities lead to a chance of catching issues every year that is less than 100 

percent. Suppose that baseline activities detect problems with probability of a = 60 percent. We can 

describe the expected cost under the baseline as the sum of the following infinite series: 

 6

 The underlying assumption of linear growth for the equipment damage function is that wear-and-tear of 

capital equipment accrues at a constant rate over time. We assume this form for the damage function for analytical 

convenience. 

Test Equipment 

No cost Repair Cost Replacement Cost 

Pass Test Fail Test 

 
D-5

• Year 1: the odds that existing issues are identified are Pr(detection) = 0.60. Since the total cost of 

repairs and replacements is $100, the expected cost in year one is $60 = 0.60 x $100. 

• Year 2: the odds of detection are Pr(not detecting problems in the first year) x Pr(detection in 

second year) = 0.40 x 0.60 = 24 percent. Since the total cost of repairs and replacements is $100, 

we obtain $24 = 0.24 x $100. However, because the cost is delayed by one year, we must also 

discount this amount by the prevailing interest rate to reflect the opportunity cost of funds (i.e., 

the time value of money). If we assume an interest of seven percent, the expected cost in year two 

is $22.43 = $24/(1.07). 

• Year 3: the odds of detection are Pr(not detecting in the first year) x Pr(not detecting in second 

year) x Pr(detection in third year) = 0.40 x 0.40 x 0.60 = 10 percent. Again, since the total cost of 

repairs and replacements is $100, we obtain $10 = 0.10 x $100. However, because the cost is 

delayed by two years, we must also discount this amount by the prevailing interest rate to reflect 

the time value of money. Again assuming an interest of seven percent, the expected cost in year 

three is $10 = $10/(1.07)2

. 

We repeat this calculation for a number of years large enough such that approximately 100 percent of the 

probability of detection and its associated costs are captured. In this example, the cumulative probability 

of detection is close to 100% after only the sixth period, i.e., baseline activities will virtually always 

identify the issues by the sixth year. Exhibit D-6 illustrates the calculation of the probabilities for the 

example described above. 

Exhibit D-6: Annual and Cumulative Probability of Detecting Issues under the Baseline 

a = Pr(detection) 60% 

b = Pr(no detection) 40% 

 

Period 

Pr(detection) in current 

period Annual Pr(detection) Cumulative Pr(detection) 

1 a 60% 60% 

2 a x b 24% 84% 

3 a x b x b 10% 94% 

4 a x b x b x b 4% 97% 

5 a x b x b x b x b 2% 99% 

6 a x b x b x b x b x b 1% 100% 

We combine the annual probabilities of detection with the discounted cost of repair or replacement to 

obtain the expected weighted-average baseline repair or replacement cost. This cost incorporates both the 

expected cost per year and the discounting of costs that occur in the future, as shown in Exhibit D-7. The 

bottom line represents the sum of the present value of the cash flows expected under baseline activities. In 

this example, actions performed under the baseline have an expected cost of $95.56. This outcome is, of 

course, dependent on the cost of $100 per test and 60 percent probability of identifying problems.

 
D-6

Exhibit D-7: Expected Cost per Baseline Inspection 

Period Annual Pr(detection) 

PV cost 

($100, 7% discount) 

Expected cost 

per year 

1 60% $100.00 $60.00 

2 24% $93.46 $22.43 

3 10% $87.34 $8.39 

4 4% $81.63 $3.13 

5 2% $76.29 $1.17 

6 1% $71.30 $0.44 

 

 

Expected cost per inspection

(sum of expected costs in each year) $95.56 

Given that a test under the proposed would produce a cost of $100, the difference of $4.44 represents an 

incremental cost of the proposed rule over the baseline, and is referred to as the “time value of money” 

(TVM) cost. 

Note that this calculation is particularly dependent upon the probability of detection: the lower the 

probability, the larger the proportion of costs that occur in the future and the lower the expected cost 

under the baseline. Exhibit D-8 illustrates the sensitivity of the above results to changes in the probability 

of detection under the baseline. In general, for probabilities of detection above 40 percent, a small change 

in probability of detection produces a relatively small change in TVM costs. For probabilities below 40 

percent, marginal changes become larger as the probability of detection approaches zero. 

Exhibit D-8: Change in Expected Cost as a Function of Probability of Detection 

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

$100

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Probability of detecting an issue

Cost

Expected Cost Incremental Cost

 
D-7

EPA assumes the following for the number of years to identify a problem in the baseline: 

• For walkthrough inspections, overfill operability testing, spill bucket tightness testing, and 

operability testing of all types, baseline activities would identify all issues in, at most, three years. 

This implies annual probability of successfully identifying issues of 83 percent.7

• For integrity testing of interstitial areas, baseline activities would identify all issues in, at most, 

five years. This implies an annual probability of successfully identifying issues of 66 percent.8

D.4 Calculation of Constant Annual Cash Flows for Proposed Changes with Variable Affected 

Universes

Certain proposed changes, including regulations related to flow restrictors for new tanks and secondary 

containment, differ from other proposed changes in that they apply only to new or replaced systems rather 

than existing systems. This introduces two dynamic elements into the calculation. First, the annual 

payment of costs associated with these changes increases with each additional year that the proposed rule 

is in effect because additional operators become subject to them as prior operators continue to make 

payments.9

 Second, because a discount rate is in effect, the first units subject to these proposed changes 

also experience the highest (i.e., least discounted) costs (and most immediate cost savings). These 

characteristics cause the costs and avoided releases associated with these proposed changes to change 

over time. 

To obtain a constant measure of the costs and benefits associated with changes that involve affected 

population of changing sizes, EPA proceeded as follows:10

• Assuming an average life of 20 years for an UST system, annual turnover is approximately five 

percent annually. The analysis assumes that new installations and replacements are covered under 

this rate of turnover, and the affected universe thus grows at a constant increment each year. A 

turnover rate of five percent also implies that the universe will have been completely replaced by 

year 20, such that all systems that could be affected by the proposed change will be subject to it 

by that time. After year 20, the affected universe will be constant, as will be the associated costs 

and positive impacts; however, we do not assess costs in perpetuity, instead accounting only for 

costs over the initial 20-year horizon. 

• EPA assembled 20-year schedules of costs and benefits that reflect the growth of each affected 

universe. For each year, the analysis calculates the present value of cash flows based on the 

system cost or avoided cost due to compliance. The present values of the cash flows are summed 

 7

 We selected the lowest probability of detection that would guarantee that 99.5 percent of problems would 

be identified by the third year to satisfy the condition that all problems are found by that time. If we use 99 percent 

as the threshold for “all issues,” a probability of detection of 79 percent is sufficient. In general, lowering the 

threshold increases TVM costs. The overall impact of TVM costs on the total cost of the rule depends on the choice 

of threshold, the expected cost per test, and the number of years until all issues are found. 

8

 If we use 99 percent as the threshold for “all issues,” a probability of detection of 61 percent is sufficient. 

9

 EPA assumes that this phase-in period will last 20 years, the average life of a UST system. Note that 

cost-savings associated with avoided releases follow the same pattern of growth as the population of system 

upgrades. 

10 While the example that follows relies on a 20-year time horizon, EPA also uses a horizon of three years 

to phase in the costs of operator training, and five years to phase out groundwater and vapor monitoring as release 

detection methods.

 
D-8

to obtain the total benefit over 20 years. This sum of cash flows is annualized into constant cash 

flows over a 20 year period, which creates an adjusted unit cost of compliance that distributes the 

effect of the phase-in of costs and benefits uniformly over the affected universe. 

These constant cash flows are used as the basis for the cost and avoided cost calculations presented in 

Chapters 3 and 4 of this report. Along with these values, EPA relies on the ultimately-affected universe 

(i.e., the universe affected at year 20) when calculating total costs or benefits associated with the proposed 

changes. Exhibit D-9 shows an example calculation, including the nominal values of cash flows at each 

period. In the example, assuming a turnover rate of five percent per year, 64,919 systems (over 20 years) 

will be subject to the requirement that flow restrictors in vent lines will be eliminated as overfill 

prevention. Before adjusting for growth in the affected universe, the cost of compliance is $886, or $83.63 

per year when amortized at seven percent interest over 20 years (see “Eliminate Flow Restrictors for in 

Vent Lines as Overfill Prevention for All New Tanks” below for details). After accounting for changes in 

the size of the universe and greater discounting for future costs, the annual cost of the requirement falls to 

$37.21. 

Exhibit D-9: Example Calculation of Constant Annual Unit Costs, Overfill Protection for New 

Units 

Cumulative number of 

tanks affected Year 

Nominal value at 

year PV at year 1 

3,246 1 $271,466 $271,466 

6,492 2 $542,933 $507,414 

9,738 3 $814,399 $711,328 

12,984 4 $1,085,865 $886,389 

16,230 5 $1,357,332 $1,035,502 

19,476 6 $1,628,798 $1,161,310 

22,722 7 $1,900,264 $1,266,226 

25,968 8 $2,171,730 $1,352,445 

29,214 9 $2,443,197 $1,421,963 

32,460 10 $2,714,663 $1,476,597 

35,706 11 $2,986,129 $1,517,997 

38,951 12 $3,257,596 $1,547,660 

42,197 13 $3,529,062 $1,566,946 

45,443 14 $3,800,528 $1,577,084 

48,689 15 $4,071,995 $1,579,190 

51,935 16 $4,343,461 $1,574,270 

55,181 17 $4,614,927 $1,563,236 

58,427 18 $4,886,393 $1,546,907 

61,673 19 $5,157,860 $1,526,025 

64,919 20 $5,429,326 $1,501,254 

 Total cost $25,591,207 

Annualized cost $2,415,629 

 

Annualized cost 

per system $37.21 

Notes: 

1. EPA assumes that the entire affected universe will be affected after 20 years. In this example, 13 

percent of 499,378 tanks in unregulated states will have to eventually install another overfill 

protection device. 

2. Unit cost before adjusting for phase-in effects is $83.63. 

 
D-9

As noted in Exhibit 2-4 in Chapter 2, EPA uses the affected universe in the tenth year to represent a 

central tendency for the cost of requirements such as these. 

EPA adds that this approach does not capture two significant factors. First, it assumes that current 

declining trends in the number of UST facilities do not continue and the universe size remains constant. If 

the approach incorporated trends of declining numbers of UST systems, it would commensurately 

decrease the costs and positive impacts for each proposed change. Second, this approach does not 

consider the possibility that new technologies may reduce compliance costs while achieving equal or 

greater positive impacts. For example, problems related to steel tanks are less frequent today partly 

because owners and operators have switched to materials such as fiberglass. It is possible that similar 

shifts could occur in relation to flow restrictors and secondary containment, leading to substantially lower 

compliance costs. 

D.5 Cost for Individual Regulations 

Estimates of costs for individual regulations are based on publicly available data on equipment, 

installation, and testing costs, and information collected from professionals in industries that provide 

relevant equipment and services. To the best of its ability, where data is limited or not available, EPA 

uses its professional expertise and judgment to make assumptions for cost modeling purposes. 

D.5.1 Release Prevention 

Walkthrough Inspections 

Exhibit D-10 summarizes the items that we assume to be covered by the walkthrough inspection. Based 

on Exhibit D-10, we estimate the per-unit cost of a walkthrough inspection to be fifty minutes (.83 hours) 

of technical labor, or $23.48 (2008 $), plus recordkeeping. We apply this cost on a per-facility basis for 

all facilities. Recordkeeping costs include 0.1 hour of clerical labor costs, or $1.78 (2008 $) and $0.10 in 

material costs (based on 2007 OUST ICR for maintaining records). 

Exhibit D-10: Minimum Walkthrough Inspection to be Conducted by Owner/Operator (Based on 

the PEI RP900) 

Category Description Time 

Spill buckets All items listed under Tank Fill Area on the Daily checklist (p. 42) 7 minutes 

Sumps/ 

Dispensers 

The following items listed under Other Sumps on the Annual checklist (p. 46) assuming 

the overall time is split evenly across all the items listed: 

 

 

 Any water or product removed and disposed of properly 4 minutes 

 Sump is free of cracks, holes, bulges, or other defects 4 minutes 

 Penetration fittings intact and secured 4 minutes 

 Sump sensor properly mounted at the bottom of the sump 4 minutes 

 Sump lid, gasket, and seals present and in good condition 4 minutes 

Monitoring/ 

Observation Wells 

Item listed under Observation and Monitoring Wells on the Monthly checklist (p. 44) 10 minutes 

 

Impressed Current 

Rectifiers 

Items listed under Corrosion Protection on the Monthly checklist (p. 44) 7 minutes 

 Subtotal: 44 minutes 

Release Detection (depending on RD method) 

 

5-10 

minutes 

 Total: 49-54 

minutes 

 
D-10

Note: The time estimates shown above are based on information provided by PEI and assumes a four-tank installation (i.e., 4 

tanks, fill ports, spill buckets, overfill devices and tanks sumps) and four dispensers. Since the walkthrough inspections 

primarily focus on sumps and dispensers, EPA believes that on average, these estimates provide a reasonable indication of the 

amount of time it would take to inspect a facility (a typical facility is likely to have more than four dispensers, but less than four 

sumps). 

 

The TVM cost for walkthrough inspections assumes that 10 percent of all walkthrough inspections will 

encounter a problem in one of the dispensers, sumps, gauges, piping alarms, or other equipment. On 

average, EPA assumes that this repair will cost $100. We estimate that this repair cost would have been 

incurred within three years without this requirement. The weighted-average cost of repairs and 

replacements is $10, and the incremental annual TVM cost between the proposed rulemaking and the 

baseline is $0.13. 

Overfill Prevention Equipment Tests

The unit costs associated with requiring an overfill prevention equipment test include the cost of 

conducting the test, plus recordkeeping. We estimate the average cost of conducting an overfill 

equipment test on UST overfill equipment at $214.00 (2008 $) per tank (TDD No. 21 – Overfill Testing). 

Recordkeeping costs include 0.1 hours of clerical labor costs, or $1.78 (2008 $), and $0.10 in material 

costs (based on 2007 OUST ICR for maintaining records), for a total of $0.68 per system. 

The TVM cost for overfill prevention equipment testing assumes that across all overfill components 

(alarms, flow restrictors, and automatic shutoff devices), about 21 percent of all overfill prevention 

equipment tests will encounter a problem (21 percent of alarms, 19 percent of flow restrictors, and 24 

percent of automatic shutoff devices will encounter a problem when tested; roughly 15.5 percent of 

overfills use alarms, and 42.3 percent of overfills each use flow restrictors and automatic shutoff devices). 

The analysis assumes that 25 percent of overfills will be repaired, at a cost of $100, and 75 percent of 

overfills will be replaced, at a cost of $1,811 (the weighted average cost of replacement of the overfill 

components). We assume that the inspection of each overfill component will detect a problem within 

three years. The weighted-average cost of repairs and replacements is $212, which implies an incremental 

TVM cost of $3.92 per year. Because testing occurs on a three-year basis under the Preferred Option, we 

use the present value of three years’ worth of this cost, which equals $11.00 at seven percent interest. 

Spill Prevention Equipment Tests

The unit costs associated with requiring spill prevention equipment tests include the cost of conducting 

the test, plus recordkeeping. We estimate the average cost of conducting tightness testing on spill buckets 

by vacuum at $125.00 (2008 $) per spill bucket. Recordkeeping costs include 0.1 hours of clerical labor 

costs, or $1.78 (2008 $), and $0.10 in material costs (based on 2007 OUST ICR for maintaining records), 

for a total of $0.68 per system. 

The TVM cost for spill prevention equipment test assumes that across the country, approximately 16 

percent of all spill prevention equipment tests will encounter a problem. This is a weighted average of the 

13 percent chance to encounter a problem during such a test in states that already require tightness testing 

of spill prevention equipment and the 30 percent chance to encounter a problem during such a test in 

states that do not currently require such testing. The analysis assumes that 25 percent of spill prevention 

equipment will be repaired, at a cost of $475, and 75 percent will be replaced, at a cost of $2,000. We 

estimate that these costs would have been incurred within three years without this requirement, but are 

incurred immediately as a result of the proposed rulemaking. The weighted-average cost of repairs and 

replacements is $252.53, which implies an annual TVM cost of $3.34. 

 
D-11

Interstitial Integrity Tests 

The per-unit costs associated with requiring interstitial integrity tests include the cost of conducting the 

test, plus recordkeeping. We estimate the average cost of conducting an interstitial integrity test on a tank 

at $146.85 (2008 $) per tank. We estimate the average cost of conducting an interstitial integrity test on 

piping at $111.49 (2008 $) per line. We estimate the average cost of conducting an interstitial integrity 

test on sumps at $207.84 (2008 $) per sump. (These costs are based on E2

 Inc., TO 3003, TD #9; and SC05 State Periodic Interstitial Testing Requirements.) 

For modeling purposes, we assume that only a certain percentage of tank and piping systems that use 

interstitial monitoring is affected: 

• Tanks: 19.76 percent have interstitial monitoring. Of these, five percent, or 0.99 percent of all 

tanks, do not use continuous pressure/vacuum/liquid-filled leak detection monitoring systems and 

must be tested. 

• Piping and sumps: 18.30 percent have interstitial monitoring. Of these, 90 percent, or 16.47 

percent, do not use continuous pressure/vacuum/liquid-filled leak detection monitoring systems 

and must be tested. 

Furthermore, we assume that the tank systems that use IM do not overlap with the piping systems that use 

IM. The interstitial integrity test cost for tanks is used to estimate the cost for tank systems (rather than a 

combined test that would be less expensive). For piping systems, the cost of the interstitial integrity test 

adds the cost for testing the piping and the sump (i.e., two separate test costs). After accounting for the 

above factors, the weighted total cost per test is $309.56. Recordkeeping costs include 0.1 hours of 

clerical labor costs, or $1.78 (2008 $), and $0.10 in material costs (based on 2007 OUST ICR for 

maintaining records), for a total of $0.68 per system. 

The TVM cost of interstitial integrity tests assumes that approximately 5 percent of all tests on tanks will 

encounter a problem, that approximately five percent of all tests on piping will encounter a problem, that 

approximately 25 percent of all tests involving the turbine sump will encounter a problem, and that 21 

percent of all tests on dispensers will encounter a problem. The analysis assumes that all tanks, 70 

percent of piping, and 75 percent of turbine sumps and dispensers will require a repair; the rest will 

require replacement. Replacement costs are assumed to be $69,807 for tanks (the cost of an UST system 

less the cost for 100 feet of piping), $18,900 for piping, $3,000 for turbine sumps, and $2,000 for 

dispensers; repair costs are assumed to be 10 percent of replacement costs for tanks and piping ($6,981 

and $1,890, respectively), $675 for turbine sumps, and $450 for dispensers. This yields a total weighted 

average of $686 for repairs and $691 for replacement. We estimate that the repair/replacement costs 

would be incurred within five years without this requirement but immediately under each test under the 

proposed rulemaking. The weighted-average cost of repairs and replacements is approximately $1,377, or 

$44.91 per year. Because testing occurs on a three-year basis under the Preferred Option, we use the 

present value of three years’ worth of this cost, which equals $126.10 at seven percent interest. 

Spill Prevention Equipment Test After Repair

As described above, the cost of the spill prevention equipment test, plus recordkeeping, is $125.68. 

Overfill Prevention Equipment Test After Repair

As described above, the cost of the overfill prevention equipment test, plus recordkeeping, is $214.68. 

 
D-12

Interstitial Integrity Test After Repair

As mentioned above, the average cost of conducting an interstitial integrity test on a tank is $146.85 

(2008 $) per tank, the average cost of conducting an interstitial integrity test on piping is $111.49 (2008 

$) per line, and the average cost of conducting an interstitial integrity test on sumps is $207.84 (2008 $) 

per sump. To estimate the cost of an interstitial integrity test after repair, we first average the cost of the 

tests for piping and sumps; we assume that an interstitial integrity test of piping will include sumps. 

(111.49+207.84)/2 = $159.67. We then weight the costs of the test for tank and the test for piping/sump 

by the frequency of repairs. We assume that on average there would be approximately four piping/sump 

repairs for every tank repair. Therefore, the cost of an interstitial integrity test after repair is (0.8 * 

$159.67) + (0.2 * $146.85) = $157.10, plus recordkeeping ($0.68). 

Eliminate Flow Restrictors for in Vent Lines as Overfill Prevention for All New Tanks and When 

Overfill Devices are Replaced

The cost for this requirement is the incremental cost between what would have been installed (i.e., ball 

float) and the least-cost alternative (i.e., automatic shutoff valve), or $886 (2008 $) per tank (= $1,042 - 

$156, cost of automatic shutoff value less cost of new ball float). (Based on E2

, Inc., TO3003 TDD7, 

Table 1) This cost phases in over time and is adjusted as shown in Exhibit D-11. 

Exhibit D-11 

Adjustment for Phase in: Eliminate Flow Restrictors in Vent Lines as Overfill Protection for New 

and Replaced Tanks 

 

Number of tanks affected Year Nominal value at year PV at year 1 

 3,246 1 $271,466 $271,466

 6,492 2 $542,933 $507,414

 9,738 3 $814,399 $711,328

 12,984 4 $1,085,865 $886,389

 16,230 5 $1,357,332 $1,035,502

 19,476 6 $1,628,798 $1,161,310

 22,722 7 $1,900,264 $1,266,226

 25,968 8 $2,171,730 $1,352,445

 29,214 9 $2,443,197 $1,421,963

 32,460 10 $2,714,663 $1,476,597

 35,706 11 $2,986,129 $1,517,997

 38,951 12 $3,257,596 $1,547,660

 42,197 13 $3,529,062 $1,566,946

 45,443 14 $3,800,528 $1,577,084

 48,689 15 $4,071,995 $1,579,190

 51,935 16 $4,343,461 $1,574,270

 55,181 17 $4,614,927 $1,563,236

 58,427 18 $4,886,393 $1,546,907

 61,673 19 $5,157,860 $1,526,025

 64,919 20 $5,429,326 $1,501,254

 Total $25,591,207 

PV cost per tank $394.20 

Annual cost over 20 years $37.21 

 
D-13

These costs only apply to new tanks that would have installed ball floats (based on PEI estimate of 

percent of new installs over the last three years that use ball floats as overfill protection). 

D.5.2 Release Detection 

Operability tests

Note: We assume no state currently has this requirement for any of the release detection methods below 

(i.e., all systems in all states will incur costs). 

Operability test for ATGs 

The cost for the operability test would be the technical labor involved (1.5 hours) in conducting the test, 

or $55.48 (2008 $), plus recordkeeping equal to $0.68 (clerical labor of 0.1 hours and materials that cost 

$0.10). 

The time value of money cost of operability testing for ATGs assumes that five percent of all testing of 

probes and 10 percent of all testing of floats identifies a problem. The analysis assumes all ATGs are 

replaced, with a cost of $1,352 for probes and $170 for floats. The average cost of replacement, weighted 

by the probabilities of requiring replacement and the number of each component is $84.60 (each ATG has 

both components). We estimate that this repair cost would have been incurred within three years without 

this requirement, but is incurred immediately as a result of the proposed rulemaking. We estimate that 

these costs would have been incurred within three years without this requirement, but are incurred 

immediately as a result of the proposed rulemaking. This implies an annual TVM cost of $1.12. 

Operability test for Interstitial Monitoring (IM) Systems 

The cost for the operability test would be the technical labor involved (0.25 hours) in conducting the test, 

or $9.25 (2008 $), plus recordkeeping equal to $0.68 (clerical labor of 0.1 hours and materials that cost 

$0.10). 

The time value of money cost of operability testing for interstitial monitoring systems assumes that 20 

percent of all testing of liquid points and UDCs/sumps and seven percent of all testing of the pressure of 

vacuum sensors identifies a problem. The analysis assumes that these components are always replaced, 

with a cost of $455 for the former and $1,000 for the latter. The average cost of replacement, weighted 

by the probabilities of requiring replacement and the number of existing interstitial monitoring systems 

with each type of component, is $87.59 (86 percent of interstitial monitoring systems use liquid points 

and UDCs/sumps, 14 percent use the pressure of a vacuum sensor). We estimate that these costs would 

have been incurred within three years without this requirement, but are incurred immediately as a result of 

the proposed rulemaking. This implies an annual TVM cost of $1.16. 

Operability test for LLDs

The cost for the operability test for a LLD would be the technical labor involved (1.5 hours) in conducting 

the test, or $55.48 (2008 $), plus recordkeeping equal to $0.68 (clerical labor of 0.1 hours and materials 

that cost $0.10). 

The time value of money cost of operability testing for line leak detectors assumes that 20 percent of all 

testing of mechanical line leak detectors and 20 percent of all testing of electronic line leak detectors 

identifies a problem. The analysis assumes that these components are always replaced, with a cost of 

$292 for the former and $813 for the latter. The average cost of replacement is $58.44 for mechanical 

LLDs and $162.60 for electronic LLDs. For both types of LLD, we estimate that these costs would have 

been incurred within three years without this requirement, but are incurred immediately as a result of the 

proposed rulemaking. This implies an annual TVM cost of $0.77 for mechanical LLDs and $2.15 for 

electronic LLDs. 

 

 
D-14

Operability test for Vapor Monitoring Systems 

The cost for the operability test for vapor monitoring would be the technical labor involved (0.25 hours) 

in conducting the test, or $9.25 (2008 $), plus recordkeeping equal to $0.68 (clerical labor of 0.1 hours 

and materials that cost $0.10). 

The time value of money cost for operability testing of vapor monitoring systems assumes that 20 percent 

of all testing will encounter a problem. All sensors are assumed to be replaced at a cost of $426, which 

implies an expected cost per inspection of $85.20. We estimate that these costs would have been incurred 

within three years without this requirement, but are incurred immediately as a result of the proposed 

rulemaking. This implies an annual TVM cost of $1.13. 

Operability test for Groundwater Monitoring Systems

The cost for the operability test would be the technical labor involved (0.25 hours) in conducting the test, 

or $9.25 (2008 $), plus recordkeeping equal to $0.68 (clerical labor of 0.1 hours and materials that cost 

$0.10). 

The time value of money cost of operability testing for groundwater monitoring systems assumes that 20 

percent of all testing of sensors and 10 percent of all testing of the bailers identifies a problem. The 

analysis assumes that these components are always replaced, with a cost of $426 for the former and $30 

for the latter. The average cost of replacement, weighted by the probability of requiring replacement and 

the number of existing interstitial monitoring systems with each type of component, is $44.10 (half of all 

groundwater monitoring systems use sensors while the other half use bailers). We estimate that these 

costs would have been incurred within three years without this requirement, but are incurred immediately 

as a result of the proposed rulemaking. This implies an annual TVM cost of $0.58. 

Elimination of Groundwater Monitoring and Vapor Monitoring as Release Detection Methods 

The cost to eliminate groundwater monitoring includes the cost of switching to SIR ($25 one-time cost 

plus $15 per month for monthly reconciliation) less the one-time cost of groundwater monitoring 

equipment ($463, from p.63 in OUST ICR 1360.08) and $125 in annual costs to record monthly 

monitoring (1.67 hours of technical labor, from p.63 in OUST ICR 1360.08). The cost of eliminating 

vapor monitoring includes the cost of switching to SIR ($25 one-time cost plus $15 per month for 

monthly reconciliation) less the cost of vapor monitoring equipment ($733, from p.63 in OUST ICR 

1360.08) and $125 in annual costs to record monthly monitoring (1.67 hours of technical labor, from p.63 

in OUST ICR 1360.08). 

Because the requirement is phased-in over five years, we also account for the cost of groundwater or 

vapor monitoring operability tests, including TVM costs, as described in the “Operability test for Vapor 

Monitoring Systems” and “Operability test for Groundwater Monitoring Systems” sections above. 

Add SIR/CITLD to Regulations with Performance Criteria

We assume that CITLD users will be able to meet the performance criteria with no additional cost. 

Certain SIR users would incur a one-time $10 (2008$) cost for a new service agreement to switch to a 

SIR vendor that would be capable of providing quantitative results necessary to meet this requirement. 

Adjust Probability of Detection and Probability of False Alarms (“Pd/Pfa”) for Release Detection to 

95/5

This requirement applies only under Alternative 1 of the proposed rule. Under this requirement, a portion 

of users of the following technologies will be required to either switch to a new technology or adapt to the 

new leak rate probabilities requirements. These would include: 

• ATG users: some will upgrade software systems, while others will replace ATGs.

 
D-15

• ALLD users: some will upgrade software systems, while others will replace detectors.

• SIR users: both qualitative and quantitative SIR users will be able to satisfy requirements by 

obtaining a new service agreement.

• CITLD users: some will need to upgrade software.

In all cases, upgrades should result in fewer costly false alarms, which slightly offsets the cost of the new 

requirements. Exhibits D-12 through D-15 summarize the costs and avoided costs of each of the 

outcomes outlined above. In all cases, the avoided costs are $15 per SIR alarm and $100 per other alarm. 

Exhibit D-12: Pd/Pfa - ATGs 

Adjust Pd/Pfa: ATG 

% of tanks with ATGs 34% 

# of tanks with ATGs 205,814 

% of users with false alarms 10% 

% of false alarms avoided 80% 

 

Among systems using ATG: 

% of tanks with ATGs upgrading software 41% 

# of tanks with ATGs upgrading software 84,384 

Compliance cost for upgrading software $400 

False alarms avoided for these tanks 6,751 

Subtotal compliance costs for software upgrades $33,753,452 

Subtotal avoided via software upgrades ($675,069)

 

% of tanks with ATGs replacing them 59% 

# of tanks with ATGs replacing them 121,430 

Compliance cost for replacing ATG $3,843 

False alarms avoided for these tanks 9,714 

Subtotal compliance costs for ATG replacements $466,655,885 

Subtotal costs avoided via ATG replacements ($971,441)

 

Total compliance costs $500,409,337 

Total costs avoided ($1,646,510)

 

Cost per system: 

One-time compliance costs $2,431.37 

Annualized one-time costs $229.50 

Avoided compliance costs ($8.00)

 
D-16

Exhibit D-13: Pd/Pfa - ALLDs 

Adjust Pd/Pfa: ALLD 

% of tanks with ALLDs 28% 

# of tanks with ALLDs 168,454 

% of users with false alarms 20% 

% of false alarms avoided 60% 

 

Among systems using ALLD: 

% of tanks with ALLDs upgrading software 97% 

# of tanks with ALLDs upgrading software 163,401 

Compliance cost for upgrading software $400 

False alarms avoided for these tanks 19,608 

Subtotal compliance costs for software upgrades $65,360,229 

Subtotal avoided via software upgrades ($1,960,807)

 

% of tanks with ALLDs replacing detectors 3% 

# of tanks with ALLDs replacing detectors 5,054 

Compliance cost for replacing detector $813 

False alarms avoided for these tanks 606 

Subtotal compliance costs for detector 

replacements $4,108,598 

Subtotal costs avoided via detector replacements ($60,644)

 

Total compliance costs $69,468,827 

Total costs avoided ($2,021,450)

 

Cost per system: 

One-time compliance costs $412.39 

Annualized one-time costs $38.93 

Avoided compliance costs ($12.00)

 
D-17

Exhibit D-14: Pd/Pfa - SIR 

Adjust Pd/Pfa: SIR 

% of tanks with qualitative SIR 2% 

# of tanks with qualitative SIR 11,862 

% of tanks with quantitative SIR 11% 

# of tanks with quantitative SIR 67,382 

% of users with false alarms 40% 

% of false alarms avoided 40% 

 

Among systems using SIR: 

% using new service agreement 100% 

# of tanks with qualitative SIR using new service agreement 11,862 

Compliance cost for new service agreement $15 

False alarms avoided for these tanks 1,898 

Total compliance costs for tanks with qualitative SIR $177,932 

Costs avoided via new service agreement ($28,469)

 

% of tanks with quantitative SIR 11% 

# of tanks with quantitative SIR using new service agreement 67,382 

Compliance cost for new service agreement $15 

False alarms avoided for these tanks 10,781 

Total compliance costs for tanks with quantitative SIR $1,010,725 

Costs avoided via new service agreement $161,716 

 

Total compliance costs $1,188,657 

Total costs avoided ($190,185)

 

Cost per system: 

One-time compliance costs $15.00 

Annualized one-time costs $1.42 

Avoided compliance costs ($2.40)

 
D-18

Exhibit D-15: Pd/Pfa - CITLD 

Adjust Pd/Pfa: CITLD 

% of tanks with CITLD 25% 

# of tanks with CITLD 154,360 

% of users with false alarms 10% 

% of false alarms avoided 80% 

 

Among systems using CITLD: 

% upgrading software 20% 

# of tanks upgrading software 30,872 

Compliance cost for software upgrade $400 

False alarms avoided for these tanks 2,470 

Subtotal compliance costs for tanks using CITLD $12,348,824 

Subtotal costs avoided for tanks using CITLD ($246,976)

 

Total compliance costs $12,348,824 

Total costs avoided ($246,976)

 

Cost per system: 

One-time compliance costs $80.00 

Annualized one-time costs $7.55 

Avoided compliance costs ($1.60)

Require Response to Interstitial Monitoring Alarm 

The cost associated with this requirement would be the incremental cost difference between a tightness 

test ($151.59, currently required) and an interstitial integrity test ($229.78), which is $78.19 (2008$) 

(based on E2

, Inc., TO 3003, TDD#9, SC-05 State Periodic Interstitial Testing Requirements and ICR). 

Removal of deferrals for Emergency Generator Tanks (EGTs)11

Based on FY2009 data, the total number of active USTs is 611,449. EPA assumes that three percent of 

these tanks, or 18,344, are EGTs. Among these, 11,704 are in states that currently defer release detection 

regulations on this type of UST (and therefore would be affected by the deferral removal). 

EPA assumes that one-third of the universe of tanks in states with deferrals in place (the left branch in the 

figure below) already voluntarily employ release detection technologies that are distributed as other 

operability testing requirements. This subset of EGTs accrues only the incremental testing costs 

associated with operability testing. The other two-thirds of the EGT universe in states with deferrals in 

place accrue both the costs to install new release detection equipment (apportioned as 60 percent of the 

universe to SIR and 6.7 percent to ATG) and operability tests.12 We assume that the proportion of EGTs 

that switch to SIR also incur the costs associated with the addition of SIR/CITLD with performance 

criteria. 

 11 The proposed rule does not address emergency tanks at nuclear power plants, which are regulated by the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission under 10 CFR Part 50. 

12 For modeling purposes, we assume the majority of EGTs would use SIR as the release detection method 

($25) because it is the least-cost method. However, EPA assumes that ten percent of EGTs would be in remote 

locations, and would therefore use ATGs as their release detection method. 

 
D-19

Allocation of Costs to the Universe of EGTs 

11,704 EGTs in states with 

deferrals in place

Incur testing costs

identically to other 

operability testing

Incur installation and O&M 

(removal of deferral) and 

operabilitytesting costs subject 

to distribution shown below.

All percentages refer to the entire affected universe of 11,704 EGTs.

SIR ATG

60% 6.7%

•ATG

•SIR

•Int. monit.

Release detection 

for these tanks are 

assumed to be the 

same as national 

distribution.

33.3%

33.3% 66.7%

Costs are assigned as follows: 

• The cost for the operability test for tanks that already use automatic tank gauge systems would be 

the technical labor involved (1.5 hours) in conducting the test, or $55.48 (2008$), recordkeeping 

cost of $0.68, and annual TVM cost of $1.12. We apply this cost to the percentage of tanks that 

currently use ATG as their leak detection method. 

• The cost for the operability test for tanks that already use interstitial monitoring systems would be 

the technical labor involved (0.25 hours) in conducting the test, or $9.25 (2008 $), recordkeeping 

cost of $0.68, and annual TVM cost of $1.16. We apply this cost to the percentage of tanks that 

currently use IM as their leak detection method. 

• The cost for the operability test for tanks that already use vapor monitoring systems would be the 

technical labor involved (0.25 hours) in conducting the test, or $9.25 (2008 $), recordkeeping cost 

of $0.68, and annual TVM cost of $1.13. We apply this cost to the percentage of tanks that 

currently use vapor monitoring as their leak detection method. 

• The cost for the operability test for tanks that already use groundwater monitoring systems would 

be the technical labor involved (0.25 hours) in conducting the test, or $9.25 (2008 $), 

recordkeeping cost of $0.68, and annual TVM cost of $0.58. We apply this cost to the percentage 

of tanks that currently use GW monitoring as their leak detection method. 

 
D-20

• We estimate the cost of installing new automatic tank gauge systems at $3,843 (2008$) (TO3003 

TDD #9). We estimate the annual monitoring costs associated with these systems at $222.62 per 

unit. 

• We estimate the cost of installing new SIR systems at $25. We estimate the annual monitoring 

costs associated with SIR at $180. 

• Current qualitative SIR users would incur a one-time $10 (2008 $) cost for a new service 

agreement to switch to a SIR vendor capable of providing quantitative results. 

• EGTs will also be required to perform annual line tightness tests and maintain associated records 

(based on OUST’s ICR 1360.08, this cost is $38.90). 

• All EGTs will be required to provide a one-time notification of existence to the implementing 

agency. We estimate this one-time cost to be the managerial labor (0.25 hours), or $12.83, 

required to notify the implementing agency (based on ICR). 

The foregoing requirements affect various subsets of the universe, many of which do not overlap. For 

example, systems are generally subject to only one operability test requirement, and relatively few 

systems will be required to install an ATG. If we sum the bulleted costs without accounting for the 

universe affected, we significantly overstate the cost per EGT system. We thus estimate the unit cost of 

this group of requirements by dividing the total cost of the affected universe by the total universe of units 

affected. Doing so produces an average one-time cost per system of $298.56 and average O&M cost per 

system of $172.74. 

D.5.3 Other 

Notification of Ownership Changes

The cost associated with this requirement is the managerial labor (0.25 hours), or $12.83, required to 

notify the implementing agency (based on ICR). Only facilities that change ownership will incur the cost. 

Closure of Irreparable Lined Tanks

The cost associated with this requirement is the incremental cost between what an owner/operator would 

be able to do instead of replacement (i.e., switch to cathodic protection) and what the owner/operator 

needs to do as a result of the requirement (i.e., close the tank, and replace with a double-walled tank).13

We assume that this requirement will cause owners or operators to replace their systems, on average, 10 

years earlier (i.e. incur costs over years one through 20, rather than years 10 through 30, following the 

proposed rule’s implementation). Incremental costs are $72,204 (= $79,254 (2008$) to install a doublewalled system minus $7,050 for the cost of switching to cathodic protection, from SC-03 UST Cost 

Comparison and EPA correspondence, 8/7/2009). The difference between these two streams of 

discounted cash flows (i.e., cash flows for years one to 20 and cash flows from years 10 to 30) is $35,499. 

Recordkeeping Associated with Compatibility

For existing UST systems, owners and operators must be able to maintain records to demonstrate that 

their UST system is compatible with the fuel stored. In order to do this, owners and operators must have 

existing records indicating what equipment has already been installed, and that equipment is compatible 

with alcohol blends greater than ten percent. EPA assumes that a portion of existing owners of UST 

systems would have adequate installation records. EPA also assumes each owner would maintain records 

 13 EPA assumes that the owner/operator will choose to continue operations by installing a new doublewalled tank instead of closing the tank and discontinuing operations. 

 
D-21

and demonstrate compatibility on a per UST system basis. In addition, owners and operators must 

maintain retain equipment records for all new and replaced equipment. All records must be maintained 

for the life of the equipment. This recordkeeping cost is $1.88 per record (“Maintain records,” under 

“UST systems: design, construction, installation and notification,” p. 61, OUST ICR 1360.08), plus $0.01 

to permanently store the record. EPA assumes that all owners and operators will incur this cost annually 

as part of annual maintenance and replacement of UST system components. 

Removal of deferrals for Airport Hydrant Fuel Distribution Systems (AHFDSs)

For details on how costs are estimated for AHFDSs, see Appendix A. The unit costs presented in Exhibit 

3-1 are derived from taking the total costs associated with removing the deferral and dividing them by the 

number of systems that would be affected by the proposed rule. 

Removal of deferrals for UST systems with Field-Constructed Tanks (FCTs)

For details on how costs are estimated for FCTs, see Appendix A. The unit costs presented in Exhibit 3-1 

are derived from taking the total costs associated with removing the deferral and dividing them by the 

number of systems that would be affected by the proposed rule. 

D.5.4 Energy Policy Act (Indian country only) 

Operator Training

We model this requirement only for facilities located in Indian country. EPA assumes that there is 1 

Class A operator and 1 Class B operator for every 5 facilities, and 3 Class C operators per facility. 

The costs for operator training includes one-time costs associated with training all existing operators, and 

annual costs associated with retraining as a result of operator turnover. 

One-time costs: 

For Class A and B operators, we assume 20 percent of these operators test out. The costs for these 

operators consist of the fee to take the test and the time it takes to take the test, or $27.39 for Class A 

operators and $20.45 for Class B operators ($60 test fee plus 1.5 hours of test time, from Task 4 memo, 

Exhibit 2, with time taken based on California’s test length). The other 80 percent are required to take 

training. In the model, this consists of taking a online webinar and then paying for a final exam, or 

$545.71 for Class A operators and $360.64 for Class B operators ($169 test fee + 10 hours of webinar and 

test time, based on Colorado’s training webinar cost). 

For Class C operators, we assume all of them will be trained by Class A/B operators. For modeling 

purposes, we assume the trainer to be a Class B operator because of the slightly cheaper labor rate. We 

calculate costs to be $73.18, or one hour for a Class B operator and one hour for each of three Class C 

operators. The total one-time cost comes to $264.02 plus $1.88 of recordkeeping (clerical labor of 0.1 

hours and materials that cost $0.10). 

Recurring cost: 

Each year, we assume that Class A and Class B operators will turnover at an average rate of 22 percent. 

The same assumption of 20 percent testing out and 80 percent taking training applies. We assume Class 

C operators turnover at an average rate of 119.5 percent. We assume they are trained by Class A or B 

operators. We calculate total retraining costs at $128.92 given the above assumptions, plus $1.88 of 

recordkeeping (clerical labor of 0.1 hours and materials that cost $0.10). 

 
D-22

Require Secondary Containment of new/replaced tanks and piping 

We model this only for facilities in Indian country. The cost associated with this requirement would be 

the incremental cost difference between the installation of a single-walled tank ($72,102 in 2006$) and 

piping and the installation of a double-walled tank and piping ($88,707 in 2006$), or $16,605.17 (2006 $) 

(the cost of installing a double-walled tank and piping less the cost of installing a single-walled tank and 

piping, from SC-03 UST Cost Comparison, Table 1), or $17,733.84 in 2008 dollars. Because the 

universe affected by this facility grows over time due to equipment turnover, we amortize this cost over 

20 years at seven percent interest and incorporate the growing universe to obtain a more accurate estimate 

of costs. 

EPA data indicate that approximately 72.4 percent of tanks in Indian Country are single-walled. As a 

result, EPA assumes that 1,901 of the 2,626 total tanks in Indian Country will be affected by this 

regulation after 20 years for modeling purposes. This implies that about 95 tanks will be replaced each 

year. 

This cost phases in over time and is adjusted as shown in Exhibit D-16. 

Exhibit D-16 

Require Secondary Containment of new/replaced tanks and piping 

Number of tanks affected Year Nominal PV at year PV at year 1 

95 1 $159,128 $159,128

190 2 $318,255 $297,435

285 3 $477,383 $416,965

380 4 $636,510 $519,582

475 5 $795,638 $606,988

570 6 $954,766 $680,735

665 7 $1,113,893 $742,234

760 8 $1,273,021 $792,773

856 9 $1,432,148 $833,523

951 10 $1,591,276 $865,549

1,046 11 $1,750,404 $889,816

1,141 12 $1,909,531 $907,205

1,236 13 $2,068,659 $918,509

1,331 14 $2,227,786 $924,452

1,426 15 $2,386,914 $925,686

1,521 16 $2,546,042 $922,803

1,616 17 $2,705,169 $916,334

1,711 18 $2,864,297 $906,763

1,806 19 $3,023,425 $894,522

1,901 20 $3,182,552 $880,002

 Total $15,001,006

Cost per tank $7,890.18

 

Annualized cost per 

tank $754

Require Replacement of Piping if Repairs Exceed Certain Threshold

We model this cost only for facilities in Indian country. The cost associated with this requirement would 

be the incremental cost difference between the repair of single-walled piping and the installation of new 

secondarily-contained piping. This cost occurs only if, during the course of repairing a piping run, an 

owner or operator is required to repair more than a certain proportion of the entire piping run (as 

determined in the proposed rule). Further, the cost depends on the particular threshold: the lower the 

 
D-23

threshold, the greater the incremental cost of replacement (compared with repair) and the larger the 

proportion of facilities affected. 

EPA estimated incremental costs for three thresholds: 10 percent (Choice 1), 25 percent (Choice 2), and 

50 percent (Choice 3). We calculate the costs associated with each threshold requirement to be $14,400, 

$9,900, and $2,400, respectively (2008 $) (the installation of new piping less the cost of repairing singlewalled piping, from Secondary Containment for Piping Calculator). We assume, however, that no owners 

or operators would incur incremental costs under a 50 percent replacement threshold, as they would 

otherwise replace their piping in the baseline if repairs exceed that proportion. 

In Indian country, 60.3 percent pipes are single-walled. For modeling purposes, we assume that 20 

percent are affected per year. We also assume that 45 percent of pipes are affected per year under Choice 

1, 20 percent are affected per year under Choice 2, and zero percent are affected per year under Choice 3. 

This implies that 2,850, 1,267, and zero pipes are affected after 20 years, respectively, and that the 

number of pipes affected grows uniformly over time. We assume that pipes have lifetimes of 10 years, 

but amortize their costs over 20 years. 

This cost phases in over time and is adjusted as shown in subsequent exhibits. Because costs depend on 

the particular replacement threshold, we calculate costs for all three different scenarios. 

Exhibit D-17 

Secondary containment: Replace all piping if 10 percent requires repairs

Number of tanks affected Year Nominal PV at year PV at year 1 

143 1 $193,712 $193,712

285 2 $387,424 $362,078

428 3 $581,136 $507,587

570 4 $774,848 $632,507

713 5 $968,560 $738,910

855 6 $1,162,272 $828,684

998 7 $1,355,984 $903,549

1,140 8 $1,549,696 $965,073

1,283 9 $1,743,408 $1,014,679

1,425 10 $1,937,120 $1,053,665

1,568 11 $2,130,832 $1,083,207

1,710 12 $2,324,544 $1,104,374

1,853 13 $2,518,256 $1,118,136

1,995 14 $2,711,968 $1,125,370

2,138 15 $2,905,680 $1,126,873

2,280 16 $3,099,392 $1,123,362

2,423 17 $3,293,104 $1,115,488

2,565 18 $3,486,816 $1,103,837

2,708 19 $3,680,528 $1,088,935

2,850 20 $3,874,240 $1,071,260

 Total $18,261,285 

Cost per tank $6,406.88 

 

Annualized cost per 

tank $605

 
D-24

Exhibit D-18 

Secondary containment: Replace all piping if 25 percent requires repairs

Number of tanks affected Year Nominal PV at year PV at year 1 

63 1 $59,190 $59,190

127 2 $118,380 $110,635

190 3 $177,569 $155,096

253 4 $236,759 $193,266

317 5 $295,949 $225,778

380 6 $355,139 $253,209

443 7 $414,328 $276,085

507 8 $473,518 $294,883

570 9 $532,708 $310,041

633 10 $591,898 $321,953

697 11 $651,087 $330,980

760 12 $710,277 $337,448

823 13 $769,467 $341,653

887 14 $828,657 $343,863

950 15 $887,847 $344,322

1,013 16 $947,036 $343,250

1,077 17 $1,006,226 $340,844

1,140 18 $1,065,416 $337,283

1,203 19 $1,124,606 $332,730

1,267 20 $1,183,795 $327,329

 Total $5,579,837

Cost per tank $4,404.73

Annualized cost per tank $416

Require Under-Dispenser Containment 

We model this only for facilities in Indian country. We calculate the cost associated with this requirement 

as $2,017 (2008 $) (=$1,500 of installation costs + $517 for equipment). We assume that over 20 years, 

96.98 percent of tanks will require under-dispenser containment. This implies 127 tanks will require 

under-dispenser containment each year. Because the universe affected by this facility grows over time due 

to equipment turnover, we amortize this cost over 20 years at seven percent interest and incorporate the 

growing universe to obtain a more accurate estimate of costs. This cost phases in over time and is 

adjusted as shown in Exhibit D-19. Note that there are two dispensers per tank. 

 
D-25

Exhibit D-19 

Secondary containment: Require under-dispenser containment for all new dispensers

Number of tanks affected Year Nominal PV at year PV at year 1 

127 1 $48,495 $48,495

255 2 $96,989 $90,644

382 3 $145,484 $127,071

509 4 $193,979 $158,344

637 5 $242,473 $184,982

764 6 $290,968 $207,456

891 7 $339,463 $226,198

1,019 8 $387,957 $241,600

1,146 9 $436,452 $254,019

1,273 10 $484,947 $263,779

1,401 11 $533,441 $271,175

1,528 12 $581,936 $276,474

1,655 13 $630,431 $279,919

1,783 14 $678,925 $281,730

1,910 15 $727,420 $282,106

2,037 16 $775,915 $281,227

2,165 17 $824,409 $279,256

2,292 18 $872,904 $276,339

2,419 19 $921,399 $272,609

2,547 20 $969,893 $268,184

 Total $4,571,607

 Cost per tank $1,795.11

 

Annualized cost per 

tank $169.45

 
Appendix E 

Access Model Structure and Specifications 
E-1 

EPA/OUST relies on a cost model designed in Access to compute most of the costs of the proposed rule. 

The first section of this appendix explains the general process by which the model works. The 

subsequent section provides detailed explanations of the mechanics of the model, including the content 

and purpose of its underlying tables, queries, and macros. The part of this appendix provides a brief 

user’s guide to the model. 

E.1 Introduction

The purpose of this document is to briefly describe the contents and functionality of the underground 

storage tank (UST) regulatory cost model. This memorandum is organized in five parts. The first four 

parts explain the contents of the model: 1) tables; 2) queries; 3) forms; 4) reports. These categories are 

analogous to the categories of objects in Access 2003. The final part briefly outlines model use. 

The model operates by performing a series of queries on various tables to arrive at cost estimates for the 

regulations under consideration. The model requires four major steps to calculate the costs associated 

with each regulation. In order to arrive at its final output, the model: 

1. Determines which states have regulations that are less stringent than those selected by the user. 

2. Calculates the incremental frequency imposed by the more stringent requirement upon units in 

each state. The increment depends on the particular type of regulation considered, but in general 

refers to: A) the additional number of inspections required per year, B) a binary increment for 

whether a state requires a regulation, or C) a variable indicating whether the threshold set in a 

state is less stringent than that chosen by the user. 

3. Calculates the incremental cost in terms of capital and O&M. The model considers these by unit 

type (facility, tank, or certain special tank types) and aggregates the costs at a state and national 

regulation. The costs included in the calculation are incremental to the regulations already in 

place. 

4. Presents a series of reports that display costs aggregated in several formats. 

E.2 Identification Of Proposed Changes

To track the costs associated with each regulation, we use a three-tiered identification system. 

1. The regulation is the most aggregated level and is tracked by the RegulationID field. While the 

regulation level sometimes contains only one proposed regulation, it often has a number of subregulations within it. 

2. The sub-regulations, which we call sub-options, are tracked within RegulationID by the 

OptionID field. In most cases the RegulationID-OptionID pair tracks a single proposed rule 

throughout the model. For example, the pair 5-1 refers to sub-option one of regulation five: spill 

bucket tightness test after repair. 

3. In some cases, the RegulationID-OptionID pair will not uniquely track a record. In these cases, 

the ChoiceID field is used to create a unique identifier for the calculation. For example, suboption 17-3 has a ChoiceID associated with each of its possible user selections. Even if a 

regulation does not need the ChoiceID field, we assign ChoiceID = 1 to it by default for 

completeness 

 
E-2 

The three fields described above create a basis for tracking calculations throughout the model and its 

tables. Thus, the example from point two above is tracked by the identifier RegulationID = 5, OptionID 

= 1, and ChoiceID = 1. We associate this unique identifier to each state to track the effect each 

regulation will have at the state level. To arrive at national figures, we sum the effects of regulations 

across individual states. 

E.3 Tables

The following information is tabulated and used in the model. 

• Calculate number of EGTs: computes the number of emergency generator tanks for every model 

run. We assume that three percent of the UST universe is comprised of EGTs 

• govt_costs_reg12_and_rewrite: costs of reading regulations and applying for SPA (field: 

general_costs), per tank cost of complying with regulation 12 (field: reg_12_costs), and cost of 

re-writing any regulations (field: cost_of_re-writing_regs), by state. 

• LU_affected_portion: percentages of the universe affected by each regulation. These factors 

adjust for all possible effects, including personnel turnover, unit conversions, etc. for each 

regulation. For details on the specific aspects that are adjusted in each regulation, see the Excel 

input spreadsheet. 

• LU_Cost_Types: cost type codes; used to track one-time and operations and maintenance costs.. 

• LU_Cost_Unit_Types: unit types; can be tank, facilities, or special tank types: emergency 

generator tanks (EGT), airport hydrant systems, field-constructed tanks, and wastewater 

treatment tanks. 

• LU_new_and_closed_units: rates at which units are added or closed in the universe. 

• LU_number_of_options_by_reg: number of sub-options by regulation. 

• LU_Reg_Categories: regulation numbers and labels; used in reports. 

• LU_reg_opts_costs: regulation costs categorized by cost type; reflects input data from Excel. 

• LU_reg10_dropdown_list: user choices for regulation 10. 

• LU_reg10_RD_probs: percentage of tanks affected at each probability option for regulation 10. 

• LU_Reg11_special_tank_universe: universe of special tanks used only for regulation 11; 

reflects input data from Excel. 

• LU_reg17_dropdown: user choices for regulation 17, option 3. 

• LU_Reg17_opt2_dropdown: user choices for regulation 17, option 2. 

• LU_reg17_opt2_piping: thresholds and universe affected at each threshold for piping repair 

versus replacement. 

 
E-3 

• LU_Reg17_opt3_dropdown: other regulation 17, option 3 dropdown. 

• LU_regs_without_duped_options: options per regulation excluding redundant options. 

• LU_Selections_Y_N: user choices for Yes/No regulations. 

• LU_Selections_Y_N_Defer: Maintain deferral/Remove deferral user choice table. 

• LU_States: list of states. 

• LU_states_cost_types: list of states associated with cost types. 

• LU_unit_affected_by_reg: regulations and which unit types they affect. 

• LU_Y_N_Defer_singular: choices for regulation 11, option 1. 

• Model_Assumptions: model assumptions; only life of tanks and discount rate are currently used. 

• Reg 7 ID conversion for EGT calc: converted regulation identifiers used for the calculation of 

costs in regulation 11.1. 

• Reg_Opts: regulatory options and their types. The preliminary model includes only frequency 

and record-keeping. 

• reg11_EGT_costs: generated by the macro reg11_EGT_costs. This table is updated during every 

model run to capture the costs from regulations 7.1-7.6, 9, and 10.1-10.4 attributable to 

emergency generator tanks. The query set that compute costs for emergency generator tanks 

(regulation 11.1) draws on the values from this table as part of its calculation. 

• Results_calc_national_unit_cost: used to calculate the cost of each regulation per tank. 

• Results_cost_per_unit: table that underlies Costs_per_unit, the report of the cost of regulations 

per unit. 

• Results_final_table: final output table from which all the reports are generated. 

• Results_govt_costs: output that underlies Govt_costs, the report of government costs. 

• Results_regulation_option_table_for_costs: output that underlies Regulation_option_costs, the 

report of national costs by sub-option. 

• Results_regulation_option_table_for_units: output that underlies Regulation_option_units, the 

report of national numbers of units affected by each sub-option. 

• Results_regulation_table: output that underlies Regulation_Costs, the report of national costs by 

major regulation. 

• Results_state_reg_only_table: output that underlies State_regulation_costs, the report of state 

costs by major regulation. 

 
E-4 

• Results_state_reg_option_table_for_costs: output that underlies State_regulation_option_costs, 

the report of state costs by sub-option. 

• Results_state_reg_option_table_for_units: output that underlies State_regulation_option_units, 

the report of state numbers of units affected by each sub-option. 

• Results_user_inputs: output that underlies User_inputs, the report of the user’s choice of input. 

• Selections_User_Defined user input accepted through the user interface. 

• State_Baseline_Descriptives: numbers of each unit by state; includes tanks and facilities; reflects 

input data directly from Excel. 

• state_costs_table: output that contains Boolean values to determine which regulations a state has; 

used as part of the calculation of government costs. 

• State_Frequencies: records of whether a state has a regulation; if the regulation involves some 

measure of rate (i.e. months between inspections), that is recorded here. A frequency of zero is 

recorded if a state does not have a regulation in place; reflects input data from Excel. 

• Temp_All_Costs: interim model cost output. 

E.4 Queries

The model contains 31 sets of core queries, each of which performs the calculations for a regulatory 

option. Each query set is named according to the template myReg_[regulation number]_Opt_[option 

number]_Choice_[choice number]_step_[step number]; regulation, option, and choice numbers, 

along with regulations’ descriptions, can be found in the Reg_Opts table, and step refers to the element 

of the calculation performed by the query. As outlined above in the “Summary and Purpose” section of 

this memorandum, these queries: 

1. Find the states that have regulations that are less stringent than those entered by the user. 

2. Calculate the incremental frequency imposed upon each state by the more stringent requirement. 

The increment depends on the particular type of regulation considered, but in general refers to 1) 

the additional number of inspections required per year, 2) a binary increment for whether a state 

requires a regulations, or 3) in the of regulations like regulation 17, option 2, an increment 

calculated from tables within the model. 

3. Solve for the incremental cost in terms of capital and O&M. The model considers these by unit 

type (facility or tank; in the case of regulation 11, the model considers only populations of 

emergency generator tanks, airport hydrant systems, field-constructed tanks, and wastewater 

treatment tanks). 

Results_final_qry generates Results_final_table, the table of final output, the remaining queries that 

begin with Results_[...] use to generate the reports of model results. Model results used for reports are 

stored in tables that begin with Results_[...]. Throughout the model, additional queries refine or adjust 

results to report them in the manner most useful for OUST. 

 
E-5 

We amended the queries as the model evolved to match OUST’s vision, but the procedures performed 

by the queries can be categorized as follows: 

 Regulations 1, 7.1-7.6: calculates the number of incremental inspections or tests in states that do 

not have inspection frequency that at least equals the user’s selection. The model multiplies by 

the cost per inspection or test and the number of facilities or tanks in the state. Regulation 7.6 

also includes the cost of additional equipment related to piping, which requires several extra 

queries. 

 Regulations 2-6, 9, 11.2, 11.3, 12-14, 16, and 17.1: multiplies the cost of compliance per unit by 

the number of units in each state that does not already have the regulation in place. Regulation 

17.1 applies only to tribal lands. 

 Regulations 10.1-10.4: multiplies the per-unit cost of compliance with the Pd/Pfa chosen by the 

user by the number of tanks in states that do not already have Pd/Pfa at the user’s chosen level. 

 Regulation 11.1: The model uses the queries in the macro reg11_EGT_costs to calculate the 

cost of compliance for the population of emergency generator tanks by applying the cost of 

compliance with certain regulations only to the EGT population (see Appendix A for a detailed 

explanation of this calculation). 

 Regulation 17.2: relates the user’s chosen threshold to a factor that determines the proportion of 

units in each state that are affected. The calculation multiplies this factor by the cost of 

compliance per unit and the number of units in states that do not already have the regulation in 

place. This regulation only applies to Tribal lands. 

 Regulation 17.3: multiplies the cost of compliance per unit by the number of units in each state 

that does not already have the regulation in place. The user’s choice of “all dispensers” or “motor 

fuel dispensers only” changes the proportion of units affected. This regulation only applies to 

Tribal lands. 

The queries for each of the above regulations are grouped in Access and labeled the associated macros 

that link them together with similar names. In addition to sets of queries that compute costs as described 

above, other sets of queries were grouped into macros. The procedures they comprise are described 

below by the name of the macro that contains them; refer to the model for the specific queries included 

in each macro. 

 Max: maximizes model window when the model is launched. 

 reg11_EGT_costs: calculate the non-deferral costs associated with regulation 11.1.

 Results_cost_per_unit_macro: calculates the cost per unit associated with the scenario 

parameterized by the user. This is done using tanks as the unit and converting all other units to 

tanks.1

 

1

 For example, suppose the universe has 100 tanks and consider two regulations: regulation A, which applies to 50% of the 

universe at a total cost of $500; and regulation B, which applies to 25% of the universe at a cost of $250. Each regulation has

a cost of $10 if applied only to the units it affects; if we apply them to the entire universe, regulation A costs $5, while 

 
E-6 

o The lower bound assumes the total costs for a regulation are divided across the entire 

universe of tanks. This approach does not adjust costs to reflect the fact that each 

regulation applies only to a subset of tanks, but provides a national estimate of average 

costs. 

o The hybrid costs evaluates whether a particular regulation applies to over 50 percent of 

tanks. If this is the case, it divides the total cost of the regulation by the number of units is 

actually affects and applies that cost to all of the units in the universe. Otherwise, it 

divides the cost of the regulation across the entire universe and considers that to be the 

per-unit cost attributable to the regulation.

o The upper bound assumes that all tanks incur the per-unit cost found by dividing a 

regulation’s cost by the number of tanks it affects (not the entire universe).

 Results_final_table_macro: generates table of final output.

 Results_regulation_only_costs_macro: calculates costs by regulation. 

 Results_states_reg_only_macro: calculates costs by state and regulation. 

 Results_regulation_option_table_for_costs_macro: calculates costs by regulatory sub-option. 

 Results_states_reg_option_for_costs_macro: calculates costs by state and regulatory suboption. 

 Results_regulation_option_table_for_units_macro: calculates units affected by regulatory 

sub-option. 

 Results_states_reg_option_for_units_macro: calculates units affected by state and regulatory 

sub-option. 

 Costs_per_unit_macro: calculates cost of compliance per unit. 

 Results_govt_costs_macro: calculates costs accrued to state governments. 

 Results_user_inputs_macro: tabulates parameters chosen by the user. 

 state_costs_table_macro: generates table used to determine which states have which regulations 

in place.

 Warnings: turns off warnings and other messages that would have occurred during the normal 

course of using Access.

E.5 Forms

The Main_page form contains the user interface of the model and is launched by default. The remaining 

forms either connect to Main_page through the user interface or were previously used to generate 

queries. 

 

regulation B costs only $2.50. Thus, using the described methodologies, the cost per unit would be: 1) lower bound cost = $5 

(A) + $2.50 (B) = $7.50; hybrid cost = $10 (A) + $2.50 = $12.50 (B); and upper bound cost = $10 (A) + $10 (B) = $20. 

 
E-7 

E.6 Reports

Reports display the final cost output in a user-friendly format. The following reports are available: 

1. Regulation_Costs: costs by regulation. 

2. State_regulation_costs: costs by state and regulation. 

3. Regulation_option_costs: costs by regulatory sub-option. 

4. State_regulation_option_costs: costs by state and regulatory sub-option. 

5. Regulation_option_units: units affected by regulatory sub-option. 

6. State_regulation_option_units: units affected by state and regulatory sub-option. 

7. Costs_per_unit: cost of compliance per unit. 

8. Govt_costs: costs accrued to state governments. 

9. User_inputs: parameters chosen by the user. 

Note that the report of units affected by regulatory sub-option cannot be aggregated to a total number of 

units at the regulatory or state level: regulatory sub-options affect different universes in many cases. In 

addition, in order to avoid possible confusion over the reported output, reports should not be run 

separately from the model. 

E.7 Using This Model

To use this model, do as follows: 

1. Open the Access database project file. If presented with a security warning, click Open. 

2. If not immediately presented with the main page, navigate to the Forms heading under Objects.

Double-click the Main_page form to open the model. 

3. Read the information in the yellow box at the top of the model window to identify key caveats 

and current status updates. 

4. Select the regulatory options you wish to run using the input buttons. 

5. Click the Run Model button to calculate the costs. This may take a moment; you will be notified 

by a message when the model is done. 

6. Click any report button to display the results in that format. One should print the user input 

report as a cover sheet to any cost results that so that they may be later cross-referenced with 

costs. 

7. A report that contains a summary of the costs will appear. Click the Close button near the upper 

left area of the screen to return to the previous window. 

 
E-8 

8. If you would like to run the model with different parameters, click the Return to Scenario 

Selection Screen button to return to the main model input screen. 

9. When you are finished with the model, simply close Access. 

E.8 Parameters Used for Calculating Cost to Proposed Rule in Access Model

Exhibit E-1 presents a summary of the parameters used as input to the Access model designed to obtain 

the costs presented in the body of this report. 

Exhibit E-1: Input Used in Access Model for Preferred Option

DESCRIPTION 

Preferred 

Option Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Input Type 

Release Prevention 

Walkthrough inspections 1 1 3 Months Between Inspections 

Overfill prevention equipment tests 36 12 36 Months Between Tests 

Spill prevention equipment tests 12 N/A 12 Months Between Tests 

Interstitial integrity tests 36 12 N/A Months Between Tests 

Spill prevention equipment test after repair 1 1 1 1 For Yes; 0 For No 

Overfill prevention equipment test after 

repair 1 1 1 1 For Yes; 0 For No 

Interstitial integrity test after repair 1 1 1 1 For Yes; 0 For No 

Eliminate flow restrictors for all new tanks 

and when overfill devices are replaced 1 1 0 1 For Yes; 0 For No 

Release Detection 

Operability test – ATG 12 12 36 Months Between Tests 

Operability test - interstitial monitoring 12 12 36 Months Between Tests 

Operability test - line leak detection 12 12 36 Months Between Tests 

Eliminate vapor and groundwater monitoring 

as release detection methods 

Add SIR/CITLD to regulations with 

performance criteria 1 1 1 1 For Yes; 0 For No 

Adjust release detection leak rates (Pd/Pfa) – 

ATG N/A 0.99 N/A 

Probability Of Detecting A 

Release 

Adjust release detection leak rates (Pd/Pfa) – 

LLD N/A 0.99 N/A 

Probability Of Detecting A 

Release 

Adjust release detection leak rates (Pd/Pfa) – 

SIR N/A 0.99 N/A 

Probability Of Detecting A 

Release 

Adjust release detection leak rates (Pd/Pfa) – 

CITLD N/A 0.99 N/A 

Probability Of Detecting A 

Release 

Deferrals removed for emergency generator 

tanks 1 1 1 1 For Yes; 0 For No 

Other 

Deferrals removed for airport hydrant fuel 

distribution systems 

Deferrals removed for UST systems with 

field-constructed tanks 

Notification of ownership change 1 1 1 1 For Yes; 0 For No 

Closure of irreparable lined tanks 1 1 1 1 For Yes; 0 For No 

Response to interstitial monitoring alarms 1 1 1 1 For Yes; 0 For No 

Energy Policy Act-related Provisions 

Operator training 1 1 1 1 For Yes; 0 For No 

Secondary containment - new & replaced 

tanks 1 1 1 1 For Yes; 0 For No 

 
E-9 

DESCRIPTION 

Preferred 

Option Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Input Type 

Threshold for pipe replacement rather than 

repair 0.5 0.5 0.5 Piping Replacement Threshold 

Under-dispenser containment (UDC) for all 

new dispensers 1 1 1 

1 If Applies To All UDCs; 0 

Otherwise 

Notes: 

1. Entries shown in gray denote items not calculated in the Access model. 

2. Entries marked "N/A" denote an item not included in this alternative. 

 
Appendix F 

Analysis of Statistical Relationship between State Regulatory Programs and Confirmed 

Release Data 

 
 

 F-1 

July 16, 2010 

MEMORANDUM | July 16, 2010 

TO Cho-Yi Kwan, U.S. EPA 

FROM Nadav Tanners, Cynthia Manson, and Robert Paterson, IEc 

SUBJECT Documentation of Empirical Investigations of UST Data to Support Regulatory Analysis 

EMRAD Work Assignment 3-25, Task 5 

In 2009, Industrial Economics (IEc) examined available data from EPA’s Office of 

Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) to determine whether it would support an empirical 

analysis of the impact of selected UST regulations on the rate of UST releases using 

multivariate regression analysis. As part of this effort, IEc used a set of state-level data 

that included the number of USTs in each state in a given year, the number of releases 

from USTs in each year, the number of UST inspections conducted in each year, and the 

presence or absence of regulations designed to prevent leaks. The results of this analysis 

were presented in an August 2009 memorandum (hereafter “2009 Memo”). This 

memorandum updates the 2009 analysis and discusses the implications of its findings. 

Before conducting regression analysis on the data set of state USTs and releases, IEc first 

adjusted the data to account for a number of data quality concerns. A key data concern 

was the relationship between states with low frequency inspections and states reporting 

small numbers of confirmed releases. To ensure that the reported UST releases 

accurately reflected most or all releases taking place, EPA developed an index that scored 

each state based on the frequency of inspections. A detailed description of the inspection 

frequency index used to remove states suspected of having unreliable release data is 

provided in the 2009 Memo, attached to this Appendix.1

States that reported inspection rates less frequent than every five years, and/or 

inconsistent inspection frequencies over time, were removed from the sample, based on 

the assumption that release data from those states may be less reliable due to less frequent 

third party verification (i.e., state inspection) of system operations. In other words, we 

assume that owners/operators may be less inclined to report releases or be fully compliant 

if they are in a state where inspections occur infrequently or inconsistently. 

 

1

 “Work Assignment 2-25, Task 5. Summary of Regression Analysis of UST Regulations by 

State.” August 3, 2009. 

INTRODUCTION 

UPDATE OF 

PREVIOUS 

ANALYSIS 

 
 

 F-2 

July 16, 2010 

Using the inspection frequency index, IEc ran regressions on the 29 states with the 

highest inspection frequency scores (index value = 5) and on the 38 states with the two 

highest scores (index value > 3). IEc ran three cross-sectional regressions on each group: 

one on releases in 2008 (the most recent year for which release data were available), one 

on releases in 2005 (the year in which the Energy Policy Act was passed), and one on the 

average number of releases from 2002 to 2006 (meant to represent the number of releases 

before and shortly after passage of the 2005 Energy Policy Act). 

The results of the 2009 regressions were limited. Some regulatory variables (periodic 

interstitial integrity testing and periodic tightness testing of spill buckets) had a 

statistically significant, negative relationship with the number of releases, some variables 

(secondary containment and periodic tightness testing of dispenser pans) demonstrated a 

positive relationship with the number of releases, and other variables (STP sumps, 

continuous interstitial monitoring, and periodic tightness testing of sumps) did not 

demonstrate a consistent relationship with the number of releases.2

 

To update the analysis described in the 2009 Memo, IEc obtained more complete data on 

the presence of UST regulations by state, including whether or not states conducted walkthrough inspections at least once per year, as well as data on the number of tanks and 

releases in each state in 2009. In addition, IEc made the following changes: 

1. Regulatory variables that only applied to a single state – namely periodic 

interstitial integrity testing (only applied to California) and periodic tightness 

testing of dispenser pans (only applied to Delaware) were dropped. 

2. In their place, dummy variables for California and Florida were added. 

These changes were implemented in order to facilitate interpretation of the results of the 

regression analysis. If a regulatory variable only applies to a single state, then for 

purposes of regression it essentially serves as a dummy variable that measures the unique 

impact of that state on the number of releases – all other variables held constant. Dummy 

variables for California and Florida were added in order to explicitly measure the 

difference in the number of releases in each state from the number that would be expected 

based on average release rates at other states. Note that the variable representing the 

requirement of STP sumps was dropped in regressions 1-3 due to insufficient variability 

but included in regressions 4-6. 

Exhibits 1-5 reproduce the information presented in the 2009 Memo, updated to reflect 

the latest analysis. Exhibit 1 lists and defines each of the variables used in the 

regressions, while Exhibit 2 summarizes the six regressions run. Exhibits 3 and 4 present 

summary statistics for each of the variables used in the regressions and note which states 

 

2

 IEc also considered examining the rate of releases by state (i.e., the number of releases divided 

by the number of USTs in each state). However, screening analyses showed that specifying the 

regressions in this way did not account for the fact that the number of USTs varies widely by state. 

States with mature UST regulatory programs – specifically California and Florida – have far more 

USTs than the average across states with frequent inspections. Accordingly IEc included the 

number of USTs as an explanatory variable in the regression analysis. 

 
 

 F-3 

July 16, 2010 

have each of the UST regulations represented by regulatory dummy variables. Exhibit 5 

presents the results of the regression analysis, noting which regression coefficients are 

statistically significant at the 0.1, 0.05, and 0.01 levels. As the exhibit shows, even in the 

updated regression analysis, there is not a consistent, statistically significant relationship 

between the regulatory variables and the number of releases by state. For example, 

secondary containment requirements are consistently associated with an above-average 

number of releases (though this relationship is not always statistically significant). In 

addition, STP sump requirements – when included in the analysis – are consistently 

associated with a below-average number of releases. Continuous interstitial monitoring 

and periodic tightness testing of sumps do not appear to have either a positive or a 

negative correlation with the number of releases by state. Periodic spill bucket testing 

and walkthrough inspections are consistently associated with below-average and aboveaverage numbers of releases, respectively, though in neither case is this correlation 

significant. The only variables to show statistically significant, large and negative 

correlations with the number of releases are the dummy variables for California and 

Florida, but even then those relationships were not consistently statistically significant 

across all of the years examined. 

Exhibit 6 shows the degree to which the actual number of releases in Florida and 

California in 2009, 2005, and from 2002 to 2006 is less than the number of releases that 

would be expected based on the release rates observed at other states. In 2005 and 2009, 

the years in which the dummy variable for California was statistically significant from 

zero, California had between 56 and 63 percent fewer releases than would be expected 

based on the regression analysis. In 2002-2006, when the period in which the dummy 

variable for Florida was statistically significant from zero, Florida had between 60 and 65 

percent fewer releases than would be expected. As will be discussed below, IEc strongly 

cautions against generalizing these results beyond the states included in the analysis. 

However, these numbers do suggest an upper bound of potential avoided leaks associated 

with the operation of the mature, relatively stringent programs in both California and 

Florida. 

 
 

 F-4 

July 16, 2010 

EXHIBIT 1. VARIABLES USED IN REGRESSION ANALYSIS 

VARIABLE NAME SOURCE DESCRIPTION 

t2009, t2005 RawData Number of USTs in each state in year 2009 and 2005, respectively 

r2009, r2005 RawData Number of releases from USTs in each state in year 2009 and 2005, respectively 

tavg0206 RawData Average number of USTs in each state from 2002 to 2006 

ravg0206 Rawdata Average number of releases from USTs in each state from 2002 to 2006 

mapseccon Map Dummy variable: 1 if a state has secondary containment regulation in place by 

November 2005 

e2stpsump1 E2 Dummy variable: 1 if a state has a requirement for STP sumps 

e2contmonit1 E2 Dummy variable: 1 if a state has continuous interstitial monitoring 

e2persump3 E2 Dummy variable: 1 if a state has a requirement for periodic tightness testing of sumps 

e2persbtest E2 Dummy variable: 1 if a state has a requirement for periodic tightness testing of spill 

buckets 

walkthrough E2 Dummy variable: 1 if a state has a requirement for periodic (i.e., more than annual) 

walkthrough checks 

dum_ca n/a Dummy variable: 1 if the state is California 

dum_fl n/a Dummy variable: 1 if the state is Florida 

e2perinteg1,3 E2 Dummy variable: 1 if a state has a requirement for periodic interstitial integrity testing 

IEcperdptest3 DPRA Dummy variable: 1 if a state has a requirement for periodic tightness testing of 

dispenser pans 

insfreqind Insp, 

RawData 

Index variable: 0-5 scale that grades each state based on the following scale: 

1. If the state’s 2008 UST inspection frequency is once every five years or more often: 

two points. 

2. If the state’s 2008 UST inspection frequency is between once every five years and 

once every ten years: one point. 

3. If the state’s average UST inspection frequency from 2003 to 2005 is once every five 

years or more often: two points. 

4. If the state’s average UST inspection frequency from 2003 to 2005 is between once 

every five years and once every ten years: two points. 

5. If the standard deviation of the state’s UST inspection frequencies in 2003, 2004, 

2005, and 2008 is three or less: one point. 

Notes: 

1. We assume that a state without secondary containment regulation in November 2005 would also not have 

regulations for stp sumps, continuous interstitial monitoring, or periodic interstitial integrity testing at that 

time. Thus, values for e2stpsump, e2contmonit, and e2perinteg are all set to zero for states where the value of 

mapseccon is zero. 

2. On the suggestion of Tim Roberts, we also adjusted the index scores of Minnesota and Washington upward by 

one point. 

3. Due to a lack of variability in these variables, they were not included in the regression analysis. e2stpsump was 

included in regressions 4-6 but not in regressions 1-3. 

 
 

 F-5 

July 16, 2010 

EXHIBIT 2. SUMMARY OF REGRESSIONS RUN 

REGRESSION 

# 

DEPENDENT 

VARIABLE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES RESTRICTIONS 

(1) r2009 t2009, mapseccon, e2contmonit, e2persump, 

IEcpersbtest, walkthrough, dum_ca, dum_fl 

insfreqind = 5 

(2) r2005 t2005, mapseccon, e2contmonit, e2persump, 

IEcpersbtest, walkthrough, dum_ca, dum_fl 

insfreqind = 5 

(3) ravg0206 tavg0206, mapseccon, e2contmonit, e2persump, 

IEcpersbtest, walkthrough, dum_ca, dum_fl 

insfreqind = 5 

(4) r2009 t2009, mapseccon, e2stpsump, e2contmonit, e2persump, 

IEcpersbtest, walkthrough, dum_ca, dum_fl 

insfreqind > 3 

(5) r2005 t2005, mapseccon, e2stpsump, e2contmonit, e2persump, 

IEcpersbtest, walkthrough, dum_ca, dum_fl 

insfreqind > 3 

(6) ravg0206 tavg0206, mapseccon, e2stpsump, e2contmonit, 

e2persump, IEcpersbtest, walkthrough, dum_ca, dum_fl 

insfreqind > 3 

EXHIBIT 3. SUMMARY STATISTICS OF VARIABLES USED IN REGRESSIONS 1-3 

VARIABLE OBS MEAN STD. DEV. MIN MAX STATES (DUMMIES ONLY) 

t2009 29 9,757 8,738 1,191 36,899 

t2005 29 10,219 9,406 1,065 38,753 

tavg0206 29 10,429 9,652 1,111 40,142 

r2009 29 95 84 6 330 

r2005 29 121 123 1 536 

ravg0206 29 146 169 1 617 

mapseccon 29 0.172 0.384 0 1 CA, FL, HI, ME, NH 

e2stpsump1 29 0.0690 0.258 0 1 FL, NH 

e2contmonit 29 0.103 0.310 0 1 CA, ME, NH 

e2persump 29 0.276 0.455 0 1 

AL, DE, IA, MS, ND, TN, 

UT, WY 

IEcpersbtest 29 0.172 0.384 0 1 AL, CA, DE, FL, MS 

walkthrough 29 0.276 0.455 0 1 

CA, CO, NH, NM, SC, TN, 

UT, WI 

dum_ca 29 0.0345 0.186 0 1 CA 

dum_fl 29 0.0345 0.186 0 1 FL 

Note: 

1

 e2stpsump was excluded from regressions 1-3 because in the presence of dum_fl it only applies to NH. 

 
 

 F-6 

July 16, 2010 

EXHIBIT 4. SUMMARY STATISTICS OF VARIABLES USED IN REGRESSIONS 4-6 

VARIABLE OBS MEAN STD. DEV. MIN MAX STATES (DUMMIES ONLY) 

t2009 38 10,389 8,514 1,191 36,899 

t2005 38 10,916 9,179 1,065 38,753 

tavg0206 38 11,108 9,404 1,111 40,142 

r2009 38 106 89 5 330 

r2005 38 125 120 1 536 

ravg0206 38 151 165 1 617 

mapseccon 38 0.158 0.370 0 1 CA, FL, HI, ME, NH, RI 

e2stpsump 38 0.0789 0.273 0 1 FL, NH, RI 

e2contmonit 38 0.0789 0.273 0 1 CA, ME, NH 

e2persump 38 0.289 0.460 0 1 

AL, DE, IA, MN, MS, NC, 

ND, TN, UT, WV, WY 

IEcpersbtest 38 0.158 0.370 0 1 AL, CA, DE, FL, MS, NC 

walkthrough 38 0.237 0.431 0 1 

CA, CO, MN, NH, NM, SC, 

TN, UT, WI 

dum_ca 0.0263 0.162 0 1 CA 

dum_fl 38 0.0263 0.162 0 1 FL 

 
F-7 

EXHIBIT 5. REGRESSION RESULTS 

REGRESSION 

# 

DEPENDENT 

VARIABLE N 

REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS 

CONST

ANT T2009 T2005 TAVG0206 MAPSECCON 

E2STPS

UMP 

E2CONTM

ONIT 

E2PERSU

MP 

IECPERS

BTEST 

W

R

(1) r2009 29 6.74 0.0104*** 9.82 ^ -6.3 -11.9 -9.83 (2) r2005 29 -30.7 0.0157*** 39.6* ^ -8.18 7.45 -46.8 (3) ravg0206 29 -45.5 0.0200*** 51.7** ^ -6.72 1.49 -48.6 -0(4) r2008 38 8.64 0.0104*** 9.6 -31.1** 5.97 -3.73 -29.5 (5) r2005 38 -20.7 0.0141*** 43* -36.4* 1.11 -1.25 -53.3 (6) ravg0206 38 -46.6** 0.0187*** 58.7** -26.3* 1.95 -2.67 -39.4 

Notes: Regressions used hederoskedasticity-robust standard errors. ^ Variable was not included in the regression because it only applies to one state. * Coefficient is significantly different from zero at the 0.1 level. ** Coefficient is significantly different from zero at the .05 level. *** Coefficient is significantly different from zero at the .01 level. 

EXHIBIT 6. COMPARISON BETWEEN ACTUAL AND EXPECTED RELEASES IN CALIFORNIA AND FLORIDA, BASED ON REGRESSIO

YEAR 

REGRESSION 

NUMBER 

CALIFORNIA FLORIDA 

ACTUAL NUMBER 

OF RELEASES 

EXPECTED # OF RELEASES 

(DUM_CA = 0) 

PERCENT 

DIFFERENCE 

ACTUAL NUMBER OF 

RELEASES 

EXPECTED # OF RELE

(DUM_FL = 0) 

2009 (1) 148 390** -63% 169 273 

(4) 392** -62% 275 

2005 (2) 256 597* -57% 254 459 

(5) 524** -56% 417 

2002-2006 (3) 617 758 -18% 206 578** 

(6) 705 -16% 536** 

Notes: * Coefficient for the dummy variable is significantly different from zero at the .05 level.  ** Coefficient for the dummy variable is significantly different from zero at the .01 level. 

 
 

 F-8 

July 16, 2010 

STATISTICAL CHALLENGES 

A number of fundamental problems limit the value of the regression analysis conducted 

in 2009, and these problems persist with the updated analysis described above. In 

particular, data availability and reliability seriously limit, if not preclude, measurement of 

the effectiveness of UST leak prevention regulations in reducing releases in this context. 

Estimation and Aggregation Problems 

As described above, consistent, accurate release data are not available. It is likely that 

measurement error exists in the recording of confirmed releases across states (the 

dependent variable) and that it is related in some systematic way to the regulatory 

structure of the state or other explanatory variables (as opposed to random reporting 

error) in the analysis.3

 In addition, state inspections vary in timing and focus across 

states; this, in turn, affects the consistency of third-party verified compliance and release 

information. IEc attempted to account for this by selecting only states with a high 

frequency of inspections for inclusion in the analysis. Unfortunately, interaction between 

inspection frequency and degree and effectiveness of regulation creates sample selection 

problems (i.e., states with higher release rates due to limited regulation may also be states 

that do not conduct frequent inspections and therefore have less reliable data).4

 

Therefore, normal regression properties do not hold, and regression analysis may provide 

unreliable results. As an example, Exhibit 5 shows that regressions 2, 3, 5, and 6 found a 

positive, statistically significant relationship between secondary containment 

requirements and the number of releases per year, in contrast to empirical data from 

Florida which suggest that secondary containment may reduce releases by roughly 50 

percent.5

 

Another obstacle to measuring the efficacy of UST regulations, as shown in Exhibit 4, is 

that many regulations are present only in a small number of states. In the cross-sectional 

analysis described above, IEc dealt with limited variation in the presence of regulations 

by dropping several regulatory variables from the analysis. Given this lack of variation, 

and the small number of potential observations, it is likely that regulatory indicators will 

proxy for other relevant characteristics of that state. 

This lack of variation can shed some light on the negative, statistically significant 

relationship between the number of releases per year and STP sumps requirements found 

in regressions 4-6. Since only three states included in the analysis require STP sumps 

(Florida, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island), it is likely that the regression analysis 

actually measured the effect of other characteristics of one or more of those states, rather 

 

3

 As shown in Exhibit 9, release rates in Alabama and Florida spiked in 1993 after release 

detection requirements were implemented, indicating that the reported number of releases in a 

particular year might include releases that occurred in prior years. 4

 The only reliable approach to identify the relationship between inspection frequency, 

compliance, and number of releases would require a large-scale data collection effort. In absence 

of this, we use inspection frequency as an indicator of reliable data 

5

 U.S. EPA, Petroleum Releases at Underground Storage Tanks in Florida (Draft). 2005. 

DISCUSSION 
 

 F-9 

July 16, 2010 

than the regulation itself. Indeed, when regressions 4 and 5 are run without the variable 

e2stpsump, the coefficient for the dummy variable for Florida becomes significant at the 

0.1 level, suggesting that some unmeasured characteristic of Florida was responsible for 

the apparent relationship between STP sump requirements and the number of releases 

observed in Florida, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. 

Taken together, these issues create serious estimation and inference problems, and 

prohibit generalizing any results beyond the sample states. In short, the data do not 

support a national analysis of the effectiveness of state regulation. 

Appropriate Study Design 

Ideally, given accurate release data, an analysis of the effectiveness of UST leak 

prevention regulations would employ observations from a large number of states over a 

time period the includes years before and after regulations were in place. Such “panel” 

data would allow for identification of impacts temporally and spatially. Panel data would 

also allow for fixed effects estimation, which controls for any unobserved characteristics 

of states that might affect release rates (such as soil pH or climate), independent of any 

effect of regulation. The data used in this analysis superficially appear to be panel data, 

since they provide information on the number or rate of releases from different states in 

multiple time periods, along with information on the presence or absence of UST 

regulations by state. However, accuracy issues aside, for most UST regulations, it is 

unclear both when the regulation was first promulgated and when the effects of the 

regulation would be expected to be fully realized. As noted in Exhibit 2 (and explained 

in more detail in the 2009 Memorandum), the cross-sectional analysis dealt with this 

uncertainty by assuming that states without secondary containment in November 2005 

would also lack requirements for STP sumps, continuous interstitial monitoring, or 

periodic interstitial integrity testing. Aggregation of regulatory measures in this fashion 

further exacerbates identification problems across states in the cross-sectional analysis 

described above. 

Exhibit 7 summarizes some of the statistical challenges described above, explaining why 

the data used in this analysis limit its ability to measure the effectiveness of UST leak 

prevention regulations. Because of these limitations, IEc cautions against drawing strong 

conclusions from the results of the regression analysis described in this appendix. 

EXHIBIT 7. STATISTICAL CHALLENGES TO ANALYZING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF RELEASE-PREVENTION UST 

REGULATIONS 

STATISTICAL 

CONSIDERATION WHY IMPORTANT? REQUIREMENT ACTUAL DATA 

Panel Data Panel Data allows for 

fixed effects estimation, 

which controls for 

unobserved variation 

between states. 

1. Data must distinguish 

between periods before 

regulation and periods 

after regulation. 

2. Sufficient variation in 

1. Difficult to determine 

before and after periods 

for most regulations 

2. Too few states have many 

regulations. Because of 

 
 

 F-10 

July 16, 2010 

EXHIBIT 7. STATISTICAL CHALLENGES TO ANALYZING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF RELEASE-PREVENTION UST 

REGULATIONS 

STATISTICAL 

CONSIDERATION WHY IMPORTANT? REQUIREMENT ACTUAL DATA 

regulatory status must 

be present, both 

between states and 

between time periods 

limited variation in 

regulatory status among 

states, some regulatory 

variables may serve as a 

proxy for other state 

characteristics that 

affect release rates. 

Random 

Sampling 

In the absence of panel 

data, random sampling 

ensures that the sample 

is not a biased selection 

of the general population 

The sampling process must 

not create bias 

By selecting states based on 

the frequency of inspections, 

the analysis conducted a 

convenience sample, which 

likely excludes the worstperforming states. 

Exogeneity Exogeneity ensures that 

any correlation between 

release rates and UST 

regulations actually 

reflects a causal 

relationship. In the 

absence of exogeneity, 

traditional regression 

analysis produces invalid 

results. 

The presence or absence 

of UST regulations must 

not be related to preexisting release rates. 

Some states likely implement 

regulations in response to 

pre-existing release rates. 

Measurement 

Error 

If there is measurement 

error in the dependent 

variable being analyzed, 

then the results of 

regression analysis will 

not reflect the actual 

relationship between the 

dependent variable and 

the explanatory variable. 

Variables must accurately 

measure the information 

they are meant to 

represent. 

Reported releases in a given 

year may not represent 

releases that occurred in 

that year. Trends in release 

data suggest that 

implementing release 

detection requirements leads 

to detection of releases from 

previous years. 

ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS 

Recognizing the limitations to the regression analysis described above, IEc employed a 

different approach to estimating the potential impact of proposed UST leak prevention 

regulations. Having identified California and Florida as two states with more mature 

regulatory systems in place, IEc compared the release rates in these two states from 2005 

to 2009 to release rates in states without any of the proposed UST regulations during that 

time period. IEc first identified 12 states with no UST regulations and with inspection 

frequency index scores of 4 or 5, and then used t-tests to compare release rates between 

the two groups of states. 

The results of this comparison are presented in Exhibit 8. The analysis found that release 

rates in California and Florida were significantly lower than release rates at states with no 

regulations in 2005 (p = 0.051) and in 2009 (p = 0.041), but not in 2006, 2007, or 2008. 

 
 

 F-11 

July 16, 2010 

In 2006 and 2007, reported releases in California and Florida actually occurred at higher 

rates than in states without UST regulations. Across all five years, California and Florida 

had an average release rate lower than the other group of states, but this difference was 

not statistically significant (p = 0.171). The results in Exhibit 8 suggest that there is no 

consistent, statistically significant difference between release rates in California and 

Florida and release rates in the twelve states with a high frequency of inspections and no 

other UST regulations. 

EXHIBIT 8. COMPARISON OF RELEASE RATES AT CALIFORNIA AND FLORIDA TO RELEASE RATES AT 

STATES WITH NO UST REGULATIONS 

 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 AVERAGE 

Mean Release Rates 

California and 

Florida 0.74% 1.22% 0.81% 0.73% 0.53% 0.81% 

States with no UST 

Regulations 1.05% 0.98% 0.81% 0.97% 1.17% 1.00% 

T-test p value 0.051 n/a n/a 0.156 0.041 0.171 

Notes: 

One-tailed t-tests were performed on release rates in 2005, 2006, 2009, and the average rate 

across all five years. T-tests were not performed on release rates in 2006 and 2007 because 

mean release rates in California and Florida were equal to or higher than release rates in states 

with no UST regulations. 

IMPLICATIONS 

As discussed in this appendix, quantitative analysis of annual UST releases by state was 

unable to find a consistent measure of the potential impact of leak prevention regulations. 

Due to a number of data limitations, including limited variation in the presence of 

regulations across states and time periods, IEC was not able to use the preferred method 

of fixed effects estimation using panel data. In the absence of fixed effects estimation, 

the analysis cannot reliably draw conclusions about the impacts of regulations on 

releases, independent of any unmeasured characteristics of states that could be affecting 

the number of releases in each state. In other words, in addition to data quality issues 

discussed above, the small number of states with specific UST release prevention 

regulations prevents identification of robust, relationships between individual regulations 

and the number of releases per year. 

However, through cross-sectional analysis, IEC was able to estimate that release rates in 

California and Florida – two states with mature UST regulation regimes – were about 55-

65 percent less than one would expect based on release rates at other states during the 

 
 

 F-12 

July 16, 2010 

time period examined.6 This difference could serve as an upper bound for the potential of 

leak prevention regulations to reduce the rate of UST releases. 

Comparing release rates from 2005 to 2009 in California and Florida to release rates in 

states without any UST regulations, IEC did not find a consistent, statistically significant 

difference. However, by looking only at states with a high frequency of inspections, this 

comparison likely did not capture the full range of release rates at states without effective 

UST regulatory systems. The fact that release rates at states with frequent inspections 

and no other UST regulations was not significantly greater than release rates at California 

and Florida could even suggest that the inspections themselves are effective at limiting 

releases (frequent inspections are, in fact, a key component of the new regulations under 

consideration). 

This conclusion is supported by the trend shown in Exhibit 8, where after an initial spike 

in detected releases upon implementing inspection requirements, release rates in 

California, Florida, and Alabama show gradual, steady declines. Additionally, as noted 

by the coefficients for t2009, t2005, and tavg0206 in Exhibit 5, the average release rate 

for the states examined in the cross-sectional regression analysis – all of which have 

frequent inspections – appears to be decreasing over time, from between 1.87 and 2.0 

percent in 2002-2006 to 1.04 percent in 2009. 

 

6

 IEC further tested these results with a supplementary analysis using binary variables for states that share regulations with 

California and Florida. That analysis also found that California and Florida had fewer releases than other states, even those 

that also had significantly fewer releases than the average state. 

 
F-13 

EXHIBIT 9. RELEASE RATES IN CALIFORNIA, ALABAMA, AND FLORIDA OVER TIME 

0.00%5.00%

10.00%15.00%20.00%25.00%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20

1993: Release detection required in Alabama

2001: Testing of secondary containment components required in California

 
 

 F-14 

July 16, 2010 

Appendix F 

Analysis of Statistical Relationship between State Regulatory Programs and Confirmed 

Release Data 

[continued] 
 

 F-15 

August 3, 2009 

MEMORANDUM | August 3, 2009 

TO Cho-Yi Kwan, EPA/OUST 

FROM Cindy Manson, Neal Etre, Nadav Tanners, and Aaron Kamholtz, IEc 

SUBJECT Work Assignment 2-25, Task 5. 

Summary of Regression Analysis of UST Regulations by State 

Overall, the statistical analysis we conducted has not yielded robust results sufficient for 

standalone use in a Regulatory Impact Analysis. Some data may be useful to validate or 

inform other methods (e.g., literature-based valuation). 

Factors confounding the analysis include concerns over data quality and a lack of 

variability among the regulatory profiles of different states. Although significant 

relationships were found between certain regulatory variables and leak rates, these results 

appear to be driven by a small number of states, making it difficult to make generalizable 

conclusions about the observed impact of UST regulations on all states. 

LEAK PREVENTION

We examined the number of releases by state as a function of the number of USTs in 

each state and the regulatory profile of each state, using compliance data reported to 

OUST by states. 

When examining the number of releases by state, we considered: 

• Releases in 2008, the most recent year for which data were available. 

• Releases in 2005, the year in which the 2005 Energy Policy Act was passed. 

• The average number of releases from 2002 to 2006, meant to represent the 

number of releases before and shortly after passage of the 2005 Energy Policy 

Act, in order to reduce the influence of single-year spikes in releases. 

For regulations associated with leak prevention, we considered: 

• Whether the state had regulation requiring secondary containment for new tanks 

and pipes by November 2005, using the 2005 map of states provided by EPA. 

• Whether the state had regulation requiring STP sumps by November 2005, using 

data collected by E2

. 

• Whether the state had regulation requiring continuous interstitial monitoring by 

November 2005, using data collected by E2

. 

• Whether the state had regulation requiring periodic tightness testing of sumps, 

using data collected by E2

. 

SUMMARY OF 

FINDINGS 

ANALYSES 

CONDUCTED 

 
F-16 

August 3, 2009 

• Whether the state had regulation requiring periodic interstitial integrity testing of 

secondary containment by 2005, using data collected by E2

. 

• Whether the state had a requirement for release detection from emergency 

generator USTs, using data collected by PCCI. 

• Whether the state had a requirement for periodic tightness testing of spill buckets 

or dispenser pans, using data collected by DPRA. 

In order to ensure consistent data quality in the states examined, we used data on 

inspection rates to filter out states where we suspected that data on releases might not be 

reliable. States reporting inspection rates less frequent than every five years, and/or 

reporting inconsistent inspection frequencies over time, were removed from the sample. 

LEAK DETECTION 

We looked at the severity of releases by state as a function of the regulatory profile in 

each state, using data from the LUST Autopsy project. 

When considering the severity of releases, we looked at a subset of releases with 

sufficient data available to develop a severity classification and considered: 

• Whether more than 20 percent of such releases were classified as “large” releases 

that reached groundwater. 

• Whether fewer than 50 percent of such releases were classified as “small” 

releases that did not reach groundwater. 

For regulations associated with leak detection, we considered: 

• Whether the state had regulation requiring continuous interstitial monitoring by 

November 2005, using data collected by E2

. 

• Whether the state had regulation requiring periodic tightness testing for sumps by 

November 2005, using data collected by E2

. 

• Whether the state had regulation requiring periodic interstitial integrity testing by 

November 2005, using data collected by E2

. 

• Whether the state had regulation requiring release detection for emergency 

generator USTs, using data collected by PCCI. 

• Whether the state had regulation requiring periodic tightness testing for spill 

buckets or dispenser pans by November 2005, using data collected by DPRA. 

Exhibits 1 and 2 in the Appendix describe the data sources used, the variables developed, 

and the regressions run for each analysis. Exhibits 3, 4, and 5 summarize the distribution 

of the variables used in each regression, and Exhibit 9 lists the values for each variable by 

state. 

 
F-17 

August 3, 2009 

SPECIFICATION OF REGULATORY VARIABLES 

Although we used several different data sources to develop regulatory profiles by state, 

we treated evidence of the absence of secondary containment regulation by November 

2005 as representative of absence of certain other UST regulations. That is, regardless of 

whether other data sources indicated that a state had regulatory requirements for STP 

sumps, continuous interstitial monitoring, or periodic tightness testing for sumps, etc., if 

the data source for secondary containment indicated that the state did not have a 

secondary containment regulation in place by November 2005, we concluded that the 

state did not have any of these other UST regulations in place by November 2005. 

It should be noted that only nine states had secondary containment regulations by 

November 2005. Thus, 41 states in our analysis were classified as not having the three 

regulations listed above, thereby making it difficult to estimate the impact of different 

regulatory regimes on the number of releases by state. 

DATA QUALITY CONCERNS 

We used inspection rate as a means of gauging the reliability of reported release data in 

each state. We developed an index variable that considered: 

• Whether the state’s inspection rate in 2008 was once every five years or less. 

• Whether the state’s average inspection rate for 2005-2007 was once every five 

years or less. 

• The variability of the state’s inspection rate for 2005-2008. 

Exhibit 1 in the Appendix details the scoring system we used to make the index variable 

with values ranging from 0 to 5. In considering the severity of releases (i.e., for the leak 

detection analyses), we only included states in the LUST autopsy effort that reported 

eight or more releases with sufficient data to develop a severity classification. 

LEAK PREVENTION 

Exhibit 6 summarizes the results of the regressions we ran to examine the impact of 

regulations focused on leak prevention. Regressions 1-3 considered only the subset of 

states with a score of 5 on the data quality index based on inspection frequencies. 

Regressions 4-6 expanded the dataset to include all states with scores of 4 or 5 (e.g., 

states that have high variability among inspection rates between 2005 and 2008 or states 

with inspection rates in 2008 of once every ten years or less, rather than once every five 

years). 

In all six regressions, there is a statistically significant relationship between the number of 

tanks and the number of releases in a state. For regressions 1-3, the number of releases is 

expected to be between 1.75 and 2.21 percent of the number of tanks in each state, all else 

equal. For regressions 4-6, the relationship between releases and tanks is between 1.29 

and 1.67 percent. 

In regressions 1-3, in which the data set was restricted to the 29 states with the highest 

data quality, there appears to be a large and statistically significant negative relationship 

KEY ASSUMPTIONS 

AND ADJUSTMENTS 

RESULTS 

 
F-18 

August 3, 2009 

between the presence of regulation periodic interstitial integrity testing and the number of 

releases, and between the presence of regulation requiring periodic tightness testing of 

spill buckets and the number of releases in each state. For a state with an average number 

of tanks (about 11,000 in this sample), requiring periodic interstitial integrity testing 

appears to reduce the number of releases by between 269 and 286 per year, and requiring 

periodic tightness testing of spill buckets appears to reduce the number of releases by 

between 158 and 188 per year. 

By contrast, there appears to be a statistically significant, but counter-intuitive, positive 

relationship between the presence of regulations requiring periodic tightness testing of 

dispenser pans and the number of releases by state. According to regressions 1-3, 

requiring secondary containment appears to increase the number of releases by between 

212 and 293 per year for a state with an average number of tanks. Similarly, regulations 

requiring secondary containment appeared to increase the number of releases by 52 to 82 

in a state with an average number of tanks, but this result was not statistically significant. 

Estimates of the effects of regulations requiring STP sumps, continuous interstitial 

monitoring or periodic tightness testing of sumps were not consistent across the first three 

regressions, so it is difficult to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of these 

regulations. For example, when looking at the average number of releases from 2002 to 

2006, the requirement of STP sumps had a statistically significant, large negative effect 

on release rates, while the requirement of continuous interstitial monitoring had 

statistically significant, large positive effect on release rates. However, neither regulation 

had a significant impact on release rates when either releases in 2005 or releases in 2008 

were examined. 

In regressions 4-6, which used a less restricted subset of the data, none of the regulatory 

variables had a significant impact on the expected number of releases in each state. 

Although the states in the larger sample reflected a wider range of regulatory profiles, the 

statistical noise in the larger dataset made it impossible to find a statistically significant 

relationship between variation in regulatory profiles and variation in leak rates. The 

coefficients for requirements of periodic interstitial integrity testing and of tightness 

testing for spill buckets were still large and negative, but they were no longer statistically 

significant at the 10 percent level. 

When interpreting the above results, it should be noted that for some regulatory variables, 

only one or two states had the regulation in place, as shown in Exhibits 3 and 4. Indeed, 

it appears that the statistically significant relationships discussed above are largely driven 

by California and Florida, which have many regulations in place and much lower leak 

rates than nearly all other states. Given the limited variability in this analysis, it is 

possible that some unaccounted-for variable in one or both of these states could be 

responsible for their reduced leak rates, rather than the specific regulations that we 

examine. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that periodic integrity testing and spill 

bucket tightness testing appear to reduce leak rates in all states in the sample. 

However, this analysis has shown that Florida and California have much fewer releases 

than would be expected, based on average release rates observed at similar states, and that 

 
F-19 

August 3, 2009 

this difference may be attributable to the presence of regulations, such as periodic 

interstitial integrity testing, periodic spill bucked testing, and stp sump requirements. 

Exhibit 7 shows that the number of releases in California is between 25 and 60 percent 

less than one would expect if California had no UST regulations in place, while the 

number of releases in Florida is between 50 and 67 percent less. 

LEAK DETECTION

Exhibit 8 summarizes the results of the regression we ran to estimate the impact of 

regulations focused on leak detection. 

When limiting the analysis to only the fifteen states with sufficient data to develop a 

severity classification for eight or more releases, much of the variability in the regulatory 

variables disappeared. Accordingly, the variable for periodic interstitial integrity testing 

was dropped from the regression. For the remaining five regulatory variables, the 

regression analysis found no statistically significant relationship between the presence of 

leak detection regulations and the severity of releases in each state. 

NEXT STEPS 

Leak Prevention Analysis 

The analysis showed some expected results and some difficult-to-explain results. We 

believe the analysis has shown that leak rates at California and Florida are statistically 

different than what one would expect based on leak rates at similar states, but the analysis 

does not support conclusions about the observed impact of UST regulations on all states. 

Leak Detection Analysis 

It does not appear that the data from states in the Autopsy study is robust enough to 

identify differences in leak severity across regulatory options; small sample sizes and 

limited variation in state regulatory profiles are the cause. No further analysis of this data 

set is likely to be useful. 

Literature-based evaluation of rule impact is likely to be most cost-effective 

approach

Given the limited statistical outcomes of the available data, an approach identifying 

literature values or estimates for effectiveness of specific interventions is likely to be 

most effective. 

• Data and results from the statistical analyses may be useful in validation, support, 

or extrapolation of literature results. 

• Engineering testing results likely available in literature for physical prevention; 

severity related changes due to monitoring could be estimated using assumptions 

about incident, flow rates. Note – may be able to leverage engineering 

information for risk work? 

 
F-20 

August 3, 2009 

APPENDIX 

DATA SOURCES

Regulatory Information: 

1. TO 3003, TDD #13, Secondary Containment, 3-26-09. This spreadsheet was produced by E2

 and 

provided to IEc by EPA. (E2

) 

2. Appendix A Exhibits, Exhibit #2. This spreadsheet was produced by PCCI for IEc and EPA. 

(PCCI) 

3. Appendix B Memorandum, 9-03-08, Table 2. This spreadsheet was produced by DPRA for IEc 

and EPA. (DPRA) 

4. November 2005 – Current Secondary Containment Requirements. This map was provided to IEc 

by EPA. (Map) 

5. Inspection Frequency-05_edit050109. This spreadsheet was provided to IEc by EPA. (Insp) 

UST Data 

1. RawData. This Access database was provided to IEc by EPA. (RawData) 

2. Autopsy Data. This Access database was provided to IEc by EPA. (Autopsy) 
F-21 

August 3, 2009 

VARIABLES 

EXHIBIT 1. VARIABLES USED IN REGRESSION ANALYSIS 

VARIABLE 

NAME SOURCE DESCRIPTION 

t2008, t2005 RawData Number of USTs in each state in year 2008 and 2005, respectively 

r2008, r2005 RawData Number of releases from USTs in each state in year 2008 and 2005, respectively 

tavg0206 RawData Average number of USTs in each state from 2002 to 2006 

ravg0206 Rawdata Average number of releases from USTs in each state from 2002 to 2006 

mapseccon Map Dummy variable: 1 if a state has secondary containment regulation in place by 

November 2005 

e2stpsump1 E2 Dummy variable: 1 if a state has a requirement for STP sumps 

e2contmonit1 E2 Dummy variable: 1 if a state has continuous interstitial monitoring 

e2persump E2 Dummy variable: 1 if a state has a requirement for periodic tightness testing of sumps 

e2perinteg1 E2 Dummy variable: 1 if a state has a requirement for periodic interstitial integrity 

testing 

iecemergen PCCI Dummy variable: 1 if a state has a requirement for release detection from emergency 

generator USTs 

iecpersbtest DPRA Dummy variable: 1 if a state has a requirement for periodic tightness testing of spill 

buckets 

iecperdptest DPRA Dummy variable: 1 if a state has a requirement for periodic tightness testing of 

dispenser pans 

insfreqind Insp, 

RawData 

Index variable: 0-5 scale that grades each state based on the following scale: 

1. If the state’s 2008 UST inspection frequency is once every five years or less: two 

points. 

2. If the state’s 2008 UST inspection frequency is between once every five years and 

once every ten years: one point. 

3. If the state’s average UST inspection frequency from 2003 to 2005 is once every 

five years or less: two points. 

4. If the state’s average UST inspection frequency from 2003 to 2005 is between once 

every five years and once every ten years: two points. 

5. If the standard deviation of the state’s UST inspection frequencies in 2003, 2004, 

2005, and 2008 is three or less: one point. 

sevindex Autopsy Index variable: -1 if more than 20 percent of releases with severity data are 

large/groundwater releases and fewer than 50 percent of releases with severity data 

are small/soil-only releases. 1 if the reverse is true, and 0 if both or neither are true. 

If a state has fewer than 8 releases with severity data, it is classified as “no data.” 

Notes: 

1. We assume that a state without secondary containment regulation in November 2005 would also not have 

regulations for stp sumps, continuous interstitial monitoring, or periodic interstitial integrity testing at that 

time. Thus, values for e2stpsump, e2contmonit, and e2perinteg are all set to zero for states where the value 

of mapseccon is zero. 

2. On the suggestion of Tim Roberts, we also adjusted the index scores of Minnesota and Washington upward by 

one point. 
F-22 

August 3, 2009 

REGRESSION ANALYSIS 

EXHIBIT 2. SUMMARY OF REGRESSIONS RUN 

REGRESSION 

# 

DEPENDENT 

VARIABLE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES RESTRICTIONS 

(1) r2008 t2008, mapseccon, e2stpsump, e2contmonit, e2persump, 

e2perinteg, iecpersbtest, iecperdptest 

insfreqind = 5 

(2) r2005 t2005, mapseccon, e2stpsump, e2contmonit, e2persump, 

e2perinteg, iecpersbtest, iecperdptest 

insfreqind = 5 

(3) ravg0206 tavg0206, mapseccon, e2stpsump, e2contmonit, 

e2persump, e2perinteg, iecpersbtest, iecperdptest 

insfreqind = 5 

(4) r2008 t2008, mapseccon, e2stpsump, e2contmonit, e2persump, 

e2perinteg, iecpersbtest, iecperdptest 

insfreqind > 3 

(5) r2005 t2005, mapseccon, e2stpsump, e2contmonit, e2persump, 

e2perinteg, iecpersbtest, iecperdptest 

insfreqind > 3 

(6) ravg0206 tavg0206, mapseccon, e2stpsump, e2contmonit, 

e2persump, e2perinteg, iecpersbtest, iecperdptest 

insfreqind > 3 

(7) sevindex e2persump, e2perinteg, e2contmonit, IEcemergen, 

IEcpersbdp 

sevindex <> “no 

data” 

EXHIBIT 3. SUMMARY STATISTICS OF VARIABLES USED IN REGRESSIONS 1-3 

VARIABLE OBS MEAN STD. DEV. MIN MAX STATES (DUMMIES ONLY) 

t2008 29 9,921 8,992 1,198 37,379 

t2005 29 10,219 9,406 1,065 38,753 

tavg0206 29 10,429 9,652 1,111 40,142 

r2008 29 112 132 2 632 

r2005 29 121 123 1 536 

ravg0206 29 146 169 1 617 

mapseccon 29 0.172 0.384 0 1 CA, FL, HI, ME, NH 

e2stpsump 29 0.0690 0.258 0 1 FL, NH 

e2contmonit 29 0.0690 0.258 0 1 CA, NH 

e2persump 29 0.276 0.455 0 1 

AL, DE, FL, IA, MS, ND, 

TN, WY 

e2perinteg 29 0.0690 0.258 0 1 CA, FL 

iecpersbtest 29 0.103 0.310 0 1 AL, CA, DE 

iecperdptest 29 0.0345 0.186 0 1 DE 
F-23 

August 3, 2009 

EXHIBIT 4. SUMMARY STATISTICS OF VARIABLES USED IN REGRESSIONS 4-6 

VARIABLE OBS MEAN STD. DEV. MIN MAX STATES (DUMMIES ONLY) 

t2008 38 10,543 8,739 1,198 37,379 

t2005 38 10,916 9,179 1,065 38,753 

tavg0206 38 11,108 9,404 1,111 40,142 

r2008 38 125 131 2 632 

r2005 38 125 120 1 536 

ravg0206 38 151 165 1 617 

mapseccon 38 0.158 0.370 0 1 CA, FL, HI, ME, NH, RI 

e2stpsump 38 0.0789 0.273 0 1 FL, NH, RI 

e2contmonit 38 0.0526 0.226 0 1 CA, NH 

e2persump 38 0.237 0.431 0 1 

AL, DE, FL, IA, MN, MS, 

ND, TN, WY 

e2perinteg 38 0.0789 0.273 0 1 CA, FL, RI 

iecpersbtest 38 0.0789 0.273 0 1 AL, CA, DE 

iecperdptest 38 0.0263 0.162 0 1 DE 

EXHIBIT 5. SUMMARY STATISTICS OF VARIABLES USED IN REGRESSION 7 

VARIABLE OBS MEAN STD. DEV. MIN MAX STATES (DUMMIES ONLY) 

sevindex 15 -0.267 0.799 -1 1 

e2persump 15 0.267 0.458 0 1 AL, DE, GA, TN 

e2perinteg 15 0 0 0 0 

e2contmonit 15 0.133 0.352 0 1 CT, MA 

iecemergen 15 0.267 0.352 0 1 AL, DE, ME, VT 

iecpersbtest 15 0.133 0.352 0 1 AL, DE 

iecpersbdp 15 0.067 0.258 0 1 DE 
EXHIBIT 6. RESULTS OF REGRESSIONS 1-6 

REGRESSION 

# 

DEPENDENT 

VARIABLE N 

REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS 

CONST

ANT T2008 T2005 TAVG0206 MAPSECCON 

E2STPS

UMP 

E2CONTM

ONIT 

E2PERSU

MP 

E2PERINT

EG 

(1) r2008 29 -53.0 0.0186*** 81.6 -55.9 8.55 -6.76 -279** (2) r2005 29 -38.1 0.0175*** 52.1 -20.8 7.41 1.81 -286** (3) ravg0206 29 -62.8** 0.0221*** 67.0 -204*** 179** -12.1 -269*** (4) r2008 38 -4.79 0.0139*** 44.5 4.46 -48.4 -33.6 -125 (5) r2005 38 -2.56 0.0129*** 28.4 36.2 -47.9 -15.8 -129 (6) ravg0206 38 -17.8 0.0167*** 36.3 -101 78.0 -46.6 -54.0 

Notes: * Coefficient is significantly different from zero at the 0.1 level. ** Coefficient is significantly different from zero at the .05 level. *** Coefficient is significantly different from zero at the .01 level. 

EXHIBIT 7. COMPARISON BETWEEN ACTUAL AND EXPECTED RELEASES IN CALIFORNIA AND FLORIDA, BASED ON 

REGRESSION ANALYSIS 

YEAR 

CALIFORNIA FLORIDA 

ACTUAL 

NUMBER OF 

RELEASES 

EXPECTED NUMBER OF 

RELEASES (WITHOUT 

REGULATIONS) 

PERCENT 

DIFFERENCE 

ACTUAL 

NUMBER OF 

RELEASES 

EXPECTED NUMBER OF 

RELEASES (WITHOUT 

REGULATIONS) 

PERCENT 

DIFFERENCE 

2008 266 644 -59% 209 470 -55% 2005 256 640 -60% 254 507 -50% 2002-2006 617 823 -25% 206 624 -67% 
EXHIBIT 8. RESULTS OF REGRESSION 7 

REGRESSION 

# 

DEPENDENT 

VARIABLE N 

REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS 

CONSTANT E2PERSUMP E2PERINTEG E2CONTMONIT IECEMERGEN IECPERSBTEST IECPERDPTEST 

(7) sevindex 15 -0.143 0.143 * -0.857 0.143 -0.143 -1.00 

Notes: * This variable was dropped due to a lack of usable data. 
EXHIBIT 9. VALUES FOR ALL VARIABLES USED IN THE ANALYSIS BY STATE 

Stat

e t2008 t2005 tavg0206 r2008 r2005 ravg0206 

mapse

ccon 

e2stpsu

mp 

e2cont

monit 

e2persu

mp 

e2per

integ 

iecem

ergen 

iecp

Bte

CT 9737 11871 12149.4 54 57 60.8 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 MA 10711 11368 11452.0 53 94 97.8 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 ME 3102 3359 3477.0 96 81 82.6 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 NH 3102 2935 2976.2 39 52 44.8 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 RI 1619 1691 1707.0 10 20 21.2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 VT 3088 3011 2989.0 18 26 18.6 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 NJ 16138 17931 18886.6 202 286 266.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NY 29419 29925 30332.4 467 253 542.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DE 1450 1598 1607.0 72 45 53.2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 MD 8580 9439 9345.2 246 354 325.4 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 PA 24235 25545 26565.4 259 252 532.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VA 19964 25464 26562.2 246 178 281.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WV 5619 6033 6183.6 69 81 77.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AL 18728 18021 18377.8 101 121 147.2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 FL 28042 31109 18702.4 209 254 206.0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 GA 29928 30320 33697.2 348 340 383.2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 KY 12152 13098 13365.8 299 286 338.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MS 8718 8713 8889.4 100 70 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NC 28375 30271 30553.4 228 287 457.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SC 11925 12137 12265.0 149 151 146.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TN 16978 16147 16663.8 227 330 290.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL 22192 23062 23328.6 632 536 565.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IN 13685 14049 14268.2 349 243 216.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MI 19797 20730 21538.2 253 311 396.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MN 14608 14328 14127.6 167 151 150.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
EXHIBIT 9. VALUES FOR ALL VARIABLES USED IN THE ANALYSIS BY STATE 

Stat

e t2008 t2005 tavg0206 r2008 r2005 ravg0206 

mapse

ccon 

e2stpsu

mp 

e2cont

monit 

e2persu

mp 

e2per

integ 

iecem

ergen 

iecp

Bte

OH 23382 24025 24949.6 403 192 235.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 WI 15044 13721 14489.0 105 217 215.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AR 9347 9749 9807.6 42 51 46.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LA 12294 13953 14627.8 321 19 57.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NM 3988 4098 4160.6 16 38 28.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OK 11003 11582 11735.6 119 90 84.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TX 53838 57219 58068.6 428 530 340.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IA 7175 7716 7796.4 58 52 55.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KS 6989 7236 7652.2 48 52 58.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MO 10109 10305 10367.6 83 121 117.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NE 6886 6999 6965.0 31 37 57.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 7934 8165 8172.8 164 173 176.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MT 3260 3311 3396.2 13 44 44.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND 2151 2185 2201.6

3 1 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

SD 3055 2980 3051.8 14 24 20.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UT 4005 4051 4058.0 41 62 80.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WY 1952 2055 2047.4

2 10 7.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

AZ 7061 8194 8068.2 21 63 82.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CA 37379 38753 40141.6 266 256 616.8 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 HI 1671 1783 1828.8 50 37 42.8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 NV 3770 3688 3686.2 11 16 18.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AK 1198 1065 1111.4 13 12 22.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ID 3496 3498 3493.4 23 24 20.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OR 6008 6375 6541.6 77 108 103.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WA 10054 10397 9696.6 78 116 89.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Appendix G 

Expert Consultation: Selection and Data Collection Methodology 
G-1 

APPENDIX G: EXPERT CONSULTATION PROCESS 

Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) undertook an expert consultation process to obtain estimates of the likely 

change in confirmed releases as a result of elements of the proposed rule. This effort was designed to 

obtain data not available in literature or broad empirical studies, and relied on five independent estimates 

based on expert judgment. 

While this effort is not intended to be a formal expert elicitation, IEc and EPA/OUST sought to ensure 

that the process of identifying and consulting experts was transparent and consistent in order to obtain 

results that would be as robust as possible. 

This appendix documents the expert consultation process, including the identification of appropriate 

experts, the materials distributed to the participating experts, and documentation of the decision to 

exclude the findings from one of the five experts because his findings could not be internally validated or 

reconciled with EPA’s regulatory baseline. 

G.1 IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF EXPERTS 

To ensure that experts identified were independent of EPA and represented a range of experiences and 

geographic regions, IEc followed a protocol similar to that used for identifying peer reviewers. 

Specifically, the process involved: 

• Development of a master list of potential experts. IEc developed a list of potential experts 

based on research of literature, review of published conference proceedings, consultation with 

engineering experts at other firms, and professional experience and contacts. In addition, EPA 

identified experts for consideration; these were included in the list for review but not prioritized. 

In total, IEc compiled a list of thirteen experts. 

• Screening review of specific experts. IEc reviewed publicly available information to prioritize 

experts that had multi-state regulatory experience, state-level knowledge of regulation 

implementation, and engineering and inspection expertise. This initial review also flagged 

potential conflicts of interest (e.g., significant work for regulated industry groups) and 

geographic location to ensure distribution. 

• Phone interview and conflict of interest (COI) checks. Based on the screening review, IEc 

contacted seven experts to identify whether they were available, interested in consulting on the 

project, and operating without any specific conflicts of interest (COI). Ultimately five experts 

were available and provided input. Of the remaining two experts, one was unavailable and one 

had near-term work with a company that, while not a specific conflict of interest, would violate a 

contract provision under which IEc operates. 

Exhibit G-1 provides a summary of the five experts selected as a result of the process described above. 

Their resumes are included after the exhibit. 

 
G-2 

EXHIBIT G-1: SUMMARY OF EXPERTS SELECTED 

Name Affiliation Potential Conflict of Interests Rationale for Selecting Expert 

John Cignatta Datanet Engineering, 

Inc. 

Possibly O&M requirements Has experience in training UST inspectors and as an expert witn

UST program. Has significant proprietary data set from work on claims at individual sites, and cross-state experience in spill cauAvailable. 

John Kneece Former UST Branch 

Chief with South Carolina’s Department of Health and Environmental Control 

Operator training Worked extensively on UST prevention issues while in SC. Wa

the National Work Group on Leak Detection Evaluations. Stronregulatory experience in South Carolina; Familiarity with specifprovisions. Available. 

Marcel Moreau Marcel Moreau 

Associates 

Operator training Conducts training and research and has been an expert witness. 

regulatory experience in Vermont. Familiarity with specific rule Experience with EPA/state regulatory requirements, interface. A

Marshall MottSmith Mott-Smith Consulting Group Represents Steel Tank Institute, as well as other equipment 

manufacturers 

Head of the UST program in Florida for 20 years; also active in tanks program. Also worked with the National Institute for StorManagement. Involved in development of Florida autopsy dataexperience with industry, but no current conflict or work relevarequirements under proposed regulations. Other experience excCurrently independent consultant on UST issues. 

Steve Purpora Purpora Engineering 

LLC 

Operator training and possibly O&M requirements 

Conducts training and is a consultant. Insurance experience helMidwestern location provides geographic variation. Multi-state leak autopsy. 

 
John E. Kneece

1968 – 1992 Served 24 years in the United States Air Force as a missile operations crew member, missile

operations staff member, USAF Professional Military Education faculty member and senior staff

member, instructor and staff member in missile combat crew training squadron, missile operations

squadron commander, deputy operations group commander, and deputy base commander.  Retired in

1992 as a lieutenant colonel.

1992 – 2009  Manager of the UST Compliance Section for the Department of Health and Environmental

Control for South Carolina.  Trained and directed a 16 member staff (including 10 remotely based

inspectors).   

Built and conducted state UST inspector training and standardization program.  Program

recognized as a national leader in inspector proficiency and getting the job done.   

Developed, coordinated, and published changes to the state UST rules to implement the Energy

Policy Act of 2005 initiatives.

Presentations at National Tanks Conference on UST  inspection methodology, corrosion protection

testing,  inspection support using PDAs, organizing an effective inspection program.

Taught UST inspector training sessions in EPA Regions 3 and 4 regional meetings.  Taught UST inspector

training course in Kentucky.   

Conducted UST management training for operators from Pilot Corporation and Hess.

As a member of the National Work Group for Leak Detection Evaluation from 1998 – 2008, specialized in

product piping test methods, statistical inventory reconciliation, and non‐volumetric tank testing.  

Served on the national work group to build the EPA online national inspector training program.   

Served on the national work group that developed the significant operational compliance (SOC)

measurements and criteria as well as the SOC guidance documents and forms for OUST.

On national work group to develop guidance documents for implementing the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Owner – Underground Storage Training and Consulting, LLC (constituted late fall, 2009)

B.S. Biology (Zoology) – Clemson University 1968

M.S. Adult Education – Troy State University 1978

 
MARCEL MOREAU

Marcel Moreau Associates 

73 Bell Street 

Portland, ME 04103 

(207) 774-9263 

email: marcel.moreau@juno.com

QUALIFICATIONS SUMMARY

Mr. Moreau has worked exclusively in the field of liquid storage systems since 1983. His experience 

includes four years with Maine Department of Environmental Protection, where he was instrumental in 

the development of Maine's underground storage system regulatory program, including the 

establishment of the first tank installer certification program in the country. He then worked for four 

years with an environmental engineering firm, where his duties included inspecting hundreds of existing 

storage systems for military and utility clients, and developing conceptual designs for new storage 

systems. 

Presently, he is an independent consultant providing information and educational services related to 

liquid storage systems for government and private sector clients. He has given dozens of seminars and 

training presentations and is widely published and quoted in trade publications. He specializes in 

development and presentation of classroom and on-line training programs, technical writing, and 

development of certification programs for storage system installers and removers. 

AREAS OF EXPERTISE

 Facility Regulatory Compliance Assessment 

 Tank and Piping Technology for Liquid Storage Systems 

 Leak Detection Technology 

 Storage System Installation 

 Tank Installer Certification 

RELEVANT WORK EXPERIENCE

1991 - Present: Principal, Marcel Moreau Associates, Portland, Maine 

1987-1990: Principal Scientist, ABB Environmental Services, Portland, Maine 

1983-1986: Geologist, Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

EDUCATION

M.S./Oceanography, 1981, University of Maine 

B.A./Geology, 1972, Williams College 

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

Maine Certified Oil Storage Tank Installer 

Petroleum Equipment Institute 

 
Marcel Moreau Page 2

PROJECT EXPERIENCE (Marcel Moreau Associates) 

2010 

 Produced a training guidance document in support of Maine’s TankSmart program to provide 

training for UST operators. 

2009 

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleum Equipment Institute on a new recommended 

practice concerning marina fueling facilities. 

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleum Equipment Institute in producing a new 

recommended practice concerning the design and installation of motor vehicle lubricant 

storage and distribution systems 

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleum Equipment Institute in revising their document 

entitled “Recommended Practices for Installation and Testing of Vapor-Recovery Systems at 

Vehicle-Fueling Sites.” 

2008 

 Completed work as consultant to the Petroleum Equipment Institute in producing a new 

document entitled, “Recommended Practices for Operation and Maintenance of Underground 

Storage Systems.” 

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleum Equipment Institute on a new recommended 

practice concerning marina fueling facilities. 

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleum Equipment Institute in producing a new 

recommended practice concerning the design and installation of motor vehicle lubricant 

storage and distribution systems 

2007 

 Completed work as consultant to the Petroleum Equipment Institute on a new document 

entitled, “Recommended Practices for Overfill Prevention for Aboveground Storage Tanks.”  Provided consulting services to the Petroleum Equipment Institute in producing a new 

recommended practice concerning the design and installation of motor vehicle lubricant 

storage and distribution systems. 

2006: 

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleum Equipment Institute in producing three new 

recommended practices dealing with overfill prevention for aboveground tanks, inspection of 

underground storage systems, and installation of lubrication systems.  Provided an on-line, interactive exam to re-certify cathodic protection testers for the Steel 

Tank Institute. 

 Provided representation before municipal boards for a large petroleum marketer seeking 

approval for constructing new two new facilities in two townships. 

 Provided consulting services to create an online survey to determine state agency experience 

with various groundwater contaminants. 

 Provided cathodic protection testing of an impressed current system installed on a 

commercial fuel oil storage system. 

 Continued development of internet-based education program for UST owners and operators. 

2005: 

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleum Equipment Institute in revising their document 

entitled “Recommended Practices for Installation of Underground Liquid Storage Systems.”  Provided consulting services to the Petroleum Equipment Institute for their new publication 

entitled, Recommended Practices for Inspection and Maintenance of Motor Fuel 

Dispensing Equipment.” 

 Provided cathodic protection testing of an airport hydrant fueling pipeline.  Continued development of internet-based education program for UST owners and operators.  Provided UST management services for large Maine gasoline marketer.  Provided UST design consultation for large mid-Atlantic gasoline marketer. 

 
Marcel Moreau Page 3

2004: 

 Investigation of a leak incident in New Hampshire.  Provided consulting services to the Petroleum Equipment Institute in revising their document 

entitled “Recommended Practices for Installation and Testing of Vapor Recovery Systems 

at Vehicle Fueling Sites.” 

 Provided instructions and support services for inventory control procedures for a marina  Provided consulting services to the Petroleum Equipment Institute for their new publication 

entitled, Recommended Practices for Inspection and Maintenance of Motor Fuel Dispensing 

Equipment.” 

 Provided cathodic protection testing and storage system upgrading recommendations for a 

fuel oil storage system. 

 Began development of internet-based education program for UST owners and operators. 

2003: 

 Provided a study guide and certification exam for certifying UST inspectors for Maine’s 

Board of Underground Storage Tank Installers. 

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleum Equipment Institute in revising their document 

entitled “Recommended Practices for Installation and Testing of Vapor Recovery Systems at 

Vehicle Fueling Sites.” 

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleum Equipment Institute to produce the first edition of a 

recommended practice concerning the inspection, repair and maintenance of fuel dispensers. 

2002: 

 Managed a project for the Maine DEP to inspect dispensers and submersible pumps at 100 

facilities across Maine for leaks and report on findings.  Provided consulting services to the Petroleum Equipment Institute in revising their document 

entitled “Recommended Practices for Installation of Aboveground Storage Systems for 

Motor Vehicle Fueling.” 

 Provided technical consultation for a project in California to assess the leak detection 

accuracy under field conditions of automatic tank gauges and line leak detectors. 

2001: 

 Provided UST inspector certification exams for removal, installation and operation & 

maintenance for Intertribal Council of Arizona. 

 Provided testimony at a hearing with regard to the potential sources of releases of MTBE 

from an UST system in Morro Bay, California. 

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleum Equipment Institute to produce the first edition of a 

recommended practice to test the electrical continuity of gasoline dispensing hoses. 

 Provided UST inspector and installer certification exams to be used in certifying UST workers in Iowa. 

2000: 

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleum Equipment Institute in revising their document 

entitled “Recommended Practices for Installation of Underground Liquid Storage Systems.”  Managed a project for the Maine DEP to test cathodic protection systems at approximately 

75 underground storage facilities in Maine.  Managed a project to review the results of annual operation tests of approximately 300 

underground storage facilities in Maine. 

 Continued investigation of large leak incident for the Maine DEP.  Tested an impressed current cathodic protection system on a tank at a commercial facility in 

Maine. 

 Troubleshot galvanic cathodic protection systems at a private college in Maine.  Attended regulatory hearing in Florida to discuss proposed rule changes. 

1999: 

 Managed a project where approximately 40 UST facilities were inspected to determine 

whether they met the requirements of Maine's Environmental Leader program.  Provided consulting services to the Petroleum Equipment Institute in revising their document 

entitled “Recommended Practices for Installation of Aboveground Storage Systems for 

 
Marcel Moreau Page 4

Motor Vehicle Fueling.” 

 Tested galvanic cathodic protection systems on two tanks at an appliance distribution facility 

in Maine. 

 Tested an impressed current cathodic protection system on a tank at a public facility in 

Maine. 

 Tested galvanic cathodic protection systems on four tanks at a retail fuel outlet in Maine.  Tested an impressed current cathodic protection system on a tank at a commercial facility in 

Maine. 

 Investigated internal corrosion in a #6 fuel oil tank for the Maine DEP. 

 Investigated a large leak incident for the Maine DEP  Provided commentary to EPA on UST system technology performance.  Consulted with Vermont DEC concerning two UST leak incidents. 

1998: 

 Produced a study guide to help tank workers prepare for the Pennsylvania aboveground 

storage system certification exams. 

 Updated the study guides for the West Virginia underground tank installer, remover, and 

tester certification exams.  Updated the study guide for the Pennsylvania underground tank installer and remover 

certification exams. 

 Evaluated and made recommendations with regard to eight galvanically protected storage 

tanks that are not meeting criteria for cathodic protection.  Maine DEP, evaluated potential sources of an MTBE release at a newly constructed gas 

station. 

1997: 

 Regulatory compliance consultation for independent petroleum marketer in Massachusetts  Bolling Air Force Base, compliance review and operator manual for fuel storage systems  Managed project to conduct regulatory compliance inspections at 75 UST facilities for Maine 

Department of Environmental Protection 

 Provided technical support for reorganization and revisions to Pennsylvania's UST 

certification examinations 

 Provided consulting services to the Petroleum Equipment Institute in revising their document 

entitled “Recommended Practices for Installation of Underground Liquid Storage Systems” 

1996: 

 West Virginia DEP, developed a study guide and examination for tank tightness tester 

certification 

 Regulatory compliance consultation for independent petroleum marketer in Hawaii  Clark County Health Department, Las Vegas, NV, analysis of inventory records to determine 

regulatory compliance 

 Conducted a regulatory review and market survey for a foreign manufacturer of leak 

detection equipment interested in entering the American market  Provided technical support at regulatory hearing for Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection 

 Provided technical support for reorganization and revisions to Pennsylvania's UST 

certification examinations 

1995: 

 USEPA, wrote survey report on flexible piping systems 

1994: 

 Pennsylvania DEP, wrote study guides and extensively revised certification examinations for 

UST installers, inspectors and removers 

 West Virginia DEP, wrote study guides and certification examinations for UST installers and 

removers 

 Independent Petroleum Marketer, reviewed UST management plan  AIG insurance, reviewed UST compliance documents for two industrial facilities in West 

 
Marcel Moreau Page 5

Germany 

1993: 

 USEPA, provided drafts of informational booklets on inventory control and manual tank 

gauging 

1992: 

 American Petroleum Institute, reviewed of script for instructional video on UST removal 

1991: 

 Louisiana DEQ, wrote study guides and certification examinations for UST installers and 

removers 

 EPA Region I, developed inspection checklists for use during UST installation, removal and 

compliance inspection 

SEMINAR AND PRESENTATION EXPERIENCE (Marcel Moreau Associates) 

2010 

 Wisconsin Department of Commerce, gave a presentation on inventory control and SIR as 

part of an inspector training program provided by Petroleum Training Solutions  Maine Department of Environmental Protection, gave a presentation on issues associated 

with safety when working around underground storage tanks.  Iowa Department of Natural Resources, presented a one-day course to meet the continuing 

education requirements for Iowa tank workers. Topics included safety, ethanol, secondary 

containment, and industry recommended practices. 

2009 

 USEPA All States Conference, gave a presentation on the equipment involved in Stage I 

vapor recovery. 

 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, presented a two day course on storage system 

components, installation, leak detection, safety, line tightness testing, internal lining 

inspection, and ethanol issues for Fire Marshal and State DEQ inspectors.  Maine Oil Dealers Association, gave a presentation to tank installers on diesel exhaust fluid 

and E15. 

 Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation, provided seminar on cathodic 

protection, inventory control, and SIR as part of an inspector training program provided by 

Petroleum Training Solutions. 

2008 

 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, provided seminar on various tank leak 

detection and closure issues for Oregon tank workers (with Ben Thomas Associates).  USEPA All States Conference, presented a workshop on graphical analysis of inventory 

control records and a presentation on the role of Petroleum Equipment Institute 

recommended practices in the operation and maintenance of underground storage systems.  Tank Management Services, presented two one-day storage system owner operator training 

courses in Kansas (with Ben Thomas and Steven Purpora).  Maine Department of Environmental Protection, gave a presentation on issues associated 

with ethanol fuels. 

 Tank Management Services, presented two one-day storage system owner operator training 

courses in Kansas. 

 Nebraska Fire Marshal’s Office, presented a four-day course on underground storage systems 

for inspectors. 

 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, presented a two day course on storage system 

components, installation, leak detection, safety, line tightness testing, internal lining 

inspection, and ethanol issues for Fire Marshal and State DEQ inspectors.  Iowa Department of Natural Resources, presented a two day course to prepare Iowa tank 

installers to take the Iowa tank installer certification exam; also presented a one-day course to 

meet the continuing education requirements for Iowa tank workers. 

 
Marcel Moreau Page 6

 Seneca Petroleum, Des Moines, Iowa, conducted a one-day class to meet the continuing 

education requirements for Iowa tank workers. 

 West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, presented a 3.5 day course for West 

Virginia tank inspectors on leak detection, corrosion protection, and regulatory inspection.  Maine Oil Dealers Association, gave a presentation to tank installers on leak detection issues 

at truck stops and high throughput vehicle fueling facilities. 

2007 

 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, provided seminar on various tank leak 

detection and closure issues for Oregon tank workers (with Ben Thomas Associates).  USEPA All States Conference, presented a workshop on graphical analysis of inventory 

control records. 

 Maine Department of Environmental Protection, gave a presentation on compliance 

inspection of below-grade piping connected to aboveground storage tanks.  Maine Oil Dealers Association, gave a presentation to tank installers on factors to consider 

when selecting overfill prevention equipment. 

 Maine Department of Environmental Protection and Maine Oil Dealers Association, gave a 

presentation to tank truck drivers on overfill prevention equipment and tank filling 

procedures for underground and aboveground tanks. 

 National Institute of Storage Tank Management, gave a presentation on graphical analysis of 

inventory control records 

 Kentucky Department of Environmental Quality, assisted in presenting a five-day 

underground storage system inspector training course (with Ben Thomas and Steven 

Purpora). 

 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, underground storage system installation, 

removal, leak detection, overfill prevention and corrosion protection for Fire Marshal and 

State DEQ inspectors. 

2006 

 Maine DEP, gave presentation on troubleshooting cathodic protection systems and analysis 

of inventory control records as part of Maine tank installer recertification seminar.  National Ground Water Association, gave presentation on obstacles to effective leak 

detection and analysis of inventory records.  Region 5, USEPA, 1.5 day training for UST inspectors in Illinois.  Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Storage System Annual Inspector 

Conference, introduction to leak detection and cathodic protection.  Nebraska Fire Marshal’s Office, 2-day training for UST inspectors.  Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, underground storage system installation, 

removal, leak detection, overfill prevention and corrosion protection for Fire Marshal and 

State DEQ inspectors. 

2005: 

 USEPA All States Conference, participant in session discussing UST owner operator versus 

UST inspector views of the inspection process; presented draft findings of CA ATG study.  Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, 3-day certification course for underground tank compliance 

inspectors in Reno, Nevada. 

 Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, 3-day certification course for underground tank compliance 

inspectors in Niagara Falls, New York. 

 Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, 3-day certification course for underground tank compliance 

inspectors in Green Bay, Wisconsin. 

 Maine DEP, gave presentation on overfill prevention issues to NEIWPCC meeting of New 

England UST regulatory personnel. 

 National Ground Water Association, gave presentation on obstacles to effective leak 

detection. 

 Region 5, USEPA, 1.5 day training for UST inspectors in Wisconsin and Minnesota.  Region 5, USEPA, 1.5 day training for UST inspectors in Indiana and Michigan.  National Institute of Storage Tank Management, presentation on overfill prevention. 

 
Marcel Moreau Page 7

2004: 

 Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, certification course for underground tank compliance 

inspectors. 

 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Storage System Annual Inspector 

Conference, introduction to leak detection and cathodic protection.  National Institute of Storage Tank Management, presentation on graphical analysis of 

inventory control records. 

2003: 

 USEPA All States Conference, participant in session discussing overfill prevention and 

investigating releases. 

 UST regulatory officials in Oxnard, CA, introduction to vapor recovery, MTBE and UST 

leak detection. 

 Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, certification course for underground tank compliance 

inspectors. 

 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Storage System Annual Inspector 

Conference, introduction to leak detection and cathodic protection.  Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, review of past and present UST codes and 

standards for Fire Marshal and State DEQ inspectors.  Maine Department of Environmental Protection, introduction to underground and 

aboveground storage system technology, leak detection and corrosion protection for State 

DEP inspectors. 

2002: 

 USEPA All States Conference, participant in session discussing line leak detectors.  Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, certification course for underground tank compliance 

inspectors. 

 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Storage System Annual Inspector 

Conference, introduction to leak detection, how to look for leaks.  Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, underground storage system installation, 

removal, leak detection, overfill prevention and corrosion protection for Fire Marshal and 

State DEQ inspectors. 

2001: 

 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, UST operation course for owners and 

operators of UST systems (5 sessions).  Iowa Department of Natural Resources, UST operation course for owners and operators of 

UST systems (6 sessions). 

 Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, certification course for underground tank installation 

inspectors. 

 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Storage System Annual Inspector 

Conference, line leak detectors, introduction to leak detection  Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, underground storage system installation, 

removal, leak detection, overfill prevention and corrosion protection for Fire Marshal and 

State DEQ inspectors. 

2000: 

 Maine Oil Dealers Association, presented sessions on cathodic protection testing and 

aboveground tank fittings at a training seminar for tank installers.  USEPA All States Conference, participant in sessions concerning secondary containment 

and SIR. 

 Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, certification course for underground tank installation 

inspectors. 

 New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, basic UST inspection course 

for inspectors from New England states. 

 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, UST inspection course for New Jersey 

inspectors. 

 Mealey Publications, invited speaker at MTBE conference (twice). 

 
Marcel Moreau Page 8

 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Storage System Annual Inspector 

Conference, statistical inventory reconciliation, line leak detectors, introduction to leak 

detection. 

 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, UST inspection course for 

Pennsylvania UST inspectors. 

 Iowa Department of Natural Resources, cathodic protection testing of underground storage 

systems for UST inspectors. 

 New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, advanced UST inspection 

course for inspectors from New England states. 

 West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, UST cathodic protection tester 

certification course. 

1999: 

 Region 2 EPA, UST leak detection and upgrading compliance for health inspectors in 

Hunterdon County, New Jersey (three day seminar).  USEPA All States Conference, participant in sessions concerning overfill protection, leak 

detection evaluation and post 1998 deadline outreach needs and messages.  Nebraska State Fire Marshal, seminar for UST inspectors focusing on line leak detectors, 

overfill prevention and evaluation of impressed current cathodic protection systems.  Region 4 EPA, cathodic protection testing of underground storage systems for UST 

inspectors (three day seminar). 

 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Storage System Annual Inspector 

Conference, statistical inventory reconciliation, line leak detectors, introduction to leak 

detection. 

 EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), UST operations 

compliance for OECA inspectors (three day seminar). 

 Region 4 EPA, cathodic protection tester certification course in Montgomery, AL (3 day 

course). 

 Region 3 EPA, cathodic protection tester course in Morgantown, WV (3 day course).  Region 3 EPA, cathodic protection tester course in Richmond, VA (3 day course).  Region 7, EPA, UST inspector course for Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1.5 day 

course) 

 Region 9, EPA, UST inspector certification course for Native American inspectors in 

Arizona (6 day course) 

 Region 7, EPA, UST inspector course for Nebraska Fire Marshal's Flammable Liquid 

Storage Division (1.5 day course) 

 Region 7, EPA, UST inspector course for Kansas Department of Health and Environment 

(1.5 day course) 

 Region 7, EPA, UST inspector course for Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1.5 

day course) 

 Red Lake band of Chippewa Indians, Department of Natural Resources, UST operation 

course for owners and operators of UST systems on tribal lands. 

1998: 

 Hawaii Department of Health, leak detection compliance seminars for inspectors.  Alabama Department of Environmental Management, cathodic protection tester certification 

course for regulatory personnel. 

 Maine Oil Dealers Association, moderator for training seminar for tank installers  Georgia Tank Equipment Contractor's Association, presentation to the membership 

concerning the future of the industry after 1998.  California Water Resources Control Board UST conference, criteria for cathodic protection 

and how MTBE might be escaping from storage systems. 

 EPA Region 5, (Chicago) leak detection, and upgrading requirements for UST inspectors  Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Storage System Annual Inspector 

Conference, special topics in leak detection. 

 North Carolina, corrosion, cathodic protection and cathodic protection testing (3 day 

seminar). 

 Virginia, leak detection and 1998 upgrading compliance seminars for UST owners & 

 
Marcel Moreau Page 9

operators (3 one-day seminars). 

 West Virginia UST installer, tester and remover re-certification workshops (2 one-day 

workshops). 

 Region 10 EPA, cathodic protection tester certification course for regulatory personnel.  Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, underground storage system installation, 

removal, leak detection and corrosion protection for Fire Marshal and State DEQ inspectors.  Maine Department of Environmental Protection, leak detection and corrosion protection 

compliance for UST owners and operators (3 half-day seminars) 

 Maine Oil Dealers Association, discussion of overfill prevention for UST installers. 

1997: 

 Alabama Department of Environmental Management, cathodic protection tester certification 

course for regulatory personnel 

 Bolling Air Force Base, storage system leak detection and compliance requirements for base 

personnel 

 Pace Oil Equipment Company, leak detection and upgrading requirements for UST owners 

and operators 

 Maine Oil Dealers Association, moderator for training seminar for tank installers  Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, leak detection and upgrading requirements 

for underground storage systems (8 one-day sessions in four locations) 

 USEPA All States Conference, participant in sessions concerning overfill protection, leak 

detection and contractor certification  Maine Department of Environmental Protection, overview of automatic tank gauge 

technology for state UST inspectors 

 Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, leak detection, upgrading and vapor 

recovery requirements for UST owners and operators 

 Certification course for UST cathodic protection system testers presented in South Carolina  Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Storage System Annual Inspector 

Conference, leak detection and corrosion protection  Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, leak detection, corrosion protection and 

upgrading requirements for UST inspectors 

 EPA Region 7, corrosion and cathodic protection training for UST inspectors in Missouri and 

Kansas 

 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, underground storage system installation, 

removal, leak detection and upgrading for Fire Marshal and State DEQ inspectors.  EPA Region 9, UST leak detection and upgrading requirements for tanks on Indian lands, 

Palm Springs and Ukiah, California and Reno, Nevada. 

 EPA Region 4, corrosion, cathodic protection and cathodic protection testing (3 day 

seminars) in Georgia and Kentucky. 

 EPA Region 5, corrosion, cathodic protection and cathodic protection testing, (2 day 

seminar) in Michigan. 

 EPA Region 9, UST leak detection and upgrading requirements for tanks on Indian lands, 

Window Rock, Tuba City and Phoenix, Arizona.  EPA Region 9, presentation on leak detection and upgrading at Indian Lands Tribal 

Conference in San Francisco, California. 

 EPA Region 2, corrosion, cathodic protection and cathodic protection testing, (2 day 

seminar) in New Jersey. 

 Nebraska State Fire Marshal, UST leak detection and upgrading requirements for 

underground storage systems (half-day sessions in five locations) 

1996: 

 Petroleum Equipment Institute, District 4 meeting, storage system upgrading and safety 

during tank removal 

 USEPA All States Conference, cathodic protection monitoring and interpretation of 

regulations 

 John W. Kennedy Company, storage system upgrading requirements in New England  California Water Resources Control Board UST conference, facility compliance inspection 

 
Marcel Moreau Page 10

procedures and protocol 

 Petroleum Equipment Institute, District 6 meeting, storage system upgrading and safety 

during tank removal 

 Petroleum Equipment Institute, District 7 meeting, storage system upgrading and safety 

during tank removal 

 Florida DEP, Storage System Annual Inspector Conference, leak detection and corrosion 

protection 

 Petroleum Equipment Institute, District 3 meeting, storage system upgrading and safety 

during tank removal 

 Clark County Health Department, Las Vegas, Nevada, corrosion and upgrading 

requirements for storage system installers and owners (2 sessions)  Arizona DEQ, underground storage system inspection and leak detection  Emco Electronics, Cary, North Carolina, regulatory requirements for leak detection and the 

1998 deadline 

 Region 1 EPA, Portland, Maine, corrosion and cathodic protection monitoring for UST 

inspectors 

 New Jersey DEP, Leak detection and upgrading requirements for underground storage 

systems (5 one-day sessions in three locations) 

 New York DEC, Saratoga Springs, New York, federal UST requirements for UST inspectors  Petroleum Equipment Institute, Convex '96, Orlando, Florida, untangling the 1998 UST 

deadline 

 Colorado oil inspection staff, Denver, Colorado, corrosion and cathodic protection 

monitoring for UST inspectors 

 Region 8 EPA, Salt Lake City, Utah, corrosion and cathodic protection monitoring for UST 

inspectors 

 Region 4 EPA, Spartanburg, South Carolina, corrosion and cathodic protection monitoring 

for UST inspectors 

 Region 9 EPA, leak detection, upgrading and corrective action requirements for UST owners 

and operators (5 one-day sessions in Arizona and Nevada) 

1995: 

 Karr & Associates, UST/AST Conferences in Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver, 

Canada, technology and leak detection for USTs 

 USEPA All States Conference, facility inspection protocol  California Water Resources Control Board UST conference, statistical inventory 

reconciliation for leak detection 

 Pennsylvania DEP, train the trainer seminar for state UST inspectors  Pennsylvania DEP, leak detection seminar for UST owner/operators (8 seminars, six 

locations) 

 Florida DEP, Annual Inspector Conference, statistical inventory control and automatic tank 

gauging for leak detection 

 West Virginia DEP, tank tightness testing seminar for state inspectors  Petroleum Equipment Institute, District 4 meeting, understanding Florida's underground 

storage system regulations 

 New Mexico Environment Department, field inspection training  EPA Region 6, corrosion/cathodic protection training for UST inspectors  Colorado-Wyoming Petroleum Marketers, UST upgrading requirements 

 Pennsylvania DEP, closure of UST systems seminar for owner/operators (6 seminars, six 

locations) 

 New Mexico Environment Department, seminar for UST owner/operators on statistical 

inventory reconciliation and automatic tank gauging 

1994: 

 Nevada DEP, leak detection and inspection training for state and county personnel  Tennessee DEC, leak detection compliance for UST owner/operators  Hawaii Department of Health, leak detection compliance seminars for inspectors and service 

providers 

 New Hampshire DES, seminar on spill and overfill prevention for installers 

 
Marcel Moreau Page 11

 Hazmat South Conference, state-of-the-art of leak detection  EPA Region 8, corrosion and cathodic protection training for state personnel (1-day sessions 

in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming and South Dakota) 

 California Water Resources Control Board UST conference, tank tightness testing  Nevada DEP, leak detection compliance for UST service providers 

 EPA Region I, leak detection training for state inspectors  Florida DEP Annual Inspector Conference, leak detection compliance inspection  Pennsylvania DEP, leak detection compliance for UST owner/operators (6 locations)  EPA Region X, UST inspector training (2-day sessions in Alaska, Idaho, Washington)  New Mexico Environment Department, leak detection compliance for UST owner/operators  Omega Environmental, overview of UST leak detection 

1993: 

 South Carolina DHEC, UST inspector seminar 

 West Virginia DEP, UST inspector seminar 

 USEPA All States Conference, facility inspection protocol  Florida DEP, leak detection compliance inspection 

 Montana DHES, corrosion and cathodic protection for UST inspectors 

 Pennsylvania DEP, private sector UST inspector training (three 4-day sessions)  West Virginia DEP, UST owner/operator leak detection training (five 1-day sessions)  Tank Installers of Pennsylvania, UST leak detection requirements 

1992: 

 EPA Region III, UST inspector training for Delaware, Pennsylvania and Virginia (three 3-

day sessions) 

 Texas Water Commission, UST inspector training (two 2-day sessions)  West Virginia DEP, UST inspector seminar 

 California Water Resources Control Board, UST inspector training (three 2-day sessions)  EPA Region IV, UST inspector training for North Carolina, Alabama and Kentucky (three 1-

day sessions) 

 New Mexico Environment Department, UST inspector training  Marcel Moreau Associates, leak detection and corrosion protection for Louisiana installers  Louisiana DEQ, UST inspector training (two 2-day sessions) 

1991: 

 Arizona DEQ, UST inspector training 

PUBLICATIONS 

 “MTBE as a Ground Water Contaminant,” (with Peter Garrett) Proceedings of the 1986 

National Water Well Association/American Petroleum Institute Conference on Petroleum 

Hydrocarbons in Ground Water - Prevention, Detection and Remediation.  “An Emphasis on LUP's - The Weak Spots in Piping,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 7, December, 

1987 

 “Some European Perspectives on Prevention of Leaks from Underground Petroleum Storage 

Systems,” Ground Water Monitoring Review, Winter 1987 

 “Five Key Underground Piping Problems that Need to be Addressed,” Tank Talk, March, 

1988 

 “Stalking the Elusive .85 Volts - Monitoring Cathodic Protection,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 8, 

May, 1988 

 “Pumping Product - The Push Ups vs Pull Ups of Product Delivery Systems - Implications 

for Environmental Health,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 10, February, 1989 

 “The Leak Detection Dilemma,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 12, February, 1990  “The Problems with Piping - An Update,” Tank Talk, Volume 5, Number 2, February, 1990  “Tightness Testing - Let's Begin With Nomenclature,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 13, August, 

1990 

 “Inventory Control...The Untold Story,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 14, March, 1991  “Everything You Wanted to Know About Piping Leak Detection,” Tank Talk, Volume 6, 

 
Marcel Moreau Page 12

Number 3, March 1991 

 “Rulers Lie...And Other Little Known Facts About Statistics in Leak Detection,” 

L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 15, September, 1991 

 “UST System Crisis Checklist,” Tank Talk, Volume 7, Number 1, January/February 1992  “What Tightness Test Would You Use?” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 16, March, 1992 

 “The A to ZZZs of Pressurized Piping Leak Detection,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 17, October, 

1992 

 “Overfill Prevention: Are We There Yet?” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 18, April, 1993  “How Empty Must A Leaking Tank Be For A Leaking Tank To Test Tight?” L.U.S.T.line, 

Bulletin 19, January, 1994 

 “Underground Storage System Leak Detection: Theory, Practice and Prognostications,” 

Proceedings of the 1994 Hazmat South Conference, Orlando, Florida 

 “To Dream the Possible Dream: UST Compliance,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 20, June, 1994  “What Every Tank Owner Should Know About Overfill Prevention,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 

21, December, 1994 

 “What Every Tank Owner Should Know About Overfill Prevention,” Tank Talk, Volume 9, 

Number 5, November/December 1994 

 “Survey of Flexible Piping Systems,” Apogee Research, Inc, Washington, D.C., March, 1995  “What Every Tank Owner Should Know About Automatic Tank Gauges,” Underground 

Storage Tank Guide, May 1995 

 “Laying Down the Law on SIR,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 22, June, 1995 

 “Spills and Overfills: Protect Yourself,” Convenience Store News Mexico, December 11, 

1995 

 “Upgrade Now...or Repent Later,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 23, January, 1996  “Planning for the Unthinkable: Emergency Preparedness for Motor Fuel Dispensing 

Facilities,” Convenience Store News Mexico, March, 1996  “The ABCs of ATGs,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 24, July, 1996 

 “Testing Cathodic Protection Systems,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 25, January, 1997  “Is Leak Detection Working?” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 26, July 1997 

 “Piping's Progress,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 27, November, 1997 

 “What About Tank Lining,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 28, February, 1998  “Of Blabbermouths and Tattletales - The Life and Times of Automatic Line Leak Detectors,” 

L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 29, June, 1998 

 “The Holes in Our UST Systems,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 30, September, 1998 

 “Hmmm...If Only Overfill Prevention Worked!” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 31, March, 1999 

 “Combatting CP-Test Heartburn,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 32, June 1999 

 “Enough with the Walking Softly, It's Time to Get Out the Stick,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 33, 

October 1999 

 “Tank Management 101 - You Too Can Be a `Professional' UST System Owner/Operator,” 

L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 34, February 2000 

 “The Problem with Sumps,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 35, June 2000 

 “The Quest for the Perfectly Reliable LLD, or Should Electronic Line Leak Detectors Have 

an Annual Test of Operation?” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 36, November 2000 

 “Plugging the Holes in Our UST Systems,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 37, March 2001 

 “Live and Learn,” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 38, June 2001, (with Patricia Ellis and Ellen Frye)  “Continuous or Isolated? This Is the Question?” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 39, November 2001  ‘Of Square Pegs and Round Tanks, or..What If Tank Operators Knew How to Operate 

Tanks?” L.U.S.T.line, Bulletin 40, March 2002. 

 “Looking for Leaks in All the Wrong Places,” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #41, June 2002. 

 “The Tortoise and the Hare Revisited,” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #43, March 2003.  “Baffled by a Leak? Check the Inventory Records,” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #44, July 2003.  “Will the Real Quantitative SIR Method Please Stand Up?” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #45, 

October 2003 

 “The Limits of Leak Detection,” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #47, June 2004 (with Ken Wilcox)  “Maine – The Way Sumps Should Be,” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #49, March 2005  “I’ve Looked at Tanks from Both Sides Now,” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #50, August 2005 

 “Did the Shear Valves Shear?” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #51, December 2005 

 “Operator Training: Boon or Bust?” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #52, May 2006 

 
Marcel Moreau Page 13

 “Beware the Unintended Consequences of Manifolding,” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #53, 

September 2006 

 “The Trouble with Truck Stops,” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #56, August 2007 

 “The Gospel According to Phil,” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #57, November 2007 

 “Making Sense of Sensors,” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #58, September 2008 

 “UST Rules for a New Century,” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #59, November 2008 

 “A Primer for the Next Generation of Tank People (Part 1 – Tank and Pipe Technology),” 

L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #60, February 2009 

 “A Primer for the Next Generation of Tank People (Part 2 – UST Ancillary Equipment),” 

L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #61, May 2009 

 “Stage I Vapor Recovery Is Coming to a Station Near You,” L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #62, 

August 2009 

 “If I Had to Choose Just One Way of Achieving UST Operational Compliance,” L.U.S.T.line 

Bulletin #64, March 2010. 

 “Operator Training Has Left the Station...So Where Are State Programs Headed?” 

L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #65, June 2010. 

VIDEOS

Technical consultant for the following USEPA videos: 

 “Doing It Right” (tank installation) 

 “Doing It Right II” (storage system installation) 

 “Keeping It Clean” (spill free fuel deliveries) 

 “Straight Talk on Tanks” (leak detection) 

 “Searching for the Honest Tank” (storage system inspection)  “Petroleum Leaks Underground” (behavior of petroleum in subsurface) 

Produced the following videos: 

 “Oil and Water Don't Mix - Or do They?” for the Maine Department of Environmental 

Protection 

 “Gas Tanks and Gargoyles - A Look at European Petroleum Storage Technology” for the 

USEPA 

LEGAL WORK

Provided depositions in the following cases:

MICHAEL ALLISON, et al., V. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore 

County, Baltimore, MD, retained by Ms. Mary Koch on behalf of the plaintiffs 

GINA McCARTHY, COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (STATE OF CT) V. 

PILOT CORPORATION, PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC, AND HGC LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 

State of Connecticut Superior Court, complex litigation docket, J.D. of Hartford at Hartford, D.N. X04-

HHD-CV-07-4027800-S., retained by Ms. Sharon Scully on behalf of the plaintiff. 

JOHN BEAZLEY, et al., V. THE CARROLL INDEPENDENT FUEL CO., et al., in the Circuit Court 

of Maryland for Baltimore County, Case No.: 03-C-07-004668, retained by Ms. Mary Koch on behalf of 

the plaintiffs. 

CITY OF NEW YORK V. AMERADA HESS CORP., ET AL., MDL No. 1358, Master File C.A. No. 

1:00-1898 (SAS), 04 Civ. 3417. Retained by Mr. Scott Pasternack on behalf of the plaintiff. 

THEODORE GARILLE, Executive Director for THE PASCOAG UTILITY DISTRICT V. EXXON 

MOBIL CORPORATION f/k/a EXXON CORPORATION and f/k/a MOBIL CORPORATION, State 

Of Rhode Island Superior Court, County Of Providence, No. 02-2437. Retained by Mr. William 

Dubanevich on behalf of the plaintiff. 

 
Marcel Moreau Page 14

NEUMAYER EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. V. SYNERGY OIL, LLC, d/b/a SYNERGY OIL, 

d/b/a/ SYNDERGY PETROLEUM, and ADAM R. OKILEE, in the Circuit Court of the City of St. 

Louis, Missouri, Case No. 062-00211, Division No. 7. Retained by Mr. David Dare on behalf of the 

plaintiff. 

TONNESON, ET AL. V. SUNOCO, INC., ET AL., in the United States District Court, Southern 

District of New York, MDL No. 1358, Master File C.A. No. 1:00-1898 (SAS), 03 Civ. 8248, retained 

by Mr. Duane Miller on behalf of the plaintiffs. 

IN RE: METHYL TERTIARY BUTYL ETHER (MTBE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, 

MDL 1358, in the United States District Court Southern District of New York, retained by the firm of 

Baron & Budd on behalf of the plaintiffs. 

THIRSTY’S (ELM REST), LTD., V. BLARNEY CASTLE OIL COMPANY, AMERICAN ZURICH 

INSURANCE COMPANY AND GENERAL AGENCY COMPANY, in the State of Michigan 28th

Circuit Court for the County of Wexford, Case No. 04-18377-CZ, retained by Mr. Jason Miller on 

behalf of the plaintiff. 

D.J. NELSON TRUST dba FRUITRIDGE VISTA WATER COMPANY V. ATLANTIC RITCHFIELD 

COMPANY, et al., in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the county of Sacramento, 

Case No. AS00535, retained by Mr. Victor Sher on behalf of the plaintiff. 

SUSAN B. FRALICK BALL, et al., V. BAYARD PUMP & TANK CO., INC., et al., V. 

CONTAINMENT TECHNOLOGIES CORP., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery 

County, Pennsylvania, NO. 99-06438. Retained by Mr. Stephen W. Miller on behalf of the defendant 

Bayard Pump & Tank. 

MONTANA PETROLEUM TANK RELEASE COMPENSATION BOARD V. CRUMLEY & 

WALLIS SERVICES, INC., ET AL., in the Montana First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark 

County, Cause No. BDV-2001-107. Retained by Mr. Allan Payne on behalf of the plaintiff. 

BOBBIE ADAMS, ET AL. V. BP PRODUCTS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., ET AL., in the Carteret 

County, North Carolina, General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Case No. 03 CVS 912. 

Retained by Mr. James Hopf on behalf of the plaintiffs. 

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON V. UNION OIL COMPANY, ET 

AL., in the San Mateo, California Superior Court, Case No. 410753. Retained by Mr. James Mathison 

on behalf of the plaintiff. 

BERNARD SALVADOR V. IRVING OIL CORPORATION, in the Superior Court of Belknap County, 

New Hampshire, Docket No. 02-C-0137. Retained by Mr. Michael Dunn on behalf of the plaintiff. 

WALKER PETROLEUM, INC. ET AL. V. LAURA C. WINGFIELD, ET AL., in the Circuit Court of 

Jackson County, Mississippi, No. CI-2000-0043(3). Retained by Mr. David Frazier on behalf of the 

plaintiff. 

MARY LOUISE FAIREY, ET AL. V. THE EXXON CORPORATION, ET AL., in the Court of 

Common Pleas, County of Orangeburg, State of South Carolina. Retained by Mr. Marion Fairey on 

behalf of the plaintiffs. 

KVAERNER ARONSON, INC. (plaintiff) V. MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN SKI AREA (defendant), 

MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN SKI AREA (cross-complainant) V. KVAERNER ARONSON, INC., 

EMCO WHEATON RETAIL CORPORATION, ET AL. (cross defendants), in the Superior Court for 

the County of Mono in the State of California, Case Number 12928, retained by Mr. Jeffrey Nolan on 

behalf of Mammoth Mountain Ski Area. 

STATE OF VERMONT V. WESCO, INC. AND ODESSA CORPORATION, in the Vermont Superior 

 
Marcel Moreau Page 15

Court, Docket Nos. 3105-06-01 and 3131-6-01. Retained by Jeanne Elias, Assistant Attorney General, 

State of Vermont, on behalf of the plaintiffs. 

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, ET AL. V. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE 

COMPANY, Civil Action No. 292-CV-00267 (JBA), in the United States District Court for the District 

of Connecticut. Retained by Mr. Stephen Fennell on behalf of the defendants. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE V. MYSTIC BULK 

CARRIER INC., XERXES CORPORATION, METRO-TANK, INC. AND UNIVERSAL VALVE 

COMPANY, INC, Civil Action No. 98-4336 in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey. 

Retained by Ms. Laura Smith on behalf of the plaintiffs. 

CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT V. UNOCAL CORPORATION, ET AL., San Francisco 

Superior Court Case No. SCV 997013. Retained by Mr. Scott Summy on behalf of the plaintiffs. 

SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT V. ATLANTIC RITCHFIELD CO., ET AL., San 

Francisco Superior Court Case No. 999128. Retained by Mr. Duane Miller on behalf of the plaintiffs. 

BUDDY LYNN, ET AL. V. AMOCO OIL CO., ET AL., C.V. #96-T-940-N in the District Court for the 

Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division. Retained by Mr. Dennis Reich on behalf of the 

plaintiffs. 

CHRISTOPHER SEWARD V. SHOP-A-SNACK FOOD MART, INC., ET AL., in the Circuit Court of 

Jefferson County, Alabama, CV98-4049. Retained by Ms. Glenda Cochran on behalf of the plaintiff. 

RICHARD FARRELL V. MASSACHUSETTS ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC., et al., in the 

Superior Court of Massachusetts, C.A. No. 95-617. Retained by Mr. H. Hamilton Hackney, III 

on behalf of the defendant. 

TOWN OF BILLERICA SCHOOL COMMITTEE V. COASTAL REFINING & MARKETING, INC. 

in the Superior Court of Massachusetts, C.A. No. 95-7121. Retained by Ms. Theresa Kelly Banash on 

behalf of the defendant. 

OCEAN COUNTY VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL SCHOOL V. FUEL TANK MAINTENANCE 

SERVICE, INC., WHITEMARSH CORPORATION AND KELLY DONAHUE CONTRACTING, 

INC., in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division - Ocean County, Docket No. OCN-L-2938-95. 

Retained by Mr. Peter Loffredo on behalf of the plaintiff. 

WEST VIRGINIA UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK INSURANCE FUND and R. M. ROACH & 

SONS, INC. V. DARWIN D. CUPP, SAMUEL K. SPIGLER CO., INC., and CAMPO-MILLER, In the 

circuit court for Berkeley County West Virginia. Retained by Mr. Richard Rowe on behalf of the 

plaintiff. 

INTERSTATE FACILITIES OF HILLVIEW, INC., d/b/a PRO STOP LOUISVILLE SOUTH AND 

INTERSTATE FACILITIES, INC., AND I-65, INC. V. DEWCO, INC., ET AL., In Jefferson Circuit 

Court (Kentucky), Division Six (No. 92-CI-05229). Retained by Mr. George Carter on behalf of the 

defendants. 

STATE OF MAINE V. CHEVRON USA, Cause No. CV-95-79, In the Superior Court, Kennebec 

County, Maine. Retained by Ms. Phyllis Gardiner on behalf of the plaintiff. 

IN RE: TUTU WELLS CONTAMINATION LITIGATION, 1989-107, In the United States District 

Court, Division of St. Thomas and St. John. Retained by Mr. John Dema on behalf of the plaintiff. 

USA V. OWNBEY ENTERPRISES, United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Rame 

Division. Retained by Mr. Kenneth Riemer on behalf of the plaintiff. 

ADVANTAGE BUSINESS SYSTEMS (ABS) V. XTRA-MART ET AL, United States District Court, 

 
Marcel Moreau Page 16

Southern District of Maine. Retained by a lawyer for the plaintiff. 

Provided trial testimony in the following cases:

DUNNE ET AL. V. SHELL OIL COMPANY, Index #96-13856T, Supreme Court of the State of New 

York, County of Westchester. 

SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT V. ATLANTIC RITCHFIELD CO., ET AL., San 

Francisco Superior Court Case No. 999128 

WALKER PETROLEUM, INC. ET AL. V. LAURA C. WINGFIELD, ET AL., in the Circuit Court of 

Jackson County, Mississippi, No. CI-2000-0043(3). Retained by Mr. David Frazier on behalf of the 

plaintiff. 

NEUMAYER EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. V. SYNERGY OIL, LLC, d/b/a SYNERGY OIL, 

d/b/a/ SYNDERGY PETROLEUM, and ADAM R. OKILEE, in the Circuit Court of the City of St. 

Louis, Missouri, Case No. 062-00211, Division No. 7. Retained by Mr. David Dare on behalf of the 

plaintiff. 

CITY OF NEW YORK V. EXXON (MDL No. 1358), in the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York.

 
Marshall Mott-Smith

Marshall T. Mott-Smith, President 

Mott-Smith Consulting Group, LLC 

2268-2 Wednesday Street 

Tallahassee, Fl 32308 

mtmott-smith@comcast.net 

marshall@mott-smithconsulting.com 

850-391-9835 work 

850-591-1434 cell 

www.mott-smithconsulting.com

QUALIFICATIONS SUMMARY

Marshall Mott-Smith is the President of The Mott-Smith Consulting Group, LLC, a Tallahassee-based 

consulting firm that provides national and international consulting, engineering, and training services for 

aboveground and underground storage tank system management. He provides assistance with 

equipment approvals, alternative procedures, waivers, variances, enforcement actions, training, 

compliance services, and expert witness services for private sector and government owners of 

underground and aboveground storage tank systems. He provides technical and training presentations, 

is widely published and quoted in trade publications, and represents several different underground and 

aboveground storage tank system product lines. He is a Sales Representative for Atlas Fueling Systems, 

a Partner and Representative for Eco-Tank Systems, LLC, and a member of the Board of Directors for 

The National Institute for Storage Tank Management. He is also on retainer for the Steel Tank Institute 

as their expert on storage tank regulation. 

Mr. Mott-Smith has worked with storage tank systems since 1983, and was the Administrator for the 

Storage Tank Regulation Section in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection from April, 1986 

until April, 2008. His previous experience with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection began 

in March 1977 with air pollution monitoring and enforcement, and continued until 1986 with solid waste 

permitting and enforcement, air pollution management, and hazardous waste management. As 

Administrator of the Storage Tank Regulation Section, he was instrumental in the development of 

Florida's underground and aboveground storage tank system regulatory program, and pioneered the 

development and establishment of rules and standards in Florida for storage tank and piping secondary 

containment. Mr. Mott-Smith was influential in bringing the problems associated with flexible piping 

systems into public view, and established the ongoing Leak Autopsy Study in Florida in 2003. He has 

testified before four Congressional Committees about storage tank systems, given hundreds of technical 

and training presentations, and has written numerous articles for national and international publications. 

In addition, he has also worked for The National Institute for Storage Tank Management for 20 years as 

an instructor.

AREAS OF EXPERTISE

 • Storage Tank System Management and Regulatory Compliance 

 • Sources and Causes of Leaks from Underground and Aboveground Storage Tank Systems

 • Leak Detection Technology and System Performance

 • Storage Tank System Installation and Closure

 • Underground Piping Systems and System Performance 

 • Alternative Fuels Storage and Management

 
RELEVANT WORK EXPERIENCE

2008 - Present: President, Mott-Smith Consulting Group, LLC, Tallahassee, Florida 

 Board of Directors, National Institute for Storage Tank Management 

 Partner and Sales Representative for Eco-Tank 

Sales Representative for Atlas Fueling Systems 

1986-2008: Administrator, Storage Tank Regulation Section, Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection

1980-1986: Program Coordination Positions for Air Pollution, Solid & Hazardous Waste with the 

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation 

1977-1980: Compliance Inspection/Enforcement/Permitting Positions with the Florida Department of 

Environmental Regulation 

Emergency Response Experience 

Worked at the Florida Emergency Response Center from 2006 until 2008 on ESF 12 (Fuels) and 

managed missions and shift responsibilities involving Florida’s response to hurricanes and resolving fuel 

availability issues for first responders, hospitals, nursing homes, and other critical needs. This included 

managing, organizing, and prioritizing activities and missions with agency senior management. 

Certifications 

40 hour training and 8 hour refresher training for Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response

EDUCATION 

Graduate Studies in Land Use, Florida State University, 1976 

B.S., Geography, 1976, Florida State University 

Okaloosa-Walton Junior College – Basic Studies 

United States Air Force Academy – 1972-1973 

MILITARY SERVICE 

Honorable Discharge (Medical, left knee), USAF, 1973 

Cadet Fourth Class, United States Air Force Academy 1972-1973 

PUBLICATIONS: 

“Florida Invests in Leak Prevention w/Aggressive Facility Compliance Verification Program”, 

L.U.S.T.Line, April, 1993. 

 “Florida’s Leak-War Veteran on a Mission”, Petroleum Equipment and Technology, June, 2000. 

 
“The State of Florida’s Experiences with Thermoplastic Flexible Piping”, The Bulletin, Journal of the 

Association for Petroleum and Explosives Administration, June, 2003. 

“New Hope for Hurricane Availability Problems... Portable Electric Pumps for UST Systems”, 

L.U.S.T.Line, September, 2006. 

“Hurricanes and Storage Tank Systems – Effects, Issues, and Lessons Learned” The Bulletin, Journal of 

the Association for Petroleum and Explosives Administration, November, 2007. 

“Florida’s Leak Autopsy Study for Storage Tank Systems”, L.U.S.T.Line, August, 07. 

“Parting Thoughts from a Veteran Tank Regulator”, L.U.S.T.Line, September, 08. 

“What Owners Should Know...Ethanol Storage in Underground and Aboveground Storage Systems”, 

Petrogram, Fall 2008. 

“What, Another Deadline?”...Selective Catalytic Reduction and Diesel Exhaust Fluid, Petrogram, Summer 

2009. 

“Florida’s Secondary Containment Deadline for Field-erected ASTs, Tank Storage Magazine, December, 

2009. 

“E-10 and Single-wall Fiberglass Tanks...Are There Emerging Problems with Compatibility?” Petrogram, 

Spring 2010. 

“E-10 and Single-wall Fiberglass Tanks...Are There Emerging Problems with Compatibility?” Journal of 

the Association for Petroleum and Explosives Administration, June 2010. 

CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY: 

October 31, 1989:

House Small Business Sub-Committee on Anti-Trust, Impact of Deregulation and Privatization held 

hearings on financial responsibility for Underground Storage Tanks. Testimony was heard by Marshall T. 

Mott-Smith, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee. 

February 20, 1990:

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: Subcommittee on Environmental 

Protection held oversight hearings to review the Environmental Protection 

Agency's financial responsibility requirements for underground storage tank 

systems containing petroleum or other regulated substances, Testimony was heard by Marshall T. MottSmith, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee. 

March 21, 1991:

House Committee on Energy and Commerce: Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials 

held an oversight hearing on the implementation of the underground storage tank (UST) program 

established under Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Testimony was heard from Don Clay, 

Assistant Administrator, Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA; and public witnesses. Testimony 

was heard by Marshall T. Mott-Smith, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee. 

September 14, 1994:

 
House Committee on Energy and Commerce: Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials 

held a hearing on H.R. 1360, Safe Aboveground Storage Tank Act of 1993. Testimony was heard from 

Marshall T. Mott-Smith, Administrator, Storage Tank Regulation Section,Department of Environmental 

Protection, State of Florida. 

LEGAL WORK: 

Current work:

Since April, 2008 – Cunningham, Bounds, LLC, - Flexible Piping Case 

Since September, 2008 – Holland & Knight LLP/Ryan Law LLP, - UST Discharge 

Since March, 2009, Gordon & Rees, LLP, - Flexible Piping Case 

Since April, 2009, Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C. – Spill Bucket & Flexible Piping issues 

Completed work:

Alan Goldfarb, P.A. – Skylake Auto - Flexible Piping Case initiated April 2008 – resolved favorably 

Enterprise Rental Car – initiated October 2009 - UST Removal – Provided consulting services 

Provided depositions in the following cases:

February 14, 1988. Florida Petroleum Marketers Association vs. Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection and Alachua County. 

March 21, 1991. Florida Petroleum Marketers Association vs. Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection, Rule Challenge on Chapter 17-761, Florida Administrative Code 

April 8, 1991. Deposition on proposed tank farm and pipeline in Lloyd in Jefferson County. 

July, 2006. Southeastern Liquid Analyzers vs. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

Challenge on a revocation of a Department Equipment Approval. 

September 22, 2004. Tropic Enterprises/Sunoco vs. Dayco, others. 

January 12, 2006. Total Containment 

January 25, 2006. Total Containment 

February 6, 2006. Brookshire Brothers vs. Total Containment 

November 2, 2007. Twin Oil vs. Total Containment 

November 19, 2007. Twin Oil vs. Total Containment 

May 18, 2009. Troy Brown & Attaway Services, Inc. vs. John Toscano & Enviro-Steel Corporation 

Provided trial testimony in the following case:

April 4-5, 1991. Florida Petroleum Marketers Association vs. Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection, Rule Challenge on Chapter 17-761, Florida Administrative Code. 

July, 2006. Southeastern Liquid Analyzers vs. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

Challenge on a revocation of a Department Equipment Approval. 

 
TRAINING AND PUBLIC SPEAKING INFORMATION 

Mr. Mott-Smith has given over 500 presentations during his time with the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, Mott-Smith Consulting Group, and as a representative of the National Institute 

of Storage Tank Management. 

Work History 

1987 – 2008 Administrator, Storage Tank Regulation Section, Bureau of 

Petroleum Storage Systems, Division of Waste Management. 

Supervises and manages a staff of twenty-one (20) people to insure that the 

storage tank program is properly administered and coordinated with the District 

offices, local governments, and other sections of the Department. Responsible 

for all tanks program rule development activities, program guidance for rule 

interpretation and review of Equipment Approval and Alternate Procedure 

Requests. Participates in meetings and makes presentations about the 

Department’s storage tank program. Responsible for maintaining close liaison 

with the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and negotiates 

agreements with EPA and other federal, state, and local agencies. Oversees the 

preparation of state and federal program budget requests required as part of the 

annual work plan and federal grants. 

1989 – Present Instructor, National Institute for Storage Tank Management (Dual 

Employment). Teach six one-day classes annually about AST and UST 

management in Florida, and assist with the preparation and management of the 

Annual International Aboveground Storage Tank Conference for the NISTM. 

1986 – 1987 Administrator, Solid Waste/Tanks Section, Department of 

Environmental Regulation. Responsible for the management of the 

State’s solid waste and storage tank programs and supervised eighteen 

professional and clerical positions. DER internal reorganization split the 

Section into two separate groups. 

1984 – 1986 Environmental Specialist III, Air Program Field Operations 

Coordinator, Division of Permitting, Florida Department of 

Environmental Regulation. Responsible for coordinating all air program 

activities between the Division of Programs, the Division of 

Administrative Services, and the Division of Permitting’s offices in 

Tallahassee with the Department’s District field offices around the state. 

1980 – 1984 Environmental Specialist III, Division of Permitting, Florida Department 

of Environmental Regulation. Coordination of five programs (Air, Solid 

Waste, Hazardous Waste, Underground Injection Control, and Tanks) 

between the District offices and the headquarters offices in Tallahassee. 

1978 – 1980 Environmental Specialist I, South Florida District Office, Fort Myers. 

 Responsible for managing the District’s solid waste program, and 

performed compliance inspections, permit application evaluations, 

 
enforcement actions, and complaint investigations. 

1977 – 1978 Pollution Control Specialist I, South Florida District Office, Fort Myers. 

 Employed as an air program enforcement specialist and performed 

facility compliance inspections at major and minor sources of air 

pollution. 

1977 – 1977 Engineering Technician III, South Florida District Office, Fort Myers. 

 Operated and maintained the District’s ambient air monitoring network. 

1976 – 1976 Graduate Assistant, Florida State University Environmental Analysis 

Center. Computer mapping, cartography, and administrative assistance 

for the Scientific Programmer.

 
STEPHEN A. PURPORA

Purpora Engineering, LLC

P.O. Box 80265

Saukville, WI. 53080

e-mail: sap@purporaengineering.com

SUMMARY

Since 1979, Mr. Stephen Purpora has worked extensively in all areas of underground 

storage tank, line, and leak detector testing as well as vapor recovery and cathodic 

protection inspections. His experience includes over 25 years of field testing and 

consulting for the petroleum testing industry. He has assisted Mr. William Purpora in the 

development of testing procedures and protocol for product line testing equipment as 

well as the Petro-Tite tank test equipment.

Mr. Purpora currently travels extensively throughout the United States and recently 

internationally, training and certifying test technicians and regulatory personnel on the 

fundamental and practical applications of testing underground storage tanks, product 

piping, leak detectors and vapor recovery systems. 

In early 2002, Mr. Purpora assumed the position of President of Protanic, Inc. and 

Purpora Engineering, LLC. In 2004 he was the founding member of N.T.C.A., LLC 

(National Testing Contractors Association), PTTI, LLC (Petroleum Tank Training 

Institute) and GEA, Inc.

Mr. Purpora has attended Westminster College in Missouri and the University of 

Wisconsin Milwaukee. Mr. Purpora is married with 3 children and currently resides in 

Cedarburg, Wisconsin.

AREAS OF EXPERTISE

Underground storage tank and product line testing

Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery technology

Petroleum Test Equipment manufacturer and training consultant

Helium Leak Pin-Pointing technology

Leak Detector Testing

Truck Stops

Leak Detection Systems

RELEVANT WORK EXPERIENCE

1979 – Present UST Tank and Line Test Certified Technician/Technical Advisor

1985 Lead Test Foreman for Mobil Oil Corp., Arco, and DeSoto Oil Test 

Projects

 
1986 – 1987 Technical Advisor for LDT-890 Leak Detector Tester and assisted 

in development of Purpora 706 protocol

1987 – 2000 Contractors Association Testing Consultant

Stephen Purpora Page 2

1989 – 1992 National Instructor for Pen-X Devaporizer

1990 Testing Project Supervisor for Sale of Road Runner Service 

Stations

1999 Testing Consultant for Exxon Mobil Miami Test Project

1999 – Present Petro-Tite Tank and Line test equipment manufacturer, instructor

and test consultant

2002 – Present President of Protanic, Inc. and Purpora Engineering, LLC

2004 – Present Founding member of PTTI, LLC dba PTS

2004 – Present Founding member of NTCA, LLC 

2004 – Present Technical Advisor and member of the PEI RP-300 –Committee for 

the “Recommended Practices for installation and testing of Stage I 

and Stage II Vapor Recovery.”

2008-Present President and Founding member of GEA, Inc.

LEGAL

2002 JMB Realty Corp., Seattle, WA – Retained by Mr. John S. Hahn of Mayer, 

Brown, Rowe & Maw on behalf of the defendant JMB Realty Corp. of 

Seattle, WA. Subject of case was who could be held responsible for 

product pipeline release. 

2003 Great American Custom Insurance Services, Inc. v. Petroleum Equipment 

Services of Wisconsin, Case # 03-CV-736. Retained by Mr. Matthew R. 

McClean of Borgelt, Powell, Peterson & Frauen S.C. on behalf of the 

plaintiff Great American Custom Insurance Services, Inc. Subject of case 

was a pressure gauge installed in a product pipeline for testing purposes 

which resulted in a product release.

2004 Samuel Coraluzzo Company, Inc. insurance claim against Sunoco, Inc. 

Retained by Mr. Samuel J. Pace, Jr. of Dugan, Brinkmann, Maginnis &

Page on behalf of the defendant Sunoco, Inc. Subject of the case was 

whether appropriate delivery procedures were followed between the fuel 

terminal and tanker.

2005 Montana Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Board v. Crumley & 

Wallis Services, Inc. Case #BDV-2001-107. Retained by Doney, Crowley, 

Bloomquist, Payen UDA P.C on behalf of the Montana Petroleum 

Release Compensation Board. Subject of the case was proper 

procedures for utilizing ATG for compliance testing, while the tank had a 

release. 

2008 OPW retains Purpora for review of the Leak Detector and case review of 

Jacksonville, Maryland case. Mobil Oil vs. State of Maryland. Subject was 

to technically review the workings of Leak Detector that was in place at 

the site that had the release.

 
2009 State of SD Petroleum Release Compensation Fund vs. O’Day 

Equipment, Inc. and Hose Master, Inc. Civil No. 08-571. I was retained 

by the defendant the installer O’Day Equipment, Inc. Subject of case was 

the a Truck Stop had a release from a flex connector and the State 

wanted to pull all parties related to the equipment at the truck stop into 

the liability of costs for clean ups. 

TECHNICAL CONSULTANT FOR VIDEO PRESENTATIONS:

“Petro-Tite Tank and Line Tester Training” – Purpora Engineering, LLC

“Pen-X Devaporizer Training” – Purpora Engineering, LLC

Current courses produced through PTTI, LLC for Petroleum Equipment 

Institute (PEI) On-Line Web Based Training

“ABC’s of ATG’s”

“ABC’s of ATG’s – Tanks and Piping”

“Single Wall Piping”

“Double Wall Piping”

“Spill of Delivery and the Agony of Release” – Spill Bucket and Overfill 

protection

Stephen Purpora Page 3

Professional Affiliations and Seminar/Presentation Experience

National Instructor and Manufacturer of UST Tank and Petro-Tite Line Test 

Technology

Guest Speaker at 1

st annual NISTM Underground Storage Tank Conference.

Presented on “Integrity of Underground Storage Tank Testing”

Presenter at 2005 EPA UST National Conference on EMS – Environmental 

Management Systems.

New Jersey State Inspector Training for Line, Leak Detector, and Vapor 

Recovery Testing.

State of New York 2005 , training testers and companies on basic operations 

and testing of Stage 1 and Stage 2, in regards to the New York regulations

Guest Speaker for 2nd annual NISTM Underground Storage Tank 

Conference, presented “ TSI (Test Scene Investigation) and “Hiring Service 

Providers”

Provided training for ITCA (Inter Tribal Council Association) for Tribal 

Inspectors and EPA personnel. 

Provided consulting on Regulations and Testing Practices for the following 

States:

o State of Illinois OSFM – Mr. Scott Johnson and Mr. Bill Alderson

o State of New Jersey DEQ – Mr. Len Lipman

o State of Tennessee Dept. of Environment & Conservation UST Division –

Mr. Lamar Bradley

Petroleum Equipment Institute member in good standing

 
Kentucky State Inspector Training on all aspects of UST Systems

Idaho, Oregon and Washington Training on all aspects of UST Systems

Presenter at 2007 EPA UST National Conference; Truck Stops

Wisconsin Inspector Training 2007, 2008, 2009

State of Kansas operator training

Tennessee Inspector training -2009

 
JOHN V. CIGNATTA, Ph.D, PE

Datanet Engineering, Inc. 

Principal – President 

11416 Reisterstown Road 

Owings Mills, Maryland 21117 

Tel: 410.654.1800 Fax: 410.654.3711 

E-Mail: jcignatta@datanetengineering.com

AREAS OF QUALIFICATION:

▪ Civil-Environmental Engineering: Maryland P.E. #13556 

▪ Civil-Environmental Engineering: Virginia P.E. #0402040459 

▪ NACE Accredited Corrosion Specialist #3304 

▪ NACE Accredited Cathodic Protection Specialist #3304 

▪ API (American Petroleum Institute) 653 Accredited Aboveground Storage 

Tank Inspector #21623 

▪ MDE Certified Underground Storage Tank Inspector – MDIC 2007-0025 

▪ STI (Steel Tank Institute) SP-001 Accredited Aboveground Storage Tank 

Inspector #001-06 

▪ Level II NDT Ultrasonic Thickness Evaluation under SNT-TC-1A 

▪ Project Management - Systems Management 

▪ MDE Instructor Cathodic Protection Testing Buried Fuel Tanks 

▪ STI Instructor Aboveground Storage Tanks Installation - Shop Fabricated 

▪ MDE Instructor Underground Storage Tanks Installation 

▪ MDE Instructor UST Certified Tank Remover 

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:

Dr. Cignatta has three post graduate degrees in Environmental Engineering and 

Systems Management. He has practiced engineering on a full time basis since 1976 

within the disciplines of environmental and corrosion engineering while working for the 

Air Force, private engineering firms and as president of Datanet Engineering, Inc. since 

1983. Dr. Cignatta was awarded his doctorate in Environmental Engineering in 

September 2004 by Kennedy-Western University.* 

President, Datanet Engineering, Inc., Baltimore, MD, (1983 to Present) 

▪ Manages and directs corrosion and environmental engineering projects 

including protective coatings for steel and concrete structures, cathodic 

protection systems for buried and submerged steel structures, all aspects 

of design, installation and protection of underground and aboveground 

storage tanks, and water treatment for industrial and potable applications. 

▪ An ever greater portion of his workload is assisting various courts with 

expert testimony. Some of his clientele span from the EPA and OSHA to 

insurance companies, commercial concerns and even private citizens. 

His more noteworthy cases have included: Exxon gasoline release in 

Jacksonville, MD, OSHA Three Rivers Stadium, EPA Euclid Oil, the 

Tarentum Bridge OSHA case, the Philadelphia Flyers arena ice making 

equipment failure, and the CSX Tunnel-Fire Incident in Baltimore. 

 
Resume of John V. Cignatta, Ph.D., PE Page 2 

▪ Provides specialty investigations for corrosion monitoring and control of 

unusual items spanning from engine sprockets to Civil War artifacts. 

▪ Developed and created the complete Steel Tank Institute Level 1 and 

Level 2 Aboveground Storage Tank Inspector courses. Continues to 

present the certified aboveground tank inspection one week course for 

the Steel Tank Institute and the five day underground storage tank (UST) 

inspection course for the Maryland Department of the Environment. Dr. 

Cignatta routinely conducts the STI class on shop fabricated fuel tank 

inspection across the country. He has taught the fuel system training 

courses at a variety of the Community Colleges in the Maryland area over 

the past twenty years on UST installation, UST removal, cathodic 

protection testing and other topics.

▪ Has accomplished computer simulation of abrasive blasting enclosures 

and other complex ventilation systems for support of both worker and 

environmental protection requirements at industrial painting projects. 

▪ Manages environmental projects including site assessments, hazardous 

waste remediation, sick building evaluations/remediations, regulatory 

compliance and expert testimony for industrial, governmental and 

commercial clients. 

▪ Invited speaker in "Expert-In-Industry" series at the Alice Hamilton 

Laboratory of NIOSH. Provided a one-day symposium on state-of-the-art 

procedures and equipment for lead paint removal on bridges and water 

tanks. Similar symposia presented by invitation at OSHA Headquarters 

and Maryland Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 

▪ Provides expert consulting services to several branches of the military, 

state governments and major national corporations on corrosion and 

coatings related projects. Presented seminars and mini-symposia for 

governmental and corporate clients on innovative lead paint removal 

technologies. 

▪ Primary author of guide specification on corrosion control of buried fuel 

piping; incorporated by reference into the Maryland Underground Tank 

regulations. Also, recommended to other states by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, 

as a model for guide specification. 

▪ Featured conference speaker on corrosion control and protection of the 

environment and workers for underground storage tanks, elevated water 

tanks and bridges for NISTM, STI, NACE, SSPC, AWWA, and American 

Shipyard Association. 

▪ Conference chairman for 1991 Lead Paint Removal Conference of SSPC. 

 
Resume of John V. Cignatta, Ph.D., PE Page 3 

Project Engineer, Mueller Associates, Inc., , Baltimore, MD, (1978 to 1983) 

▪ Provided systems analysis and engineering services in the fields of 

pollution abatement, water treatment and analysis, energy conservation, 

and wastewater management. Managed field investigations, hardware 

designs, systems studies and site development projects. 

▪ Project Manager for several U.S. Navy projects on water analysis, 

protective coating evaluations, ultrasonic scanning assessments, cathodic 

activity surveys and industrial water treatment enhancements. 

Student, Pilot and Environmental Engineer, US Air Force , (1968 to 1978) 

▪ Attended US Air Force Academy through Congressional competitive 

appointment 

▪ Graduated from undergraduate pilot training and served as combat crew 

member on a B-52G in the Strategic Air Command 

▪ Served as Base Environmental Coordinator in Civil Engineering Squadron 

for several years responsible for environmental regulatory compliance 

and system upgrades at large bulk fuels facilities in several states, crosscountry pipeline facilities including pumping stations, and 

water/wastewater treatment plants and distribution systems. Received 

US Air Force Meritorious Service Medal for work in fuel and water storage 

system emergency repairs. 

EDUCATION:

▪ B.S., General, U.S. Air Force Academy, 1972

▪ M.S., Systems Management, University of Southern California, 1976

▪ M.S., Environmental Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 1982

▪ Ph.D., Environmental Engineering, Kennedy Western, 2004 (Note: OnLine University Licensed and Authorized by the State of Wyoming.) *

 

REGISTRATION:

▪ Professional Engineering Registration, Maryland, Civil #13556 

▪ Professional Engineering Registration, Virginia, Civil #0402040459 

▪ National Association of Corrosion Engineers, Corrosion Specialist #3304 

▪ National Association of Corrosion Engineers, Cathodic Protection 

Specialist #3304 

PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES:

▪ National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) 

▪ Painting and Decorating Contractors Association (PDCA) 

▪ Steel Structures Painting Council (SSPC) 

 
Resume of John V. Cignatta, Ph.D., PE Page 4 

 

RECENT PUBLICATIONS

▪ More Concerns for AST Owners/Operators, presented at NISTM 2007, 

May 2007. 

▪ Problems and Failures with Shop-Fabricated ASTs, presented at National 

Institute for Storage Tank Management, May 23, 2006, Orlando, FL. 

 

▪ Problems with Overfill Valves on Shop Fabricated AST Inspections,

presented at National Institute for Storage Tank Management, May 2005, 

Orlando, FL. 

▪ Rust Never Sleeps- Controlling Environmental Deterioration of Florida’s 

Civil War Artifacts, Dissertation in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements 

for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Engineering at 

Kennedy- Western University, 2004. Research for this major study was 

funded and supported in part by Florida Department of Parks, Florida 

Department of Cultural Preservation, Florida Department of Cultural 

Preservation, General Electric, and Datanet Engineering, Inc. 

 

▪ Recent Discoveries During Routine Shop Fabricated AST Inspections,

presented at National Institute for Storage Tank Management, May 2004, 

Orlando, FL. 

▪ Rude Awakening to AST Owners, presented at Steel Tank Institute’s 

Member’s Conference, January 2004, Bonita Springs, FL. 

▪ Liner Creates “Double Wall” Fuel Tank System at Washington, D.C. 

Building, Co-Author, presented at Environmental Management and 

Regulation of Petroleum Storage Facilities Conference and Exhibition, 

October 2002, Kingston, Jamaica. 

▪ API 653 Inspections, Integral Components of AST Mechanical Integrity 

Programs, Co-Author, presented at Environmental Management and 

Regulation of Petroleum Storage Facilities Conference and Exhibition, 

October 2002, Kingston, Jamaica. 

▪ Gaining Greater Acceptance of CFD Analyses by Engineers, presented at 

the 1997 PHOENICS Conference, April 20, 1997 Atlanta, GA. 

▪ Computer Aided Engineering for Design of Ventilation Systems at 

Industrial Painting Projects, accepted for presentation at the NACE 

International Annual Convention, March 14, 1997 at New Orleans, LA. 

▪ The Significance of the $2.3 Million OSHA Adjudicated Fine for Painting 

at the Tarentum Bridge to Other Industrial Painting Projects, accepted for 

presentation at the NACE International Annual Convention, March 14, 

1997 at New Orleans, LA. 

 

 
Resume of John V. Cignatta, Ph.D., PE Page 5 

▪ The Anne Arundel County Tank Painting Program, presented with 

 Mr. Ken Dinnis at the American Water Works Association, Chesapeake 

Chapter Annual Convention, September 6, 1996 at Ocean City, MD. 

▪ Setting up a Project Site for Abrasive Blasting Including Computer 

Modeling of Worker Exposure, Best Poster Presentation with Mr. Timothy 

Duffy at American Industrial Hygiene Association Annual Conference, 

May 20, 1996 in Washington, DC. 

▪ Visualization of CFD Data, presented at the PHOENICS Users 

Conference, March 17, 1996 at Atlanta, GA. 

▪ Engineering Controls Key to $5 Million OSHA Case, Painting & 

Wallcovering Contractor; August 1995 issue. 

▪ Prepares monthly column entitled: "Reg Alert", for the journal - Painting 

& Wallcovering Contractor; publication of the Painting and Decorating 

Contractors Association, by Finan Publishing, Mr. Jeffery Beckner editor, 

(314) 961-6644 

▪ Recycling Lead Paint while Protecting Workers and the Environment at 

the Ferndale Tank, presented at the North Atlantic Water Works 

Symposium December 5, 1994 Atlantic City, New Jersey. 

▪ Hazardous Wastes for Painters a Simple Topic? Painting & 

Wallcovering Contractor; Jan/Feb 1995 issues 

 

▪ Gang of Four: A Review of the Lead, Cadmium, Arsenic and Hexavalent 

Chromium Standards: Painting & Wallcovering Contractor; 

Sept/October, November/December 1994 issues. 

▪ Why is every Painter Affected by The New OSHA Heavy Metal 

Regulations?; presented at the SSPC National Conference November 

1994 Atlanta, GA. 

▪ How Are You Affected By the OSHA Lead Standard?; Painting & 

Wallcovering Contractor; May/June and July/August 1994 issues. 

▪ Monitoring Breathing Air at Lead Paint Removal Projects; Journal of 

Protective Coatings & Linings; February 1994 issue; Coauthor. 

▪ Use of Robotics for Replacing Blasters at Industrial Painting Projects; 

Proceedings of the 1993 Steel Structures Painting Conference in New 

Orleans, LA. 

▪ Review of the New OSHA Lead in Construction Standard; Published in 

the June, 1993 edition of Pb Bulletin of the Steel Structures Painting 

Council. 

 
Resume of John V. Cignatta, Ph.D., PE Page 6 

▪ Protecting the Environment and Workers at Industrial Lead Paint Project; 

Presented at the 1993 SSPC Lead Paint Removal Conference in 

Cincinnati, OH. 

▪ Removal of Lead Paint from the Legs of the Conowingo Water Tank 

While Protecting the Environment and Construction Workers; Published 

In De-Leading Magazine in June, 1993. 

▪ Technical and Regulatory Problems with Bridge Coating Projects in the 

90's; Presented at the 1990 SSPC Lead Paint Removal Conference 

Nashville, TN 

▪ Use of Mini-Enclosures for Protecting the Environment and Construction 

Workers at Industrial Painting Projects; Presented at the 1992 SSPC 

National Conference, Nashville, TN 

▪ Problems in Painting Water Treatment and Storage Facilities; Presented 

at the 1991 SSPC Lead Paint Removal Conference, Charlotte, NC 

▪ Protecting the Environment and Construction Workers at the Old Mill 

Tank Painting Project; Presented at the 1991 SSPC Lead Paint Removal 

Conference, Long Beach, CA 

▪ Removing Lead Paint; American Water Works Association Journal, Vol. 

83, No. 11, November 1991; Coauthor. 

 

▪ Mini-Enclosure Demonstration Project at the Amberly Water Tank; 

Presented at the 1990 SSPC National Conference, 1990. 

*

 Kennedy-Western University is a distance learning, on-line University begun in 1984, 

and licensed by the State of Wyoming under Statutes W.S. 21-2-401 to 407. The 

Wyoming State Department of Education reviews the university’s standards, programs, 

policies; verifies faculty credentials, evidence of financial stability, and maintenance of a 

$100,000.00 state required bond. Kennedy-Western University has declined to seek 

accreditation, to avoid any limitations on the range of its well established degrees and 

class offerings over two decades later. 

 
G-3 

G.2 CHARGE AND FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS 

To ensure consistent input from each of the experts, IEc provided written charge questions, and a blank, 

formatted spreadsheet to complete as a final product. Exhibits G-2 and G-3 provide the initial materials. 

In response to uncertainties in initial responses, IEc also developed a set of standard follow-up questions 

that was distributed to each expert. Exhibit G-4 provides these questions. Responses from the experts 

are provided in Appendix H.1

 

Note that in addition to the standard questions, IEc had a follow-up call with each expert to consider any 

areas of significant internal discrepancy and any areas where initial responses were not clear. The unique 

clarifications from each of these calls are incorporated into the exhibits in Appendix H. 

EXHIBIT G-2: CHARGE FOR EXPERTS 

CHARGE FOR EXPERTS FOR OUST RULEMAKING 

INTRODUCTION 

Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) is assisting EPA’s Office of Underground Storage Tanks’ (OUST) effort to 

evaluate the benefits of several regulatory revisions that are currently under consideration. The revisions are being 

undertaken in two parallel efforts: 

1) EPA is considering implementing certain UST provisions outlined under Subtitle B of Title XV of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 – specifically related to operator training requirements and additional 

secondary containment requirements – in Indian Country and in states that do not have State Program 

Approval (SPA); and 

2) EPA is also considering targeted changes to the existing UST regulations at 40 CFR 280 to address 

release prevention, release detection, deferrals, and other items. 

EPA is evaluating the benefits and costs associated with each proposed regulatory requirement and with the full set 

of proposed changes. The purpose of this charge is to obtain independent professional assessments of the potential 

impact of the proposed changes on the incidence and severity of releases from USTs. 

PROFILE OF CURRENT UST RELEASES 

According to the Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST)’s 2008 End of Year Activity Report, 7,364 

confirmed releases were identified in 2008 in the U.S. and U.S. territories [7,168 releases in FY2009]. Data from 

23 states indicate that releases from UST systems range in number and potential severity depending on what part of 

the system they come from. Releases from piping and dispenser pans appear to be the most frequent.2 The table 

below summarizes the distribution of releases by source, extent, and soil/water impact, according to the data 

(which are based on releases discovered between September 1999 and February 2003). 

 

1

 IEc contacted three experts during Fall 2009. EPA instructed IEc to contact two more experts during Summer 2010. 

2 The data include 580 reported releases from CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV, AL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN, AR, LA, NM, OK, and MO. 

 
G-4 

DISTRIBUTION OF UST RELEASES 

LOCAL EXTENT LARGE EXTENT 

SOURCE SOIL WATER SOIL WATER TOTAL 

Piping 12.6% 6.8% 1.4% 10.2% 31.0% 

Dispenser 22.9% 3.1% 1.7% 4.3% 32.0% 

Tank 4.9% 2.8% 2.8% 5.5% 16.0% 

STP Area 2.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.8% 4.0% 

Delivery Problems 9.5% 2.7% 0.3% 3.6% 16.0% 

Total 51.9% 16.7% 6.2% 24.3% 99.0%1 

Note: 

1. One percent of releases came from other sources, for which data on extent and soil/water 

impact were not available. 

INFORMATION REQUEST 

Because the proposed regulatory changes address both release prevention and release detection, we are seeking 

your estimates of the national-level impacts of the proposed regulatory requirements on both the incidence and 

severity of confirmed UST releases. In addition, we are interested in how sensitive the expected impacts of each 

requirement are to the regulatory specifications and if any interaction effects might exist between any of the 

proposed requirements. Specifically, we would like you to provide your best estimates of the following: 

• The number (or percentage) of annual confirmed releases that would be avoided by each regulatory 

change under consideration; 

• The change in the severity of an average release that would result from each regulatory change (this could 

be expressed as a change in the average release size, a change in the average spill duration, or a change in 

the percentage of releases that reach groundwater); 

• The sensitivity of your estimates to the specific components of each regulatory change (i.e., how much 

impacts would change if the frequency of inspection requirements changes); 

• Any interactions between proposed requirements, such as whether any requirements are redundant with 

each other or whether the efficacy of a requirement depends on the presence of another requirement; and 

• The change in the incidence and severity of releases resulting from the full set of proposed requirements 

when considered together. This “total” estimate would account for any interactions and redundancies 

noted for individual regulatory changes. 

Finally, for Operator Training and Secondary Containment (under the Energy Policy Act-Related Requirements 

section), we would also like your estimate of the impact of the regulations specifically on the approximately 2,600 

tanks on Tribal Lands. 

 
G-5 

 

The table in the attached spreadsheet lists the proposed regulatory requirements and provides space for you to 

address the questions posed above. We anticipate that the majority of the information you provide will be included 

in this spreadsheet, but we invite you also to provide observations in other formats. For this effort, we ask that you 

focus your thinking on the specific regulatory changes identified. 

Note that your estimate of the impact of these regulatory changes should reflect your institutional knowledge of 

current practice by industry and current state regulation. For example, if half of all tanks in the U.S. already 

comply with a requirement, then your estimate of the impact of that regulatory change should reflect the 

assumption that minimal change would occur at these facilities. It is not necessary that you explain each of these 

assumptions, but please contact us to discuss any cases in which you do NOT have information about baseline 

practices. We will work with you to ensure that we can correctly interpret and adjust your values as appropriate. 

Note also that we expect your estimates to reflect your existing institutional knowledge and information that is 

readily available to you; we do not anticipate that your response to this charge will require significant field or 

primary research. Also, while you may contact colleagues for specific information, in general we have framed 

this charge as an independent expert opinion and not a collaborative effort. Finally, please contact IEc staff 

(Cynthia Manson, 617, 354-0074, cjm@indecon.com, or Luiz Freitas, 617-354-0074, lfreitas@indecon.com) if 

you have questions at any time during this process.

 
G-6 

EXHIBIT G-3 TABLE FOR EXPERT RESPONSES 

 Incidence 

Measure 

Severity Measures 

(choose at least one) 

Column

Regulatory Feature 

[A] 

Proposed Requirement 

[B] 

Percent Reduction in Annual 

Releases (or number of releases 

avoided) 

[C] 

Reduction In The Percentage Of 

Releases That Reach 

Groundwater 

[D] 

Percent Reduction In The 

Average Quantity Released 

[E] 

Percent Reduction In The 

Average Duration Of Releases 

[F] 

Sensitivity Question: Would 

results differ if the following 

change were made? 

[G] 

Sensitivity Answer 

[H] 

Release 

Prevention 

Walkthrough inspections 

Monthly Inspections with the following minimum components: • Spill buckets – open and visually check for any damage; remove any liquid or debris; and check each fill cap to make sure it is securely on the fill pipe • Sumps – open and visually check for any damage; releases to the containment area or to the environment; and remove any liquid or debris • Dispenser cabinets – open and visually check for any damage; releases to the containment area or to the environment; and remove any liquid or debris • Monitoring/Observation Wells – check covers to make sure they are secured • Impressed Current Rectifiers – check to make sure system is on and operating; and • Release Detection Systems – functional check (make sure system is on and operating) 

Change frequency to once every six months or annual 

 Overfill 

functionality testing 

Once every year: Require testing to ensure that the overfill equipment is in accordance with manufacturer’s requirements 

 Change frequency to two 

years? three years? 

 Spill bucket 

tightness testing 

Once every year: Require testing such that spill bucket equipment is in accordance with 

 Change frequency to two 

years? three years? 

 
G-7 

 Incidence 

Measure 

Severity Measures 

(choose at least one) 

Column

Regulatory Feature 

[A] 

Proposed Requirement 

[B] 

Percent Reduction in Annual 

Releases (or number of releases 

avoided) 

[C] 

Reduction In The Percentage Of 

Releases That Reach 

Groundwater 

[D] 

Percent Reduction In The 

Average Quantity Released 

[E] 

Percent Reduction In The 

Average Duration Of Releases 

[F] 

Sensitivity Question: Would 

results differ if the following 

change were made? 

[G] 

Sensitivity Answer 

[H] 

manufacturer’s requirements 

 Integrity 

testing for interstitial areas 

Once every year: Require integrity testing of interstitial areas using vacuum, pressure or liquid testing in accordance with manufacturer’s requirements 

 Change frequency to two 

years? three years? 

 Repairs • Require spill 

bucket tightness testing after repair to spill bucket 

consider 

number of 

repairs 

needed 

 • Require 

overfill functionality testing after repair to overfill 

consider 

number of 

repairs 

needed 

 • Require 

interstitial integrity testing after repair to primary or secondary containment 

consider 

number of 

repairs 

needed 

 Overfill 

Protection 

• Eliminate flow restrictors 

 
G-8 

 Incidence 

Measure 

Severity Measures 

(choose at least one) 

Column

Regulatory Feature 

[A] 

Proposed Requirement 

[B] 

Percent Reduction in Annual 

Releases (or number of releases 

avoided) 

[C] 

Reduction In The Percentage Of 

Releases That Reach 

Groundwater 

[D] 

Percent Reduction In The 

Average Quantity Released 

[E] 

Percent Reduction In The 

Average Duration Of Releases 

[F] 

Sensitivity Question: Would 

results differ if the following 

change were made? 

[G] 

Sensitivity Answer 

[H] 

as an option for overfill protection for new tanks 

 • Require 

replacement of existing flow restrictors based on new restrictions associated with unsafe operating conditions (e.g., pressurized deliveries) 

Release 

Detection 

Operational testing 

Require annual line leak detector operational test and annual test of electronic components associated with each of the following: • ATG • Interstitial Monitoring • Vapor Monitoring • Groundwater Monitoring 

 Change frequency to two 

years? three years? 

 Add SIR and 

CITLDS usage 

Require SIR and CITLDS users to submit quantitative results only (with leak rate) and to submit the results within 30 days 

 
G-9 

 Incidence 

Measure 

Severity Measures 

(choose at least one) 

Column

Regulatory Feature 

[A] 

Proposed Requirement 

[B] 

Percent Reduction in Annual 

Releases (or number of releases 

avoided) 

[C] 

Reduction In The Percentage Of 

Releases That Reach 

Groundwater 

[D] 

Percent Reduction In The 

Average Quantity Released 

[E] 

Percent Reduction In The 

Average Duration Of Releases 

[F] 

Sensitivity Question: Would 

results differ if the following 

change were made? 

[G] 

Sensitivity Answer 

[H] 

 Detection 

Probabilities 

Adjust probability of detection/probability of false alarm on release detection to

99/1 for the following systems: • ATG 

 Adjust 

probability to 97/3 

 • Automatic 

Line Leak Detectors 

 • SIR  • CITLDS 

Other Deferrals Remove release detection 

deferral for emergency generator USTs, assuming they would now be required to meet existing regulations (note: estimate of roughly 20,000 tanks nationally) 

 Remove 40 CFR 280 deferrals (all subparts) from airport 

hydrant refueling systems, assuming they would now be required to meet existing regulations with modified leak detection requirements (note: estimate of roughly 200 systems subject to requirement) 

 Remove 40 CFR 280 deferrals (all subparts) from fieldconstructed tanks, assuming they would now be required 

to meet existing regulations with modified leak detection requirements 

 
G-10 

 Incidence 

Measure 

Severity Measures 

(choose at least one) 

Column

Regulatory Feature 

[A] 

Proposed Requirement 

[B] 

Percent Reduction in Annual 

Releases (or number of releases 

avoided) 

[C] 

Reduction In The Percentage Of 

Releases That Reach 

Groundwater 

[D] 

Percent Reduction In The 

Average Quantity Released 

[E] 

Percent Reduction In The 

Average Duration Of Releases 

[F] 

Sensitivity Question: Would 

results differ if the following 

change were made? 

[G] 

Sensitivity Answer 

[H] 

(note: estimate of roughly 240 systems subject to requirement) 

 Notification of 

ownership change 

Require notification to implementing agency by owner/operator of ownership change 

 Replacement 

of lined tanks that cannot be repaired according to a code of practice 

Require replacement of lined tanks that cannot be repaired according to a code of practice 

 Response to 

interstitial monitoring alarms 

Require interstitial integrity testing in response to an interstitial monitoring alarm 

Energy Policy 

Act-Related 

Requirements 

Operator Training 

Institute Operator Training as Follows: • One-time training for "Class A" operator (technical and regulatory) or opt-out test within 30 days of assuming duties • One-time training for "Class B" operator (technical) or opt-out test within 30 days of assuming duties. • One-time training for "Class C" operator (limited technical) prior to assuming duties. • Repeat training for facilities with significant non-compliance, within 30 days of documented non-compliance. 

If only Tribal Lands are considered, how much would reduction in percentage of incidents differ (if at all)? 

 
G-11 

 Incidence 

Measure 

Severity Measures 

(choose at least one) 

Column

Regulatory Feature 

[A] 

Proposed Requirement 

[B] 

Percent Reduction in Annual 

Releases (or number of releases 

avoided) 

[C] 

Reduction In The Percentage Of 

Releases That Reach 

Groundwater 

[D] 

Percent Reduction In The 

Average Quantity Released 

[E] 

Percent Reduction In The 

Average Duration Of Releases 

[F] 

Sensitivity Question: Would 

results differ if the following 

change were made? 

[G] 

Sensitivity Answer 

[H] 

 Secondary 

Containment 

Install secondary containment on piping upon replacement. Replacement defined as: Removal of 50 percent or more of piping, excluding connectors, connected to a single underground tank. For underground storage tanks with multiple piping runs, the replace definition applies independently to each piping run. 

Adjust replacement threshold to 2Also, if only Tribal Lands are conmuch would the reduction in percincidents differ (if at all)? 

 Require 

secondary containment on all new tanks and piping 

 Require underdispenser 

containment on all new dispenser systems 

TOTAL IMPACTS OF ALL REQUIREMENTS TOGETHER (considering any overlaps/interactions you have identified in column [I]):

 
G-12 

EXHIBIT G-4 FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS FOR EXPERTS 

• What universe of releases do you consider when estimating benefits? Our analysis considers only the 

7,168 releases confirmed by OUST in its FY 2009 annual report. 

 

• Regarding ball floats: 

a. Does your answer reflect an understanding that OUST is not requiring complete replacement 

of all existing ball floats? The rulemaking under consideration would only replace existing 

ball floats that do not meet certain restrictions associated with unsafe operating conditions; 

for example, pressurized deliveries. 

b. Do your reduction estimates regarding ball floats apply only to equipment that has ball floats, 

or will the regulation affect all releases, regardless of equipment? 

 

• Can you explain how functionality testing for ATG, interstitial monitoring, vapor monitoring, and 

groundwater monitoring would prevent releases instead of only reducing release severity? 

 

• Can you explain how the adjustment of detection probabilities for ATG, automatic line leak detectors, 

SIR, and CITLDS would prevent releases instead of only reducing release severity? 

• Did you assume an annual line leak detector operational test as part of operational testing for ATG, 

automatic line leak detectors, SIR, and CITLDS? If not, how would you revise your answer? 

• When considering the effects of release bucket tightness testing, do you assume that 50 percent to 75 

percent of spill buckets are replaced? If not, what would you revise the effect of the regulation to be under 

such a scenario? 

• For the following regulations, please numerically estimate their effectiveness in terms of percentage 

frequency reductions and reduced groundwater releases under the following scenarios. If you have already 

provided these answers as part of your sensitivity responses, you can simply refer us to your spreadsheet. 

If you would like to revise your response, please do so below. 

 

a. Walkthrough inspections 

• Quarterly: 

• Every other month; 

• Six months 

b. Overfill functionality testing 

• Two years 

• Three years 

c. Spill bucket tightness testing 

• Two years 

• Three years 

d. Integrity testing for interstitial areas 

• Two years 

• Three years 

• Five Years 

e. Functionality testing 

• Two years 

• Three years 

f. Interstitial Monitoring 

• Two years 

• Three years 

 
G-13 

g. Groundwater Monitoring 

• Two years 

• Three years 

h. Vapor Monitoring 

• Two years 

• Three years 

 

• We understand that frequency should not be affected with the addition of SIR and CITLDS requirements 

unless interstitial monitoring is also in place. Do you assume this is the case? 

 

• How would you revise your overall estimates if changes in Pd/Pfa were removed from the rulemaking? 

• Some changes to regulations may take several years to achieve their full effects because they affect only 

new units or units that are replaced. For the changes below, please estimate (1) effectiveness at the end of 

the first year and (2) effectiveness when the change achieves full effect. 

a. Eliminate flow restrictors as an option for overfill protection for new tanks 

b. Require replacement of lined tanks that cannot be repaired according to a code of practice 

c. Require secondary containment on all new tanks and piping on tribal lands 

d. Install secondary containment on piping upon replacement. Replacement defined as removal 

of 50 percent or more of piping, excluding connectors, connected to a single underground 

tank. For underground storage tanks with multiple piping runs, the replace definition applies 

independently to each piping run 

e. Require under-dispenser containment on all new dispenser systems 

G.3 EXCLUSION OF RESPONSES FROM ONE EXPERT 

While EPA obtained input from five experts in assessing the impacts of the proposed rulemaking, we 

chose to exclude the responses of one expert, for the following reasons: 

• Inconsistent internal logic: IEc requested from each respondent an estimate of the total effects of 

the proposed rule in addition to estimates of the effects of individual parts to the proposed rule. 

The analysis then compared the effects of simultaneously applying all individual regulations with 

the separate estimate of the overall effect of the proposed rule. This was performed to verify the 

experts’ logic and identify areas of overlap or synergy among the regulatory requirements. The 

results provided by this expert, when applying his unit changes to the universe of confirmed 

releases (see bullet below on universe inconsistencies) indicated an avoided cost of roughly $132 

million when considering rule elements separately. However, his cumulative estimate of impacts 

led to an estimate of over $517 million; representing a difference of over $350 million, and a 

factor of three. Moreover, subsequent discussions with the expert about the source of this 

discrepancy did not resolve it (the expert felt that cumulative impacts should reflect significant 

overlap in individual estimates, suggesting that he believed that they should be lower). However, 

he agreed with IEc’s method and example calculations for interpreting his results.3

 We have 

identified some of the factors that may contribute to this discrepancy. For example, the expert 

 3

 Note that while his individual estimate of impacts is lower than others provided by other experts, his cumulative estimate, which he felt was 

stronger, is mid-range when applied to the current universe of confirmed releases. Overall, if his results were incorporated as proportionate to 

confirmed releases, the impact on the estimated cost savings of the rule would still exceed the estimated costs. However, he felt strongly that it 

is not valid to apply his results to the universe of confirmed releases, and this effort would require making a number of other adjustments that 

would limit which specific regulations could be compared. 

 
G-14 

believes that high-quality operator training is a necessary condition for effective regulations, and it 

is possible that this effect is captured in his statement of total effect, but is not one of the 

regulatory requirements measured, except in Indian country. However, it is not clear how to 

correct for this. 

• Alternate universe of releases: The expert estimates that over half of all releases are not 

included in the confirmed releases reported by states, and was unwilling to state that his estimated 

reductions in releases could be scaled to the universe of confirmed releases specified in the charge, 

due to the complexity of the relationship between release and reporting. Specifically, he believes 

confirmed release figures reported by OUST fail to reflect releases that are detected, but are too 

small to report; and releases that go undetected. Further, he believes that some releases that are 

counted as single releases are, in fact, the product of multiple smaller releases. Because of this 

structure of release universe, a relatively small proportional reduction in total releases can lead to a 

relatively large number of avoided releases relative to the universe of confirmed releases. The 

expert was not able to estimate the total number of undetected releases or translate the avoidance 

of undetected or unconfirmed releases into avoidance of confirmed releases. Different options for 

scaling the results were proposed, but he was clear that linear scaling would not be accurate, and 

could not propose an alternative scaling method. As a result, OUST is unable to adjust the 

percentage reductions reported by the expert to apply them to the reported universe of confirmed 

releases, which is smaller than the universe the expert is basing his responses on. Without any 

adjustment, his estimates are likely to significantly understate and misrepresent the effect of the 

proposed rule. 

• Specificity of regulatory requirements: The expert specified a number of conditions under 

which his answers would be difficult to apply, and expressed clear recommendations about 

specific requirements that should be included in the regulations. The current regulatory language 

lacks the specificity he recommended on several issues, and he noted that his answers were 

therefore uncertain, though he also noted that in some cases he incorporated conditions into his 

responses. One example is his emphasis on the differential benefits between facultative versus 

finite tests or checks. Facultative tests and checks determine whether equipment operates within 

manufacturer specifications, while finite tests and checks determine whether equipment will 

operate under any circumstances. The proposed rule does not always require facultative tests or 

checks; for example, owners and operators need only ensure that systems are on and operating as 

part of their walkthrough inspections. The expert stated that a system can be operational but not 

effective at alerting owners and about releases, and noted that whole-system testing—in which all 

components of a system are tested at once—is required to ascertain that an UST system’s release 

detection systems are fully operational; that is, testing individual components is not sufficient. His 

argument further extends to operator training, where he argued that training must be recurring, 

hands-on, and performed in a classroom setting to be truly effective. His estimates included 

assumptions incorporating these conditions, which differ from the specific regulatory wording. He 

was not able to give an alternative estimate eliminating these conditions. 

Finally, the expert expressed input on specific regulatory changes that would be effective, and suggested 

specific changes that would have a material impact on his estimates. While this type of input is extremely 

valuable in a stakeholder process and will be provided to OUST in that context, it complicated IEc’s 

ability to ensure that his results were best estimates. Ultimately, because it was not possible to reconcile 

 
G-15 

these inconsistencies without making unfounded assumptions about the universe of releases and the 

definitions provided by the expert, IEc recommended that OUST exclude these responses from the 

quantitative assessment of avoided costs. EPA does preserve his insights to inform qualitative analyses. 

 
Appendix H 

Expert Consultation: Responses 
H-1 

Purpose

This appendix summarizes the responses EPA received to questions outlined in Appendix G: the 

questions and responses are presented below in Exhibits H-1 (initial responses) and H-2

(follow-up responses). 

Note that not all experts responded to all of the questions comprised by the follow-up request. 

The two-phase approach involved three initial experts, and follow-up questions were developed 

and standardized for those responses. However, in some cases expert responses did not require 

clarification and therefore only a subset of questions was relevant. The two additional experts 

received identical lists of clarification questions that matched the questions posed to the first 

three experts. 

As a consequence, although we present in this appendix the same template of questions for all 

experts, Experts 1, 2, and 3 have “blank” responses for questions that were not relevant to their 

initial response. We did, however, verify our methods and interpretation of responses with all 

experts, and therefore believe that responses to the unanswered questions would not materially 

affect results. 

This appendix also includes Exhibit H-3, which provides a summary of the adjustments made to 

expert responses to apply reductions in releases to relevant portions of the UST universe. 

A few cells in Exhibits H-1, H-2, and H-3 are highlighted. This highlighting reflects coding by 

experts, and in a few cases, by IEc, for the purpose of interpreting follow-up responses and does 

not have any significance in calculations. 

 
Appendix H-1 

Initial Responses 

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Walkthroughinspections

B)Monthly Inspections with the following minimum

components:• Spill buckets – open and visually check for any

damage; remove any liquid or debris; and check each

fill cap to make sure it is securely on the fill pipe

• Sumps – open and visually check for any damage;

releases to the containment area or to the

environment; and remove any liquid or debris• Dispenser cabinets – open and visually check for

any damage; releases to the containment area or to

the environment; and remove any liquid or debris

• Monitoring/Observation Wells – check covers to

make sure they are secured

• Impressed Current Rectifiers – check to make sure

system is on and operating; and• Release Detection Systems – functional check

(make sure system is on and operating)

C)15%

D)Asmuch as

50% for

releasescomingfrom the

inspectedareas

E) F)As much

as 50% for

releases

coming from

theinspectedareas.

G)Changefrequency to

six month or

annual?

H

o

y

n

r

p

y

oje

t

or

Answers

 
I)Interaction ‐ is this requirement dependent on or

redundant to other requirements?

The effectiveness of this requirement is dependent on operator knowledge (training) as well as a robust state compliance inspection program that can validate the operator's actions and the results. 

J)Comments

Initally, monthly inspections will result in a spike in release discovery and reporting...then a commensurate reduction in releases. The largest dividends will be from spill containment inspections and inspections under dispensers and containment sumps. Reductions in releases from these specific areas could be as high as 40% with a simular reduction in severity and duration. Spill containment basin (spill bucket) failures have been the largest single compliance violation as well as the largest source of suspected releases in South Carolina for many years. Although this will be a continuing problem because of design flaws and limited operational life on this equipment; monthly inspections should enhance early detection and reduced severity of releases from this area. Monthly under dispenser containment and STP sump inspections should also yield significant improvements in release rates and release severity. Inspection results from over 25,000 inspections over 12 years showed 1 in 10 dispensers leaked or were leaking during annual inspections....under dispensers without containment, that was a release. Normal operating practices typically did not open the dispenser cabinet unless routine maintenance (filter change) or repairs were needed. Inspection results during the same time frame showed STP containment sumps contained liquids about 20% of the time. At STP areas without sumps and at sumps that were not monitored regularly, releases occurred. These releases tended to be severe and most often went to groundwater. 

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)Proposed

Requirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf ReleasesThat ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

Answers

 
A)Overfill

functionalitytesting

B)Once every year:Require testing to ensure that

the overfill equipment is in

accordance withmanufacturer’s requirements

C)15%

D)30% of

releasesattributed to

deliveries

E)50% decrease

in impacts to

ground

water from

overfillreleases

F)50% or more

reduction in

quantity ...since

these devices are

supposed to

activate at a

percentage of tank

capacity, if they areset properly and

function, thedelivery drivershould have timeto stop the deliverybefore a largerelease occurs

G) 

 
Interaction ‐ is this requirement dependent on or

redundant to other requirements?The effectiveness of this requirement is dependent

on operator knowledge (training) as well as a

robust state compliance inspection program that

can validate the operator's actions and the results.

Comments:Initally, monthly inspections will result in a spike in release

discovery and reporting...then a commensurate reduction in releases.

The largest dividends will be from spill containment inspections and

inspections under dispensers and containment sumps. Reductions in

releases from these specific areas could be as high as 40% with a simular

reduction in severity and duration. Spill containment basin (spill bucket)

failures have been the largest single compliance violation as well as the

largest source of suspected releases in South Carolina for many years.

Although this will be a continuing problem because of design flaws and

limited operational life on this equipment; monthly inspections should

enhance early detection and reduced severity of releases from this area.

Monthly under dispenser containment and STP sump inspections shouldalso yield significant improvements in release rates and release severity.

Inspection results from over 25,000 inspections over 12 years showed 1 in

10 dispensers leaked or were leaking during annual inspections....under

dispensers without containment, that was a release. Normal operating

practices typically did not open the dispenser cabinet unless routinemaintenance (filter change) or repairs were needed. Inspection results

during the same time frame showed STP containment sumps containedliquids about 20% of the time. At STP areas without sumps and at sumps

that were not monitored regularly, releases occurred. These releases

tended to be severe and most often went to groundwater.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Spill bucket

tightnesstesting

B)Once every year:

Require testing such that spill

bucket equipment is in accordancewith manufacturer’s requirements

C)40% of

releases from

testedcomponents

D) E) F)50% G)Change

frequency totwo years?

three years?

 
Interaction ‐ is this requirement dependent on or

redundant to other requirements?

Comments: First, second and to some extent third generation spill

containment basins have a limited system life (5 to 7 years), design changes

on newer systems (especially those that are secondarily contained) will help

alleviate releases from this component and extend system life...routine

testing will help identify failed systems and prevent releases. Also, many of

these systems use a grommet or skirt for containment and an accordion

folded side to accommodate height adjustments. These components defy

accurate visual assessment. Testing is the only way to fully verify function.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A) Integrity

testing forinterstitialareas

B)Once every year:Require integrity testing of

interstitial areas using vacuum,pressure or liquid testing inaccordance with manufacturer’s

requirements

C) 50% of

releases from

tested

components.

D) 50%reduction in

impacts togroundwater from

releasesfrom the

testedcomponents

E) F) G) Change

frequency to

two years?

three years?

H) 

tw

sti

co

ha

reRe

coth

th

 
Interaction ‐ is this requirement dependent on or

redundant to other requirements?

Comments:Some secondary containment features (STP sumps and dispensercontainment basins) lend themselves to visual inspections; however, visualinspections are not sufficient to verify integrity of the seals and boots

around penetrations...and often, view of the interior bottom of the

structure is hindered by equipment. Additionally, secondary containment is

not currently routinely tested on tanks and piping in most states

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A) Repairs B)

• Require spill bucket tightness

testing after repair to spill bucket

• Require overfill functionalitytesting after repair to overfill

• Require interstitial integrity

testing after repair to primary orsecondary containment

C) 10% of releases

from repaired spill

buckets5% of releases

from repaired/replaced overfill

devices<2% reduction

because testingfollowing repair to

piping or tanks isalready part of the

recognizedstandard practice

D)

E) F) 50% reduction

in duration ofreleases from

repaired spillbuckets

10% reduction in

duration ofreleases from

repaired/replace

overfill devices5% reduction

G) H)

 
Interaction ‐ is this requirement dependent on or redundant to other requirements?

Somewhat redundant with monthly inspections and with annual testing requirements.

Typical "repair" for these devices is replacement. Over 90% of replacements are correctly

installed.Somewhat redundant with monthly inspections and annual testing requirements. Like

spill buckets, typical "repair" is replacment. Over 95% of replacements are correctly

installed.Making this a regulatory requirement will reinforce standard practice in this area.

Industry standards and recommended practice call for these repairs to be tested before

system is returned to service.

Comments:

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A) Repairs B)

•Require spill buckettightness testing after repair

to spill bucket

• Require overfill

functionality testing afterrepair to overfill• Require interstitialintegrity testing after repair

to primary or secondarycontainment

C)10% of releases from

repaired spill buckets

5% of releases fromrepaired /replacedoverfill devices

<2% reduction

because testingfollowing repair to

piping or tanks isalready part of the

recognized standardpractice

D) E) F) 5% reduction G) H)

 
Interaction ‐ is this requirement dependent on or redundant to other requirements?

Making this a regulatory requirement will reinforce standard practice in this area.

Industry standards and recommended practice call for these repairs to be tested before

system is returned to service.

Comments:

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A) Overfill

Protection

B)• Eliminate flow restrictors

as an option for overfill

protection for new tanks

• Require replacement of

existing flow restrictors

based on new restrictions

associated with unsafeoperating conditions (e.g.,

pressurized deliveries)

C)5% of releases

associated withdeliveries

D)<5%

E) F) G) H)

 
Interaction ‐ is this requirement dependent on or redundant to other requirements?

Dependent on operator training and operator maintenance and operations

practice/inspections

Comments:Number of facilities that receivepressurized deliveries is very smalland typically the tanks systems are

also small (less than 2000 gallons).Other systems (suction or gravitypiping) that are incompatible with

flow restricting overfill devices are

more likely to have an overfill

resulting in a release belowground...or a history of multipleoverfills that resulted in ground water

contamination. As in all overfill

cases, the major culprit is not the

equipment, but operator error (inoverfills, both the delivery truck

driver and the facility operator are to

blame).

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A) Operationaltesting

B)Require annual line

leak detector

operational test and

annual test of

electronic

componentsassociated with each

of the following:

• ATG• Interstitial

Monitoring• Vapor Monitoring

• Groundwater

Monitoring

C)<5% reduction in

releases but

significant reductionin severity of releasebecause theduration of the

release will be

shortened;reduction shouldapply only tointerstitialmonitoring. Others

should be zero.

D) 50%. This number

is a gut number...if theequipment is not

working, the releasewill not be discovered

or reported until majorimpacts show up on

site or on adjacent

property

E F) 50%.

This number

is a gutnumber...iftheequipmentis notworking, the

release will

not bediscoveredor reported

until major

impactsshow up onsite or on

adjacentproperty

G) Change

frequency to

two years?

three years?

H) 

freth

all

co

un

twyie

waof 

ye

 
Interaction ‐ is this requirement dependent on or redundant to other requirements? Comments:

Functional testing of operation is a

good measure at any frequency, but

the greatest value comes from theshortest time between testing,

especially as regards piping release

detection.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A) Add SIRand CITLDS

usage

B)Require SIR and

CITLDS users to

submit quantitative

results only (with

leak rate) and to

submit the results

within 30 days

C)<5%. Since these

methods look at

performance of a

system over time, it

is unlikely thatimprovements inapplication willresult in a significant

reduction in the

number of releases;

however, release

detection would bemore timely. See

input in G

D) E F) From

30% to

50"% in

states that

do not

currentlyrequirequantitativedata.

G) H)

 
Interaction ‐ is this requirement dependent on or redundant to other requirements?

Overall effectiveness of this requirement is dependent to a large extent on implementing

agency compliance monitoring efforts and records reviews on a routine basis.

Comments:This is already a requirement in many

states. The potential impact on

release reduction is hard to quantify.

However, requiring quantitative dataallows the regulating agency to more

effectively determine if the release

detection method is being conducted

properly and could in fact find a

release should one be ongoing. The30 day report requirement is also in

place in some states...this gives theowner/operator release detection

results in a more timely manner than

current practice in the majority of the

states. In theory, this will limit the

duration of releases that are

discovered with these release

detection methods. The anticipated

improvement also depends onoperators knowledgeable enouth torecognize release indications in theSIR reports, i.e. operator training.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A) DetectionProbabilities

B) Adjust probability of

detection/probability offalse alarm on release

detection to 99/1 for the

following systems:• ATG • Automatic Line

Leak Detectors • SIR •

CITLDS

C)5% of releases from single wall

tanks.5% of releases from pressurized

piping5% of releases from single wall

tanks. This is significant becausethe majority of facilities that use

this release detection method

represent the oldest UST systems

in place today and therefore those

most likely to fail due to fatigue or

other structural failure. 5% of

releases from monitored

systems...this becomes significant

because these monitoring systems

are typically the release detection

system of choice for highthroughput facilties. These

facilities have the potential for

really large releases in a short time

frame and the releases can be

masked by the noise of routine

operations.

D) 40% to50%

E) F) From 40%

to 50%As much as50%40% to 50%

40% to 50 %

G) Adjustprobability to 97/3

H) 

sta

thr

proSam

Sam

 
Interaction ‐ is this requirement dependent on or redundant to other requirements?

Effectiveness of this requirement is dependent on how well the equipment is

maintained (relates to annual function testing) and how well the equipment is

monitored (operator monthly inspections).

Dependent on operator training and operator maintenance and operations

practice/inspectionsDependent on operator training and operator maintenance and operations

practice/inspections.

Comments: Increasing the probability of det

likelihood of false alarms will likely lead to a

however, the higher probability of detection 

severity of releases...and ultimately lead to a 

releases because the leaking systems will be 

replaced.Increasing the probability of detection and d

alarms will likely lead to an increase in repor

higher probability of detection should decre

releases...and ultimately lead to a decrease i

because the leaking systems will be discoverIncreasing the probability of detection and d

alarms will likely lead to an increase in repor

higher probability of detection should decre

releases...and ultimately lead to a decrease i

because the leaking systems will be discover

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A) Deferrals

Notification of

ownership change

Replacement oflined tanks that

cannot be repaired

according to a

code of practice

Response to

interstitialmonitoring alarms

B) Remove release detection deferral for emergency

generator USTs, assuming they would now be

required to meet existing regulations

(note: estimate of roughly 20,000 tanks nationally)

Remove 40 CFR 280 deferrals (all subparts) from

airport hydrant refueling systems, assuming they

would now be required to meet existing regulations

with modified leak detection requirements

(note: estimate of roughly 200 systems subject to

requirement)Remove 40 CFR 280 deferrals (all subparts) from

field‐constructed tanks, assuming they would now be

required to meet existing regulations with modified

leak detection requirements

(note: estimate of roughly 240 systems subject to

requirement)Require notification to implementing agency by

owner/operator of ownership change

Require replacement of lined tanks that cannot be

repaired according to a code of practiceRequire interstitial integrity testing in response to an

interstitial monitoring alarm

C)5%10%NoknowledgeNone<5%<5%

D)

50% orbetter.<5%

E) F)

50%50% or better

G) H)

 
Interaction ‐ is this requirement dependent on or redundant to other requirements?

Note: have SPCC requirements resulted in significant 40 CFR 280 compliance? No

experience in this area.

Note: have SPCC requirements resulted in significant 40 CFR 280 compliance? No

experience in this area.

Comments: In my experience, roughly 50% o

systems in operation already employ release 

although implementing agencies typically do 

systems are in place and in use. Under the 2

replacement systems will be secondarily con

interstitial monitoring for release detection. 

records will be inspected at least once every Data and presentations before the National 

Evaluation between 1998 and 2007 implied t

and were continuing to leak with major impa

and piping systems associated with hydrant 

monthly, releases would be discovered (eve

detection requirements) and severity of rele

Initially, more releases are likely to be report

efforts continue, releases will decrease in bo

Lined tanks make up a small percentage of t

and lined tanks that cannot be repaired und

smaller subset of the total. I don't have an a

other areas of the country since my experien

population in South Carolina.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A) Operator

Training

B)

Institute Operator Training as Follows:

• One‐time training for "Class A" operator (technical

and regulatory) or opt‐out test within 30 days of

assuming duties• One‐time training for "Class B" operator (technical)

or opt‐out test within 30 days of assuming duties.

• One‐time training for "Class C" operator (limited

technical) prior to assuming duties.

• Repeat training for facilities with significant non‐

compliance, within 30 days of documented non‐

compliance.

C)20%

D) E) F)

40%

G)If only Tribal Lands

are considered, how

much wouldreduction inpercentage ofincidents differ (if atall)?

H) 

eff

in lea

ye

rumu

re

res

mo

dukn

 
Interaction ‐  

Assumes access to on‐line training as one option. **The effectiveness of this

requirement will depend to large extent on whether or not the implementing agency

follows up with a rigorous compliance inspection and monitoring program that

encourages trained operators to properly monitor and maintain the systems.

Comments:

I have a potential conflict of interest in this a

operators in the past (as a state regulator an

hope to continue to train operators from the 

states have already implemented similar req

2005 EPACT. In those states the impact of th

For states that did not or have not yet respo

2005 EPACT, the initial impact of this training 

increase in the number of reported releases

in the first two or three years after the traini

"break‐in" period, releases should decrease 

training levels due to increased understandin

monitoring practices. Implementing agency 

a key part of this effort.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)SecondaryContainment

B)

Require secondary containment on all new tanks and

pipingInstall secondary containment on piping upon

replacement. Replacement defined as:Removal of 50 percent or more of piping, excluding

connectors, connected to a single underground tank.

For underground storage tanks with multiple piping

runs, the replace definition applies independently to

each piping run.

Require under‐dispenser containment on all new

dispenser systems

C)50% ofreleases frompiping after

replacement10‐20%80% of

releases from

dispenserarea in those

states wheretherequirementdoes not

currently exist

D)

25%

E) F)

50%20%80%

G)Adjust replacementthreshold to 25

percentAlso, if only TribalLands are

considered, how

much would thereduction inpercentage ofincidents differ (if atall)?

H) 

rereg

20

fro

stareon 

re

 
Interaction –

This requirement is dependent on operator training in that operators have to "do the

right thing" and replace the piping when the threshhold is passed.

Comments:

Redundant in states that have already imple

the 2005 EPACT...therefore, no change in rel

states.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Walkthroughinspections

B) Monthly Inspections with the

following minimum components:• Spill buckets – open and visually

check for any damage; remove any

liquid or debris; and check each fill

cap to make sure it is securely on the

fill pipe

• Sumps – open and visually check

for any damage; releases to the

containment area or to the

environment; and remove any liquid

or debris

• Dispenser cabinets – open and

visually check for any damage;

releases to the containment area or

to the environment; and remove any

liquid or debris

• Monitoring/Observation Wells –check covers to make sure they are

secured

• Impressed Current Rectifiers –

check to make sure system is on and

operating; and

• Release Detection Systems –

functional check (make sure system

is on and operating)

C)Some of these

measures mightprevent releases

(e.g., checking

rectifiers), but most

would only shorten

theduration/quantity

of releases (e.g.,checking inside

dispensers). I'destimate a 1%

reduction innumber of releases.

D) E)

Assuming inspections

areconscientiouslydone (big

assumption if

the UST operator

is doing them)

then in the long

term thequantityreleased couldbe reduced by 70

to 80%. This isbased on my

belief that leaks

today goundetected forsubstantialperiods of time

F)Assuming inspections areconscientiously done (thisis a BIG assumption if the

UST operator is doing

them) then in the long

term the duration ofreleases could be reduced

by 70 to 80%. This is based

on my belief that leaks

today go undetected for

substantial periods of time.

G)Change frequency to 

six months or annua

 
Interaction ‐  

Most of these measures are redundant to industry recommended practices such as

PEI RP500 and PEI RP900. That said, only a very small percentage of facilities

currently implement these industry recommended practices. Having this in the rule

would encourage the use of industry practices, much the way that tank installation

practices have improved because the rules mention industry practices as guidancefor tank installation. In the interests of full disclosure, I was the consultant to the PEI

Committees that developed RP500 and RP900. I do NOT make ANY money on the

sale of these documents.

Comments: Overall, I think this measure ha

difficulty getting UST operators to pick up a 

I don't see how they are ever going to go cledispensers. If the rules go down this road, th

outsourcing of these tasks to third parties w

(the California designated operator approac

documents provide much more detail on wh

to inspections, how they should be done, an

suggest following the established practice in 

to defer to industry recommended practices 

installation and operation. I would suggest t

periodic inspection of specific components (

required and that procedures provided by m

industry practices such the PEI documents ca

inspection requirements. I highlighted the s

because the PEI RP900 Committee did not th

facility personnel getting into sumps on a mo

and because they are likely to leave lids loos

entry and false alarms.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)

Overfillfunctionalitytesting

B)

Once every year:

Require testing to ensure that

the overfill equipment is in

accordance with

manufacturer’s requirements

C)This might reduce spillsassociated with deliveries

by 5%. This percentage islow because I don't

believe that currentlyutilized overfill equipment

is very effective inpreventing overfills. This

has been revised

downward to 2% for

frequency and quantity.

D) E)

5%

F)Delivery spills generallyhave pretty short durationto begin with, so I don't see

any reduction in duration

G)Change frequency to 

three years?

 
Interaction ‐  

Redundant to industry recommended practices. See comment above. Requirement

fits nicely with the annual functionality check of leak detection devices.

Comments: Manufacturers have been relu

provide maintenance procedures for their eq

manufacturers for maintenance. Defer to in

RP900. Also, checking overfill equipment is operators should be doing. Rules should spe

by qualified technicians

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Spillbuckettightnesstesting

B)

Once every year:

Require testing such that spill

bucket equipment is in

accordance with

manufacturer’s requirements

C)25% of delivery releases.

If you can really get spill

buckets tested effectively,

this could be the one

measure in this list that

has the greatest bang for

the buck. Most recent

data from Florida (before

Marshall Mott‐Smith left)

was that about half ofnew releases were fromspill buckets. Spill buckets

routinely contain product

and a great many arecurrently or soon will be

leaking.

D) E)

20%. I'm assuming

that a lot of

spill bucketswill be repairedwith "duct

tape" orsimilarlyineffectivemeasures andthey will soonbe leaking

again. This

number could

be much higherif rules requiredreplacementbuckets to be

double walled.

F)20%. I'm assuming that alot of spill buckets will be

repaired with "duct tape"

or similarly ineffective

measures and they will

soon be leaking again. Thisnumber could be much

higher if rules requiredreplacement buckets rather

than allowing repairs and

to be really effective the

rules should require new

spill buckets to be double

walled with leak detection.

G)Change frequency to three years?

 
Interaction ‐  

Testing spill buckets is not yet an industry recommended practice, but it should be.

This would be consistent with annual functional tests of overfill and leak detection

equipment.

Comments: Manufacturers have been relu

provide maintenance or testing procedures f

rely on manufacturers for this. Work with th

development of acceptable methods for test

not something that UST owers or operators 

specify that this work must be done by quali

buckets is probably the one item that would 

lessening the quantity and duration of releas

repair of spill buckets or else we will see a prrepairs that are not likely to work. Require r

devices that have leak detection (and theref

and can be replaced without breaking concreOtherwise, we will just be setting the scene f

situation where spill buckets will inevitably fchanged in the last 10 years) No manufactur

warranties on single‐walled spill buckets, so confidence level with regard to longevity.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Integritytesting for

interstitialareas

B)

Once every year:

Require integrity testing of

interstitial areas using

vacuum, pressure or liquid

testing in accordance with

manufacturer’srequirements

C)80‐90% of releases

from secondarycontainmentsystems.

D) E)

80‐90% of releases

from secondary

containmentsystems

F) G)

Change frequency 

three years

 
Interaction ‐  

If secondary containment (2005 Energy Act) is to be successful, then the containment

must be tight not just at installation but for the long haul. Either the containment

should be continuously tested (think the fiberglass tank hydrostatic systems or the

California requirements) or periodic testing should be required. Systems that

monitor the integrity of both walls would not need periodic testing of integrity, but

the sensor systems would fall under the annual functionality test.

Comments: Do not rely on manufacturers t

Defer to industry recommended practices. Mdispenser sump installations will need work 

so a testing requirement might meet with re

necessary step. State of Maine has comprom

requiring that sumps must be tight up to a le

trigger the sump sensor. This level of tightne

pass because sensors trigger at a level that is 

penetration fittings. Problem is if sensors ar

Could deal with this by adding requirement t

pumping system if they detect a problem. B

ways to skin this cat, but testing of secondar

tank top and under dispenser sumps, is critic

performance of interstitial monitoring.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)

Repairs

B)

• Require spillbucket tightnesstesting after repair to

spill bucket• Require overfill

functionality testingafter repair to

overfill• Require interstitial

integrity testing after

repair to primary or

secondarycontainment

C)1% This is assuming that repairs are allowed. I do

not believe repairs will be very effective for very

long. I could put duct tape on a crack in a spill bucket

and pass a test today, but would likely fail a test next

week or next month.

1% Very few overfill devices will be repaired. Most

will be replaced.

5% of releases from secondary containment systems. This

number will vary considerable depending on whether we

are talking double‐walled tanks or tank top containment

sumps for piping. I believe there are few releases from

double‐walled tanks today. I believe there are lots of

releases from tank‐top sumps. Testing after repair is a good

quality control step, but it is periodic testing that will have

the most effect.

D)1%0%5%

E)1%

0%

5%

F) G) 

 
Interaction ‐  

This is consistent with testing after repairs in general.

This is consistent with testing after repairs in general.

Repairs of primary are already part of the federal rule.

Comments: In the current market, there ar

Most are replaced. But this is because it is m

who are replacing spill buckets. But if rules a

buckets tested, this will generate an immedi

market for spill bucket repair procedures. M

repairs and get everyone to upgrade to doub

replacements for the failed single‐walled onNot many overfill devices are repaired. Care

should be a part of every installation proced

replacement. That said, very few overfill dev

capable of being functionally tested. All that 

to see if everything appears to be in order. T

testing is desirable and rules should encoura

can be functionally tested.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)OverfillProtection

B)

• Eliminate flowrestrictors as anoption for overfill

protection for new

tanks• Requirereplacement ofexisting flowrestrictors based onnew restrictionsassociated withunsafe operating

conditions (e.g.,pressurizeddeliveries)

C)1% of delivery problems. If this is limited

to new tanks, it will take a long time for

the tank population to turn over, so it will

have little effect.

50% of delivery problems from non‐retail

tanks with ball floats

D) E)

90%. I believe most

delivery releasesthat involvesubstantialvolumes are

attributable to ball

float valves

F) G) 

 
Interaction ‐  

Restrictions on the use of ball floats have been around since before the federal rule

went into effect in 1988. The problem is few people know about restrictions because

few people read instructions or warnings and there has not been a lot of

enforcement by regulators of manufacturer requirements.

Comments: Need to be careful here becau

restrictors besides ball float valves. I'd say b

floats rather than the generic "flow restricto

only affect new ttanks, its impact would be s

the future. Also, I do not have a lot of faith i

devices.Requiring replacement would get a lot of att

raise awareness to the point where a signifc

replaced. In my opinion, this would be a goo

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Operationaltesting

B)Require annual line

leak detector

operational test andannual test of

electroniccomponentsassociated with each

of the following:• ATG• InterstitialMonitoring• Vapor Monitoring

• GroundwaterMonitoring

C)We're talking about increasingthe effectiveness of release

detection here, so the number

of releases will not be affected.

What should be affected is the

quantity and duration of

releases

D) E)

10%

F)10%

G)

Change frequency to two years?three years?

 
Interaction ‐  

This requirement would fit well with functional testing of overfill equipment.

Comments:Keep it generic. All leak detection equipmen

for proper function (even a gauge stick shou

correct length). Follow manufacturer's instr

else industry practice (RP900 again), but do 

that their equipment doesn't need functiona

help to improve ability of equipment to dete

unless we improve the response of people w

condition, this will only have limited effect.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A) Add SIR

and CITLDS

usage

B)Require SIR andCITLDS users to

submitquantitativeresults only (with

leak rate) and to

submit the results

within 30 days

C)2% of releases involving

these methods.

D) E)

2%

F)2%

G) 

 
Interaction ‐   Comments:

Most providers are already quantitative, so t

What really needs to happen is a revision of 

having all these providers pass the new prot

within 30 days is ridiculous. The general reg

the books is to find leaks in 30 days. If the S

receives the data to provide results, that cou

onset of a leak and when it is discovered (th

providers should have a maximum of 10 day

being generous. All SIR providers need to do 

that they don't all submit results at the end o

on the 15th, some on the 16th, some on the 

overwhelmed with work at the end of every 

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A) Detection

Probabilities

B)Adjust probability

ofdetection/probability of false alarmon releasedetection to 99/1for the following

systems:• ATG• Automatic Line

Leak Detectors• SIR

• CITLDS

C)0%0%0%0%

D) E)

0%0%0%0%

F) 0%

0%0%0%

G)

Adjust probability to 97/3

H)No effect

 
Interaction ‐   Comments:

The problem is NOT the Pd/Pfa. The ultimat

pay attention to alarms. But setting that asi

LEAK RATES are too lenient. If you want to t

performance standard for the device to a low

CITLDS can go to 0.1 gph for monthly leak de

2.0 gph. Manufacturers will scream, but we 

detection technology because that is the per

rules. If you want to improve performance, 

STANDARD in the rule! The change from a 9The change from 0.2 gph to 0.1 gph is 50%.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)

Deferrals

B)

Remove release detection deferral for

emergency generator USTs, assuming they

would now be required to meet existing

regulations(note: estimate of roughly 20,000 tanks

nationally)Remove 40 CFR 280 deferrals (all

subparts) from airport hydrant refueling

systems, assuming they would now be

required to meet existing regulations with

modified leak detection requirements

(note: estimate of roughly 200 systems

subject to requirement)Remove 40 CFR 280 deferrals (all

subparts) from field‐constructed tanks,

assuming they would now be required to

meet existing regulations with modified

leak detection requirements

(note: estimate of roughly 240 systems

subject to requirement)

C)Maybe 5% of leaks that are in

generator systemsThere are so few hydrant

systems in the population

that the overall change in

number of releases will be

negligible. The change involume could be substantial,

however, because releasesfrom hydrant systems can be

very largeThere are so few field‐

constructed tanks in the

population that the overall

change in number of releases

will be negligible. I suspect

many of these are military

tanks and likely already have

some form of leak detection

D) E)

15% for those

releasesthat are ingeneratorsystems

50% reduction

in thequantityreleasedfromhydrantsystems

(not allUSTs)

F)15% for those

releases that are in

generator systems.50% reduction in

the duration ofreleases fromhydrant systems(not all USTs)

G) 

 
Interaction ‐  

Note: have SPCC requirements resulted in significant 40 CFR 280 compliance? Don't

know.Note: have SPCC requirements resulted in significant 40 CFR 280 compliance? Don't

know.

Comments:

Leak detection on hydrant systems is now po

Performance standards would need to be sp

however.Leak detection for these systems is now pos

Performance standard should be specific to t

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)

Notification

ofownershipchange

B)

Require notification to implementing

agency by owner/operator ofownership change

C)0%

D) E)

0%

F)0%

G) 

 
Interaction ‐   Comments:

I don't see how this will affect leak rates. Ar

UST systems registered to the incorrect own

having the correct owner on file IS critical to 

system compliance, so this is an important m

implementation. Requirement would be mo

purchaser and the seller were required to no

that one party or the other would notify the 

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)

Replacement of

lined tanks that

cannot be

repairedaccording to a

code of practice

B)Require replacement of

lined tanks that cannot be

repaired according to acode of practice

C)5% among

the lined tank

population

D) E)

5%

F)5%

G) 

 
Interaction –

If the lining isn’t up to snuff and can't be repaired isn't this tank illegal under current

rules? Or is this question about is it OK to add CP because the lining is no longer

adequate? Question is not clear to me.

Comments:

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)

Response to

interstitialmonitoringalarms

B)

Require interstitial integrity

testing in response to an

interstitial monitoring alarm

C) 0% D) E)

0%

F)0%

G) 

 
Interaction ‐  

Assuming that only one wall of the double walled system has failed (which is the

usual case) then there has not yet been a release and the number of releases will not

be affected. That said, it is not appropriate to ignore interstitial alarms or change to

a different method of leak detection once the interstitial is full of product.

Investigating an interstitial alarm is definitely a good thing, but testing is not

necessarily the correct response. Remember that standard tightness testing is only

going to reliably find leaks of 2 gallons a day. Secondary containment can find leaks

much smaller than this. Just define liquid in the interstitial (other than hydrostatic

system) as a suspected release and go by the existing rule requirement to investigate.

Do not specify the method of investigation. Tightness testing may not be the best

response, since some leaks are small enough that the integrity test will pass even

though liquid keeps accumulating in the interstitial. In one case that I dealt with, a

gallon a day of product kept appearing in the intersitital space of a fiberglass tank.

The tank passed several tightness tests. The owner claimed that fuel had accidentally

been delivered into the interstitial and that it was slowly draining out of the FRP ribs

into the interstiital. The state claimed there was a leak. The issue was resolved by

placing a dye in the fuel in the tank and then checking for the appearance of the dye

in the fuel in the interstitial. The dye appeared in the fuel in the interstitial and

everyone then believed that the tank was leaking, but the leak rate was below the

detection level of the tightness tests.

Comments:

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)

OperatorTraining

B)Institute Operator Training

as Follows:• One‐time training for

"Class A" operator (technical

and regulatory) or opt‐out

test within 30 days ofassuming duties• One‐time training for

"Class B" operator

(technical) or opt‐out test

within 30 days of assuming

duties.• One‐time training for

"Class C" operator (limited

technical) prior to assuming

duties.• Repeat training for

facilities with significant

non‐compliance, within 30

days of documented non‐

compliance.

C) None of this is

going to reduce the

number of releases.

It might reduce the

quantity released

D) E)

5%

F)5%

G)If only Tribal Lands are considered, how much would

reduction in percentage of incidents differ (if at all)?

 
Interaction –

Assumes access to on‐line training as one option. This requirement interacts with all

other requirements. Without training, a great many UST operators will never learn

about everything that they are supposed to do (monthly inspections, annual function

tests, investigate alarms, etc.).

Comments:

You can lead an UST operator to training but 

attention. The fundamental issue with UST o

what they are supposed to do but (in the gre

motivation to do it. Training is not going to f

are going to do the experiment and try to tra

prove me wrong. Also, one‐time training is n

a great deal of information to learn, and stud

less of what is presented. Second, even wha

and become marginally useful. Ongoing trai

couple of years would have a better chance 

more important for Class A/B operators, ma

for multiple years, than Class C operators wh

NOTE: In the interests of full disclosure, I pr

operators and stand to benefit from a requir

ongoing rather than a one‐time thing.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)

SecondaryContainment

B)

Require secondary containment

on all new tanks and piping

Install secondary containmenton piping upon replacement.

Replacement defined as:Removal of 50 percent or more

of piping, excluding connectors,

connected to a single

underground tank. For

underground storage tanks withmultiple piping runs, the replace

definition applies independently

to each piping run.

Require under‐dispenser

containment on all new

dispenser systems

C) 1% or less initially, but the

cumulative effect over time of

transitioning the entire tank

population to secondary containment

will be significant (assuming the

secondary containment is installed

and maintained properly). We're

looking at 30 years or more for this to

happen (unless elevated ethanol

blends come into common use and

cause massive failures of existing

systems, in which case the turnover

would be quicker).

0%. There will be few instanceswhere this scenario applies.

D)Answer wouldvary greatlywithgeography (FLis verydifferent thanAZ). Too many

variables here

for me to offer

an estimate.

E)1% or lessinitially, but could

go to 80 or 90%

after several

decades(assuming proper

installation andmaintenance0%.1% of releasesinvolvingdispensersinitially, but this

will increase overtime.

F)

1% or lessinitially,but could

go to 80 or90% after

severaldecades(assumingproperinstallationandmaintenance).0%

1% of

releasesinvolvingdispensersinitially,but this will

increaseover time.

G)Adjustreplacementthreshold to 25

percentAlso, if only TribalLands are

considered, how

much would the

reduction in

percentage ofincidents differ (ifat all)?

H)Tri

tot

diff

 
Interaction:

Isn't this the general intent of the Energy Act?? Long term this could have a

significant impact if the secondary containment is properly installed and properly

maintained which some of the other changes (testing for integrity, annual inspection)

will help accomplish.

Comments:

Effect of this will be small for a long time bec

new installation activity unless we go to a ne

compatible with existing UST systems and re

whole new population of UST systems.

Effect of this will be small for a significant tim

new dispenser installation activity. Adding cincrease the cost of replacing dispensers in a cause a delay in dispenser replacement activ

of dispensers will stay in place for longer tha

requirement would be complicated because typically not notified of dispenser replaceme

normally does not require any changes to th

the dispenser containment, however, will mactivity below the crash valve. Also, the cost 

containment as we know it today will be sub

development of "retrofit" technologies such 

dispenser containment on existng facilities. 

consisted of smearing "goop" in the dirt und

"in situ" containment structure. I'm not sure 

needs to be some quality control measure in

requirement requirements or else the intent 

compromised by charlatans out to make a fasave some dough.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Walkthroughinspections

B)

Monthly Inspections with the following

minimum components:

• Spill buckets – open and visually check

for any damage; remove any liquid or

debris; and check each fill cap to make

sure it is securely on the fill pipe

• Sumps – open and visually check for

any damage; releases to the

containment area or to the environment;

and remove any liquid or debris

• Dispenser cabinets – open and visually

check for any damage; releases to the

containment area or to the environment;

and remove any liquid or debris

• Monitoring/Observation Wells – check

covers to make sure they are secured

• Impressed Current Rectifiers – check to

make sure system is on and operating;

and• Release Detection Systems – functional

check (make sure system is on and

operating)

C)Spill buckets1 Sumps

5 DispenserCabinets5 Monitoring/ObsWells 0

Impressed CurrentRectifiers 1Release DetectionSystems 1

D)

Spill buckets‐‐  0

Sumps  ‐‐                   3

Dispenser Cabinets  ‐‐   5 Monitoring/ObsWells  ‐‐0 Impressed

Current Rectifiers 0

Release DetectionSystems 0

E)

Spill buckets 0

Sumps  ‐‐               5Dispenser Cabinets ‐ 10 Monitoring/Obs

Wells ‐0 Impressed

Current Rectifiers 0

Release DetectionSystems 0

F)

Spill buckets 0

Sumps  ‐‐               5Dispenser Cabinets ‐ 10Monitoring/Obs Wells ‐0

Impressed CurrentRectifiers 0 Release

Detection Systems 0

 
Interaction ‐  

SEE COMMENT SHEET TO ADDRESS BOTH THIS AND NEXT COLUMN

Comments:

.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Overfillfunctionalitytesting

B)Once every year:

Require testing to ensure that

the overfill equipment is in

accordance with manufacturer’s

requirements

C)If done per manufacturer

1 If done per good

engineering practices15

D)10

E)10

F)5

 
Interaction ‐   Comments:

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Spill bucket

tightnesstesting

B)

Once every year:

Require testing such that spill

bucket equipment is in

accordance with manufacturer’s

requirements

C)If done per manufacturer

1 If done per good

engineering practices

5

D)2

E)1

F)1

 
Interaction ‐   Comments:

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Integritytesting for

interstitialareas

B)

Once every year:

Require integrity testing of

interstitial areas using vacuum,

pressure or liquid testing in

accordance with manufacturer’s

requirements

C)If done per manufacturer

1 If done per good

engineering practices

15

D)10

E)10

F)

20

 
Interaction ‐   Comments:

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Repairs

B)

• Require spill bucket tightness

testing after repair to spill

bucket• Require overfill functionality

testing after repair to overfill

• Require interstitial integrity

testing after repair to primary or

secondary containment

C)consider number of

repairs needed 1

consider number of

repairs needed 2

consider number of

repairs needed 1

D)121

E)121

F)121

 
Interaction ‐   Comments:

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)OverfillProtection

B)

• Eliminate flow restrictors asan option for overfill protection

for new tanks

• Require replacement of

existing flow restrictors based

on new restrictions associated

with unsafe operatingconditions (e.g., pressurized

deliveries)

C)25

D)12

E)12

F)12

 
Interaction ‐   Comments:

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Operationaltesting

B)

Require annual line leak

detector operational test and

annual test of electronic

components associated with

each of the following:

• ATG• Interstitial Monitoring

• Vapor Monitoring

• Groundwater Monitoring

C)ATG 10

Interstitial Monitoring10 Vapor Monitoring10 GroundwaterMonitoring 0

D)ATG 0Interstitial Monitoring0 Vapor

Monitoring 0GroundwaterMonitoring 0

E)ATG 0Interstitial Monitoring 0

Vapor Monitoring 0

Groundwater Monitoring

0

F)ATG 0Interstitial Monitoring 0

Vapor Monitoring 0

Groundwater Monitoring

0

 
Interaction ‐   Comments:

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Add SIR andCITLDS usage

B)

Require SIR and CITLDS

users to submit

quantitative results only

(with leak rate) and to

submit the results within

30 days

C)SIR 0CITLDS 2

D)SIR 0CITLDS 0

E)SIR 0

CITLDS 0

F)SIR 0CITLDS 0

G

 
Interaction ‐   Comments:

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)DetectionProbabilities

B)

Adjust probability of

detection/probability of

false alarm on release

detection to 99/1 for the

following systems:• ATG• Automatic Line Leak

Detectors• SIR• CITLDS

C)0000

D)0000

E)0000

F)000

0

GA

97de

 
Interaction ‐   Comments:

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Deferrals

B) Remove release detection deferral for

emergency generator USTs, assuming they

would now be required to meet existing

regulations(note: estimate of roughly 20,000 tanks

nationally)Remove 40 CFR 280 deferrals (all subparts)

from airport hydrant refueling systems,

assuming they would now be required to

meet existing regulations with modified leak

detection requirements

(note: estimate of roughly 200 systems

subject to requirement)Remove 40 CFR 280 deferrals (all subparts)

from field‐constructed tanks, assuming they

would now be required to meet existing

regulations with modified leak detection

requirements(note: estimate of roughly 240 systems

subject to requirement)

C)522

D)

222

E)422

F)522

G

 
Interaction ‐   Comments:

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Notification ofownership change

Replacement of lined

tanks that cannot be

repaired according toa code of practice

Response to interstitial

monitoring alarms

B)Require notification to implementing

agency by owner/operator of

ownership change

Require replacement of lined tanks

that cannot be repaired according to

a code of practice

Require interstitial integrity testing in

response to an interstitial monitoring

alarm

C)025

D)025

E)013

F)012

G

 
Interaction ‐   Comments:

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Operator Training

B)Institute Operator Training as

Follows:• One‐time training for "Class A"

operator (technical and regulatory)

or opt‐out test within 30 days of

assuming duties

• One‐time training for "Class B"

operator (technical) or opt‐out test

within 30 days of assuming duties.

• One‐time training for "Class C"

operator (limited technical) prior to

assuming duties.

• Repeat training for facilities with

significant non‐compliance, within 30

days of documented non‐

compliance.

C)If done per on‐line

classes 0

If done per good

multi‐day programwith practical field

exam on safetyinspections 5

D)If done per on‐

line classes 0

If done per good

multi‐dayprogram withpractical field

exam on safetyinspections 5

E)If done per on‐line

classes 0

If done per good

multi‐day programwith practical field

exam on safetyinspections 5

F)If done per on‐line

classes 0

If done per good multi‐

day program with

practical field exam on

safety inspections 5

GIf 

co

wpeinal

 
Interaction ‐   Comments:

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)SecondaryContainment

B)Require secondary containment on

all new tanks and piping

Install secondary containment on

piping upon replacement.

Replacement defined as:

Removal of 50 percent or more of

piping, excluding connectors,

connected to a single underground

tank. For underground storage tanks

with multiple piping runs, the replace

definition applies independently to

each piping run.

Require under‐dispenser

containment on all new dispenser

systems

C)355

D)224

E)225

F)224

GAth

pe

ALa

ho

repeinSA

 
Interaction ‐   Comments:

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Walkthroughinspections

B)Monthly Inspections with the following minimum components:

• Spill buckets – open and visually check for any damage; remove any liquid or debris;

and check each fill cap to make sure it is securely on the fill pipe

• Sumps – open and visually check for any damage; releases to the containment area

or to the environment; and remove any liquid or debris

• Dispenser cabinets – open and visually check for any damage; releases to the

containment area or to the environment; and remove any liquid or debris

• Monitoring/Observation Wells – check covers to make sure they are secured

• Impressed Current Rectifiers – check to make sure system is on and operating; and

• Release Detection Systems – functional check (make sure system is on and

operating)

C)65%

D)

55%

E) F) 

 
Interaction ‐  

Yes Operator Training‐Proper inspections

Comments:This would require trained people not to be taken lightly, this r

impact in the initial years.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Overfillfunctionalitytesting

B)Once every year:

Require testing to ensure that the overfill equipment is in accordance with

manufacturer’s requirements

C)28%

D)

65%

E) F) 

 
Interaction ‐   Comments:

These requirement paired with the top requirement would be 

the largest portion of leaks today

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Spill bucket

tightnesstesting

B)Once every year:

Require testing such that spill bucket equipment is in accordance with

manufacturer’s requirements

C)40%

D) E) F)

80%

 
Interaction ‐  

Yes this is realted to the walkthru inspections

Comments:This area is very sensative so, this would only be neccesary if th

like flexible piping once we test and find problems the industry 

put the correct spill buckets in the ground

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Integritytesting for

interstitialareas

B)Once every year:

Require integrity testing of interstitial areas using vacuum, pressure or

liquid testing in accordance with manufacturer’s requirements

C)15‐18%

D)60%

E) F) 

 
Interaction ‐  

Yes this is realted to the walkthru inspections

Comments:This area is very sensative so, this would only be neccesary if they do

truth is like flexible piping once we test and find problems the indust

corrections and put the correct spill buckets in the ground

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)RepairsOverfillProtection

B) • Require spill bucket tightness testing after repair to spill bucket

• Require overfill functionality testing after repair to overfill

• Require interstitial integrity testing after repair to primary or

secondary containment

• Eliminate flow restrictors as an option for overfill protection for new

tanks

C) 23‐28%29%33%

5‐7%

D) 65%

6.8%

E) F)

75%

70%

 
Interaction ‐  

Yes this is realted to the walkthru inspections

YES‐Walkthru inspections

Comments:This area is very sensative so, this would only be neccesary if the

is like flexible piping once we test and find problems the industry 

and put the correct spill buckets in the ground

Overall these are good catastrophic method of leak detection an

Electronic, new tanks should have double wall with Flow restrict

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Operationaltesting

B)

Require annual line leak detector operational test and annual test of

electronic components associated with each of the following:

• ATG• Interstitial Monitoring

• Vapor Monitoring

• Groundwater Monitoring

C)26%

D) E) F)

35%

 
Interaction ‐   Comments:

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Add SIR andCITLDS usage

B)

Require SIR and CITLDS users to submit quantitative results only (with

leak rate) and to submit the results within 30 days

C)22%

D) E) F)

45% 

 
Interaction ‐   Comments:

SIR results are the most difficult because there is so much huma

standards. Electronic data collection would elimante a large perc

related to the human error.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)DetectionProbabilities

B)

Adjust probability of detection/probability of false alarm on release

detection to 99/1 for the following systems:

• ATG• Automatic Line Leak Detectors

• SIR• CITLDS

C)15%8%25%8%

D)10%Little impact 2%

35%3%

E) F)

5%60%5%

 
Interaction ‐   Comments:

SIR results are the most difficult because there is so much huma

standards. Electronic data collection would elimante a large perc

related to the human error.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Deferrals

B) Remove release detection deferral for emergency

generator USTs, assuming they would now be required to

meet existing regulations

(note: estimate of roughly 20,000 tanks nationally)

Remove 40 CFR 280 deferrals (all subparts) from airport hydrant

refueling systems, assuming they would now be required to meet

existing regulations with modified leak detection requirements

(note: estimate of roughly 200 systems subject to requirement)

Remove 40 CFR 280 deferrals (all subparts) from field‐constructed

tanks, assuming they would now be required to meet existing

regulations with modified leak detection requirements

(note: estimate of roughly 240 systems subject to requirement)

C)30%20%10%

D)45%

E) F)

30%15%

GRre

co

Rre

co

R

re

co

 
Interaction ‐  

Note: have SPCC requirements resulted in significant 40 CFR 280 compliance?

Note: have SPCC requirements resulted in significant 40 CFR 280 compliance?

Comments:These area's if you would add the montlhy and annual inspectionof small realeases that add up to being large impacts

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Notification ofownership change

Replacement of lined

tanks that cannot be

repaired according toa code of practice

Response to

interstitialmonitoring alarms

B) Require notification to implementing agency by

owner/operator of ownership change

Require replacement of lined tanks that cannot be repaired

according to a code of practice

Require interstitial integrity testing in response to an

interstitial monitoring alarm

C)little impact15%5‐7%

D) E)

Little impact10%

F)15%

G

 
Interaction ‐   Comments:

if Testing was the response to alarms people would keep their sy

false alarms

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Notification ofownership change

Replacement of lined

tanks that cannot be

repaired according toa code of practice

Response to

interstitialmonitoring alarms

B) Require notification to implementing agency by

owner/operator of ownership change

Require replacement of lined tanks that cannot be repaired

according to a code of practice

Require interstitial integrity testing in response to an

interstitial monitoring alarm

C)little impact15%5‐7%

D) E)

Little impact10%

F)15%

G

 
Interaction ‐   Comments:

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Operator Training

B)

Institute Operator Training as Follows:

• One‐time training for "Class A" operator (technical and

regulatory) or opt‐out test within 30 days of assuming duties

• One‐time training for "Class B" operator (technical) or opt‐

out test within 30 days of assuming duties.

• One‐time training for "Class C" operator (limited technical)

prior to assuming duties.• Repeat training for facilities with significant non‐compliance,

within 30 days of documented non‐compliance.

C)20%

D)25%

E) F) G

If 

ar

mrepein

al

 
Interaction ‐  

Assumes access to on‐line training as one option.

Comments:

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)SecondaryContainment

B)

Install secondary containment on piping upon replacement.

Replacement defined as:

Removal of 50 percent or more of piping, excluding

connectors, connected to a single underground tank. For

underground storage tanks with multiple piping runs, the

replace definition applies independently to each piping run.

Require secondary containment on all new tanks and piping

Require under‐dispenser containment on all new dispenser

systems

C)25%15%20%

D)30%20%

E) F)

35%

GAth

peALa

co

mrepeinal

 
Interaction ‐   Comments:

These are solid changes that would impact on stopping or minim

to our environment.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)WalkthroughInspections

B)

Monthly Inspections with the following

minimum components:

• Spill buckets – open and visually check for

any damage; remove any liquid or debris;

and check each fill cap to make sure it is

securely on the fill pipe

• Sumps – open and visually check for any

damage; releases to the containment area

or to the environment; and remove any

liquid or debris

• Dispenser cabinets – open and visually

check for any damage; releases to the

containment area or to the environment;

and remove any liquid or debris

• Monitoring/Observation Wells – check

covers to make sure they are secured

• Impressed Current Rectifiers – check to

make sure system is on and operating; and

• Release Detection Systems – functionalcheck (make sure system is on and

operating)

C)1. 50%

2. 20%

3. 15%

4. 2%5. 2%6. 40%

D)1. 35%

2. 15%

3. 10%

4. 1%5. 1%6. 25%

E)1. 50%

2. 20%

3. 15%

4. 2%

5. 2%6. 40%

F)1. 50%

2. 20%

3. 15%

4. 2%5. 2%6. 40%

GCoo

 
Interaction ‐  

No. For example, the State of Florida's current rules have required most of

these new proposed monthly inspection requirements since 1998. The rule

requires that "anything that can be visually inspected, shall be visually

inspected, on a monthly basis". Florida's discharge (release) data indicates a

steady reduction of discharges since 1998, helped in part by this requirement,

along with annual compliance inspections and the requirements for secondary

containment.

Comments:This is an excellent revision to the EPA rules. It will 

number, duration, and severity of releases, as well 

enforcement actions. The most frequently cited vi

rules is "water in sumps", so any new requirement 

monthly removal of liquid and debris will help to m

loss of integrity of UDC's , Piping Sumps, and spill b

the verification of the functionality of leak detectio

also go a long way towards reducing leaks.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Overfillfunctionalitytesting

B)Once every year:

Require testing to ensure that the overfill

equipment is in accordance with

manufacturer’s requirements

C)

20%

D)15%

E)20%

F)

5%

G

Ctw

ye

 
Interaction ‐  

It is not redundant, nor is it dependent on other requirements. The

requirement could apply to alarms, shut‐off "flapper" valves, and even ball

floats, although some facilities will have trouble with access to ball floats.

Comments:Adding this new requirement for annual operability 

prevention equipment will significantly diminish th

discharges from overfill. The Florida Leak Autopsy overfills comprise 28% of all discharges from tanks, 

of tanks as the source of leaks is only 11%. Remov

component, and the percentage of leaks from tank

under eight percent.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Spill bucket

tightnesstesting

B)Once every year:

Require testing such that spill bucket

equipment is in accordance with

manufacturer’s requirements

C)

50%

D)35%

E)50%

F)50%

G

R

ev

 
Interaction ‐  

No, but the proposed rule for monthly visual inspections of spill buckets helps

support this requirement.

Comments:This is another change that will provide substantial 

protection with minimal cost. Hydrostatic annual t

most frequent method of annual integrity testing f

buckets, and the test is easy to perform and verify

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Integritytesting for

interstitialareas

B)

Once every year:

Require integrity testing of interstitial

areas using vacuum, pressure or liquid

testing in accordance with

manufacturer’s requirements

C)

3%

D)3%

E)3%

F)5%

G

Ctw

ye

 
Interaction ‐  

This requirement is dependent on the ability of the system to be vacuum,

pressure, or liquid tested. It is not redundant.

Comments:This provision, if selected, should only be used on a 

for new storage tanks, piping, and system containm

double‐wall tanks and piping systems are not desig

vacuum, pressure, or liquid interstitial testing. Tho

tested can only be tested at considerable expense. 

requirement does have merit for most existing pipiand spill containment buckets that can be liquid teexception of spill buckets, the leak autopsy data co

leaks are not coming from containment systems or 

and piping.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Repairs

B)

• Require spill bucket tightness

testing after repair to spill bucket

• Require overfill functionality testing

after repair to overfill

• Require interstitial integrity testing

after repair to primary or secondary

containment

C)30%10%3%

D)10%5%3%

E)20%10%1%

F)

15%5%3%

G

 
Interaction ‐  

NoNo ‐ should be able to be performed in accordance with manufacturer's

specifications.This requirement is dependent on the ability of the system to be vacuum,

pressure, or liquid tested.It is not redundant, nor is it dependent on other requirements.

Comments:

This requirement has been part of the Florida rule 

been implemented with good results.

This is a good common sense requirement that sho

number of overfills .by a small percentage

Again, this requirement is good for existing piping sdispenser sumps, but may be impractical and unac

underground double‐wall tanks and piping. If an ex

tank or piping system can not be repaired or the secontainment tested, then they should be required 

or piping system with secondary containment with

period.Most industry reference standards advice against t

valves, so it makes sense to require another metho

protection for new and replacement tanks.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)OverfillProtection

B)• Eliminate flow restrictors as an

option for overfill protection for new

tanks

C)8%

D)5%

E)3%

F)3%

G

 
Interaction ‐  

It is not redundant, nor is it dependent on other requirements.

Comments:

Most industry reference standards advice against t

valves, so it makes sense to require another metho

protection for new and replacement tanks.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Operationaltesting

B)Require annual line leak detector

operational test and annual test of

electronic components associated

with each of the following:

• ATG• Interstitial Monitoring

• Vapor Monitoring

• Groundwater Monitoring

C)1. 20%

2. 5%

3. 6%

4. 7%

D)1. 15%

2. 3%3. 5%

4. 5%

E)1. 20%

2. 5%3. 6%4. 7%

F)1. 20%

2. 5%

3. 6%

4. 7%

GC

twye

 
Interaction ‐  

Most facilities have LLDs, so this requirement will not be redundant or

dependant on other factors. However the number of facilities with electronics

associated with vapor or groundwater monitoring is less than 5% nationally,

and probably more than that in most regions.

Comments:

Annual operability testing for LLD's and any electro

probes associated with UST leak detection will go a 

preventing releases. The Florida DEP has required 

it has helped to significantly reduce the number of Because it is difficult to tell an old leak from a new 

recommended that you put a "tax" on ground wate

monitoring. Whenever something is taxed, it is dim

"tax" on external monitoring was requiring the cert

professional geologist to make sure the soils were 

transmissive to determine leaks within 30 days at t

Less than 1% of Florida's facilities used this type of 

few years of the rule adoption.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Add SIR andCITLDS usage

B)Require SIR and CITLDS users to

submit quantitative results only (with

leak rate) and to submit the results

within 30 days

C)25%

D)20%

E)25%

F)25%

G

 
Interaction ‐  

Not redundant, but dependant on State's allowance of SIRS.

Comments:Another Florida DEP 1998 requirement that has wo

reduced the number of owner/operators using SIR 

facilities using sub‐standard SIR systems.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)DetectionProbabilities

B) Adjust probability of

detection/probability of false alarm on

release detection to 99/1 for the

following systems:• ATG• Automatic Line Leak Detectors

• SIR• CITLDS

C)<1%

2%<1%<1%

D)<1%1%<1%<1%

E)<1%2%<1%<1%

F)<1%2%<1%<1%

GA

97

 
Interaction ‐  

Not redundant, nor dependant on other requirements

Comments:

Technology with a leak rate of .005 is available "off 

more expensive. The Florida Leak Autopsy study d

ringing endorsement for the effectiveness of leak d

particularly for internal technologies for single‐wal

systems. Interstitial monitoring is much more effe

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Deferrals

B) Remove release detection deferral for

emergency generator USTs, assuming they would

now be required to meet existing regulations

(note: estimate of roughly 20,000 tanks nationally)

Remove 40 CFR 280 deferrals (all subparts) from

airport hydrant refueling systems, assuming they

would now be required to meet existing

regulations with modified leak detection

requirements(note: estimate of roughly 200 systems subject to

requirement) Remove 40 CFR 280 deferrals (all

subparts) from field‐constructed tanks, assuming

they would now be required to meet existing

regulations with modified leak detection

requirements(note: estimate of roughly 240 systems subject to

requirement)

C)40%50%10%

D)30%45%8%

E)35%50%

10%

F)40%50%10%

G) Regulate 

same require

as conventioUSTs.

Regulate under requirements a

conventional URegulate under requirements a

conventional U

 
Interaction ‐  

Not redundant, nor dependant on other requirements

Not redundant, nor dependant on other requirements. Note:

have SPCC requirements resulted in significant 40 CFR 280compliance? Answer ‐ NO. SPCC rules are good rules, but are

usually only enforced when there has been a discharge to surface

waters because the program does not have the resources to have

an effective compliance verification program.

Not redundant, nor dependant on other requirements. Note: have

SPCC requirements resulted in significant 40 CFR 280 compliance?

(same as answer above)

Comments: Emergency generator USTs are typically smaller

metal plates used to manufacture the tanks are not as thick as 

consequently, a higher risk for leaks from corrosion. These tan

because they are not filled or emptied as often as USTs in retai

particularly with alternative fuels, put tanks more at risk for mi

these tanks to have leak detection will go a long way in preven

Florida's Leak Autopsy Study for ASTs shows that the main sou

AST systems is from large diameter steel piping in contact with 

discharges are the largest by volume, and many can be attribut

fueling systems. Operating pressures are often at or above 100 

very large discharge.

Most of the tanks that are field‐constructed that meet the requ

10 % of the tank in contact with the soil are owned by the milit

and Cover" tanks. The military has closed many of these system

many are still in operation. As with most field‐erected ASTs an

major source of leaks. This requirement will help prevent leaks

effect on the reduction of releases around the country.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)Notification of ownership change

Replacement of lined tanks that

cannot be repaired according to a

code of practice

Response to interstitial

monitoring alarms

B)Require notification to implementing agency

by owner/operator of ownership change

Require replacement of lined tanks that

cannot be repaired according to a code of

practiceRequire interstitial integrity testing in

response to an interstitial monitoring alarm

C)1%50%<1%

D)1%40%<1%

E)1%50%<1%

F)1%50%<1%

G) 

 
Interaction ‐  

Not redundant, nor dependant on other requirements.

Not redundant, nor dependant on other requirements.

Not redundant, nor dependant on other requirements.

Comments:This is a good revision that will ease problems regulatory agenc

accurate data for UST ownership. It will have little effect on th

This proposed amendment should be reworded to require that 

cannot be repaired must be closed, replaced, OR upgraded wit

containment. The only difference with field‐fabricated internafactory‐built tanks is the location of their fabrication.

This proposed revision over‐reaches and does not recognize re

alarms happen, but it doesn't mean that the integrity of the intFlorida's rules specify this situation as an "incident", and allow 

the event accordingly to determine if the problem is a discharg

is much more reasonable and less costly than assuming every a

integrity testing for every alarm.

 
A)Regulatory

Feature

B)ProposedRequirement

C)%Reductionin AnnualReleases

D)ReductionIn ThePercentageOf Releases

That ReachGroundwater

E)%ReductionIn TheAverageQuantityReleased

F)%ReductionIn TheAverageDuration OfReleases

G)SensitivityQuestion:Wouldresultsdiffer if the

followingchangewere made?

H)SensitivityAnswer

A)OperatorTraining__________SecondaryContainment

B)Institute Operator Training as Follows:

• One‐time training for "Class A" operator (technical and regulatory) or opt‐out test

within 30 days of assuming duties

• One‐time training for "Class B" operator (technical) or opt‐out test within 30 days

of assuming duties.

• One‐time training for "Class C" operator (limited technical) prior to assuming

duties.• Repeat training for facilities with significant non‐compliance, within 30 days of

documented non‐compliance.

_____________________________________________________________________

Install secondary containment on piping upon replacement. Replacement defined as:

Removal of 50 percent or more of piping, excluding connectors, connected to a single

underground tank. For underground storage tanks with multiple piping runs, the

replace definition applies independently to each piping run.

Require secondary containment on all new tanks and piping

Require under‐dispenser containment on all new dispenser systems

C)10%_________50%50%10%

D)

5%__40%40%5%

E)10%_______50%50%10%

F)10%___________50%50%10%

G

ar

mrepein

al

Ath

peA

La

co

m

re

peinal

 
Interaction ‐  

Not redundant, nor dependant on other requirements. Assumes

access to on‐line training as one option.

Not redundant, nor dependant on other requirements.

Not redundant, nor dependant on other requirements.

Not redundant, nor dependant on other requirements.

Comments: Operator training will help reduce violations, a

training is punitive and as ineffective as "driver‐schools" for pe

moving violations in motor vehicles. The most significant impr

and violations will be with the new tank owners.

Again, the Florida Leak Autopsy study indicates that piping is th

discharges in the study. Piping leaks are usually high volume le

associated with flexible piping systems, and you have several g

installation of secondary containment for UST piping systems.Same reasons as above for piping, but as previously mentioned

sources of leaks. Nevertheless, the proposal will have substant

option is given to install field‐installed internal secondary conta

double‐wall tank.

A

 
Appendix H-2 

Follow-Up Responses 

 
Expert 1 1

Item

1

2

3

4

5

6

What universe of releases do you consider when estimating benefits? Our analysis considers only 

the 7,168 releases confirmed by OUST in its FY 2009 annual report.

Reductions address only releases that are processed through agency reporting processes. No 

additional leaks are assumed or otherwise included as part of the estimated reduction.

Regarding ball floats:

a. Does your answer reflect an understanding that OUST is not requiring complete 

replacement of all existing ball floats? The rulemaking under consideration would only 

replace existing ball floats that do not meet certain restrictions associated with unsafe 

operating conditions; for example, pressurized deliveries.

b. Do your reduction estimates regarding ball floats apply only to equipment that has ball 

floats, or will the regulation affect all releases, regardless of equipment?

Can you explain how functionality testing for ATG, interstitial monitoring, vapor monitoring, and 

groundwater monitoring would prevent releases instead of only reducing release severity?

Operational testing reductions should only apply to interstitial monitoring and should be zero 

otherwise.

Can you explain how the adjustment of detection probabilities for ATG, automatic line leak 

detectors, SIR, and CITLDS would prevent releases instead of only reducing release severity?

Higher detection probabilities would result in fewer releases by catching small releases that can be 

stopped and left to attenuate in the soil without further action from the operator. Probabilities should 

b i d 5% f ll h l i Did you assume an annual line leak detector operational test as part of operational testing for ATG, 

automatic line leak detectors, SIR, and CITLDS? If not, how would you revise your answer?

Operational testing of automatic line leak detector was considered as part of his response.

When considering the effects of release bucket tightness testing, do you assume that 50 percent to 

75 percent of spill buckets are replaced? If not, what would you revise the effect of the regulation to 

be under such a scenario?

Assumed replacement ratio of spill buckets falls in the 50 percent to 75 percent range.

 
Expert 1 2

7

For the following regulations, please numerically estimate their effectiveness in terms of percentage 

frequency reductions and reduced groundwater releases under the following scenarios. If you have 

already provided these answers as part of your sensitivity responses, you can simply refer us to your 

spreadsheet. If you would like to revise your response, please do so below. 

a. Walkthrough inspections

 i. Quarterly;

See expert responses

 ii. Every other month;

See expert responses

 iii. Six months;

See expert responses

b. Overfill functionality testing

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

c. Spill bucket tightness testing

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

d. Integrity testing for interstitial areas

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

 iii. Five years:

See expert responses

e. Functionality testing

ATG

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

Interstitial monitoring

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

Groundwater monitoring

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

Vapor monitoring

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

 
Expert 1 3

8

9

10

11

If detection probabilities were changed to 97/3 instead of 99/1 for ATG, automatic line leak 

detectors, SIR, and CITLDS, how would this change your response?

There would be no change in his responses if Pd/Pfa were revised downward from 99/1 to 97/3.

We understand that frequency should not be affected with the addition of SIR and CITLDS 

requirements unless interstitial monitoring is also in place. Do you assume this is the case?

How would you revise your overall estimates if changes in Pd/Pfa were removed from the 

rulemaking?

Overall reductions would not change if changes in Pd/Pfa were removed from the potential 

regulatory change.

Some changes to regulations may take several years to achieve their full effects because they affect 

only new units or units that are replaced. For the changes below, please estimate (1) effectiveness at 

the end of the first year and (2) effectiveness when the change achieves full effect.

a. Eliminate flow restrictors as an option for overfill protection for new tanks 

b. Require replacement of lined tanks that cannot be repaired according to a code of 

practice

e. Require under-dispenser containment on all new dispenser systems

c. Require secondary containment on all new tanks and piping on tribal lands

d. Install secondary containment on piping upon replacement. Replacement defined as 

removal of 50 percent or more of piping, excluding connectors, connected to a single 

underground tank. For underground storage tanks with multiple piping runs, the replace 

definition applies independently to each piping run.

 
Expert 2 1

Item

1

2

3

4

5

6

What universe of releases do you consider when estimating benefits? Our analysis considers only 

the 7,168 releases confirmed by OUST in its FY 2009 annual report.

Reductions in spills are not relative to any specific number of reported releases, but apply 

proportionately. These proportions would not change if applied to unreported releases.

Regarding ball floats:

a. Does your answer reflect an understanding that OUST is not requiring complete 

replacement of all existing ball floats? The rulemaking under consideration would only 

replace existing ball floats that do not meet certain restrictions associated with unsafe 

operating conditions; for example, pressurized deliveries.

Reductions estimated regarding existing ball floats should apply only to non-retail facilities that use 

ball floats.

b. Do your reduction estimates regarding ball floats apply only to equipment that has ball 

floats, or will the regulation affect all releases, regardless of equipment?

Reductions estimated regarding existing ball floats should apply only to non-retail facilities that use 

ball floats.

Can you explain how functionality testing for ATG, interstitial monitoring, vapor monitoring, and 

groundwater monitoring would prevent releases instead of only reducing release severity?

Reductions that relate to operational testing should prevent releases only in the case of interstitial 

monitoring. Exhibit A1 for testing effectiveness at various intervals for regulation 7 (functionality 

testing).

Can you explain how the adjustment of detection probabilities for ATG, automatic line leak 

detectors, SIR, and CITLDS would prevent releases instead of only reducing release severity?

Did you assume an annual line leak detector operational test as part of operational testing for ATG, 

automatic line leak detectors, SIR, and CITLDS? If not, how would you revise your answer?

Annual line leak detector testing is assumed to be part of the reductions estimated for operational 

testing.

When considering the effects of release bucket tightness testing, do you assume that 50 percent to 

75 percent of spill buckets are replaced? If not, what would you revise the effect of the regulation to 

be under such a scenario?

Replacement rates of 75% are a reasonable assumption, so the previous answer need not be 

reconsidered. However, this will only be true if the rule specifies replacement with secondarily 

contained spill buckets. If existing buckets are allowed to be repaired, this will be the dominant 

compliance strategy.

 
Expert 2 2

7

For the following regulations, please numerically estimate their effectiveness in terms of percentage 

frequency reductions and reduced groundwater releases under the following scenarios. If you have 

already provided these answers as part of your sensitivity responses, you can simply refer us to your 

spreadsheet. If you would like to revise your response, please do so below. 

a. Walkthrough inspections

 i. Quarterly;

See expert responses

 ii. Every other month;

See expert responses

 iii. Six months;

See expert responses

b. Overfill functionality testing

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

c. Spill bucket tightness testing

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

d. Integrity testing for interstitial areas

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

 iii. Five years:

See expert responses

e. Functionality testing

ATG

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

Interstitial monitoring

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

Groundwater monitoring

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

Vapor monitoring

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

 
Expert 2 3

8

9

10

11

If detection probabilities were changed to 97/3 instead of 99/1 for ATG, automatic line leak 

detectors, SIR, and CITLDS, how would this change your response?

We understand that frequency should not be affected with the addition of SIR and CITLDS 

requirements unless interstitial monitoring is also in place. Do you assume this is the case?

Interstitial monitoring is assumed for SIR and CITLDS. It is not clear why an operator would do 

SIR or CITLDS if they have secondary containment. Expert 2 considers interstitial monitoring to be 

independent of SIR and CITLDS.

How would you revise your overall estimates if changes in Pd/Pfa were removed from the 

rulemaking?

Changes in Pd/Pfa will not alter overall estimates. If OUST wants to improve leak detection, the 

performance standard should be changes from 0.2 gph monthly to 0.1 gph monthly. Pd/Pfa are 

already better than 95/5 in most cases, but there is no equipment marketed for monthly monitoring 

today that does 0.1 gph.

Some changes to regulations may take several years to achieve their full effects because they affect 

only new units or units that are replaced. For the changes below, please estimate (1) effectiveness at 

the end of the first year and (2) effectiveness when the change achieves full effect.

a. Eliminate flow restrictors as an option for overfill protection for new tanks 

b. Require replacement of lined tanks that cannot be repaired according to a code of 

practice

e. Require under-dispenser containment on all new dispenser systems

c. Require secondary containment on all new tanks and piping on tribal lands

d. Install secondary containment on piping upon replacement. Replacement defined as 

removal of 50 percent or more of piping, excluding connectors, connected to a single 

underground tank. For underground storage tanks with multiple piping runs, the replace 

definition applies independently to each piping run.

 
Expert 3 1

Item

1

2

3

4

5

6

What universe of releases do you consider when estimating benefits? Our analysis considers only 

the 7,168 releases confirmed by OUST in its FY 2009 annual report.

I consider far more releases than the 7168 in the OUST 2009 annual report. For example, Florida 

has over 20,000 releases waiting their turn for funding under the Department's remediation 

assistance program. Even with secondary containment for all USTs, Florida will continue to have 

between 20 and 40 new discharges every month (overfills, accidents, and problems with equipment, 

to name a few). Calculating these averages and considering all 50 states exceeds the 7168 number 

by a wide margin. All of the other states will have similar issues, and as new double-wall UST 

systems are installed to replace the existing single-wall systems, it is inevitable that existing releases 

that were undiscovered will be discovered during the closure process. The 7168 number is 

unrealistically low. 

Regarding ball floats:

a. Does your answer reflect an understanding that OUST is not requiring complete 

replacement of all existing ball floats? The rulemaking under consideration would only 

replace existing ball floats that do not meet certain restrictions associated with unsafe 

operating conditions; for example, pressurized deliveries.

Yes. I agree with EPA that ball floats should not be unilaterally removed on existing facilities. It 

makes sense to allow their elimination through attrition and time.

b. Do your reduction estimates regarding ball floats apply only to equipment that has ball 

floats, or will the regulation affect all releases, regardless of equipment?

Yes.

Can you explain how functionality testing for ATG, interstitial monitoring, vapor monitoring, and 

groundwater monitoring would prevent releases instead of only reducing release severity?

Functionality testing eliminates situations where owners believe their systems are functioning 

instead of knowing their systems are functioning. Owners with good intentions may install a new 

release detection system, test it, and then go on with their business. If the system fails a month after 

installation (for example, a bad sensor), then the owner has a false sense of security, and could miss 

a discharge from his systems for months and even years. Conversely, annual functionality testing 

ensures that release detection systems are performing as they were installed.

Can you explain how the adjustment of detection probabilities for ATG, automatic line leak 

detectors, SIR, and CITLDS would prevent releases instead of only reducing release severity?

With the exception of SIR, there is only a minor improvement in the reduction of releases with this 

provision. ATGs, automatic line leak detectors, and CITLDS usually work well if properly 

maintained. Adjusting the detection probabilities will improve new systems and will improve leak 

prevention, but not significantly. Also, this requirement cannot be retroactively applied to existing 

equipment in operational service. However, adjusting detection probabilities will minimize the use 

of SIR, which is the most inexpensive and ineffective method of leak detection.

Did you assume an annual line leak detector operational test as part of operational testing for ATG, 

automatic line leak detectors, SIR, and CITLDS? If not, how would you revise your answer?

Yes.

When considering the effects of release bucket tightness testing, do you assume that 50 percent to 

75 percent of spill buckets are replaced? If not, what would you revise the effect of the regulation to 

be under such a scenario?

Yes - 50% is a good assumption for spill bucket replacement. The expected life-span of a spill 

bucket is about six years, so the 50% replacement number is realistic.

 
Expert 3 2

7

For the following regulations, please numerically estimate their effectiveness in terms of percentage 

frequency reductions and reduced groundwater releases under the following scenarios. If you have 

already provided these answers as part of your sensitivity responses, you can simply refer us to your 

spreadsheet. If you would like to revise your response, please do so below. 

a. Walkthrough inspections

 i. Quarterly;

25% & 20%

 ii. Every other month;

35% & 30%

 iii. Six months;

20% & 15%

b. Overfill functionality testing

 i. Two years:

15%

 ii. Three years:

10%

c. Spill bucket tightness testing

 i. Two years:

25%

 ii. Three years:

20%

d. Integrity testing for interstitial areas

 i. Two years:

3%

 ii. Three years:

2%

 iii. Five years:

2%

e. Functionality testing

ATG

 i. Two years:

15%

 ii. Three years:

10%

Interstitial monitoring

 i. Two years:

4%

 ii. Three years:

3%

Groundwater monitoring

 i. Two years:

6%

 ii. Three years:

5%

Vapor monitoring

 i. Two years:

5%

 ii. Three years:

4%

 
Expert 3 3

8

9

10

11

If detection probabilities were changed to 97/3 instead of 99/1 for ATG, automatic line leak 

detectors, SIR, and CITLDS, how would this change your response?

Less than 2% reduction in discovered leaks

We understand that frequency should not be affected with the addition of SIR and CITLDS 

requirements unless interstitial monitoring is also in place. Do you assume this is the case?

Yes, but in my opinion, the real world performance of SIR is poor, and it is a completely inadequate 

method of leak detection compared to other methods, in spite of the claims of its meeting the current 

.2 gph leak detection standard. The use of interstitial monitoring will decrease the number of 

discharges, and the use of SIR will increase the number. 

How would you revise your overall estimates if changes in Pd/Pfa were removed from the 

rulemaking?

Pd/Pfa improves the standard, and eliminating these requirements would adversely affect the rules. 

My estimates on detection would decrease.

Some changes to regulations may take several years to achieve their full effects because they affect 

only new units or units that are replaced. For the changes below, please estimate (1) effectiveness at 

the end of the first year and (2) effectiveness when the change achieves full effect.

a. Eliminate flow restrictors as an option for overfill protection for new tanks 

(1) 7% (2) 10%

b. Require replacement of lined tanks that cannot be repaired according to a code of 

practice

(1) 10% (2) 50%

e. Require under-dispenser containment on all new dispenser systems

(1) 5% (2) 10%

c. Require secondary containment on all new tanks and piping on tribal lands

(1) 30% (2) 60%

d. Install secondary containment on piping upon replacement. Replacement defined as 

removal of 50 percent or more of piping, excluding connectors, connected to a single 

underground tank. For underground storage tanks with multiple piping runs, the replace 

definition applies independently to each piping run.

(1) 30% (2) 60%

 
Expert 4 1

Item

1

2

3

4

5

6

What universe of releases do you consider when estimating benefits? Our analysis considers only 

the 7,168 releases confirmed by OUST in its FY 2009 annual report.

Some state specific results; IE- Florida tank leak study. Some projects I have personally done. The 

California study on leak detection. The releases our company as found, the types and amount of 

releases I found over the years and what are the key issues. EPA published study's helped to come 

up with the percentages. There are many releases that are not reported.

Regarding ball floats:

a. Does your answer reflect an understanding that OUST is not requiring complete 

replacement of all existing ball floats? The rulemaking under consideration would only 

replace existing ball floats that do not meet certain restrictions associated with unsafe 

operating conditions; for example, pressurized deliveries.

YES

b. Do your reduction estimates regarding ball floats apply only to equipment that has ball 

floats, or will the regulation affect all releases, regardless of equipment?

No releases because of ball floats are overfill in nautre, a tank has to be filled for a Ball Float to be 

an issue.

Can you explain how functionality testing for ATG, interstitial monitoring, vapor monitoring, and 

groundwater monitoring would prevent releases instead of only reducing release severity?

Checking the functionality of those systems, will give a trained eye on the settings and applicabilty 

of the equipment in place. We have found sites with improper line length, those sites then found to 

have leaks going unreported since at a proper length it would have found the leak. If you are looking 

at the systems then you have a 60% chance of catching a probelm before or while its small and has 

not impcated the environment. Many times alarms are tunred off and system is not talking to the 

sensors which the owner has no idea. This is so important to have working correct to allow the 

system to do what it's supposed to we need proof its working correctly. We can also check for 

overfills at that time and let the owner know if he has to work with his hauler company to stop, it is 

the "Site Physical" 

Can you explain how the adjustment of detection probabilities for ATG, automatic line leak 

detectors, SIR, and CITLDS would prevent releases instead of only reducing release severity?

I do not think probabilties are the issue to find smaller leaks, as I said before it's tolerance. Currently 

4.8 gallons a day are allowed to leak from each tank system, it adds up quick. I think if you brought 

the tolerance down to .05 leaks would be found much sooner. That threashold has been in since the 

begining, like the drunk drving example I gave. In the begining the tolerance was .1 now it's .08, 

because of 2 reasons they found its a smaller amount that can affect a driver (samll leaks under .1) 

and then the testing equipment got better (ATG's , Electroninc leak detectors, etc) therefore we 

should bring the tolerance down. 

Did you assume an annual line leak detector operational test as part of operational testing for ATG, 

automatic line leak detectors, SIR, and CITLDS? If not, how would you revise your answer?

YES I did it seems that would be a logical step for maintaining the system.

When considering the effects of release bucket tightness testing, do you assume that 50 percent to 

75 percent of spill buckets are replaced? If not, what would you revise the effect of the regulation to 

be under such a scenario?

Yes over time they will be replaced, there are 3 things that are a problem with spill buckets, 

1=Installer (if they are not tested after placement how does he know he has a LIQUID TIGHT spill 

bucket). 2= Incompatability we have many buckets made out of material that jsut does not stand up 

to the gas and diesel that is left in them. 3= Onwers/Operators they do not know that fuel was not to 

be left in these buckets and there fore create a long term problem. 

 
Expert 4 2

7

For the following regulations, please numerically estimate their effectiveness in terms of percentage 

frequency reductions and reduced groundwater releases under the following scenarios. If you have 

already provided these answers as part of your sensitivity responses, you can simply refer us to your 

spreadsheet. If you would like to revise your response, please do so below. 

a. Walkthrough inspections

 i. Quarterly;

10% and 20%

 ii. Every other month;

15% and 30%

 iii. Six months;

5% and 10%

b. Overfill functionality testing

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

c. Spill bucket tightness testing

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

d. Integrity testing for interstitial areas

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

 iii. Five years:

See expert responses

e. Functionality testing

ATG

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

Interstitial monitoring

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

Groundwater monitoring

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

Vapor monitoring

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

 
Expert 4 3

8

9

10

11

If detection probabilities were changed to 97/3 instead of 99/1 for ATG, automatic line leak 

detectors, SIR, and CITLDS, how would this change your response?

Again I think wrogn direction this is coming from someone who has tested over 10,000 systems 

personally and have trianed inpsectors and have done legal work in these areas I find the probabilty 

to be mute it's threshold that will make the weaker equipment not pass that standard. There is a huge 

difference to the 95-5 and threashold, if the thresholdl was lowered the probility of dedection would 

increase. 

We understand that frequency should not be affected with the addition of SIR and CITLDS 

requirements unless interstitial monitoring is also in place. Do you assume this is the case?

YES

How would you revise your overall estimates if changes in Pd/Pfa were removed from the 

rulemaking?

Explanied above

Some changes to regulations may take several years to achieve their full effects because they affect 

only new units or units that are replaced. For the changes below, please estimate (1) effectiveness at 

the end of the first year and (2) effectiveness when the change achieves full effect.

a. Eliminate flow restrictors as an option for overfill protection for new tanks 

small inpact

b. Require replacement of lined tanks that cannot be repaired according to a code of 

practice

medium impact 

e. Require under-dispenser containment on all new dispenser systems

BIG IMPACT

c. Require secondary containment on all new tanks and piping on tribal lands

immediate impact-medium

d. Install secondary containment on piping upon replacement. Replacement defined as 

removal of 50 percent or more of piping, excluding connectors, connected to a single 

underground tank. For underground storage tanks with multiple piping runs, the replace 

definition applies independently to each piping run.

BIG IMPACT-These are large steps forward

 
Expert 5 1

Item

1

2

3

4

5

6

What universe of releases do you consider when estimating benefits? Our analysis considers only 

the 7,168 releases confirmed by OUST in its FY 2009 annual report.

Responses consider only the population of releases observed by Datanet in its work and does not 

consider OUST’s specific universe of releases. Consequently, the reductions estimated conform to a 

release population that is different from – and larger than - the population OUST measures.

Regarding ball floats:

a. Does your answer reflect an understanding that OUST is not requiring complete 

replacement of all existing ball floats? The rulemaking under consideration would only 

replace existing ball floats that do not meet certain restrictions associated with unsafe 

operating conditions; for example, pressurized deliveries.

b. Do your reduction estimates regarding ball floats apply only to equipment that has ball 

floats, or will the regulation affect all releases, regardless of equipment?

Can you explain how functionality testing for ATG, interstitial monitoring, vapor monitoring, and 

groundwater monitoring would prevent releases instead of only reducing release severity?

Leaks are truly avoided. Facultative testing detects loss of pressure in pipes before product is lost, 

thus creating an opportunity to fully avoid leaks. Avoiding leaks also generates reductions in 

groundwater releases. Shutting down systems before product is released also prevents releases from 

reaching groundwater.

Can you explain how the adjustment of detection probabilities for ATG, automatic line leak 

detectors, SIR, and CITLDS would prevent releases instead of only reducing release severity?

Did you assume an annual line leak detector operational test as part of operational testing for ATG, 

automatic line leak detectors, SIR, and CITLDS? If not, how would you revise your answer?

Line leak detector operational (facultative) test was considered as part of operational (facultative) 

testing for ATG, ALLD, SIR, and CITLDS. The test must be for the entire system, else it will not be 

effective.

When considering the effects of release bucket tightness testing, do you assume that 50 percent to 

75 percent of spill buckets are replaced? If not, what would you revise the effect of the regulation to 

be under such a scenario?

Replacement levels of 75 percent are probably low. Rates are closer to 98 percent not only for spill 

buckets, but also for overfill and secondary containment.

 
Expert 5 2

7

For the following regulations, please numerically estimate their effectiveness in terms of percentage 

frequency reductions and reduced groundwater releases under the following scenarios. If you have 

already provided these answers as part of your sensitivity responses, you can simply refer us to your 

spreadsheet. If you would like to revise your response, please do so below. 

a. Walkthrough inspections

 i. Quarterly;

See expert responses

 ii. Every other month;

See expert responses

 iii. Six months;

See expert responses

b. Overfill functionality testing

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

c. Spill bucket tightness testing

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

d. Integrity testing for interstitial areas

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

 iii. Five years:

See expert responses

e. Functionality testing

ATG

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

Interstitial monitoring

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

Groundwater monitoring

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

Vapor monitoring

 i. Two years:

See expert responses

 ii. Three years:

See expert responses

 
Expert 5 3

8

9

10

11

If detection probabilities were changed to 97/3 instead of 99/1 for ATG, automatic line leak 

detectors, SIR, and CITLDS, how would this change your response?

We understand that frequency should not be affected with the addition of SIR and CITLDS 

requirements unless interstitial monitoring is also in place. Do you assume this is the case?

Interstitial monitoring was not assumed. There is little reason to implement SIR if secondary 

containment in already in place.

How would you revise your overall estimates if changes in Pd/Pfa were removed from the 

rulemaking?

There is no value in revising Pd/Pfa. The importance lies in regular facultative testing of the 

equipment so that it can continue to perform at the level at which the manufacturer rates it years 

after it is in service.

Some changes to regulations may take several years to achieve their full effects because they affect 

only new units or units that are replaced. For the changes below, please estimate (1) effectiveness at 

the end of the first year and (2) effectiveness when the change achieves full effect.

a. Eliminate flow restrictors as an option for overfill protection for new tanks 

b. Require replacement of lined tanks that cannot be repaired according to a code of 

practice

e. Require under-dispenser containment on all new dispenser systems

c. Require secondary containment on all new tanks and piping on tribal lands

d. Install secondary containment on piping upon replacement. Replacement defined as 

removal of 50 percent or more of piping, excluding connectors, connected to a single 

underground tank. For underground storage tanks with multiple piping runs, the replace 

definition applies independently to each piping run.

 
Appendix H-3 

 
Expert 1

Comments

Regulatory feature Source affected Frequency

Groundwater release avoidance

Proportion of units affected Frequency

Groundwater release avoidance

In general, this column we assume a constant relationship between tanks and releases, i.e. 7,168 releases uniformly distributed across 611,449 tanks. Regulations for interstitial integrity testing, opproportion of releases enters directly into our calculations.

Walkthrough inspections all sources 15% 50% 0.72 10.81% 36.05%Overfill functionality testing delivery problems 0% 0% 0.62 0.00% 0.00% Expert believes that this will have little or no effect if done every three years.Spill bucket tightness testing delivery problems 40% 0% 0.75 30.14% 0.00%Integrity testing for interstitial areas

tank, piping, dispensers, STP 20% 20% 0.1359 2.72% 2.72%

Note that experts were initially asked to provide reductions based on an annual test, rather than testing once every three years. Values were computed by considering experts' answers to sensitivity 

walled to doulble-walled releases calculated in the Florida study to arrive at a weighted average of releases that can be attributed to tanks, piping, and dispensers in double-walled tanks; the averagThe odds ratios are Tanks: 10.50:1Piping: 1.97:1Dispensers: 8.83:1We use these to calculate that, among releases of each type, the proportion of double-walled releases is:Tanks: 8.69%Piping: 33.67%Dispensers: 10.07%These are weighted by the proportions of releases from each source using the 23-state study (see "Releases before regulations" below). The weighted average of releases from double-walled tanksfrom piping, tanks, and dispensers to increase the proportion and adjust for the omission of STP and delivery problems (this is equivalent to multiplying by [100%/79% - 100%]= 26.58%. The end rewalled equipment across all sources.

delivery problems 10% 0% 0.06 0.62% 0.00%delivery problems 5% 0% 0.05 0.24% 0.00%tank, piping 2% 0% 0.02 0.05% 0.00%delivery problems 5% 50% 0.05 0.27% 2.65%delivery problems 5% 5% 0.00 0.00% 0.00%

Operational testing - ATG

tank 0% 0% 0.33 0.00% 0.00%

Operational testing - Sticking tank 0.22 0.00% 0.00%Operational testing - Int. int. monitoring tank, piping 5% 50% 0.18 0.92% 9.21%Operational testing - vapor #N/A 0% 0% #N/A #N/A #N/AOperational testing - GW #N/A 0% 0% #N/A #N/A #N/AOperational testing - LLD tank, piping 0.27 0.00% 0.00%Add SIR and CITLDS usage

tank, piping 5% 0% 0.00 0.02% 0.00%

#N/A 5% 0% #N/A #N/A #N/A#N/A 5% 0% #N/A #N/A #N/A#N/A 5% 0% #N/A #N/A #N/A#N/A 5% 40% #N/A #N/A #N/A

tank, piping 5% 0% 0.02 0.10% 0.00%TBD 10% 50% 0.00 0.00% 0.01%TBD 0% 0% 0.00 0.00% 0.00%

Notification of ownership change

None 0% 0% 0.15 0.00% 0.00%

Replacement of lined tanksthat cannot be repaired according to a code of practice

tank 5% 0% 0.00 0.00% 0.00%

Response to interstitial monitoring alarms tank, piping 5% 5% 0.02 0.09% 0.09%Operator Training all sources 20% 50% 0.00 0.05% 0.13% Expert believes this will take up to 3 years to achieve. He believes the reduction in quantity released will be the more near-term benefit. Affects only releases in tribal lands.

tank, piping, dispensers, STP 2% 1% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 1770 of 2446 tanks (72.36%) in tribal lands are single-walled. Assuming this proportion remains the same for FY2009, there are 2626*72.36% = 1900 single-walled tanks in tribal lands.piping 60% 0% 0.00 0.15% 0.00% We interpreted the expert's comment on sensitivity with respect to tribal lands to mean that the decrease would range from 60-70% rather than the usual 10-20%. This affects only releases in tribal dispenser 80% 0% 0.00 0.20% 0.00% Affects only releases in tribal lands, which number 18/7168.

Reduction from all regulations all sources 30% 50%

Secondary 

Containment

IEc interpretation of Expert 1 comments Reduction weighted by universe affected

DeferralsOverfill ProtectionDetection ProbabilitiesRepairs

 
Expert 2

Comments

Regulatory feature Source affected Frequency

Volume 

reduction

Proportion of units affected Frequency

Soil release avoidance

In general, this column we assume a constant relationship between tanks and releases, i.e. 7,168 releases uniformly distributed across 611,449 tanks. Regulations for interstitial integrity testing, 

cases, the proportion of releases enters directly into our calculations.

Walkthrough inspections all sources 1% 70% 1.00 1.00% 70.00% Expert does not provide additional guidance in feedback. These are his original values.Overfill functionality testing delivery problems 1% 1% 1.00 1.00% 1.00% Note that experts were initially asked to provide reductions based on an annual test, rather than testing once every three years. Values were computed by considering experts' answers to sensitiSpill bucket tightness testing delivery problems 25% 20% 1.00 25.00% 20.00% Implicit assumption is that repairs are effectiveIntegrity testing for interstitial areas

tank, piping, dispensers, STP 75% 75% 0.19 14.29% 14.29%

Expert s original response considered all tanks in the universe in his estimates of the regulation s effect, but we were applying the reduction only to tank with IM. These reductions are higher but faddressed 36-month intervals directly.Note that experts were initially asked to provide reductions based on an annual test, rather than testing once every three years. Values were computed by considering experts' answers to sensiti

single-walled to doulble-walled releases calculated in the Florida study to arrive at a weighted average of releases that can be attributed to tanks, piping, and dispensers in double-walled tanks; tThe odds ratios are Tanks: 10.50:1Piping: 1.97:1Dispensers: 8.83:1We use these to calculate that, among releases of each type, the proportion of double-walled releases is:Tanks: 8.69%Piping: 33.67%Dispensers: 10.07%

delivery problems 1% 1% 1.00 1.00% 1.00%delivery problems 1% 0% 1.00 1.00% 0.00%tank, piping 5% 5% 0.28 1.38% 1.38% Calculation reflects the 27.6% of tanks that have secondary containment.delivery problems 1% 0% 1.00 1.00% 0.00%delivery problems 50% 90% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% Universe is zero since no units are affected.

Operational testing - ATG tank 10% 25% 0.34 3.37% 8.42% Follow up clarifications from this expert yielded the estimates shown to the left. Initially, the expert stated that this requirement would not affect release frequency.Operational testing - Sticking tank 1.00 0.00% 0.00%Operational testing - Int. int. monitoring tank, piping 10% 50% 0.20 1.98% 9.88% Follow up clarifications from this expert yielded the estimates shown to the left. Initially, the expert stated that this requirement would not affect release frequency.Operational testing - vapor #N/A 0% 0% 0.05 0.00% 0.00%Operational testing - GW #N/A 0% 0% 0.06 0.00% 0.00%Operational testing - LLD tank, piping 1.00 0.00% 0.00%Add SIR and CITLDS usage tank, piping 2% 2% 0.13 0.26% 0.26%

#N/A 0% 25% 0.34 0.00% 8.42%#N/A 0% 50% 0.28 0.00% 13.78%#N/A 0% 0% 0.13 0.00% 0.00%#N/A 0% 0% 0.04 0.00% 0.00%

tank, piping 5% 15% 0.02 0.10% 0.29%TBD 0% 50% 0.00 0.00% 0.01%TBD 0% 5% 0.00 0.00% 0.00%

Notification ofownership change None 0% 0% 1.00 0.00% 0.00%Replacement of lined tanks that cannot be repaired according to acode of practice

tank 5% 5% 0.05 0.25% 0.25%

Response to interstitial monitoring alarms tank, piping 0% 0% 1.00 0.00% 0.00%Operator Training all sources 0% 5% 0.00251 0.00% 0.01% Affects only releases in tribal lands, which number 18/7168.

tank, piping, dispensers, STP 1% 1% 0.00251 0.00% 0.00% Benefits are calculated so that the year 20 benefits reflect nominal annual benefits obtained from starting from freq. = 1% and vol. reduc. = 1% at year 1 and ending at freq. = 20% (from linear expiping 0% 0% 0.00251 0.00% 0.00% Affects only releases in tribal lands, which number 18/7168.dispenser 20% 20% 0.00251 0.05% 0.05% Affects only releases in tribal lands, which number 18/7168.

Reduction from all regulations all sources 25% 25%

Secondary 

Containment

IEc interpretation of Expert 2 comments Reduction weighted by universe affected

RepairsDeferralsOverfill ProtectionDetection Probabilities

 
Expert 3

Comments

Regulatory feature Source affected Frequency

Groundwater 

release avoidance

Proportion 

of units affected Frequency

Groundwater release 

In general, this column we assume a constant relationship between tanks and releases, i.e. 7,168 releases uniformly distributed across 611,449 tanks. Regulations for interstitial integrity testing, operato

the proportion of releases enters directly into our calculations.

Walkthrough inspections all sources 21% 14% 0.72 14.83% 9.99% Assumes that tanks have one of each component aside from dispenser pans, for which they have two. Averages percentages provided by expert, counting each dispenser separately.Overfill functionality testing delivery problems 10% 5% 0.62 6.19% 3.10% Note that experts were initially asked to provide reductions based on an annual test, rather than testing once every three years. Values were computed by considering experts' answers to sensitivity queSpill bucket tightness testing delivery problems 50% 35% 0.75 37.67% 26.37%Integrity testing for interstitial areas

tank, piping, dispen 2% 2% 0.1359 0.27% 0.27%

Note that experts were initially asked to provide reductions based on an annual test, rather than testing once every three years. Values were computed by considering experts' answers to sensitivity que

walled to doulble-walled releases calculated in the Florida study to arrive at a weighted average of releases that can be attributed to tanks, piping, and dispensers in double-walled tanks; the average is The odds ratios are Tanks: 10.50:1Piping: 1.97:1Dispensers: 8.83:1We use these to calculate that, among releases of each type, the proportion of double-walled releases is:Tanks: 8.69%Piping: 33.67%Dispensers: 10.07%These are weighted by the proportions of releases from each source using the 23-state study (see "Releases before regulations" below). The weighted average of releases from double-walled tanks, pip

releases from piping, tanks, and dispensers to increase the proportion and adjust for the omission of STP and delivery problems (this is equivalent to multiplying by [100%/79% - 100%]= 26.58%. The en

double-walled equipment across all sources.

delivery problems 30% 10% 0.06 1.86% 0.62%delivery problems 10% 5% 0.05 0.49% 0.24%tank, piping 3% 3% 0.02 0.07% 0.07%delivery problems 8% 5% 0.05 0.42% 0.27%delivery problems 0.00 0.00% 0.00%

Operational testing - ATG tank 20% 15% 0.33 6.60% 4.95%Operational testing - Sticking tank 0.22 0.00% 0.00%Operational testing - Int. int. monitoring tank, piping 5% 3% 0.18 0.92% 0.55% Operational testing - vapor #N/A 6% 5% #N/A #N/A #N/AOperational testing - GW #N/A 7% 5% #N/A #N/A #N/AOperational testing - LLD tank, piping 0.27 0.00% 0.00%Add SIR and CITLDS usage tank, piping 25% 20% 0.00 0.12% 0.10%

#N/A 1% 1% #N/A #N/A #N/A

#N/A 2% 1% #N/A #N/A #N/A#N/A 1% 1% #N/A #N/A #N/A#N/A 1% 1% #N/A #N/A #N/A

tank, piping 40% 30% 0.02 0.77% 0.57%TBD 50% 45% 0.00 0.01% 0.01%TBD 10% 8% 0.00 0.00% 0.00%

Notification of ownership change None 1% 1% 0.15 0.15% 0.15%Replacement of lined tanksthat cannot be repaired according to a code of practice tank 50% 40% 0.00 0.00% 0.00%Response to interstitial monitoring alarms tank, piping 1% 1% 0.02 0.02% 0.02%Operator Training all sources 10% 5% 0.00 0.03% 0.01%

tank, piping, dispen 50% 40% 0.00 0.13% 0.10%

piping 50% 40% 0.00 0.13% 0.10%dispenser 10% 5% 0.00 0.03% 0.01% Affects only releases in tribal lands, which number 18/7168.

Reductionfrom all regulations all sources 60% 50% 0 0

Secondary 

Containment

IEc interpretation of Expert 3 comments duction weighted by universe affec

DeferralsOverfill ProtectionDetection ProbabilitiesRepairs

 
Expert 4

Comments

Regulatory feature Source affected Frequency

Groundwater release avoidance

Proportion of units affected Frequency

Groundwater release avoidance

In general, this column we assume a constant relationship between tanks and releases, i.e. 7,168 releases uniformly distributed across 611,449 tanks. Regulations for interstitial integrity testing, opeof releases enters directly into our calculations.

Walkthrough inspections all sources 65% 55% 0.72 46.86% 39.65%Overfill functionality testing delivery problems 17% 39% 0.62 10.40% 24.15% Note that experts were initially asked to provide reductions based on an annual test, rather than testing once every three years. Values were computed by considering experts' answers to sensitivity Spill bucket tightness testing delivery problems 40% 0% 0.75 30.14% 0.00%Integrity testing for interstitial areas

tank, piping, dispensers, STP 12% 48% 0.1359 1.63% 6.52%

Note that experts were initially asked to provide reductions based on an annual test, rather than testing once every three years. Values were computed by considering experts' answers to sensitivity 

doulble-walled releases calculated in the Florida study to arrive at a weighted average of releases that can be attributed to tanks, piping, and dispensers in double-walled tanks; the average is adjustThe odds ratios are Tanks: 10.50:1Piping: 1.97:1Dispensers: 8.83:1We use these to calculate that, among releases of each type, the proportion of double-walled releases is:Tanks: 8.69%Piping: 33.67%Dispensers: 10.07%These are weighted by the proportions of releases from each source using the 23-state study (see "Releases before regulations" below). The weighted average of releases from double-walled tankspiping, tanks, and dispensers to increase the proportion and adjust for the omission of STP and delivery problems (this is equivalent to multiplying by [100%/79% - 100%]= 26.58%. The end result is 

across all sources.

delivery problems 23% 0% 0.06 1.42% 0.00%delivery problems 29% 65% 0.05 1.42% 3.17%tank, piping 33% 0% 0.02 0.79% 0.00%delivery problems 5% 6% 0.05 0.27% 0.32%delivery problems 0% 0% 0.00 0.00% 0.00%

Operational testing - ATG tank 26% 0% 0.33 8.58% 0.00%Operational testing - Sticking tank 0.22 0.00% 0.00%Operational testing - Int. int. monitoring

tank, piping 26% 0% 0.18 4.79% 0.00%

Operational testing - vapor

#N/A 26% 0% #N/A #N/A #N/A

Operational testing - GW #N/A 26% 0% #N/A #N/A #N/AOperational testing - LLD tank, piping 0.27 0.00% 0.00%Add SIR and CITLDS usage tank, piping 22% 0% 0.00 0.10% 0.00%

#N/A 15% 10% #N/A #N/A #N/A#N/A 8% 2% #N/A #N/A #N/A#N/A 25% 35% #N/A #N/A #N/A#N/A 8% 3% #N/A #N/A #N/A

tank, piping 30% 45% 0.02 0.57% 0.86%TBD 20% 0% 0.00 0.00% 0.00%TBD 10% 0% 0.00 0.00% 0.00%

Notification of ownership change None 0% 0% 0.15 0.00% 0.00%Replacement oflined tanks thatcannot be repaired according to a code of practice tank 15% 0% 0.00 0.00% 0.00%Response to interstitial monitoring alarms tank, piping 5% 0% 0.02 0.09% 0.00%Operator Training all sources 20% 25% 0.00 0.05% 0.06%

tank, piping, dispensers, STP 15% 20% 0.00 0.04% 0.05%piping 25% 30% 0.00 0.06% 0.08%dispenser 20% 0% 0.00 0.05% 0.00% Affects only releases in tribal lands, which number 18/7168.

#N/A 0% 0% 0.00% 0.00%

Reduction from all regulations

all sources 30% 20%

Secondary 

Containment

IEc interpretation of Expert 4 comments Reduction weighted by universe affected

DeferralsOverfill ProtectionDetection ProbabilitiesRepairs

 
Expert 5

Comments

Regulatory feature Source affected Frequency

Groundwater release avoidance

Proportion of units affected Frequency

Groundwater release avoidance

In general, this column we assume a constant relationship between tanks and releases, i.e. 7,168 releases uniformly distributed across 611,449 tanks. Regulations for interstitial integrity testing, operator training, and secondary contaicalculations.

Walkthrough inspections all sources 5% 4% 0.72 3.60% 2.88%Overfill functionality testing delivery problems 5% 10% 0.62 9.29% 6.19% Note that experts were initially asked to provide reductions based on an annual test, rather than testing once every three years. Values were computed by considering experts' answers to sensitivity questions related to this regulation.

Spill bucket tightness testing delivery problems 5% 2% 0.75 3.77% 1.51%Integrity testing for interstitial areas

tank, piping, dispe 5% 10% 0.1359 2.04% 1.36%

Note that experts were initially asked to provide reductions based on an annual test, rather than testing once every three years. Values were computed by considering experts' answers to sensitivity questions related to this regulation. 

study to arrive at a weighted average of releases that can be attributed to tanks, piping, and dispensers in double-walled tanks; the average is adjusted to include STP.

The odds ratios are Tanks: 10.50:1Piping: 1.97:1Dispensers: 8.83:1We use these to calculate that, among releases of each type, the proportion of double-walled releases is:Tanks: 8.69%Piping: 33.67%Dispensers: 10.07%These are weighted by the proportions of releases from each source using the 23-state study (see "Releases before regulations" below). The weighted average of releases from double-walled tanks, piping, and dispensers is 15.05%, 

proportion and adjust for the omission of STP and delivery problems (this is equivalent to multiplying by [100%/79% - 100%]= 26.58%. The end result is 15.05%* (1 + 26.58%) = 19.05% of releases associated with double-walled equip

delivery problems 1% 1% 0.06 0.06% 0.06%delivery problems 2% 2% 0.05 0.10% 0.10%tank, piping 1% 1% 0.02 0.02% 0.02%delivery problems 2% 1% 0.05 0.11% 0.05%delivery problems 5% 2% 0.00 0.00% 0.00%

Operational testing - ATG

tank 10% 0% 0.33 3.30% 0.00%

Operational testing - Sticking tank 0.22 0.00% 0.00%

Operational testing - Int. int. monitoring tank, piping 10% 0% 0.18 1.84% 0.00%Operational testing - vapor

#N/A 10% 0% #N/A #N/A #N/A

Operational testing - GW #N/A 0% 0% #N/A #N/A #N/AOperational testing - LLD tank, piping 0.27 0.00% 0.00%Add SIR and CITLDS usage tank, piping 1% 0% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% Response was 0 for SIR and 2 for CITLD--averaged to yield 1 percent reduction.

#N/A 0% 0% #N/A #N/A #N/A#N/A 0% 0% #N/A #N/A #N/A#N/A 0% 0% #N/A #N/A #N/A#N/A 0% 0% #N/A #N/A #N/A

tank, piping 5% 2% 0.02 0.10% 0.04%TBD 2% 2% 0.00 0.00% 0.00%TBD 2% 2% 0.00 0.00% 0.00%

Notification ofownership change

None 0% 0% 0.15 0.00% 0.00%

Replacement of lined tanks that cannot berepaired according to a code of practice

tank 2% 2% 0.00 0.00% 0.00%

Response to interstitial monitoring alarms tank, piping 5% 2% 0.02 0.09% 0.03%Operator Training all sources 0% 0% 0.00 0.00% 0.00%

tank, piping, dispe 3% 2% 0.00 0.01% 0.01% 1770 of 2446 tanks (72.36%) in tribal lands are single-walled. Assuming this proportion remains the same for FY2009, there are 2626*72.36% = 1900 single-walled tanks in tribal lands.

piping 5% 2% 0.00 0.01% 0.01% Affects only releases in tribal lands, which number 18/7168.dispenser 5% 4% 0.00 0.01% 0.01% Affects only releases in tribal lands, which number 18/7168.

Reduction from all regulations all sources 40% 25%

Secondary 

Containment

IEc interpretation of Expert 5 comments Reduction weighted by universe affected

DeferralsOverfill ProtectionDetection ProbabilitiesRepairs

 
Appendix I 

Methodology for Calculating Avoided Cleanup Costs 
I-1 

This appendix presents EPA’s detailed methodology for the calculation of avoided costs. The 

steps that EPA took to calculate avoided costs are as follows: 

• Tabulation of release reductions per requirement as provided by expert responses 

• Weighting of reductions according to the universe affected by each regulation 

• Calculation of avoided releases 

• Economic valuation of avoided releases to yield avoided costs 

The sections below describe each of these steps in detail. 

I.1 Tabulation of Release Reductions per Requirement 

EPA sent each expert a set of questions, as described in Appendices G and H. The purpose of 

these questions was to obtain measures of two aspects of the proposed requirements: 

1. Reductions in release frequency, i.e., what portion of releases might be avoided 

due to the proposed rule. 

2. Reduction in release severity, i.e., how might releases become smaller in size as a 

consequence of the proposed rule. 

 Each expert responded to a number of questions, including the effects of each proposed 

requirement on both the incidence of releases and the severity of releases. For the incidence of 

releases, each expert was asked to provide a percent reduction in annual releases. For the severity 

of releases, each expert was asked to provide at least one of: percent reduction in the number of 

releases that reach groundwater; percent reduction in the average quantity released; or percent 

reduction in the average duration of releases. 

All experts responded regarding the incidence of releases. The methods we used to calculate 

avoided costs best captured reductions in release severity through expert estimates of 

groundwater avoidance, and four of the five experts directly estimated the percent reduction in 

the number of releases that reach groundwater. EPA translated the reductions in volume 

estimated by the fifth expert into reductions in groundwater contamination; the methods for that 

calculation are explained later in this appendix. In the sections below, the calculations of avoided 

releases for Expert 2 correspondingly utilize a different methodology than those for other 

experts. 

Several of the experts also provided estimates of reductions in release volume or duration, 

though we do not incorporate these into our measures of reduced severity. The data available for 

this analysis were not sufficient to parameterize a model that could convert these estimates other 

 
I-2 

than reductions in volume or explicit reductions in groundwater contamination into avoided 

groundwater contamination incidents.1

In a few cases, experts provided responses that had to be averaged in order to yield a usable 

value. For example, one expert did not provide an aggregate figure for the effects of the 

walkthrough inspection requirements on release incidence and release severity, instead providing 

disaggregated reduction values for each component that would be treated by a walkthrough 

inspection. In this case, we calculated a weighted average of the reductions provided based on 

the number of units of each component in an average UST system as described in Exhibit 2-1. 

I.2 Adjustment of Reductions According to the Universe Affected by Requirement

As each distinct requirement of the proposed rulemaking affects only a certain percentage of the 

universe of UST systems, we weighted the reductions provided by the experts according to two 

elements: 

1. The percentage of UST systems affected by a given requirement; and 

2. The area of an UST system that the requirement would affect. 

For example, walkthrough inspections will affect 72.1 percent of the universe of UST systems 

and are expected to affect all areas of a typical UST system. According to Expert 1’s responses, 

walkthrough inspections will reduce the frequency of releases by 15 percent, and the percentage 

of releases reaching groundwater by 50 percent. We weight these figures by 72.1 percent and 

calculate that according to Expert 1, total release frequency will reduce by 10.81 percent and the 

percentage of releases reaching groundwater will reduce by 36.05 percent as a result of the 

walkthrough inspection requirement. The full list of percentages of the UST universe affected 

by each requirement of the proposed rulemaking is available in Exhibit 2-4. 

Expert 2 considered reductions such that his estimates apply to the entire universe of UST 

systems, rather than only those systems in states that do not have particular requirements in 

place. We adjust for this difference by assuming that the reduction in releases affects all systems; 

for example, using the examples for walkthrough inspections, we reduced the frequency of 

releases by 15 percent and the percentage of releases reaching groundwater by 50 percent 

without making any adjustment for the 27.9 percent of unaffected systems. 

We present the universe values used in both scenarios and the area of the UST system affected 

by each proposed requirement in Exhibit I-1. 

 1 Some experts did not provide percent reductions in the number of releases reaching groundwater for 

certain requirements. In these cases, we treated their responses as indicating that there would be no reduction in the 

number of releases reaching groundwater.

 
I-3 

Exhibit I-1 

UST System Area and Proportion of Universe Affected by Proposed Requirements 

Description Area of UST Affected 

Proportion of Universe affected 

Experts 1, 3, 4 Expert 2 

Release Prevention 

Walkthrough inspections a all sources 72.09% 100.00%

Overfill prevention equipment tests b delivery problems 61.93% 100.00%

Spill prevention equipment tests c delivery problems 75.34% 100.00%

Interstitial integrity tests d tank, piping, dispensers, STP 13.59% 19.05%

Spill prevention equipment test after repair delivery problems 6.19% 100.00%

Overfill prevention equipment test after repair delivery problems 4.88% 100.00%

Interstitial integrity test after repair tank, piping 2.39% 27.60%

Eliminate flow restrictors for all new tanks and when overfill 

devices are replaced delivery problems 5.31% 100.00%

Release Detection 

Operability test - ATG tank 33.02% 33.66%

Operability test - interstitial monitoring tank, piping 18.41% 19.76%

Operability test – LLD tank, piping 27.02% 100.00%

Add SIR/CITLDS to regulations with performance criteria tank, piping 0.48% 12.96%

Change release detection leak rate probabilities – ATG tank 23.25% 33.66%

Change release detection leak rate probabilities – LLD piping 21.94% 27.55%

Change release detection leak rate probabilities – SIR tank 1.34% 12.96%

Change release detection leak rate probabilities – CITLD tank 24.76% 4.00%

Response to interstitial monitoring alarms tank, piping 1.73% 100.00%

Remove deferral for emergency generator tanks tank, piping 1.91% 1.91%

Other 

Remove deferral for airport hydrant fuel distribution systems TBD 0.02% 0.02%

Remove deferral for UST systems with field-constructed tanks TBD 0.02% 0.02%

Require notification of ownership change None 14.51% 100.00%

Closure of lined tanks that cannot be repaired according to a 

code of practice tank 0.01% 5.00%

Energy Policy Act-related Provisions 

Operator training all sources 0.25% 0.25%

Secondary containment - new and replaced tanks tank, piping, dispensers, STP 0.25% 0.25%

Threshold for pipe replacement rather than repair piping 0.25% 0.25%

Under-dispenser containment for all new dispensers dispenser 0.25% 0.25%

Notes: 

a

 Decreases to 63.41 percent under Alternative 2. 

b

 Increases to 68.88 percent under Alternative 1. 

c

 Increases to 90 percent under Alternative 1. 

d

 Increases to 16.69 percent under Alternative 1 and decreases to zero under Alternative 2. 

 
I-4 

I.3 Calculation of Avoided Releases

The methodology calculates avoided releases in two parts: 

• Total releases avoided due to a reduction in release frequency; and 

• Groundwater releases averted due to a reduction in the percentage of releases 

reaching groundwater. 

I.3.1 Total releases avoided due to a reduction in release frequency 

To assess how the requirements of the proposed rulemaking affect reductions in releases, we rely 

on an evaluation of releases performed by EPA (“Autopsy Study”).2

 This study considered over 

500 releases in 23 states and classified them by whether they reached groundwater, as well as 

which part of the UST system (i.e., piping, dispenser, tank, etc.) was responsible for the release. 

Exhibit I-2 summarizes the data we use in our calculations. 

Exhibit I-2 

Release Incidence, Extent, and Media Contamination Type by Source 

Source of 

Release 

% of All 

Releases 

Local 

Extent 

Large 

Extent 

Soil 

Affected 

Water 

Affected 

Soil Only Water Only 

Local 

Extent 

Large 

Extent 

Local 

Extent 

Large 

Extent

Piping 31% 65% 35% 45% 55% 90% 10% 40% 60%

Dispenser 32% 83% 18% 77% 23% 93% 7% 42% 58%

Tank 16% 54% 46% 48% 52% 64% 36% 34% 66%

STP Area 4% 83% 17% 50% 50% 100% 0% 62% 38%

Delivery 

Problems 16% 72% 28% 61% 39% 97% 3% 43% 57%

Others 1% 

No 

data 

No 

data No data No data 

No 

data 

No 

data 

No 

data 

No 

data 

Source: Office of Underground Storage Tanks, “Evaluation of Releases from New and Upgraded Underground Storage 

Tank Systems – Peer Review Draft,” U.S. EPA, August 2004. 

We apply the reductions estimated by the experts to these sources as mapped by Exhibit I-1; for 

example, walkthrough inspections would affect releases from all sources, whereas overfill 

prevention equipment tests would affect only those releases arising from delivery problems. We 

similarly consider how each requirement of the proposed rule affects releases reaching 

groundwater from each source. 

 2 Office of Underground Storage Tanks, “Evaluation of Releases from New and Upgraded Underground 

Storage Tank Systems – Peer Review Draft,” U.S. EPA, August 2004.

 
I-5 

To calculate the proportion of releases avoided: 

• We consider the percentage of all releases coming from each source in an UST 

system, as well as the percentage of all releases reaching groundwater coming 

from each source as described in the autopsy study data. 

• We sum the reductions, weighted by the universe affected by each requirement, 

across each source for reductions in overall release frequency and reductions in 

the percentage of groundwater releases. 

• We reduce the proportion of releases from each source by the total estimated 

reductions.3

To determine the number of actual releases avoided: 

• We obtain the difference between the percentage of releases from each source 

prior to the implementation of the proposed rulemaking and the percentage of 

releases from each source after the implementation of the proposed rulemaking. 

• We then multiply this difference by the total number of confirmed releases 

according to the OUST 2009 End-of-Year Annual Report to obtain a numerical 

value for releases avoided. 

• We sum these figures across all release sources to obtain a figure for total releases 

avoided. 

I.3.2 Groundwater releases averted due to a reduction in the percentage of releases reaching 

groundwater

To assess the reduction in severity of releases, we obtain the difference between the proportion 

of releases affecting groundwater for each area of an UST system prior to and following the 

implementation of the proposed rulemaking. To obtain a distribution of releases before the 

proposed changes, we allocate confirmed releases from the Office of Underground Storage 

Tanks’ 2009 End-of-Year Reports according to the distribution in the Florida study. We obtain 

the total reduction in groundwater incidents due to the proposed rule and reduce the proportion 

of groundwater releases while increasing the proportion of soil releases. To calculate the number 

of groundwater releases averted, we compare the number of groundwater releases before and 

after the proposed requirements. 

Due to a lack of data from experts on changes in severity and cost of releases, EPA does not 

assess changes in costs for releases that involve the same medium in both scenarios. That is, we 

do not measure the cost savings associated with small groundwater contamination releases that 

 3 These new percentages do not sum to 100 percent across sources; rather, these percentages present the 

ratio of remaining releases after the reductions stemming from the requirements of the proposed rulemaking go into 

affect from a given source to the overall ratio of releases prior to the implementation of the proposed rulemaking.

 
I-6 

would have been larger and more expensive in the baseline, or with small soil contamination 

events that would have been larger in the baseline, but would still not have reached groundwater. 

The analysis therefore provides a conservative estimate of the avoided cleanup costs associated 

with reduced release severity. If release extent is associated with volume—as the 23-state 

autopsy report data suggest—then reductions in release volume should result in both smaller 

extent releases regardless of media contaminated and fewer incidents of groundwater 

involvement, not just the latter. This implies that the analysis underestimates the reduction in 

severity of releases under the potential regulatory changes. 

I.3.3 Calculations for groundwater releases averted for Expert 2

Because Expert 2’s responses address changes in volume rather than groundwater involvement, 

we use a groundwater contamination index from the risk assessment developed for EPA to 

translate reductions in average release volume to reductions in the proportion of releases 

reaching groundwater.4

 In particular: 

• We use average release volume per release source from the Florida study data5

 to 

estimate the baseline proportion of releases that reach groundwater, based on the 

groundwater contamination model. 

• We reduce baseline volumes by the weighted volume reductions in the same way 

as reductions in percentage of releases reaching groundwater to obtain postregulation average release volumes and rates of groundwater contamination for 

each release source. 

• We calculate the difference between the rates of groundwater contamination 

between the baseline and post-regulation scenarios. 

Exhibit I-3 reports the volumes used to calculate avoided groundwater releases for Expert 2. 

 4

 RTI International, “Risk Analysis to Support Revisions to Underground Storage Tank (UST) 

Regulations,” December 22, 2009. 

5

 Office of Underground Storage Tanks, U.S. EPA, “Petroleum Releases at Underground Storage Tank 

Facilities in Florida,” U.S. EPA, March 2005.

 
I-7 

Exhibit I-3 

Average Volume by Release Source 

Source of Release Average release (gal) 

Piping 1,152 

Tank 696 

Other 408 

Dispenser 260 

Fuel Delivery 126 

Pump (Turbine) 33 

Fill Pipe 93 

Office of Underground Storage Tanks, U.S. EPA, “Petroleum Releases at 

Underground Storage Tank Facilities in Florida,” U.S. EPA, draft, March 

2005. 

Once these values are derived, our methodology for calculating avoided costs using Expert 2’s 

responses proceeds similarly to our methodology for calculating avoided costs via the responses 

of all other experts. 

The risk assessment simulation of groundwater involvement may also overstate the probability of 

groundwater contamination, especially at relatively low release volumes (approximately 50 

gallons or less). The simulation assumes that modeled volumes are released at a single time, 

which increases the probability of rapid soil transport and groundwater contamination. Experts 

with whom we spoke indicated that some releases involve low throughput over an extended 

period of time; these releases are more likely to be affected by attenuation and less likely to 

reach groundwater rapidly. The impact of this assumption means that the reduction in 

groundwater events is likely understated (e.g., because small releases still reach groundwater in 

large numbers). This produces a relatively conservative (i.e., low) estimate of the number of 

groundwater releases avoided. 

I.4 Economic Valuation of Avoided Releases to Obtain Avoided Costs

Our valuation of avoided releases assigns values to two kinds of avoided costs: 

• Costs avoided due to avoided releases; and 

• Costs avoided due to the avoidance of a groundwater contamination incident, 

which effectively replaces a groundwater release with a less costly soil release. 

I.4.1 Economic valuation of costs avoided due to avoided releases 

To assign an economic value to avoided releases, we consider the Autopsy Study data, which 

breaks down releases by release source, by extent (local or large), and by whether or not the 

release reached groundwater (media affected). 

 
I-8 

We use average release remediation costs that consist of a weighted average of cost data across 

release types from both New Hampshire and Utah.6

 These costs vary by extent of the release 

(local or large), as well as by the media affected by that release (soil or groundwater). We 

calculate an average cost per release from each source by calculating a weighted average cost 

based on the type of release (large or small extent, soil or groundwater contamination) generated 

by that source. We multiply the number of avoided releases from each release source by the 

average cost of releases from that source to obtain a avoided costs by release source. We sum 

these to obtain total avoided costs across all avoided releases. 

I.4.2 Economic valuation of costs avoided due to the aversion of groundwater releases

Because groundwater releases tend to be more costly to remediate than releases that affect only 

soil, the conversion of groundwater releases and into soil releases entails an avoidance of costs. 

The magnitude of cost avoidance depends on the number of groundwater releases averted: every 

groundwater release averted means lower groundwater remediation costs and additional soil 

remediation costs. To calculate the costs avoided due to the aversion of groundwater releases, 

we calculate the difference in the total cost of remediation prior to and after the implementation 

of the proposed rulemaking. 

Under both scenarios, we use the same number of releases; that is, we alter only the distribution 

of releases, not their total number. In both cases, we use the total number of releases remaining 

after we exclude those releases that are completely avoided. We distribute releases according to 

the release source, media affected, and extent shown in Exhibit I-2 and calculate the total cost to 

remediate those releases. After accounting for changes in rates of groundwater contamination, 

we repeat the process and calculate the cost to remediate all releases after the proposed rule. 

While the distribution across media affected and release source does not change, the reductions 

in the percentage of groundwater releases alter the number of groundwater and soil releases from 

each release source. The difference in the total cost of remediation in the pre-implementation 

and post-implementation scenarios represents our measure of reduced severity of releases. 

Total avoided costs can be calculated by summing the avoided costs from avoided releases and 

the avoided costs from averted groundwater releases. 

 6 We also calculate these costs using data from New Hampshire to evaluate the sensitivity of our results.

 
Appendix I 

[continued] 

 
 

 

MEMORANDUM | 5 May 2009 

TO Cho Yi Kwan and Timothy Roberts, EPA 

FROM Katie Glodzik, Aaron Kamholtz, Robert Paterson, Neal Etre, and Cynthia Manson, IEc 

SUBJECT Status Update on the Development of Estimates of Avoided Costs Per Leak 

WA 2-25, Task 2 (revision of WA 1-25, Task 5, 3rd Deliverable) 

Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a comprehensive regulatory program 

for the management of petroleum and other hazardous substances in underground storage 

tanks (USTs). In 1988, EPA issued UST regulations addressing technical requirements 

for tank operators, financial responsibility requirements, and state program approval 

objectives (see 40 CFR Parts 280 and 281 for detail about the requirements). EPA is 

currently considering the possibility of revisions to the existing UST regulations. The 

Agency is considering amending the requirements to address four issues: (1) 

technical/administrative fixes, (2) deferred UST systems, (3) existing regulatory gaps, 

and (4) potential deregulatory options. 

As part of this effort, Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) is assisting EPA’s Office of 

Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) in developing a methodology to estimate the 

average avoided costs resulting from preventing one UST leak (LUST) from a baseline 

associated with the existing UST regulations. This avoided cost estimate may be used in 

potential regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) to support possible revisions to the existing 

UST regulations. 

In a November 4, 2008 memorandum, IEc proposed several potential categories from 

which to evaluate the avoided costs of preventing a typical UST leak.1

 The purpose of 

this memorandum is to provide OUST with a status update on the development of the 

costs associated with each of these categories. We first provide a summary table 

detailing the priority and status for each cost category presented in the previous 

memorandum. We then provide preliminary cost estimates associated with LUST 

cleanups, vapor damages, fire/explosions, and lost product. Finally, we briefly discuss 

existing approaches to groundwater valuation and feasibility of their use for this effort.2

 

This memorandum updates a previous version submitted to EPA on February 11, 2009. 

 

 

1

 See Prioritization of Avoided Cost Categories Associated with a Typical UST Leak, IEc Memorandum to EPA, prepared by 

Neal Etre and Cynthia Manson, November 4, 2008. 

2

 IEc also performed preliminary research on the existing 1988 UST RIA cancer risk model to understand the extent to which 

EPA could alter its risk assumptions to estimate human health costs associated with existing leaks. Since the development 

of the initial memorandum, OUST is considering the development of a separate risk assessment framework to support 

potential RIAs. For this reason, discussions of IEc’s preliminary effort have been removed from this memorandum. 

INTRODUCTION 

AND PURPOSE 
 2 

 

Exhibit 1 provides a summary of the avoided costs categories presented in the November 

4 memorandum by priority ranking. Ultimately, this status table will include an estimate 

of total avoided costs. The cleanup and product loss costs currently reflect information 

provided by New Hampshire, New Mexico and Utah. IEc has also received information 

from Virginia and South Carolina; however, neither state could provide the detailed 

information required for this analysis. Given disparity in the types of information the 

states were able to provide, IEc contacted an additional five states in effort to identify 

states that track cleanup costs in a manner that can be used with the current methodology. 

Based on their responses, which indicated that they may not collect and track data in a 

manner amenable to our current approach, we did not attempt to collect additional data. 

In addition, our investigation into groundwater valuation reveals that the existing 

literature does not provide a general value applicable in the LUST context. In previous 

versions of this memorandum, IEc has suggested several research avenues that EPA may 

wish to consider to further investigate the development of groundwater use valuation 

methods. At this time, EPA has indicated this effort is beyond the scope of the 

rulemaking. 

For the lower priority cost categories, previously labeled as “To Be Determined (TBD),” 

IEc has contemplated methods to estimate costs, which we briefly detail below. In some 

cases, we recommend that EPA wait until a risk assessment of health impacts associated 

with changes to the regulations has been completed, as it may inform whether developing 

cost estimates is warranted. 

• Public and Private Well Damage: A risk analysis may determine that too few 

wells will be affected by the regulatory options to warrant inclusion in the overall 

cost estimate. If the risk assessment indicates heightened risk for public and 

private wells, we suggest revisiting potential costs associated with these damages. 

• Lost Profits from Downtime: To estimate these costs, we suggest researching 

publicly available information on profits associated with the retail gasoline 

industry, along with information on the typical duration of facility closure to 

implement LUST remediation. 

• Long-Term Costs from Residual Contamination: IEc anticipates that the 

avoided costs associated with residual contamination (i.e., contamination that 

remains at a site post-cleanup) will not be significant. Again, we recommend 

revisiting these costs if the risk assessment indicates significant risk exists. 

Assessing these costs without the risk assessment results would likely be a 

substantial effort, because it would require location and geology-specific 

information. 

• Impacts on Employment and Economic Growth: We believe that some of the 

employment impacts may be equated to, or discovered in, the analysis of 

downtime and lost profits, and we recommend identifying data that would support 

an analysis of employment as part of the assessment of lost profit. However, we 

also anticipate that potential impacts on employment may be offset, at least in part, 

by the creation of jobs associated with remediation. We therefore suggest using 

employment data and the analysis of downtime to conduct a screening analysis of 

whether lost time at a facility is likely to be significant. If the screening 

STATUS 

SUMMARY 
3 

assessment indicates potential for significant cost savings from avoided downtime, 

we recommend a full analysis of employment impacts, including employment 

gains associated with cleanups. 

• Impacts on Insurance: IEc is currently contacting an insurance representative to 

collect additional information. We anticipate the actuarial process will account for 

changes in risk associated with avoiding leaks. 
4 

EXHIBIT 1 STATUS SUMMARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF AVOIDED COST CATEGORIES 

PRIORITY 

RANKING 

COST CATEGORY 

LUST SITE SIZE AND CONTAMINATION TYPE (2008$ PER LUST SITE) 

SMALL 

EXTENT, 

SOIL ONLY 

LARGE 

EXTENT, 

SOIL ONLY 

SMALL EXTENT, 

GROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION

LARGE EXTENT, 

GROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION 

Priority 1 

Cleanup Costs:a

 

 Administrative Costs $0 $0 $500 $3,700 

 Response Costs $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 

 Remediation Costs $10,000 to 

$20,000 

 $56,000 to 

$150,000 

 $97,000 to 

$350,000 

 $219,000 to 

$2,500,000 

 Oversight Costs $500 $1,000 $1,500 $5,000 

Weighted Average Cleanup Cost using leak 

source and site type information from the LUST 

Autopsy reports (see Appendix B)

Lower-bound (NH data only): $96,200 

Upper-bound (NH, NM, UT): $326,600b

Groundwater Value EPA has elected to not pursue this effort, as data are not likely 

available to conduct analysis 

Priority 2 

Product Loss $60 to $2,900 

Human Health (Cancer Risk) EPA is considering conducting an independent risk assessment 

Public and Private Well Damage A risk assessment would provide insight into the magnitude of 

potential damages to wells 

Priority 3 

Lost profits from Downtime May be estimated using publicly available information on industry 

profits, employment, and research on typical cleanup durations 

Vapor Damages $270 to $5,200 

Fire and Explosions Incident rate appears to be extremely low 

Priority 4 

Long Term Costs from Residual Contamination Delay assessment pending results of risk assessment 

Impacts on Employment and Economic Growth Requires screening analysis prior to assessment; data collected as 

part of lost profits analysis would support screening 

Priority 5 

Impacts on Insurance Currently collecting information 

Ecological Risk 

EPA has elected to not pursue these efforts, as data are not 

likely available to conduct analysis Decline in Nearby Property Values 

Distribution Impacts and Intergenerational Equity 

Notes: 

a. Administrative, response, and oversight costs provided by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, 

Underground Storage Tank Program. Remediation costs provided by provided by New Hampshire Department of Environmental 

Services, Underground Storage Tank Program; New Mexico Environment Department, Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau; and the 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Underground Storage Tank Program. IEc received information from Virginia and South 

Carolina, but the data were not provided in a format amenable to these calculations. Appendix A provides the responses from 

the states. 

b. The upper-bound value shown here uses the average remediation costs across the three states. Using only the highest and 

lowest remediation costs of the three states, the weighted average cleanup costs associated with an UST release range between 

$91,200 and $698,600. (See Appendix C) 
5 

PRELIMINARY CLEANUP COSTS 

Using the approach illustrated in the October 27, 2008 memorandum, IEc has developed 

preliminary estimate of avoided costs associated with LUST cleanups.3

 This approach 

calls for developing average cleanup costs based on four general leak types: 

• Local site extent with soil contamination; 

• Local site extent with water contamination; 

• Large site extent with soil contamination; and 

• Large site extent with water contamination.4

Our approach then weights cleanup costs for each type by leak source probability, as 

derived from the two EPA reports entitled “Evaluation of Releases from New and 

Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks” and “Petroleum Releases at Underground 

Storage Tanks in Florida” (referred hereafter as the 23-state LUST Autopsy report and 

the Florida LUST Autopsy report, respectively).5

 The leak sources include piping, the 

dispenser, the tank, the submersible turbine pump (STP) area, and fuel delivery. 

To develop the preliminary avoided cleanup cost estimate, IEc initially contacted six 

states that use State Funds to pay for LUST remediation, including Montana, New 

Hampshire, New Mexico, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia. Via email, IEc sent each 

state UST program office a questionnaire requesting data on typical cleanup costs broken 

out by the four general leak types listed above. IEc received responses from New 

Hampshire, New Mexico, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia. Of these, New Hampshire 

provided the most comprehensive and detailed set of information. Specifically, New 

Hampshire was able to provide cleanup costs by category (i.e., administrative, response, 

remediation, and oversight), while New Mexico and Utah could only provide estimates of 

remediation costs. Virginia and South Carolina were unable to provide the detail required 

for this analysis. 6 Appendix A provides the individual responses provided by the states. 

Appendix B uses the leak data from both Autopsy reports to estimate the avoided 

cleanup costs associated with preventing a typical LUST using the methodology 

described in the October 27, 2008 memorandum. Appendix B presents two scenarios: 1) 

an estimate that uses remediation cost data from New Hampshire, New Mexico, and 

Utah; and 2) an estimate that employs only New Hampshire data to determine cleanup 

costs. The multi-state scenario resulted in a weighted average avoided cleanup cost of 

approximately $326,600 per leak, while the New Hampshire-only estimate yielded a 

lower estimate of roughly $96,200 per leak. Using the same methods applied in 

Appendix B and data from the three states, Appendix C employs the upper and lower 

bound remediation costs to estimate a range in the weighted average costs associated with 

 

3

 See Methodology to Estimate Avoided Costs Associated with a Typical UST Leak, IEc Memorandum to EPA, prepared by 

Aaron Kamholtz, Neal Etre, and Cynthia Manson, October 27, 2008. 

4

 While no specific definition exists for a large site, the 23-state LUST Autopsy survey instruments used by the states 

generally define large sites as those with contamination that extend beyond the extent of construction excavation. In 

addition, EPA classified sites with off-site contamination as large sites. 

5

 U.S. EPA, Evaluation of Releases from New and Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks (Draft), 2004; U.S. EPA, Petroleum 

Releases at Underground Storage Tanks in Florida (Draft), 2005. 

6

 Virginia was unable to break out costs by the extent of the leak (i.e., large or small). In general, the remediation costs 

provided by Virginia are consistent with New Hampshire’s estimates of the costs to remediate small leaks (for both soil and 

groundwater). 

AVOIDED COSTS 

ASSOCIATED 

WITH LUST 

CLEANUPS AND 

PRODUCT LOSS 
6 

an UST cleanup. Based on the data from New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Utah, the 

weighted average avoided cost ranges from $91,200 to $698,600 per LUST site. 

In an effort to bolster the sample size and determine whether states can provide 

information consistent with this preliminary approach, EPA requested that IEc contact 

additional states. IEc contacted five additional states, including Alaska, Minnesota, 

Missouri, Vermont, and Wyoming, to determine whether they collect and track data in a 

manner amenable to our current approach.7

 During this effort, IEc did not attempt to 

collect additional information; our purpose was to determine whether additional states 

had readily available information that could be combined with the data collected from the 

first group of states we contacted. 

Representatives from each state suggested that these states do not maintain cost 

information in a manner amenable to our outlined methodology. Several also mentioned 

they would check with colleagues and follow-up with IEc. As of April 16, 2009, 

however, none has done so. In general, the states indicated that they do not track costs by 

site-type or leak severity, and are not able to pull cost information in that manner. 

Wyoming appears to keep the most descriptive cost information of any state in the second 

group. Rather than store costs according to administrative, response, remediation, and 

oversight, Wyoming maintains cost data according the following categories: 

investigation, design, operations and maintenance, construction and equipment 

management, and site close-out costs. While descriptive, such categories are not easily 

transferable into our methodology. 

Of the states contacted in both phases of this effort, only New Hampshire was able to 

provide information broken out by type (i.e., administrative, response, etc) and leak 

severity (i.e., groundwater versus soil-contaminated sites). This suggests that improving 

the estimate presented in the February 11th memorandum may require significant data 

collection and analysis. As a result, EPA may wish to consider using the New Hampshire 

data to develop an initial avoided cost estimate. The total remediation cost data provided 

by states initially contacted suggests that New Hampshire’s costs are generally consistent 

with those provided by other states (see Appendix A). In fact, New Hampshire’s cleanup cost estimates tend to be lower than other states, which may provide a robust (and 

conservative) starting point for the initial assessment of benefits. In contrast, New 

Mexico’s cost estimates appear to be very high; an initial estimate of regulatory benefits 

based on these costs could potentially overstate the value of the rule (see Appendix A). 

In addition, New Hampshire’s weighted average costs are roughly consistent with, though 

lower than, costs reported in ASTSWMO’s “State Fund Survey.” The Survey estimates 

the average cost per site to be $128,023, compared to the New Hampshire average cost of 

roughly $96,200 per site.8

 IEc recommends follow-up conversations with both New 

Hampshire and Survey administrators to better understand the cost components (e.g., do 

they include legacy sites?) associated with each estimate to determine their comparability. 

As a preliminary cost estimate, however, New Hampshire appears to be a reasonable 

starting point. 

IEc suggests that EPA consider developing the regulatory cost model and running 

screening analyses using both the New Hampshire costs estimate, and the preliminary 

 

7

 IEc was not able to make contact with Vermont. 

8

 Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, Summary of State Fund Survey Results 2009. 

Available at: http://www.astswmo.org/files/publications/tanks/2008StateFundSurvey/StateFundSurvey2008_Complete.pdf. 
7 

cost estimate developed using the three states. The two existing estimates (New 

Hampshire and our multi-state average) can be used to test the model’s sensitivity to 

avoided cleanup costs, in comparison with other factors (e.g., human health impacts 

avoided) and regulatory costs. The results of this exercise will help determine whether 

any additional effort is needed to improve these preliminary avoided costs estimates with 

collection of additional data. If the model proves to be relatively insensitive to cleanup 

costs, EPA may be able to rely on these preliminary cost estimates. 

PRELIMINARY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEANUPS FROM SITES WITH VAPOR, FIRE, 

AND EXPLOSION PROBLEMS 

In addition to cleanup costs, we asked states to provide estimates of costs associated with 

damages from vapor intrusion, fires, and explosions. Responses from New Hampshire, 

New Mexico, Utah, and South Carolina suggest the incidence rate of fires and explosions 

is very low, and they were therefore unable to provide average damage estimates for 

these incidents. These states indicated that the incidence of vapor intrusion, while not 

common, is higher than that of fire and explosions. The data provided by those four 

states indicate that a conservative estimate of the percent of LUST sites resulting in 

vapor-related problems is between 1 and 10 percent. Based on these probabilities and 

New Hampshire’s estimated vapor intrusion cleanup costs ($27,000 to $52,000 per vapor 

site), we estimate that vapor intrusion cleanup costs range from $270 to $5,200 for a 

typical LUST site. 

COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCT LOSS 

To estimate the costs associated with lost product from LUST sites, we multiply the 

typical volume of fuel lost per leak by the retail price of fuel. Exhibit 2 presents the 

preliminary range of costs associated with product loss, assuming a December 8, 2008 

retail price of gasoline of $1.70 per gallon and retail price of diesel fuel of $2.52 per 

gallon.9,10 Based on the Florida LUST Autopsy report, the average spill size ranges from 

33 gallons (spills originating at the turbine area) to 1,152 gallons (spills originating from 

piping).11 Since a portion of retail fuel prices from gas stations are dedicated to pay gas 

taxes, the cost of product loss is typically borne by industry and, in part, by the federal 

government and potentially the states (i.e., lost tax revenue).12 For those operating 

facilities that do not sell fuel, these costs would likely be borne solely by industry, 

assuming they pay less than full retail costs for fuel. 13

 

9

 Energy Information Administration (EIA), “Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update.” Accessed on December 9, 2008. Available at: 

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp. 

10 The average U.S. prices for regular-grade gasoline and diesel fuel, at $1.70 and $2.52 per gallon respectively on December 

8, 2008, were both more than $2.00 per gallon below their highs in mid-July. With the assumption of a fragile economy 

throughout 2009, along with lower projected crude oil prices, EIA projects annual average retail gasoline and diesel fuel 

prices in 2009 to be $2.03 and $2.47 per gallon, respectively. EIA, “Short-Term Energy Outlook.” Accessed on December 9, 

2008. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html. 

11 New Hampshire indicated that the volume of UST leaks typically range from 100 gallons to 1,000 gallons, which fits within 

the range provided in the Florida LUST Autopsy report. The other states were not able to provide information on product 

loss. 

12 EIA reports that federal and state taxes represented approximately 15 percent of retail gasoline prices (in 2007) and 

approximately 10 percent of retail diesel prices (in 2008). EIA, “A Primer on Gasoline Prices.” Accessed on December 9, 

2008. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolinepricesprimer/index.html; EIA, “Diesel Fuel 

Prices: What Consumers Should Know.” Accessed on December 9, 2008. Available at: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/diesel/index.html 

13 Product loss estimates do not account for two uncertainties: 1) facilities that purchase at wholesale, but do not sell motor 

fuel (e.g., government installations); and 2) facilities that use fuels different from motor fuel (e.g., heating oil). These 

facilities likely purchase fuel at prices that differ from current retail prices. 
8 

EXHIBIT 2 PRELIMINARY RANGE OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCT LOST (2008$ PER 

LUST SITE) 

FUEL TYPE 

AVERAGE 

FUEL COSTS 

PER GALLON

[A] 

QUANTITY OF FUEL 

LOSS PER LUST SITE 

(GALLONS) 

[B] 

AVOIDED COST OF 

PRODUCT LOSS 

[C] = [A] * [B] 

Product Loss Costs 

(Lower Bound) $1.70a

 33b $56 

Product Loss Costs 

(Upper Bound) $2.52a

 1,152b $2,903 

Average: 

$2.11 486c

 1,025 

Notes: 

a. The average U.S. prices for regular-grade gasoline and diesel fuel, at $1.70 and $2.52 per 

gallon respectively on December 8, 2008. (Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA), 

“Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update.” Accessed on December 9, 2008. Available at: 

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp.) 

b. Based on the Florida LUST Autopsy report, the average spill size ranges from 33 gallons 

(spills originating at the turbine area) to 1,152 gallons (spills originating from piping). 

(Source: U.S. EPA, Petroleum Releases at Underground Storage Tanks in Florida (Draft). 

2005.) 

c. Calculated as the average spill size weighted by fuel release point (e.g., piping, turbine 

area, etc) using data from the Florida LUST Autopsy report. 

IEc conducted preliminary research to determine the feasibility of using existing 

groundwater valuation methods in the development of avoided cost estimates associated 

with preventing UST leaks. As part of this effort, IEc evaluated existing approaches to 

valuation developed through Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) and in the 

general resource economics literature. IEc also discussed the potential applicability of 

these existing valuation methods with a resource valuation expert and IEc experts who 

have considerable experience in NRDA. 

Approaches to Valuation from NRDA 

NRDA is the process of estimating the monetary cost of restoring natural resources 

injured by discharges of oil or releases of hazardous substances. Monetary costs, or 

damages, are estimated by identifying the services provided by the injured natural 

resources, determining the baseline level of the services provided by the resources, and 

quantifying the reduction in services that result from the natural resource injury.14 

 

14 U.S. EPA. Natural Resource Damage Assessment. www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/nrd/nrda2.htm. 

VALUATION OF 

GROUNDWATER 

 
9 

Based on the NRDA framework, Ando et al. 2004, conducted a review of potential 

economic valuation methods that could be applied in context of groundwater protection.15 

Of those methods reviewed, two approaches, contingent valuation (CV) and benefits 

transfer, are likely the most applicable for valuing groundwater protection from UST 

leaks: 

• Contingent Valuation. CV, also known as a stated-preference model, uses a 

survey instrument to obtain the value of a resource by assessing an individual’s 

willingness-to-pay for that resource (in this case, clean groundwater). Typically, 

the survey lays out a hypothetical contamination scenario and respondents indicate 

what they would be willing to pay for remediation or avoidance of the 

contamination. Unlike valuation methods that rely on price data for the purchase 

of replacement of water, CV can reveal both use and nonuse (e.g., existence 

values) values that capture the value people place on having a resource even when 

they do not expect to use it in the near term. CV is often criticized for its 

hypothetical nature, the difficulty and expense required to develop an unbiased 

survey instrument, and the lack of connection between willingness-to-pay and 

actual costs for supplying water.16

• Benefits transfer. Benefits transfer applies information from existing valuation 

studies to develop values for a new study area. This can be accomplished using 

information from one or more valuation studies (i.e., a meta-analysis). Benefits 

transfer assumes that the characteristics of the previously studied area and 

population are similar to that of the new subject area and population. The 

usefulness and validity of benefits transfer methods depend on the quality and 

applicability of the original data and error associated with these assumptions.17

Beyond the development of site-specific studies, some attempts have been made to 

develop standardized “values” for groundwater, often for purposes of NRDA. For 

example, the State of New Jersey currently employs a replacement cost approach to 

determine interim economic losses associated with injuries to groundwater. First, the 

total present value of the potential yield of groundwater from a contaminated area is 

determined over the relevant period of impairment, typically based on a site-specific or 

regional recharge rate for the area in question. Second, again considering regional 

recharge rates, the amount of land required to protect an equivalent present value total 

volume of groundwater is estimated. Finally, candidate parcels are identified and 

appraised. The cost of acquiring such a parcel for purposes of protecting a volume of 

groundwater equivalent to what was lost represents the measure of damages.18 

 

15 For a thorough review of the various approaches to the valuation of groundwater, including a discussion of their strengths 

and weaknesses, see Chapter 3 in Ando, A., M. Khanna, A. Wildermuth, and S. Vig. Natural Resource Damage Assessment: 

Methods and Cases. Waste Management and Research Center, Illinois Department of Natural Resources. July 2004. 

16 Ando et al. Natural Resource Damage Assessment: Methods and Cases. Waste Management and Research Center, Illinois 

Department of Natural Resources. July 2004. 

17 Ando et al. Natural Resource Damage Assessment: Methods and Cases. Waste Management and Research Center, Illinois 

Department of Natural Resources. July 2004. 

18 Prior to the development of this approach in the mid-2000s, New Jersey employed methods that estimated groundwater 

value at a site to be the total volume of groundwater damaged over time multiplied by the current water rate. Unsworth, 

Robert, and Robert Paterson, Industrial Economics, Inc., Personal Communication, December 4, 2008. As discussed in Ando 

et al. 2004, New Jersey’s previous approach has several weaknesses, including: 1) It only values the consumptive use of 

groundwater. Non-consumptive (e.g., ecosystem services) and nonuse (e.g., existence) values are excluded using this 

approach. 2) Water rates are regulated and do not reflect true market prices. 3) This approach does not account for 
10 

As noted, this is a replacement cost, and not a valuation approach. The cost to replace 

natural resources and their services represents a value only when three specific criteria 

are met: 1) That the replacement provides equivalent quality and quantity of services; 2) 

that the public would actually be willing to pay for the replacement; and 3) that the 

replacement is the most cost-effective means of restoring the lost services.19 Even if 

these conditions are true, this approach may overestimate groundwater values in urban 

areas, as land is typically more expensive, and underestimate groundwater values in areas 

where land is less expensive. 

Approaches to Valuation from the Resource Economics Literature 

Groundwater is a natural resource that provides flows of services to society.20 The 

resource economics literature contains numerous examples of studies that value these 

services, as demonstrated by the public’s willingness-to-pay for groundwater protection 

programs (e.g., see Poe et al. 2001).21 However, these values are largely context-specific 

in terms of location, scale, and the specific threat to groundwater considered. In this 

manner, they do not provide generic information on the value of groundwater on a gallon 

by gallon basis.22 

IEc conducted discussions with Dr. Gregory Poe from Cornell University, an expert in 

resource valuation. Dr. Poe indicated that work done in this field has been concentrated 

on valuing groundwater in the context of nitrite pollution at Concentrated Animal 

Feeding Operations (CAFOs). He felt that differences in context between CAFOs and 

LUST sites, along with differences in human health concerns between nitrite and benzene 

pollution, limited the usefulness of his work for developing groundwater values in the 

LUST context.23 

NEXT STEPS AND CONSIDERATIONS 

Based on discussions with Dr. Poe and IEc experts on natural resource damage 

assessment, developing a generic groundwater value for use in the LUST context may be 

difficult using existing resources.24 The site-specific nature of existing literature likely 

prevents the development of general values. In prior versions of this memorandum, IEc 

 

substitute sources of water or the possibility of decontaminating the groundwater for eventual use. Ando et al. Natural 

Resource Damage Assessment: Methods and Cases. Waste Management and Research Center, Illinois Department of Natural 

Resources. July 2004. 

19 Freeman, A.M. III.. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Resources for the 

Future: Washington, DC. 2003. p. 460. 

20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Framework for Measuring the Economic Benefits of Groundwater. EPA 230-B-95-

003. October, 1995; National Research Council. Valuing Ground Water. Economic Concepts and Approaches. Washington, 

DC: National Academy Press. 1997. 

21 Poe, Gregory L., K.J. Boyle, and J.C. Bergstrom. “A Preliminary Meta Analysis of Contingent Values for Ground Water 

Revisited.” Chapter 8 in The Economic Value of Water Quality. Bergstrom, J.C., K.J. Boyle and G.L. Poe (eds.), 

Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. 2001. 

22 For example, Powell et al. 1994 used CV methods to determine household’s willingness-to-pay for increased groundwater 

protection from trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination for their municipal water supply. They found that households in 

Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania were willing to pay $61.55 per year for the increase in protection. Powell J.R., 

D. Allee, and J. McClintock. “Groundwater Protection Benefits and Local Community Planning: Impact of Contingent 

Valuation Information.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76(5):1076-1978. 1994. as described in Ando et al. 

Natural Resource Damage Assessment: Methods and Cases. Waste Management and Research Center, Illinois Department of 

Natural Resources. July 2004. 

23 Poe, Gregory, Personal Communication, Cornell University, November 24, 2008. 

24 Poe, Gregory, Cornell University, Personal Communication, November 24, 2008; Unsworth, Robert, and Robert Paterson, 

Industrial Economics, Inc., Personal Communication, December 4, 2008. 
11 

has suggested several research avenues to develop groundwater values.25 At this time, 

EPA, has decided that an effort of this magnitude is not within the scope of the present 

rulemaking effort. 

 

25 IEc suggested three potential research avenues to develop groundwater use values: 1) applying benefits transfer methods; 

2) developing a state-preference survey; and 3) initiate discussions with staff at EPA’s Office of Water to determine if the 

Office has recently developed valuation techniques that can be adapted to the UST context. For more information, see 

Status Update on the Development of Estimates of Avoided Costs Per Leak, IEc Memorandum to EPA, prepared by Katie 

Glodzik, Aaron Kamholtz, Robert Paterson, Neal Etre and Cynthia Manson, February 11, 2009. 
12 

APPENDIX A 
EXHIBIT A-1 STATE RESPONSES 

COST CATEGORY LUST SITE TYPE NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW MEXICO SOUTH CAROLINA 

Administrative Costs 

Small extent, soil only $0 

Information not ava

Large extent, soil only $0 Small extent, groundwater contamination $500 Large extent, groundwater contamination $3,700 

Response Costs 

Small extent, soil only $10,000 

Information not ava

Large extent, soil only $10,000 Small extent, groundwater contamination $10,000 Large extent, groundwater contamination $10,000 

Remediation Costsb

Small extent, soil only $19,500 $20,000 

Information not 

available 

$

Large extent, soil only $56,000 $75,000 $Small extent, groundwater contamination $97,000 $350,000 $Large extent, groundwater contamination $219,000 $2,500,000 $

Oversight Costs 

Small extent, soil only $500 

Information not ava

Large extent, soil only $1,000 Small extent, groundwater contamination $1,500 Large extent, groundwater contamination $5,000 
COST CATEGORY LUST SITE TYPE NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW MEXICO SOUTH CAROLINA 

Product Loss (gallons) 

Small extent, soil only 100 

Information not ava

Large extent, soil only 500 Small extent, groundwater contamination 100 Large extent, groundwater contamination 1,000 

Vapor Damages All LUST site types 

Between 2 and 8 

percent of active 

LUST sites result in 

vapor intrusion 

 Cost estimate 

ranges from 

$27,000 to $52,000 

per site 

Less than 1 percent 

of active LUST sites 

result in vapor 

intrusion 

Very few vaporrelated damages 

Betwe

perc

resu

i

Fires and Explosions All LUST site types Negligible Negligible Negligible NNotes: a. Virginia provided remediation cost estimates for soil-only and groundwater contaminated sites of $19,313 and $96,897, respectb. Where comparable estimates were provided by multiple states, the upper bound estimate is in bold typeface, and the lower boThese estimates are used in Appendix C. 
 15 

 

APPENDIX B 
16 

This appendix presents, as described in the October 27, 2008 memorandum, the 

preliminary methodology used to estimate cleanup costs associated with typical LUST 

sites. Exhibits B-1 through B-4 demonstrate this approach using remediation cost data 

from three states: New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Utah. Exhibits B-5 through B-7 

employ the same methods, but only use data from New Hampshire.26

PRELIMINARY CLEANUP COST METHODS USING DATA FROM THREE STATES 

Exhibit B-1 presents preliminary costs associated with LUST cleanups, as provide by 

three states. The administrative, response, and oversight costs shown were provided by 

New Hampshire. Remediation costs reflect an average of the costs provided by New 

Mexico, New Hampshire, and Utah. As expected, cleanup costs associated with 

groundwater cleanups are more expensive than soil cleanups.27 

EXHIBIT B-1 PRELIMINARY CLEANUP COSTS BY LEAK CATEGORY – THREE STATES (2008$ PER 

LUST SITE) 

CLEANUP COST CATEGORY 

LUST SITE SIZE AND CONTAMINATION TYPEa

SMALL EXTENT, 

SOIL ONLY 

LARGE 

EXTENT, SOIL 

ONLY 

SMALL EXTENT, 

GROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION 

LARGE EXTENT, 

GROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION 

Typical administrative cost (public notification, 

fines, fees, etc)b $0 $0 $500 $3,700 

Typical response cost (e.g., alerting and sending 

personnel, assessments and planning, immediate 

actions to stop the leak)b

$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 

Typical remediation costc $16,500 $93,700 $182,300 $1,106,300 

Typical oversight cost (e.g., monitoring)b $500 $1,000 $1,500 $5,000 

Total typical cost per LUST category $27,000 $104,700 $194,300 $1,125,000 

Notes: 

a. Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars. 

b. The costs presented for administrative, response, and oversight costs are based on New Hampshire data only. 

c. The remediation costs shown represent the average costs from data provided by New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Utah. For 

the range of preliminary costs, refer to Appendix C. 

Sources: 

1. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Underground Storage Tank Program, November 18, 2008. 

2. New Mexico Environment Department, Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau, December 16, 2008. 

3. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Underground Storage Tank Program, November 18, 2008. 

Exhibit B-2 presents the relative probability of releases resulting from the five release 

sources identified in the 23-state Autopsy Report. Using the cost data from Exhibit B-1, 

we estimate a weighted average cost contribution per leak size by multiplying the cost per 

site by the probability of each leak type. We then sum across the categories to obtain the 

 

26 See Methodology to Estimate Avoided Costs Associated with a Typical UST Leak, IEc Memorandum to EPA, prepared by 

Aaron Kamholtz, Neal Etre, and Cynthia Manson, October 27, 2008. 

27 New Hampshire indicated that in most cases, the State Fund incurs these costs with the exception that the owner/operator 

typically bears the cost of immediately stopping the leak. In addition, New Hampshire indicated the owner/operator 

typically pays a $5,000 deductible towards the final remediation cost, and in New Mexico, the owner/operator typically 

pays a deductible between $0 and $10,000. Owner/operator costs are included in the estimates presented in Exhibit B-1. 
17 

weighted average “composite leak” cost by release source.28 Based on these preliminary 

data, releases from piping and tanks result in the highest weighted average response and 

remediation costs, averaging over $400,000 per leak. 

EXHIBIT B-2 PROBABILITY AND WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF AVOIDED COSTS PER RELEASE SOURCE 

& SITE TYPE USING PRELIMINARY COST INFORMATION – THREE STATES (2008$ PER 

LUST SITE) 

RELEASE SOURCE 

SMALL 

EXTENT, SOIL 

ONLY 

LARGE 

EXTENT, 

SOIL ONLY 

SMALL EXTENT, 

GROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION 

LARGE EXTENT, 

GROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION 

TOTAL/ 

WEIGHTED 

AVERAGE 

Piping Probability 40.5% 4.5% 22.0% 33.0% 100.0% 

Cost $10,900 $4,700 $42,800 $371,300 $429,700 

Dispenser Probability 71.6% 5.4% 9.7% 13.3% 100.0% 

Cost $19,300 $5,600 $18,800 $150,100 $193,800 

Tank Probability 30.7% 17.3% 17.7% 34.3% 100.0% 

Cost $8,300 $18,100 $34,400 $386,100 $446,900 

STP Area Probability 50.0% 0.0% 31.0% 19.0% 100.0% 

Cost $13,500 $0 $60,200 $213,800 $287,500 

Delivery 

Problems 

Probability 59.2% 1.8% 16.8% 22.2% 100.0% 

Cost $16,000 $1,900 $32,600 $250,100 $300,600 

Note: 

Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars. Total may not sum due to rounding. 

Probability Source: 

U.S. EPA, Evaluation of Releases from New and Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks (Draft). 2004. 

Cost Sources: 

1. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Underground Storage Tank Program, November 18, 2008. 

2. New Mexico Environment Department, Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau, December 16, 2008. 

3. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Underground Storage Tank Program, November 18, 2008. 

As illustrated in the October 27, 2008 memorandum, we further multiply the leak source 

probabilities derived from the two Autopsy reports by the weighted average costs shown 

in Exhibit B-2 to estimate a weighted average avoided cost across all leak sources (i.e., 

avoided cost of an “average” leak). Exhibit B-3 presents the leak source probabilities 

derived from the two Autopsy reports. Exhibit B-4 presents the weighted average cost 

across all leak sources, which yields an overall weighted average avoided cost estimate of 

$326,600 per LUST site. The inclusion of remediation costs from New Mexico and Utah 

resulted in an increase in the weighted average avoided costs compared to information 

from just New Hampshire (see Exhibits B-5 through B-7 below).29 

 

28 For more information on this approach and the 23-state Autopsy report, see Methodology to Estimate Avoided Costs 

Associated with a Typical UST Leak, IEc Memorandum to EPA, prepared by Aaron Kamholtz, Neal Etre, and Cynthia Manson, 

October 27, 2008. 

29 The Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) State Fund Survey reports that the 

average cost per LUST remediation was $128,023 in 2008. While within the overall range, the State Fund Survey’s estimate 

is lower than the weighted average avoided cost estimate presented in Exhibit B-4. This discrepancy may result from one 

or both of the following issues: 1) The State Fund Survey does not attempt to weight costs by leak severity, which may 

understate the costs associated with large clean ups. 2) Our avoided cost estimate is derived from a small sample of states, 

which may overestimate costs. In particular, New Mexico reported high costs ($2.5 million) to clean up large groundwater 
18 

EXHIBIT B-3 PROBABILITY OF A LEAK BY SOURCE 

LEAK SOURCE 

NUMBER OF RELEASES 

(23-STATE AUTOPSY 

REPORT)1

NUMBER OF RELEASES 

(FLORIDA LUST 

AUTOPSY REPORT)2

TOTAL 

RELEASES 

PERCENT OF ALL 

RELEASES 

Piping 189 122 311 29.1% 

Dispenser 195 130 325 30.4% 

Tank 97 63 160 15.0% 

STP Area 25 52 77 7.2% 

Delivery Problems 95 101 196 18.3% 

Total: 601 468 1069 100% 

Sources: 

1. U.S. EPA, Evaluation of Releases from New and Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks (Draft), 2004, p. C-1. 7 

releases identified as “Other” were removed from the total sample reported in the report. 

2. U.S. EPA, Petroleum Releases at Underground Storage Tanks in Florida (Draft), 2005, p. C-2. 56 releases 

identified as “Other” were removed from the total sample reported in the report. 

EXHIBIT B-4 WEIGHTED AVERAGE AVOIDED CLEANUP COST USING PRELIMINARY COST 

INFORMATION – THREE STATES (2008$ PER LUST SITE) 

LEAK SOURCE 

PROBABILITY OF A 

LEAK ORIGINATING 

AT SOURCE1

WEIGHT AVERAGE 

AVOIDED COST OF A LEAK2 AVOIDED COST 

Piping 29.1% $429,700 $125,000 

Dispenser 30.4% $193,800 $58,900 

Tank 15.0% $446,900 $66,900 

STP Area 7.2% $287,500 $20,700 

Delivery Problems 18.3% $300,600 $55,100 

Total 100.0% N/A $326,600 

Notes: 

1. See Exhibit B-3 for calculation of probabilities shown here. 

2. See Exhibit B-2 for calculation of weighted average costs by release source shown here. 

3. Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars. 

 PRELIMINARY CLEANUP COST RESULTS USING DATA FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Using the same methodology described above, we developed estimates using only the 

data provided by New Hampshire. Exhibits B-5 through B-7 present these results below. 

 

contaminated sites. Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, Summary of State Fund Survey 

Results 2008. Available at: http://www.astswmo.org/publications_tanks.htm. 
19 

EXHIBIT B-5 PRELIMINARY CLEANUP COSTS BY LEAK CATEGORY – NH ONLY (2008$ PER LUST 

SITE) 

CLEANUP COST CATEGORY 

LUST SITE SIZE AND CONTAMINATION TYPEa

SMALL 

EXTENT, SOIL 

ONLY 

LARGE 

EXTENT, 

SOIL ONLY 

SMALL EXTENT, 

GROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION 

LARGE EXTENT, 

GROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION

Typical administrative cost (public notification, 

fines, fees, etc)b $0 $0 $500 $3,700 

Typical response cost (e.g., alerting and sending 

personnel, assessments and planning, immediate 

actions to stop the leak)b

$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 

Typical remediation costc $19,500 $56,000 $97,000 $219,000 

Typical oversight cost (e.g., monitoring)b $500 $1,000 $1,500 $5,000 

Total typical cost per LUST category $30,000 $67,000 $109,000 $237,700 

Note: 

Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars. 

Source: 

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Underground Storage Tank Program, November 18, 2008. 

EXHIBIT B-6 PROBABILITY AND WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF AVOIDED COSTS PER RELEASE SOURCE 

& SITE TYPE USING PRELIMINARY COST INFORMATION – NH ONLY (2008$ PER LUST 

SITE) 

RELEASE SOURCE 

SMALL 

EXTENT, SOIL 

ONLY 

LARGE 

EXTENT, 

SOIL ONLY 

SMALL EXTENT, 

GROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION 

LARGE EXTENT, 

GROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION 

TOTAL/ 

WEIGHTED 

AVERAGE 

Piping Probability 40.5% 22.0% 4.5% 33.0% 100.0% 

Cost $12,200 $24,000 $3,000 $78,400 $117,600 

Dispenser Probability 71.6% 9.7% 5.4% 13.3% 100.0% 

Cost $21,500 $10,500 $3,600 $31,700 $67,300 

Tank Probability 30.7% 17.7% 17.3% 34.3% 100.0% 

Cost $9,200 $19,300 $11,600 $81,600 $121,600 

STP Area Probability 50.0% 31.0% 0.0% 19.0% 100.0% 

Cost $15,000 $33,800 $0 $45,000 $94,000 

Delivery 

Problems 

Probability 59.2% 16.8% 1.8% 22.2% 100.0% 

Cost $17,800 $18,300 $1,200 $52,800 $90,100 

Note: 

Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars. Total may not sum due to rounding. 

Probability Source: 

U.S. EPA, Evaluation of Releases from New and Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks (Draft). 2004. 

Cost Source: 

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Underground Storage Tank Program, November 18, 2008. 
20 

EXHIBIT B-7 WEIGHTED AVERAGE AVOIDED CLEANUP COST USING PRELIMINARY COST 

INFORMATION – NH ONLY (2008$ PER LUST SITE) 

LEAK SOURCE 

PROBABILITY OF A 

LEAK ORIGINATING 

AT SOURCE 

WEIGHT AVERAGE 

AVOIDED COST OF A LEAK 

AVOIDED COST 

Piping 29.1% $117,600 $34,200 

Dispenser 30.4% $67,300 $20,500 

Tank 15.0% $121,600 $18,200 

STP Area 7.2% $94,000 $6,800 

Delivery Problems 18.3% $90,100 $16,500 

Total 100.0% N/A $96,200 

Notes: 

1. See Exhibit B-3 for calculation of probabilities shown here. 

2. See Exhibit B-6 for calculation of weighted average costs by release source shown here. 

3. Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars. 
21 

APPENDIX C 
 22 

 

Using the same methods presented in Exhibits B-1 through B-4, Appendix C employs 

the upper and lower bound remediation costs to estimate a range in the weighted average 

costs associated with an UST cleanup. Based on the data from the New Mexico, New 

Hampshire, and Utah, the weighted average avoided cost ranges from $91,200 to 

$698,600 per LUST site. 

EXHIBIT C-1 LOWER BOUND ESTIMATE OF PRELIMINARY CLEANUP COSTS BY LEAK CATEGORY 

(2008$ PER LUST SITE) 

CLEANUP COST CATEGORY 

LUST SITE SIZE AND CONTAMINATION TYPEa 

SMALL EXTENT, 

SOIL ONLY 

LARGE 

EXTENT, SOIL 

ONLY 

SMALL EXTENT, 

GROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION 

LARGE EXTENT, 

GROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION 

Typical administrative cost (public notification, 

fines, fees, etc)b $0 $0 $500 $3,700 

Typical response cost (e.g., alerting and sending 

personnel, assessments and planning, immediate 

actions to stop the leak)b

$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 

Typical remediation costc $10,000 $56,000 $97,000 $219,000 

Typical oversight cost (e.g., monitoring)b $500 $1,000 $1,500 $5,000 

Total typical cost per LUST category $20,500 $67,000 $109,000 $237,700 

Notes: 

a. Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars. 

b. The costs presented for administrative, response, and oversight costs are based on New Hampshire data only. 

c. The remediation costs shown represent the lowest costs from data provided by New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Utah. For 

the range of preliminary costs. 

Sources: 

1. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Underground Storage Tank Program, November 18, 2008. 

2. New Mexico Environment Department, Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau, December 16, 2008. 

3. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Underground Storage Tank Program, November 18, 2008. 
23 

EXHIBIT C-2 PROBABILITY OF A LEAK RESULTING FROM A SPECIFIC SOURCE AND WEIGHTED 

AVERAGE OF AVOIDED COSTS PER RELEASE SOURCE & SITE TYPE USING LOWER 

BOUND ESTIMATE OF PRELIMINARY COST INFORMATION (2008$ PER LUST SITE) 

RELEASE SOURCE 

SMALL 

EXTENT, SOIL 

ONLY 

LARGE 

EXTENT, 

SOIL ONLY 

SMALL EXTENT, 

GROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION 

LARGE EXTENT, 

GROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION 

TOTAL/ 

WEIGHTED 

AVERAGE 

Piping Probability 40.5% 4.5% 22.0% 33.0% 100.0% 

Cost $8,300 $3,000 $24,000 $78,400 $113,700 

Dispenser Probability 71.6% 5.4% 9.7% 13.3% 100.0% 

Cost $14,700 $3,600 $10,500 $31,700 $60,500 

Tank Probability 30.7% 17.3% 17.7% 34.3% 100.0% 

Cost $6,300 $11,600 $19,300 $81,600 $118,700 

STP Area Probability 50.0% 0.0% 31.0% 19.0% 100.0% 

Cost $10,300 $0 $33,800 $45,200 $89,200 

Delivery 

Problems 

Probability 59.2% 1.8% 16.8% 22.2% 100.0% 

Cost $12,100 $1,200 $18,300 $52,800 $84,500 

Note: 

Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars. Total may not sum due to rounding. 

Probability Source: 

U.S. EPA, Evaluation of Releases from New and Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks (Draft). 2004. 

Cost Sources: 

1. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Underground Storage Tank Program, November 18, 2008. 

2. New Mexico Environment Department, Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau, December 16, 2008. 

3. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Underground Storage Tank Program, November 18, 2008. 
24 

EXHIBIT C-3 LOWER BOUND WEIGHTED AVERAGE AVOIDED CLEANUP COST USING PRELIMINARY 

COST INFORMATION (2008$ PER LUST SITE) 

LEAK SOURCE 

PROBABILITY OF A 

LEAK ORIGINATING AT 

SOURCE 

WEIGHT AVERAGE AVOIDED 

COST OF A LEAK 

AVOIDED COST 

Piping 29.1% $113,700 $33,100 

Dispenser 30.4% $60,500 $18,400 

Tank 15.0% $118,700 $17,800 

STP Area 7.2% $89,200 $6,400 

Delivery Problems 18.3% $84,500 $15,500 

Total 100.0% N/A $91,200 

Notes: 

1. See Exhibit B-3 for calculation of probabilities shown here. 

2. See Exhibit C-2 for calculation of weighted average costs by release source shown here. 

3. Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars. 
25 

EXHIBIT C-4 UPPER BOUND ESTIMATE OF PRELIMINARY CLEANUP COSTS BY LEAK CATEGORY 

(2008$ PER LUST SITE) 

CLEANUP COST CATEGORY 

LUST SITE SIZE AND CONTAMINATION TYPEa

SMALL EXTENT, 

SOIL ONLY 

LARGE 

EXTENT, SOIL 

ONLY 

SMALL EXTENT, 

GROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION 

LARGE EXTENT, 

GROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION 

Typical administrative cost (public notification, 

fines, fees, etc)b $0 $0 $500 $3,700 

Typical response cost (e.g., alerting and sending 

personnel, assessments and planning, immediate 

actions to stop the leak)b

$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 

Typical remediation costc $20,000 $150,000 $350,000 $2,500,000 

Typical oversight cost (e.g., monitoring)b $500 $1,000 $1,500 $5,000 

Total typical cost per LUST category $30,500 $161,000 $362,000 $2,518,700 

Notes: 

a. Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars. 

b. The costs presented for administrative, response, and oversight costs are based on New Hampshire data only. 

c. The remediation costs shown represent the highest costs from data provided by New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Utah. For 

the range of preliminary costs. 

Sources: 

1. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Underground Storage Tank Program, November 18, 2008. 

2. New Mexico Environment Department, Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau, December 16, 2008. 

3. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Underground Storage Tank Program, November 18, 2008. 
26 

EXHIBIT C-5 PROBABILITY OF A LEAK RESULTING FROM A SPECIFIC SOURCE AND WEIGHTED 

AVERAGE OF AVOIDED COSTS PER RELEASE SOURCE & SITE TYPE USING UPPER 

BOUND ESTIMATE OF PRELIMINARY COST INFORMATION (2008$ PER LUST SITE) 

RELEASE SOURCE 

SMALL 

EXTENT, SOIL 

ONLY 

LARGE 

EXTENT, 

SOIL ONLY 

SMALL EXTENT, 

GROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION 

LARGE EXTENT, 

GROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION 

TOTAL/ 

WEIGHTED 

AVERAGE 

Piping Probability 40.5% 4.5% 22.0% 33.0% 100.0% 

Cost $12,400 $7,200 $79,600 $831,200 $930,400 

Dispenser Probability 71.6% 5.4% 9.7% 13.3% 100.0% 

Cost $21,800 $8,700 $35,000 $336,000 $401,500 

Tank Probability 30.7% 17.3% 17.7% 34.3% 100.0% 

Cost $9,400 $27,800 $64,000 $864,400 $965,600 

STP Area Probability 50.0% 0.0% 31.0% 19.0% 100.0% 

Cost $15,300 $0 $112,200 $478,600 $606,000 

Delivery 

Problems 

Probability 59.2% 1.8% 16.8% 22.2% 100.0% 

Cost $18,000 $2,900 $60,700 $559,900 $641,600 

Note: 

Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars. Total may not sum due to rounding. 

Probability Source: 

U.S. EPA, Evaluation of Releases from New and Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks (Draft). 2004. 

Cost Sources: 

1. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Underground Storage Tank Program, November 18, 2008. 

2. New Mexico Environment Department, Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau, December 16, 2008. 

3. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Underground Storage Tank Program, November 18, 2008. 
27 

EXHIBIT C-6 UPPER BOUND WEIGHTED AVERAGE AVOIDED CLEANUP COST USING PRELIMINARY 

COST INFORMATION (2008$ PER LUST SITE) 

LEAK SOURCE 

PROBABILITY OF A 

LEAK ORIGINATING 

AT SOURCE 

WEIGHT AVERAGE AVOIDED 

COST OF A LEAK 

AVOIDED COST 

Piping 29.1% $930,400 $270,700 

Dispenser 30.4% $401,500 $122,100 

Tank 15.0% $965,600 $144,500 

STP Area 7.2% $606,000 $43,700 

Delivery Problems 18.3% $641,600 $117,600 

Total 100.0% N/A $698,600 

Notes: 

1. See Exhibit B-3 for calculation of probabilities shown here. 

2. See Exhibit C-5 for calculation of weighted average costs by release source shown here. 

3. Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars. 
Appendix I 

[continued] 

Subsequent to the May 5, 2009 memo, we also estimated remediation costs based on 

average cost data from New Hampshire and Utah. 

 
APPENDIX B: CONSTRUCTION OF NH/UT AVOIDED COST SCHEDULE 

 
B-1 

The purpose of this appendix is to describe the development of the costs associated with each of the UST 

release cleanup categories. We first provide a summary table detailing the priority and status for each cost 

category. We then provide preliminary cost estimates associated with LUST cleanups, vapor damages, 

fire/explosions, and lost product. 

STATUS SUMMARY 

Exhibit B1 provides a summary of the avoided cost categories by priority ranking. The cleanup costs 

currently reflect information provided by New Hampshire, New Mexico and Utah. IEc has also received 

information from Virginia and South Carolina, but neither of these states could provide the detailed 

information required for this analysis. 

EXHIBIT B1: STATUS SUMMARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF AVOIDED COST CATEGORIES a

COST CATEGORY 

LUST SITE SIZE AND CONTAMINATION TYPE (2008$ PER LUST SITE) 

SMALL 

EXTENT, 

SOIL ONLY 

LARGE 

EXTENT, 

SOIL ONLY 

SMALL EXTENT, 

GROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION 

LARGE EXTENT, 

GROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION 

Cleanup Costs: 

 Administrative Costs $0 $0 $500 $3,700 

 Response Costs $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 

 Remediation Costs $10,000 to 

$20,000 

 $56,000 to 

$150,000 

 $97,000 to 

$350,000 

 $219,000 to 

$2,500,000 

 Oversight Costs $500 $1,000 $1,500 $5,000 

Weighted Average Cleanup Cost Using 

information from the LUST Autopsy

$326,600 

Range: $91,200 to $698,600 

NH/UT Weighted Average Cleanup 

Cost $142,865 

NH Weighted Average Cleanup Cost $96,173 

Notes: 

a. Data included in this table are from responses provided by New Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services, Underground Storage Tank Program; New Mexico Environment Department, 

Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau; and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Underground Storage 

Tank Program. IEc received information from Virginia and South Carolina, but the data were not provided 

in a format amenable to these calculations. Appendix A provides the responses from the states. 

AVOIDED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH LUST CLEANUPS AND PRODUCT LOSS 

PRELIMINARY CLEANUP COSTS 

Our approach calls for developing average cleanup costs based on four general leak types: 

• Local site extent with soil contamination; 

• Local site extent with water contamination; 

• Large site extent with soil contamination; and 

 
B-2 

• Large site extent with water contamination.43

Our approach then weights cleanup costs for each type by leak source probability, as identified in the 23-state 

LUST Autopsy report. The leak sources include piping, the dispenser, the tank, the submersible turbine pump 

(STP) area, and fuel delivery.44

To develop the preliminary avoided cleanup cost estimate, IEc contacted six states that use State Funds to pay 

for LUST remediation, including Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Carolina, Utah, and 

Virginia. Via email, IEc sent each state UST program office a questionnaire requesting data on typical 

cleanup costs broken out by the four general leak types listed above. 

We received responses from New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia. New 

Hampshire provided the most comprehensive set of information., including cleanup costs by category (i.e., 

administrative, response, remediation, and oversight), while New Mexico and Utah could only provide 

estimates of remediation costs. Virginia and South Carolina were unable to provide the detail required for 

this analysis. 45 

Exhibit B2 (below) presents preliminary cleanup costs associated with LUST cleanups, as provided by the 

states. As expected, cleanup costs associated with groundwater cleanups are more expensive than soil 

cleanups.46 The administrative, response, and oversight costs shown were provided by New Hampshire. 

Remediation costs reflect an average of the costs provided by New Hampshire and Utah. In consultation with 

OUST, we excluded New Mexico from the calculation because of its groundwater cleanup costs are likely to 

be much higher than in other states. 

 

43 While no specific definition exists for a large site, the LUST Autopsy survey instruments used by the states generally define large sites as those with 

contamination that extend beyond the extent of construction excavation. In addition, EPA classified sites with off-site contamination as large sites. 

44 U.S. EPA, Evaluation of Releases from New and Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks (Draft) 2004. 

45 Virginia was unable to break out costs by the extent of the leak (i.e., large or small). In general, the remediation costs provided by Virginia are 

consistent with New Hampshire’s estimates of the costs to remediate small leaks (for both soil and groundwater). 

46 New Hampshire indicated that in most cases, the State Fund incurs these costs with the exception that the owner/operator typically bears the cost of 

immediately stopping the leak. In addition, New Hampshire indicated the owner/operator typically pays a $5,000 deductible towards the final 

remediation cost, and in New Mexico, the owner/operator typically pays a deductible between $0 and $10,000. Owner/operator costs are included in 

the estimates presented in Exhibit 2. 

 
B-3 

EXHIBIT B2: PRELIMINARY CLEANUP COSTS BY LEAK CATEGORY (2008$ PER LUST SITE) 

CLEANUP COST CATEGORY 

LUST SITE SIZE AND CONTAMINATION TYPE 

SMALL EXTENT, 

SOIL ONLY 

LARGE 

EXTENT, SOIL 

ONLY 

SMALL EXTENT, 

GROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION 

LARGE EXTENT, 

GROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION 

Typical administrative cost (public 

notification, fines, fees, etc)a

 $0 $0 $500 $3,700 

Typical response cost (e.g., alerting and 

sending personnel, assessments and 

planning, immediate actions to stop the 

leak)a

 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 

Typical remediation costb $14,800 $103,000 $98,500 $409,500 

Typical oversight cost (e.g., 

monitoring)a $500 $1,000 $1,500 $5,000 

Total typical cost per LUST category $25,300 $114,000 $110,500 $428,200 

Notes: 

a. The costs presented for administrative, response, and oversight costs are based on New Hampshire data only. 

b. The remediation costs shown represent the average costs from data provided by New Hampshire and Utah. In 

consultation with OUST, we excluded New Mexico because its values are likely not representative of typical cleanup 

costs. 

c. Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars. 

Sources: 

1. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Underground Storage Tank Program, November 18, 2008. 

2. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Underground Storage Tank Program, November 18, 2008. 

Exhibit B3 presents, for each of the release sources identified in the 23-state Autopsy Report, the probability 

of a leak by LUST category. Using the cost data from Exhibit 2, we estimate a weighted average cost 

contribution per leak size by multiplying the cost per site by the probability of each leak type. We then sum 

across the categories to obtain the weighted average “composite leak” cost by release source.47 Based on 

these preliminary data, releases from piping and tanks result in the highest weighted average response and 

remediation costs, averaging over $187,000 per leak. 

 

47 For more information on this approach and the 23-state Autopsy report , see Methodology to Estimate Avoided Costs Associated with a Typical UST 

Leak, IEc Memorandum to EPA, prepared by Aaron Kamholtz, Neal Etre, and Cynthia Manson, October 27, 2008. 

 
B-4 

EXHIBIT B3: PROBABILITY AND WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF AVOIDED COSTS PER RELEASE SOURCE & 

SITE TYPE USING PRELIMINARY COST INFORMATION (2008$ PER LUST SITE) 

RELEASE SOURCE 

SMALL 

EXTENT, SOIL 

ONLY 

LARGE 

EXTENT, 

SOIL ONLY 

SMALL EXTENT, 

GROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION 

LARGE EXTENT, 

GROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION 

TOTAL/ 

WEIGHTED 

AVERAGE 

Piping Probability 40.5% 22.0% 4.5% 33.0% 100.0% 

Cost $10,200 $24,300 $5,100 $141,300 $181,000 

Dispenser Probability 71.6% 9.7% 5.4% 13.3% 100.0% 

Cost $18,100 $10,700 $6,100 $57,100 $92,000 

Tank Probability 30.7% 17.7% 17.3% 34.3% 100.0% 

Cost $7,800 $19,500 $19,700 $147,000 $194,000 

STP Area Probability 50.0% 31.0% 0.0% 19.0% 100.0% 

Cost $12,600 $34,300 $0 $81,400 $128,200 

Delivery 

Problems 

Probability 59.2% 16.8% 1.8% 22.2% 100.0% 

Cost $14,900 $18,500 $2,100 $95,200 $130,700 

Note: 

Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundredth dollar. 

Sources: 

1. U.S. EPA, Evaluation of Releases from New and Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks (Draft). 2004. 

2. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Underground Storage Tank Program, November 18, 2008. 

3. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Underground Storage Tank Program, November 18, 2008. 

We further multiply the leak source probabilities from the 23-state LUST Autopsy by the weighted averages 

derived in Exhibit B3 to estimate the weighted average across all leak sources (i.e., avoided cost of an 

“average” leak). Exhibit B4 presents the results of this approach, which yields an overall weighted average 

avoided cost estimate of $142,900 per LUST site. The inclusion of remediation costs from Utah resulted in 

an increase in the weighted average avoided costs compared to information from just New Hampshire. 

 
B-5 

EXHIBIT B4: WEIGHTED AVERAGE AVOIDED CLEANUP COST USING PRELIMINARY COST INFORMATION 

(2008$ PER LUST SITE) 

LEAK SOURCE 

PROBABILITY OF 

LEAK 

WEIGHT AVERAGE 

AVOIDED COST OF A LEAK AVOIDED COST 

Piping 29.1% $181,000 $52,700 

Dispenser 30.4% $92,000 $28,000 

Tank 15.0% $194,000 $29,000 

STP Area 7.2% $128,000 $9,200 

Delivery Problems 18.3% $130,700 $24,000 

Total 100.0% N/A $142,900 

Note: 

Costs shown have been rounded to the nearest hundredth dollar. 

Sources: 

1. U.S. EPA, Evaluation of Releases from New and Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks (Draft). 2004. 

2. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Underground Storage Tank Program, 

November 18, 2008. 

3. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Underground Storage Tank Program, November 18, 2008. 

4. U.S. EPA, Petroleum Releases at Underground Storage Tanks in Florida (Draft). 2005. 

The total presented in Exhibit B4 provides a measure of the cleanup costs associated with the average release 

characterized in the 23-state autopsy report. This value does not account for the source of the release as shown 

in Exhibit B3. In our analysis of avoided releases, we use the values presented in Exhibit B3 to leverage all 

available information in our valuation. When we value averted groundwater contamination incidents, we use 

the values presented in Exhibit B2 to calculate cleanup costs before and after OUST implements the potential 

regulatory changes.

 
Appendix J 

Estimation of Future UST System and Release Universes 

for the Alternative Baseline Scenario
J-1

Estimation of Future UST System Universes

To estimate future UST system universes, data on the number of UST systems dating back to 

1991 were used in conjunction with a single exponential decay function. An exponential decay 

function is one where a quantity declines in proportion to its value; that is, the lower the value, 

the smaller the decline in the following period. Given the trend in UST system universes dating 

back to 1991 as seen in Exhibit J-1, a singular exponential decay function appropriately 

represents this trend. 

Singular exponential decay functions take the form Y = (Yo – P) * e(-k*X) + P, where P is the 

“plateau,” or limit that the function eventually approaches asymptotically, and k is the function’s 

half-life. The specific parameters yielding the equation used to project future UST system 

universes are as follows: 

• Yo: 2,055,000 

• P (“plateau”): 585,553 

• k (half-life): 0.2119 

The specific equation used to project UST system universes is Y = (2,055,000 – 585,553) * e(-

0.2119*X) + 585,553. Exhibit J-2 shows the UST universe data from 1991 through 2010 used to 

estimate future UST system universes, as well as the projections of the universes themselves. 

 
J-2

 In EPA’s primary analysis, the annual number of affected systems is unchanged in future years, 

meaning that over a 20-year period, annual costs accrue to 12,228,980 UST systems, or (611,449 

* 20). In the alternative baseline scenario, the annual number of affected systems declines in 

each year to 586,021 systems in year 20, as in Exhibit J-2. Correspondingly, over a 20-year 

period in the alternative baseline scenario, annual costs accrue to 11,836,632 UST systems (the 

sum of the annual estimate of UST universes in the years 2009 through 2028). The ratio between 

these two cumulative figures is approximately 97 percent, or 11,836,632/12,228,980. 

Estimation of Future Release Universes 

The estimation of future release universes involves future projection of two components: UST 

system universes and “release rates,” or the ratio of confirmed releases to existing UST systems. 

UST system universes were projected as described above. 

We use release rates to project future number of releases (rather than past trends in the number of 

releases) for two reasons: First, as the UST universe and release rate both appear to decline in a 

way approximating a single-decay exponential function, and these are both "inputs" into 

calculating the universe of releases, these projections can be used to calculate future release 

universes without the added uncertainty of whether the release trend is truly a single-decay 

exponential function. In addition, using the release rate projections to estimate future releases 

yields a more conservative (lower) total number of releases, which leads to lower avoided 

costs/benefits estimates in the alternative baseline. This is consistent with the intent of using the 

Exhibit J-2

Actual and Projected UST System Universes, 1991 - 2030 

Year UST System Universe (Actual)a Year UST System Universe (Projected)b

1991 1,788,505 2011 602,716 

1992 1,565,613 2012 599,438 

1993 1,307,563 2013 596,787 

1994 1,177,198 2014 594,642 

1995 1,093,105 2015 592,906 

1996 1,064,478 2016 591,502 

1997 969,652 2017 590,366 

1998 891,686 2018 589,447 

1999 760,504 2019 588,703 

2000 713,666 2020 588,102 

2001 704,717 2021 587,615 

2002 697,966 2022 587,221 

2003 682,870 2023 586,903 

2004 672,297 2024 586,645 

2005 653,621 2025 586,437 

2006 641,881 2026 586,268 

2007 629,866 2027 586,131 

2008 623,319 2028 586,021 

2009 611,449 

2010 597,333 

a Data regarding actual UST system universes obtained from reports from the Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, UST Performance Measures End-of-Year Reports. 

b Projected UST system universe values estimated using a single exponential decay function. 

 
J-3

alternative baseline as a way of testing conservative assumptions regarding the avoided costs 

associated with the proposed rule. 

As seen in Exhibit J-3, the trend in release rates is similar to the trend in UST systems in that it 

has generally declined at a decreasing rate over the last decade, albeit with sharp upticks and 

falls in certain years. 

A single exponential decay function was also used to project future values of release rates. The 

specific function is Y = (0.0412 – 0.0042) * e(-0.09665*X) + 0.0042. 

Release rates are calculated by dividing releases by the universe of UST systems; conversely, 

releases can be calculated by multiplying the total number of UST systems by the release rate. 

By projecting both UST universes and release rates using exponential decay functions, we then 

use each year’s values to calculate releases for that year. Exhibit J-4 plots actual and projected 

releases over time, while Exhibit J-5 displays UST systems, release rates, and releases in a 

tabular format. 

 
J-4

Exhibit J-5

Actual and Projected Releases and Release Rates, 1992 - 2030 

Year UST 

Systemsa

Releases 

(Actual) 

Release Rate 

(Calculated)b

Release Rate 

(Projected)c

Releases 

(Calculated)d

1992 1,565,613 57,641 3.68% 

1993 1,307,563 52,565 4.02% 

1994 1,177,198 33,545 2.85% 

1995 1,093,105 33,068 3.03% 

1996 1,064,478 13,853 1.30% 

1997 969,652 24,285 2.50% 

1998 891,686 29,614 3.32% 

1999 760,504 26,434 3.48% 

2000 713,666 14,571 2.04% 

2001 704,717 6,526 0.93% 

2002 697,966 8,389 1.20% 

2003 682,870 12,078 1.77% 

2004 672,297 7,848 1.17% 

2005 653,621 9,061 1.39% 

2006 641,881 8,361 1.30% 

2007 629,866 7,570 1.20% 

2008 623,319 7,364 1.18% 

2009 611,449 7,168 1.17% 

2010 597,333 6,328 1.06% 

2011 602,716 0.95% 5,741 

2012 599,438 0.90% 5,414 

2013 596,787 0.86% 5,122 

2014 594,642 0.82% 4,862 

2015 592,906 0.78% 4,629 

2016 591,502 0.75% 4,419 

2017 590,366 0.72% 4,231 

2018 589,447 0.69% 4,062 

2019 588,703 0.66% 3,909 

2020 588,102 0.64% 3,771 

 
J-5

Exhibit J-5

Actual and Projected Releases and Release Rates, 1992 - 2030 

2021 587,615 0.62% 3,646 

2022 587,221 0.60% 3,533 

2023 586,903 0.58% 3,431 

2024 586,645 0.57% 3,339 

2025 586,437 0.56% 3,255 

2026 586,268 0.54% 3,180 

2027 586,131 0.53% 3,111 

2028 586,021 0.52% 3,049 

2029 585,932 0.51% 2,992 

2030 585,859 0.50% 2,941 a Values obtained from Exhibit J-2. b

 Calculated by dividing releases by UST systems. 

c Projected release rates estimated using a single exponential decay function. d Calculated by multiplying release rate by UST systems. 

In EPA’s primary analysis, the cumulative universe of releases is 143,360, or (7,168 * 20). In the 

alternative baseline scenario, the cumulative universe of releases is 86,200, or the sum of 

releases in the years 2009 through 2028. The ratio between these two cumulative universes is 

approximately 60 percent, or 86,200/143,360. 

 
Appendix K 

Methodology for Estimating Upper Bound Market Exit Scenario 
K-1

To evaluate the implications of a highly unlikely worst-case outcome, EPA evaluates a scenario 

in which the lowest revenue facilities incur the highest possible compliance costs. To obtain a 

measure of the number of lowest-revenue facilities and their revenues, we rely on the 2002 

Census data used in the analysis of small business impacts (see chapter 5). These are reproduced 

in Exhibit K-1. 

Exhibit K-1 

Summary of Census Data Used for Analysis 

Census Revenue Range Number of firms 

Lower Upper Average Assumed equivalent to establishments

$150,000 $250,000 $200,000 3,857 

$50,000 $150,000 $100,000 3,118 

$35,750 $50,000 $42,875 546 

 Total 7,520 

As discussed in Chapter 5, holding all other things equal, an annual cost greater than 1.5 percent 

of gross sales would exceed average reported profits, causing a motor fuel retailer to operate at a 

loss. If the facility cannot adjust its prices or lower costs, it will eventually exit the market. 

Given the profit margins of 1.5 percent identified in Chapter 5, facilities that earn more than 

approximately $240,000 per year will likely not exit the market.1 As a result, we only evaluate 

the implications for the approximately 7,500 facilities that earn less than $250,000 in revenues 

per year. Exhibit K-2 reproduces the distribution of facilities we obtain under the worst-case 

annual compliance cost scenario. EPA identified approximately 7,500 facilities that would incur 

annual compliance costs between $2,000 and $3,300 in the worst-case scenario. 

 

1

 Another way to articulate this is as follows: a compliance cost of approximately $3,600 per year does not constitute 

more than 1.5 percent of the revenues of a facility that earns at least $240,000 per year. 

 
K-2

Exhibit K-2 

Distribution of Facilities by WorstCase Annual Compliance Cost 

Cost range ($) UST systems 

3,400 - 3,500 1,199

3,300 - 3,400 1

3,200 - 3,300 96

3,100 - 3,200 641

3,000 - 3,100 191

2,900 - 3,000 440

2,800 - 2,900 819

2,700 - 2,800 950

2,600 - 2,700 291

2,500 - 2,600 66

2,400 - 2,500 127

2,300 - 2,400 334

2,200 - 2,300 891

2,100 - 2,200 841

2,000 - 2,100 640

Above 2,000 7,527

Below 2,000 154,242

Total 161,768

To obtain an estimate of the upper range of facilities that may be most impacted, we allocated the 

highest revenue facilities to the highest compliance cost ranges as shown in Exhibit K-3. We 

allocated facilities to a compliance cost range from the highest Census revenue range until that 

compliance range was fully assigned, i.e., until all facilities in that compliance cost range were 

assigned to a Census revenue range. Similarly, if all of the facilities in a revenue range were fully 

assigned across cost ranges and a cost range was not exhausted, we assigned it facilities from the 

next-highest revenue range. 

We considered average revenues within each Census revenue range when assessing whether 

facilities would hit 1.5 percent: if the lower end of the cost range exceeded 1.5 percent of the 

average revenue for a facilities in that range, we concluded that those facilities may potentially 

exit the market. In the worst case, the threshold revenue exceeds the assumed average revenue 

for all but 1,450 of the 7,520 facilities that earn between $35,750 and $250,000.2

 We thus 

conclude that 6,077 facilities may exit the market if a highly-adverse distribution of costs was 

concentrated on the smallest facilities. As we discussed in Chapter 5, such an outcome is highly 

unlikely. 

 

2

 Because only 7,520 facilities are in the revenue range between $0 and $250,000, and 7,527 facilities have costs 

above $2,000, we assume seven facilities would not have costs that exceed 1.5 percent of their revenues. 

 
K-3

Exhibit K-3 

Allocation of Facilities Across Compliance Cost Ranges 

Cost Range ($) 

Number of 

Facilities in 

Range Allocation from Census Revenue Range a

Revenue Req’d. 

to be Below 1.5% 

Profit Margin 

Assumed 

Average 

Revenue 

3,400 - 3,500 1,199 1199 facilities with revenue range of $150,000 - $250,000 $226,667 $200,000

3,300 - 3,400 1 1 facilities with revenue range of $150,000 - $250,000 $220,000 $200,000

3,200 - 3,300 96 96 facilities with revenue range of $150,000 - $250,000 $213,333 $200,000

3,100 - 3,200 641 641 facilities with revenue range of $150,000 - $250,000 $206,667 $200,000

3,000 - 3,100 191 191 facilities with revenue range of $150,000 - $250,000 $200,000 $200,000

2,900 - 3,000 440 440 facilities with revenue range of $150,000 - $250,000 $193,333 $200,000

2,800 - 2,900 819 819 facilities with revenue range of $150,000 - $250,000 $186,667 $200,000

2,700 - 2,800 950 

 470 facilities with revenue range of $150,000 - $250,000; 

479 facilities with revenue range of $50,000 - $150,000 $180,000 

$200,000 / 

$100,000

2,600 - 2,700 291 291 facilities with revenue range of $50,000 - $150,000 $173,333 $100,000

2,500 - 2,600 66 66 facilities with revenue range of $50,000 - $150,000 $166,667 $100,000

2,400 - 2,500 127 127 facilities with revenue range of $50,000 - $150,000 $160,000 $100,000

2,300 - 2,400 334 334 facilities with revenue range of $50,000 - $150,000 $153,333 $100,000

2,200 - 2,300 891 891 facilities with revenue range of $50,000 - $150,000 $146,667 $100,000

2,100 - 2,200 841 841 facilities with revenue range of $50,000 - $150,000 $140,000 $100,000

2,000 - 2,100 640 b

 89 facilities with revenue range of $50,000 - $150,000; 546 

facilities with revenue range of $35,750 - $50,000 $133,333 

$100, 000 

/ $42,875

N/A 6,077 Facilities exceeding 1.5% profit margin N/A N/A

N/A 1,450 Facilities not exceeding 1.5% profit margin N/A N/A

Notes: 

a

 Values may not equal total in "Number of facilities in Range" due to rounding. b

 The total number of facilities with revenues of $250,000 or less is 7,520, while 7,527 facilities have costs exceeding $2,000. This 

analysis therefore assumes that seven facilities with costs above $2,000 report revenues greater than $250,000. 

 
 

Appendix L: 

Screening Analysis of Impacts on Small Entities 

This Appendix contains two memoranda that were prepared in February and March 2010, and 

document the methodology used to assess small entity impacts under the rule. While the methods presented 

in these memoranda are accurate, the actual cost estimates associated with the proposed rulemaking have 

been refined, and the specific results presented in these memoranda are therefore superceded by the results in 

Chapter 4. 

 
 

L-1 

MEMORANDUM | 4 February 2010 

TO Cho-Yi Kwan, EPA 

FROM Monisha Khurana and Cynthia Manson, Industrial Economics, Inc. 

SUBJECT Small Entities Screening Analysis of UST Universe by Industry Sector 

(WA 3-25, Task 4) 

In promulgating regulations, the Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) must 

consider the effects of those regulations on small entities, as required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, amended by the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act 

(RFA/SBREFA). Under RFA/SBREFA, the regulating agency must certify whether a 

regulation has a “significant impact on a substantial number of small entities” 

(SISNOSE). Within reason, the definitions of “significant” and “substantial” are a matter 

of Agency discretion. To inform the development of regulatory revisions, however, 

Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc) has developed a spreadsheet that calculates the 

impacts of proposed rules on small entities (including businesses and governments). The 

calculator also evaluates Federalism impacts and total impacts on Tribal governments. 

The calculator uses data from the Small Business Administration (SBA) and U.S. Census 

to identify governments and businesses by sector and size. We use data from E2

, 

Incorporated (E2

) and from a 1992 EPA study of small governments with USTs to 

estimate the number of small entities in each sector likely to have USTs.1,2 Based on a 

user-entered per-tank cost of compliance, the spreadsheet estimates the number of small 

entities that incur costs exceeding one and three percent of gross annual revenues. 

The spreadsheet also evaluates total costs to tanks on Tribal lands, and provides specific 

results for state and local government costs, including both impacts on small entities and 

a total estimate of costs addressed under Executive Order 13132, addressing potential 

federalism impacts. This memo describes an analysis using the spreadsheet, summarizes 

the data sources and outputs of the spreadsheet, and summarizes the methodology and 

results.3

 

IEc’s small entity impact screening approach is intended to identify an initial estimate of 

the number of small entities that may experience significant impacts associated with the 

regulations currently under consideration. To ensure that the analysis does not overlook 

potential impacts, we incorporate several conservative (i.e., high-cost or low-revenue) 

 

1

 See TO 1010, TDD# 11, Appendix B, Draft Industry and Facility Profiles, 12.18.06, and Amendment 1, December 18, 2006 

2

 "Economic Impact Analysis of Additional Mechanisms for Local Government Entities to Demonstrate Financial Responsibility 

for Underground Storage Tanks," December 1992 

3

 The spreadsheet contains an initial “Notes” sheet with detailed information about assumptions, inputs, and calculations. 

The model also includes a summary table of key outputs (Output Summary) and more detailed analysis summaries (“Inputs 

and Outputs” and “Calculations by Major Sector” pages; the model also contains specific sheets to support analysis of 

government and Tribal impacts. 

INTRODUCTION AND 

BACKGROUND 

OVERVIEW AND 

RESULTS 

 
 

L-2 

K 

assumptions that are documented in our methodology. This memorandum describes a 

spreadsheet tool that can be used to assess a range of different regulatory scenarios. The 

key features of the spreadsheet are as follows: 

• The spreadsheet calculates the number of small entities (firms and governments) 

with estimated costs associated with the regulation that exceed either one percent 

or three percent to total revenues. The per-tank compliance cost currently 

programmed in the model is based on estimates from the January 26, 2010 version 

of IEc’s cost model. The parameters used to run the cost model are included in the 

spreadsheet and in Appendix 1 of this memo. The cost model output number is 

currently adjusted to 2002 dollars, to be consistent with revenue data in this model 

from SBA and U.S. Census is from 2002. Based on the January 26, 2010 version 

of the cost model, this value is $309 in 2008 dollars, or $262 in 2002 dollars.4

 

• The spreadsheet also evaluates cost results for tanks on Tribal lands, based on 

model calculations specific to Tribal tanks. 

• The spreadsheet calculates the number of small entities with USTs that will 

experience compliance costs equal to or greater than one percent and three percent 

of annual revenue. The spreadsheet also calculates the percentage of small entities 

with USTs represented by the entities meeting the thresholds. 

• Using these figures, the Agency can make an initial determination of whether a 

regulation significantly affects a substantial number of small businesses or 

governments. 

The remainder of this memorandum describes in more detail the specific methods, data, 

and assumptions used in calculating costs associated with small businesses, small 

government entities, and tanks on Tribal lands. 

For the analysis of impacts on small business entities, we adopt a hybrid approach for 

estimating the distribution of USTs among facilities and firms. For the NAICS 447 

(Retail Motor Fuels) sector, we distribute tanks proportionately by facility across all 

facilities in the sector. For all other sectors, we distribute tanks proportionally by revenue 

among a subset of facilities in the sector. We describe this approach in more detail 

below, outlining data sources and methodology. We also present the results of two 

sensitivity analyses (one that distributes tanks in all sectors proportionately by facility and 

one that distributes all tanks proportionately by revenue) in Appendix 2.5

 

DATA SOURCES 

IEc used E2 data developed in 2006 to estimate the number of tanks and facilities in each 

of several key sectors that use USTs.6

 With the exception of hospitals (NAICS 622), 

retail motor fuel establishments (NAICS 447) and communications and utilities (NAICS 

 

4

 Because the key output of the model is number of small entities affected, the results are not affected by year dollars used, 

as long as data are internally consistent However, we note that we expect to update the model to incorporate 2007 Census 

of Manufacturers data when this data set and the accompanying SBA data set become available. 

5

 The user can manually toggle the scenario by using the drop-down menu on the “Calculations by Major Sector” worksheet, 

cell B2, which provides three options: original (hybrid), facility, and revenue. 

6

 See TO 1010, TDD# 11, Appendix B, Draft Industry and Facility Profiles, 12.18.06, and Amendment 1, December 18, 2006 

SMALL BUSINESS 

ANALYSIS 

 
 

L-3 

5171 and 2211), E2 data on use of USTs specified only high level (e.g., 2-digit) NAICS 

sectors, such as “commercial” and “manufacturing” sectors. 

SBA provides data on the number of firms, establishments and receipts by size of firm, 

categorized by 2-digit NAICS sectors.7

 SBA data allocate firms in each sector into the 

following annual revenue ranges, or “bins:” 

• $0 to $99,999, 

• $100,000 to $499,999, 

• $500,000 to $999,999, 

• $1,000,000 to $4,999,999, 

• $5,000,000 to $9,999,999, 

• $10,000,000 to $49,999,999, 

• $50,000,000 to $99,999,999 and 

• $100,000,000 and above. 

For 3-digit sector information (e.g., Hospitals and Retail Motor Fuel sales), IEc used U.S. 

Census data to determine the number of firms, number of establishments, and average 

revenues by firm, because SBA does not provide data for the relevant 3-digit NAICS 

codes. 

The U.S. Census publishes slightly different revenue bins for reporting data. The lowestincome revenue bin includes all firms that report annual revenues under $250,000. All 

intermediate revenue bins are the same between U.S. Census and SBA. SBA’s highestincome revenue bin is over $100 million, but U.S. Census breaks the largest categories 

down into $100 to $250 million, and then over $250 million. 

SBA provides employment and revenue thresholds to define small entities in each sector 

of the economy. We summarize the size standards for the industries identified by E2

 in 

Exhibit 1.8

 

 

7

 Small Business Administration, “Employer Firms, Establishments, Employment, Annual Payroll, and Receipts by Receipts 

Size of Firm and Major Industry, 2002,” as viewed at http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/data.html#us

8

 The complete list of size thresholds can be found on the SBA website at 

http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf. 

 
 

L-4 

EXHIBIT 1. SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARDS FOR INDUSTRIES WITH USTS

INDUSTRY OR SECTOR NAICS THRESHOLD 

Gasoline stations with convenience 

stores 447110 $27 million (M) 

Traditional service stations 447190 $9M 

Wholesale trade 42 100 employees 

Retail trade, accommodation and food 

services 

44-45, 72 

(excluding 447) 

Varies: $7M to $29M or 50 

employees 

Wired telecommunications carriers 5171 1,500 employees 

Hospitals 622 $34.5M 

Manufacturing 31-33 Varies: 500 to 1,500 employees 

Transportation and Warehousing 48 Varies: $7M to $34.5M or 500 to 

1,500 employees 

Source: U.S. Small Business Association, “Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to 

North American Industry Classification System Codes,” August 22, 2008, as viewed at 

http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf

METHODOLOGY : SMALL BUSINESSES (FIRMS) 

Identification of Number of Small Firms and Average Revenues 

The first step in our analysis identifies the number of small firms, average revenues, and 

establishments in each sector. E2

 data from 2006 estimates the number of tanks in the 

following sectors: Commercial (NAICS 42, 44-45, 72, excluding 447), Institutional 

(Hospitals only, NAICS 622), Manufacturing (NAICS 31-33), Transportation and 

Warehousing (NAICS 481, 483-486, and 48811), and Communication and Utilities 

(NAICS 5171 and 2211). To fit E2

’s sector information to SBA data, we group 

communications and utilities into the Information sector (NAICS 51). We also use the 

entire Transportation and Warehousing sector (NAICS 48), while E2

 breaks down the 

sector into NAICS codes 481, 483-486, and 48811 for their analysis. We use EPA’s 

Semi-Annual Report of UST Performance Measures, End of Fiscal Year 2009 Report to 

estimate the total number of tanks, and E2

’s distribution of tanks across sectors to identify 

the percentage and total number of tanks in each sector.9

IEc uses SBA employment and revenue thresholds as outlined in Exhibit 1 to define small 

entities in each sector of the economy. To ensure that we are not underestimating the 

number of small entities, we assume that all businesses within a revenue bin that contains 

a specific SBA revenue threshold value are small. In other words, if the SBA small 

business size threshold for a sector is $7 million, the model assumes that all firms in the 

revenue range of $5 to $10 million are small. When SBA provides an employment 

threshold, we use total employment numbers for each revenue bin to calculate the average 

number of employees per firm, and assume that all businesses within a revenue bin that 

 

9

 Semi-Annual Report of UST Performance Measures, End of Fiscal Year 2009—As Of September 30, 2009. Accessed December 

17, 2009 at <http://www.epa.gov/oust/cat/ca_09_34.pdf> 

 
 

L-5 

contain the threshold value are small, similar to the sectors whose thresholds are defined 

by revenue. The number of small firms in each sector is displayed in Exhibit 2. 

To estimate the number of retail motor fuel facilities, we consulted National Petroleum 

News’ annual survey and U.S. Census of Manufacturers data. To reconcile differing 

estimates of the number of retail fuel facilities (roughly 162,000 estimated by NPN, and 

110,600 estimated by the Census), and to account for roughly 37,000 tanks estimated to 

be owned by governments that were not included in the E2

 data but are reflected in the 

total population of 611,449 tanks (FY 2009), we developed a 1.46 adjustment factor to 

Census data to inflate the number of retail motor fuel facilities to 162,000, distributed 

proportionately across revenue ranges. 10,11 To ensure that the total number tanks and 

total number of facilities are consistent, we also revise E2

's estimate of tanks per facility 

from 3.13 to 2.97. This approach preserves the distribution of firms by size according to 

Census data. As a result of this approach, we estimate that there are a total of 

approximately 83,900 firms and 481,000 tanks in the retail motor fuel sector. 

EXHIBIT 2. NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF SMALL FIRMS BY NAICS CODE 

INDUSTRY OR SECTOR NAICS

NUMBER OF 

SMALL FIRMS

TOTAL 

NUMBER OF 

FIRMS

PERCENTAGE 

OF FIRMS 

THAT ARE 

SMALL

SMALL FIRMS 

WITH USTs

Retail Motor Fuel Sales 447 82,462 83,869 98% 82,462 

Commercial 

(wholesale trade, 

retail trade, 

accommodation, and 

food services) 

42, 44-45, 72 

(excluding 447) 1,434,363 1,451,645 99% 14,128 

Institutional (hospitals 

only) 622 2,278 3,800 60% 2,105 

Manufacturing 31-33 293,325 297,873 98% 6,725 

Transportation (air, 

water, truck, transit, 

pipeline, and airport 

operations) 

48 157,904 159,373 99% 5,848 

Information 51 76,582 77,605 99% 3,880 

Sources: Small Business Administration, “Employer Firms, Establishments, Employment, Annual Payroll, 

and Receipts by Receipts Size of Firm and Major Industry, 2002,” as viewed at 

http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/data.html#us

U.S. Census “Table 4: Receipts/Revenue Size of Firms for the United States: 2002, as viewed at: 

http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0262sssz.pdf. 

 

10 NPN Market Facts 2008. See: <http://www.npnweb.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=A79131211D8846B1A33169AF72F78511&type= 

gen&mod=Core+Pages&gid=CD6098BB12AF47B7AF6FFC9DF4DAE988> 

11 According to the Census, the term “establishment” is defined as “a single physical location where business transactions 

take place and for which payroll and employment records are kept.” We therefore assume that an establishment is 

equivalent to one facility. The terms facility and establishment are used interchangeably in this memorandum. 

 
 

L-6 

Tank Distribution Across Revenue Bins (Except Retail Motor Fuel, NAICS 447) 

The second step in our analysis is to distribute tanks among firms within each revenue bin 

for each sector. With the exception of the retail motor fuels sector, where we assume that 

all facilities have tanks, available data do not identify specific distributions of tanks 

across facilities in key sectors or sub-sectors. In the absence of empirical data about the 

use of tanks at specific facilities, we assign tanks to facilities within broad sectors 

assuming that tanks are distributed proportionately by revenue across all facilities in the 

sector. That is, we assume that larger companies with more facilities are likely to have 

more tanks (e.g., car rental companies with multiple locations). 

To ensure that the number of small firms potentially affected is not undercounted, the 

model currently assumes that all tanks in these sectors are located at small firms, and 

distributes tanks proportionately by revenue among small firm size categories. For 

example, in a hypothetical sector in which ten firms report total revenues of $10 million, 

and 20 more firms report revenues totaling $5 million, the model assumes that two-thirds 

of the tanks in that sector are distributed among the ten firms with revenues totaling $10 

million and the remaining one-third of tanks are distributed among firms with revenues 

totaling $5 million.12 The average number of tanks per facility is estimated using E2

 data, 

and is held constant for each sector; the number of tanks per firm therefore increases with 

the average number of facilities per firm as firm size increases. Exhibit 3 provides an 

example calculation to illustrate this approach. 

To calculate the cost of compliance for each firm with USTs, we multiply the average 

number of tanks per firm by the average cost per tank, as defined by user-inputs to the 

model (in this case, cost model inputs).13 We compare this number with the average 

receipts per firm in each revenue bin, and determine how many firms would face 

compliance costs greater than one and three percent of their total revenue. 

 

12 This approach reflects some uncertainty; to the extent that tanks are not distributed proportionately across firms within a 

sector by revenue, it is possible that this approach could underestimate or over estimate impacts on small entities. 

However, we do not have enough information about the actual distribution of tanks within sub-sectors of these industries to 

develop a more refined distribution process. 

13 Cost per tank is calculated by running the cost model with the default parameters, and dividing the total cost across the 

total universe of tanks to obtain a per tank cost. This calculator can be run with a user-specified number by changing the 

input in cell C2 on the “Inputs and Outputs” worksheet. 

 
 

L-7 

EXHIBIT 3. TANK DISTRIBUTION IN TRANSPORTATION & WAREHOUSING (NAICS 48) 

[A] 

SMALL 

FIRMS 

[B] 

REVENUE RANGE 

[C] 

FIRMS 

[D] 

FACILITIES

[E] 

RECEIPTS 

($000) 

[F] 

PERCENT 

OF 

TOTAL 

SECTOR 

RECEIPTS 

[G] 

FACILITIES 

PER FIRM 

[H] 

NUMBER 

OF USTS

[I] 

TANKS 

PER 

FIRM 

[J] 

NUMBER 

OF 

FIRMS 

WITH 

USTS 

Yes $0 to $99,999 41,605 41,623 2,081,438 0.42% 1.00 190 1.77 107 

Yes $100,000 to $499,999 65,261 65,383 15,545,929 3.11% 1.00 1,420 1.77 801 

Yes $500,000 to $999,999 20,143 20,380 14,176,545 2.84% 1.01 1,295 1.79 724 

Yes $1,000,000 to $4,999,999 24,091 26,174 50,211,290 10.06% 1.09 4,587 1.92 2,387 

Yes $5,000,000 to $9,999,999 3,696 5,290 24,352,963 4.88% 1.43 2,225 2.53 879 

Yes $10,000,000 to $49,999,999 3,108 8,707 51,486,660 10.31% 2.80 4,704 4.96 949 

No $50,000,000 to $99,999,999 440 2,813 18,101,927 3.63% 6.39 

No $100,000,000 to + 1,029 24,773 323,265,371 64.75% 24.07 

TOTALS 159,373 195,143 $499,222,123 100% 14,422 5,848 

Notes and Sources: 

[A]: Based on threshold from SBA. 

[B], [C], [D], [E],: Based on 2002 Census Data. Note that the terms “establishments” and “facilities” are assumed to be equivalent and are used 

interchangeably within this analysis. 

[F]: Calculated as each row in [E]/∑[E]. 

[G]: Calculated as [D]/[C]. 

[H]: Calculated as [F]* total number of USTs per sector (e.g., 14,422 in NAICS 48). 

[I]: Calculated as [G] * E2’s estimate of tanks per facility for each sector. 

[J]: Calculated as [H]/[I]. 

Tank Distribution for Motor Fuel Retailers (NAICS 447) 

For Retail Motor Fuel Sales (NAICS 447), we assume that all establishments (facilities) 

have USTs. Moreover, we assume that the number of USTs is constant across all 

facilities in the sector, and therefore varies directly with the number of facilities per 

firm.14 This approach differs from the revenue-based distribution used in other sectors in 

that we assume that even very small facilities have the same number of tanks (2.97) as 

larger facilities.15 In reality, it is probable that some small facilities have fewer tanks and 

some larger facilities have more tanks, but our simplified distribution ensures that every 

facility has at least one tank and that costs to small facilities are not underestimated. 

 

14 According to the Census, the term “establishment” is defined as “a single physical location where business transactions 

take place and for which payroll and employment records are kept.” We therefore assume that an establishment is 

equivalent to one facility. The terms facility and establishment are used interchangeably in this memorandum. 

15 Appendix 2 provides an alternative method of distributing tanks in NAICS 447 proportional to revenue as opposed to the 

number of facilities per firm. 

 
 

L-8 

RESULTS 

At a 2002 cost of $262 ($309 in 2008 dollars) per tank, the analysis concludes that no 

small entities in any sector will incur compliance costs that exceed either one or three 

percent of annual revenues (Exhibit 4). 

LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES 

By assuming that tanks are owned by small firms, (with the exception of retail motor fuel 

establishments (NAICS 447)), we may be overstating the number of small firms owning 

tanks. Available data do not provide information on how the number or existence of tanks 

relates to the size of the business in a given industry. In certain industries such as fuel 

retailers, it is likely that all facilities have one or more USTs. In other industries such as 

hospitals, most facilities do not have any tanks, and it may be that larger hospitals are 

more likely to have tanks than smaller hospitals (rather than small hospitals, as assumed). 

In addition, while Census and SBA revenue data are presented in ranges (or bins), the 

SBA size threshold, as well as the one or three percent of revenue thresholds, typically 

fall in the middle of ranges. Because we assume that all firms in a bin earn “average” 

revenues, the relationship between this average and the revenue impact thresholds 

determines whether all the facilities in that bin are “affected” by the regulation. This 

approach is likely to under- or over-estimate the number of businesses affected. Finally, 

we assume that when the small business threshold occurs in the middle of a revenue bin, 

all firms in that category are small; this might over-estimate the number of businesses 

affected. 

 
 

L-9 

EXHIBIT 4. SUMMARY RESULTS OF CURRENT SMALL ENTITY SCREENING ANALYSIS 

INDUSTRY OR 

SECTOR 

SECTOR 

(NAICS) 

SMALL 

ENTITIES 

(FIRMS) 

WITH USTS

SMALL 

ENTITIES 

WITH USTSCOSTS 

EXCEED 1% 

OF REVENUES 

PERCENT OF 

SMALL ENTITIES 

WITH USTS 

WITH COSTS 

EXCEEDING 1% 

OF REVENUES 

ENTITIES 

WITH USTSCOSTS 

EXCEED 3% 

OF 

REVENUES 

 PERCENT OF 

SMALL 

ENTITIES WITH 

USTS WITH 

COSTS 

EXCEEDING 3% 

OF REVENUES 

Retail Motor Fuel 

Sales 447 82,462 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Commercial 

(wholesale trade, 

retail trade, 

accommodation, 

and food services) 

42, 44-45, 72 

(excluding 

447) 

14,128 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Institutional 

(hospitals only) 622 2,105 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Manufacturing 31-33 6,725 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Transportation (air, 

water, truck, 

transit, pipeline, 

and airport 

operations) 

48 5,848 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Information 51 3,880 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

TOTALS 115,148 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

To map SBA revenue data to E2 tank estimates, we group communications and utilities 

into the Information sector (NAICS 51). We also use the entire Transportation and 

Warehousing sector (NAICS 48), while E2

 breaks down the sector into NAICS codes 481, 

483-486, and 48811 for their analysis. Using larger sectors could potentially be skewing 

the revenues and size of the firms in the smaller NAICS sub-divisions. 

A large number of governmental organizations use USTs. These governments include 

school districts, public utilities, local and county governments, and others. RFA/SBREFA 

requires agencies to consider the impacts on small governmental jurisdictions as well as 

small businesses; small governmental jurisdictions are defined as governments of cities, 

counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with a population 

of less than 50,000 people.16 In 2002, there were 87,525 local governments, including 

special districts, in the United States.17 To assess impacts to small governmental 

jurisdictions, we evaluate compliance costs for all small governmental jurisdictions with 

 

16 For the purposes of the RFA, states and tribal entities are not considered small. 

<http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/government.htm> 

17 2002 Census of Governments

SMALL 

GOVERNMENT AND 

FEDERALISM 

ASSESSMENT 

 
 

L-10 

tanks to determine what percentage would have expenses exceeding one or three percent 

of total revenues. 

We evaluate total costs to all non-federal governments (including both direct compliance 

costs and program implementation costs) to determine whether the regulations under 

consideration would be likely to trigger requirements under E.O. 13132 (Federalism). 

Total annual state and local expenditures associated with the regulation of $25 million or 

more, and/or compliance costs that are equal to or exceed one percent of their annual 

revenues, would trigger EPA’s federalism requirements. This would require EPA to 

investigate approaches for ensuring that states have adequate discretion in implementing 

the relevant regulations. 

DATA SOURCES 

The data sources we use for our small governments analysis include the following: 

• Economic Impact Analysis of Additional Mechanisms for Local Government 

Entities to Demonstrate Financial Responsibility for Underground Storage Tanks,

December 1992 (1992 Local Government Economic Impact Analysis), and 

• 2002 U.S. Census of Governments Data. 

METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS: SMALL GOVERNMENT ANALYSIS 

The 1992 Local Government Economic Impact Analysis data provide information on the 

size and revenue of both general purpose (i.e. counties, municipalities, and townships) 

and special district governments (i.e. school districts and other special districts), dividing 

these governments into four size categories: very large, large, medium and small. The 

analysis also provides data on the number of governments owning USTs, the number of 

total USTs owned by governments, average USTs per government, USTs per owning 

government and the annual average budget expenditures, all broken out by size 

categories. The 1992 analysis defines a “very large” government as one that serves over 

50,000 people; therefore, we consider all other entities to be small governmental 

jurisdictions, according to the RFA/SBREFA definition. 

We assume that local governments collectively own four percent of active tanks. This 

equates to 24,458 tanks, based on the FY 2009 universe of 611,449 tanks. We distribute 

the 24,458 tanks among all local governments, based upon the percent of tanks owned in 

1992 by local governments in each size category. 

We then determine how many small governments own tanks, using the 1992 data for 

USTs per owning government. We determine the average compliance cost per 

government, calculated by the per tank cost multiplied by the number of USTs per 

owning government in each size category. 

The average annual revenues for each size of general purpose governments are calculated 

using 2002 Census Data. We add the total number of very large, large, medium and small 

governments across town/townships, municipalities and counties, and weight their total 

revenues accordingly to reflect the total number of each type of government (town, 

municipality, county) in each size category. In the United States, there are 16,504 

townships but revenue data are available only for 4,128 townships, so we extrapolate to 

 
 

L-11 

get revenue data for all townships. We then combine these weighted averages to get a 

figure for annual revenues in 2002 dollars for general purpose governments. Detailed 

information at the special district level is not available for 2002, so we inflate the budget 

expenditures from the 1992 document into 2002 dollars.18 

To calculate how many small governments face significant compliance costs exceeding 

one or three percent of their revenues, we compare the average compliance cost per 

government with the average annual revenues to determine how many exceed either 

threshold. At a cost of $309 ($2008) per tank, no small governments are affected under 

either the one percent or three percent revenue threshold (see Exhibit 5). 

METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS: FEDERALISM ASSESSMENT 

In addition to determining the impact on small governments, we calculate state and local 

costs to determine whether the proposed regulations would trigger an impact under 

Executive Order 13132, which addresses potential federalism impacts. We assume that 

states collectively own one percent of total tanks (6,114). This number is then multiplied 

by the per tank cost, as defined by the cost model/user-inputs to the model. Under the 

proposed regulations, each state will incur labor costs for reading the regulations and 

applying for State Program Approval (SPA). In addition, under the proposed regulations, 

facilities will be required to notify states of each tank ownership change. Processing and 

reviewing these notifications represent costs to the states, and are included in total state 

costs. 

The model calculates local government costs by summing the number of tanks in local 

governments for both general purpose and special districts in all four size categories: very 

large, large, medium and small. We then apply the per tank cost to the number of tanks 

across all local governments. Local and state costs are added together to determine if 

there will be a federalism impact. 

In this scenario, we determine that total costs to both state and local governments 

(including direct compliance costs, notification costs, and state program costs) are 

approximately $10 million in 2008 dollars; this is not considered to be a substantial 

compliance cost under federalism requirements. 

LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTY 

The data used for this analysis (1992 Local Government Economic Impact Analysis data) 

use 1987 U.S. Census data. We are unable to find more recent data relating to the number 

of governments owning USTs, the average USTs per government, and USTs per owning 

governments. These numbers are likely outdated, and the current pattern of government 

ownership of USTs may be significantly different. Note, however, that because even 

very small governments earn over $1.5 million, it is not likely that any updates to the 

distribution of tanks would affect the results of the analysis. 

 

18 Typically, in a RFA/SBREFA screening assessment, revenues are used as the metric to assess economic impact measures for 

small governments. Without detailed 2002 data available, we use the budget expenditures in the 1992 document as a proxy 

for revenues. 

 
 

L-12 

EXHIBIT 5. SMALL GOVERNMENT ANALYSIS 

[A] 

TYPE OF 

GOVERNMENT 

[B] 

SIZE OF 

GOVERNMENTC

[C] 

USTS PER 

OWNING 

GOV’T 

[D] 

NUMBER OF 

GOV’TS 

OWNING 

TANKS 

[E] 

2002 EST. 

NUMBER OF 

GOV’TS 

[F] 

AVERAGE 

ANNUAL 

REVENUE 

(2002 $) 

[G] 

AVERAGE 

COST PER 

GOV’T 

($) 

[H] 

NUMBER OF 

GOV’TS 

EXCEEDING 

1% OF 

REVENUE 

[I] 

NUMBER OF 

GOV’TS 

EXCEEDING 

3% OF 

REVENUE 

General 

Purpose 

Very Large 10.2 534 1,461 $316,129,836 

 

$2,676 0 0 

Large 2.5 1,512 4,040 $35,687,794 

 

$656 0 0 

Medium 1.4 1,444 7,822 $8,712,804 

 

$367 0 0 

Small 1.1 1,048 25,644 $1,779,216 

 

$289 0 0 

Subtotal 2.7 4,538 38,967 

Special 

Purpose 

Very Large 3.7 336 934 $431,319,166 

 

$971 0 0 

Large 3.6 1,902 5,340 $52,806,696 

 

$945 0 0 

Medium 1.4 2,648 13,602 $2,533,231 

 

$367 0 0 

Small 1.0 258 28,682 $128,013 

 

$262 0 0 

Subtotal 2.4 5,144 48,558 

Overall Total 2.5 9,682 87,525 

Notes: 

[A]: General Purpose governments include counties, municipalities and townships. Special Purpose governments include public 

school systems and special districts. 

[B]: Very large governments are considered to serve more than 50,000 people. We consider large governments as those that serve 

between 10,000 and 50,000 people, medium governments as those that serve between 2,500 and 10,000 people, and small 

governments as those that serve 2,500 or fewer people. According to RFA/SBREFA, small governmental jurisdictions have 

populations under 50,000. Therefore, we consider all sizes of governments except for “very large” as small. 

[C]: From 1992 Local Government Impact Analysis data 

[D]: Calcuated as number of tanks (adjusted 1992 distribution in each size category to reflect FY 2009 tank numbers) / [C] 

[E]: General purpose numbers from 2002 Census of Governments; Special Purpose total number of entities from 2002 Census of 

Governments, size distribution extrapolated from 1992 Local Government Impact Analysis data. 

[F]: General purpose estimates from 2002 Census of Governments; Special Purpose estimates inflated from 1992 Local Government 

Impact Analysis data. 

[G]: Calculated as [C] * model estimated cost per tank ($262 in 2002$). 

 
 

L-13 

DATA SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY 

The data sources for the tribal lands analysis are the same as those used in the small 

business analysis. Based on a review of information available about the types of business 

entities on Tribal Lands, we assume that tanks on Tribal lands represent a subset of the 

rest of the universe and are distributed similarly across the same sectors.19 We distribute 

the total number of tribal tanks proportionally among the NAICS sectors. Using the E2

data for tanks per facility and facilities per firm, we determine the total firms in each 

sector in tribal lands. 

RESULTS 

We run the cost model with the same parameters as the rest of the universe. The per cost 

tank is higher in tribal country, as the universe is smaller, and there are no regulations 

currently in place, so all tanks incur all costs. At a 2008 cost of $524 ($445 in 2002 

dollars) per tank, the total cost for all tanks on tribal lands is about $1.4 million. 

LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTY 

In order to determine the impacts on tribal entities, we assume the tank distribution across 

sectors in tribal country mirrors that of the rest of the United States. While we can 

estimate the total number of firms in tribal lands with tanks, we do not have data about 

the total number of firms. 

 

19 For more detail, see Detailed Assessment of UST Universe by Tank Purpose and Design (WA 1-25, Task 6), 24 March 2009. 

Note that because Tribal ownership and operation is defined differently than other types of government ownership, we do 

not attempt to isolate or identify “government” tanks on Tribal lands. 

TRIBAL LANDS COST 

 
 

L-14 

APPENDIX 1 

EXHIBIT A-1. PARAMETERS USED TO RUN COST MODEL 

RESULTS_USER_INPUTS 

REGULATION 

ID

OPTION 

ID

CHOICE 

ID OPTION_NAME SELECTIONS SELECTION TYPE

1 1 1 Walkthrough inspections by 

owner or operator

1 months between 

inspections

2 1 1 Overfill functionality 

testing

12 months between tests

3 1 1 Spill bucket tightness 

testing

12 months between tests

4 1 1 Integrity testing for 

interstitial areas

12 months between tests

5 1 1 Spill bucket tightness test 

after repair

1 1 for yes; 0 for no

5 2 1 Overfill functionality test 

after repair

1 1 for yes; 0 for no

5 3 1 Interstitial integrity test 

after repair

1 1 for yes; 0 for no

6 1 1 Eliminate flow restrictors 

for all new tanks

1 1 for yes; 0 for no

6 2 1 Replacement of existing 

ball floats

0 1 for yes; 0 for no

7 1 1 Functionality test - ATG 12 months between tests

7 2 1 Functionality test - 

Sticking

12 months between tests

7 3 1 Functionality test - 

interstitial monitoring

12 months between tests

7 4 1 Functionality test - vapor 

monitoring

12 months between tests

7 5 1 Functionality test - 

groundwater monitoring

12 months between tests

7 6 1 Functionality test - line 

leak detection

12 months between tests

9 1 1 Add SIR/CITLDS to 

regulations with 

restrictions

1 1 for yes; 0 for no

11 1 1 Deferrals removed for 

emergency generator tanks

1 1 for yes; 0 for no

11 2 1 Deferrals removed for 

airport hydrants

0 1 for yes; 0 for no

11 3 1 Deferrals removed for 

field-constructed USTs

0 1 for yes; 0 for no

11 4 1 Deferrals removed for 

wastewater treatment 

tanks

0 1 for yes; 0 for no

 
 

L-15 

RESULTS_USER_INPUTS 

REGULATION 

ID

OPTION 

ID

CHOICE 

ID OPTION_NAME SELECTIONS SELECTION TYPE

12 1 2 Notification of ownership 

changes

1 1 for yes; 0 for no

13 1 1 Replacement of 

irrepairable lined tanks

1 1 for yes; 0 for no

14 1 1 Response to interstitial 

monitoring alarms on tanks 

and pipes

1 1 for yes; 0 for no

16 1 1 Operator training 1 1 for yes; 0 for no

17 1 1 Secondary containment - 

new & replaced tanks

1 1 for yes; 0 for no

17 2 1 Threshold for pipe 

replacement rather than 

repair

0.5 piping replacement 

threshold

17 3 1 Under-dispenser containers 

for all new dispensers

1 1 if applies to all underdispenser containers; 0 

otherwise

17 3 2 Under-dispenser containers 

for all new motor fuel 

dispensers only

0 1 if only applies to motor 

fuel under-dispenser 

containers; 0 otherwise

 
 

L-16 

APPENDIX 2 

SENSITIVITY ANALYSES 

Our primary analysis assesses impacts to small businesses in non-NAICS 447 sectors by 

distributing all USTs in each sector across small businesses, proportional to revenue. For 

NAICS 447, however, we assume all facilities own USTs, and therefore distribute tanks 

by the number of facilities per firm. In this Appendix, we present two alternative 

scenarios: distribution of tanks in all sectors by firm revenue, and distribution of tanks in 

all sectors by number of facilities. 

DISTRIBUTION BY REVENUE 

This sensitivity analysis presents the results of distributing tanks by revenue across all 

sectors, including NAICS 447. Using this methodology, this analysis concludes that no 

firms in any sector face compliance costs exceeding one or three percent of annual 

revenues. 

INDUSTRY OR 

SECTOR NAICS 

SMALL 

FIRMS WITH 

USTS 

ENTITIES WITH 

USTS- COSTS 

EXCEED 1% OF 

REVENUES 

PERCENT OF 

SMALL 

ENTITIES 

WITH USTS 

WITH COSTS 

EXCEEDING 

1% OF 

REVENUES 

ENTITIES 

WITH USTSCOSTS 

EXCEED 3% 

OF 

REVENUES 

PERCENT OF 

SMALL 

ENTITIES 

WITH USTS 

WITH COSTS 

EXCEEDING 

3% OF 

REVENUES 

Retail Motor Fuel 

Sales 447 82,462 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Commercial 

(wholesale trade, 

retail trade, 

accommodation, 

and food services) 

42, 44-45, 

72 

(excluding 

447) 

14,128 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Institutional 

(hospitals only) 622 2,105 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Manufacturing 31-33 6,725 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Transportation (air, 

water, truck, 

transit, pipeline, 

and airport 

operations) 

48 5,848 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Information 51 3,880 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

TOTALS 115,148 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

 
 

L-17 

DISTRIBUTION BY FACILITY 

This sensitivity analysis presents the results of distributing tanks by number of facilities 

across all sectors. Using this methodology, this analysis concludes that no firms in any 

sector face compliance costs exceeding one or three percent of annual revenues. 

INDUSTRY OR 

SECTOR NAICS 

SMALL 

FIRMS WITH 

USTS 

ENTITIES 

WITH USTSCOSTS 

EXCEED 1% 

OF REVENUES 

PERCENT OF 

SMALL 

ENTITIES 

WITH USTS 

WITH COSTS 

EXCEEDING 

1% OF 

REVENUES S 

ENTITIES 

WITH USTSCOSTS 

EXCEED 3% 

OF REVENUES 

PERCENT OF 

SMALL 

ENTITIES 

WITH USTS 

WITH COSTS 

EXCEEDING 

3% OF 

REVENUES 

Retail Motor Fuel 

Sales 447 82,462 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Commercial 

(wholesale trade, 

retail trade, 

accommodation, 

and food services) 

42, 44-45, 72 

(excluding 

447) 

14,128 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Institutional 

(hospitals only) 622 2,105 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Manufacturing 31-33 6,725 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Transportation (air, 

water, truck, 

transit, pipeline, 

and airport 

operations) 

48 

5,848 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Information 51 3,880 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

TOTALS 115,148 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

 
 

L-18 

EPA SUPPLEMENTAL SMALL ENTITY ASSESSMENT BY OUST 

MARCH 2010

 
EPA internal deliberative draft – do not cite or quote L-19

Supplemental Small Entity Assessment by EPA/OUST 

March 23, 2010 

 The initial screening assessment performed by Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) indicated that 

there would not be a substantial number of small entities significantly impacted at the 1% or 3% revenue 

threshold based on the estimated per tank compliance cost as of March 22, 2010 (i.e., $378 per tank in 

2008 dollars).20 However, due to the large number of small firms with underground storage tanks (USTs) 

that are in the retail motor fuel sales sector (NAICS 447) and because the initial screening assessment 

uses the average revenue within a particular revenue range to determine whether the entire number of 

firms in that range would be included or excluded in the threshold determination, OUST undertook a 

closer examination of the small firms in this sector. This paper first summarizes the results from the 

initial screening assessment, and then details the supplemental analysis conducted to refine the 

conclusions from the initial screening assessment for the retail motor fuel sales sector. 

Initial Screening Assessment 

 According to our analysis, it is estimated that there are approximately 83,900 firms in the retail 

motor fuel sales sector.21 All of these firms are assumed to own USTs at all their facilities. Based on the 

distribution of firms across revenue bins published by the 2002 Census and SBA’s revenue thresholds for 

NAICS 447110 and 447190, it is estimated that 82,500 of these firms, or 98 percent of total firms, are 

considered “small” under SBA’s definition of a small entity.22 Approximately 7,500 of these small firms 

are estimated to be in the smallest revenue range published by the 2002 Census (i.e., reporting sales 

receipts between $0 and $250,000), with average sales of approximately $149,000. 

As mentioned above, the initial screening compared the total compliance cost per firm with the 

average revenue reported by the firms of a given revenue range to determine whether those firms would 

be significantly impacted by the proposed rulemaking (i.e., exceed the 1% or 3% revenue threshold). 

Based on a per tank compliance cost of $321 (in 2002 dollars),23 and assuming that the firms in the 

smallest revenue range would own only one facility with three USTs, we estimate that the 7,500 small 

 

20 See IEc, “Small Entities Screening Analysis of UST Universe by Industry Sector,” February 4, 2010 (WA 3-25, Task 4) for details. 

21 NAICS code 447 is comprised of 447110 (Gasoline stations with convenience stores) and 447190 (Other gasoline stations). To reconcile 

differing estimates of the number of retail fuel facilities (roughly 162,000 estimated by NPN, and 110,600 estimated by the Census), a 1.46 

adjustment factor was applied to the Census data to inflate the number of retail motor fuel facilities to 162,000, distributed proportionately across 

revenue ranges. This approach preserves the distribution of firms by size according to Census data. As a result of this approach, we estimate that 

there are a total of approximately 83,900 firms and 481,000 tanks in the retail motor fuel sector. 

22 For 447110, the SBA revenue threshold is $27 million; for 447190, the SBA revenue threshold is $9 million. To ensure that we are not 

underestimating the number of small entities, we assume that all businesses within a revenue bin that contains a specific SBA revenue threshold 

value are small. In other words, if the SBA small business size threshold for a sector is $7 million, we have assumed that all firms in the revenue 

range of $5 to $10 million are small. 

23 To be consistent with 2002 revenue data from SBA and the U.S. Census Bureau, compliance costs have been adjusted from 2008 dollars to 

2002 dollars using the GDP implicit deflator. Based on the January 26, 2010 version of the cost model, the estimated compliance cost is $309 per 

tank in 2008 dollars, or $262 per tank in 2002 dollars. (Total annualized compliance costs are estimated to be $190 million in 2008 dollars. 

These costs exclude compliance costs associated with the removal of deferrals for airport hydrant systems and field-constructed tanks. These 

systems are assumed to be primarily owned by the Department of Defense; therefore, potential compliance costs for these systems are not 

required to be included for the small business assessment.)

 
EPA internal deliberative draft – do not cite or quote L-20

firms in the $0-$250,000 revenue range would face total compliance costs of $963 per firm ($2002). As a 

result, any firm earning less than $96,300 (i.e., the revenue threshold at which compliance costs would 

exceed 1% of the firm’s revenue) would not be significantly impacted. Because the average revenue for 

the 7,500 firms in the $0-$250,000 revenue bin (i.e., $149,000) is more than $96,300, the initial screening 

assessment concluded that no firms would be significantly impacted from the estimated compliance cost 

(based on an all-in or all-out assessment). 

However, given that the lowest revenue bin reported by the U.S. Census ranges from between $0 

and $250,000, it is obvious that some of the 7,500 firms make less than the average, and therefore, may be 

significantly impacted. At the same time, it is also apparent that a number of the 7,500 firms make more 

than the average, and therefore would not be significantly impacted. Therefore, a more accurate 

conclusion from the initial screening assessment may be that, at best, we can conclude that between zero 

and 7,500 firms may be significantly impacted based on a 1- or 3-percent revenue threshold. 

EPA guidance used to determine whether a program can certify that a rulemaking will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE) provides an example cutoff of 

1,000 small firms or 20 percent of small firms affected as a measure of “substantial number.” While the 

7,500 small firms in the lowest revenue range represents nine percent of all potentially affected small 

firms, this number exceeds the example 1,000 threshold. As a result, OUST attempted to further refine 

the number of small firms potentially affected by conducting a supplemental analysis that focuses on the 

7,500 small firms that earn between $0 and $250,000 in revenues. 

Supplemental Analysis 

 The main goal of the supplemental analysis is to determine whether we could estimate the 

distribution of the 7,500 within the $0-$250,000 revenue range so that we could better identify the 

number of firms that may be significantly impacted. As a first step, we contacted the U.S. Census Bureau 

to see if they would be able to provide a further breakdown of the number of firms in the lowest revenue 

bins for NAICS 447110 (Gasoline stations with convenience stores) and 447190 (Other gasoline stations). 

The Census Bureau was able to give us a percentage breakdown of the firms between three smaller 

revenue ranges: (1) $0-$50,000; (2) $50,000-$150,000; and (3) $150,000-$250,000.24 Based on this 

information, we estimate that the number of firms in the retail motor fuel sales sector (i.e., NAICS 447) 

for these three revenue groups is approximately 550, 3,120, and 3,860, respectively (see Exhibit 1). 

 Using these three additional data points, we plotted a curve that depicts the cumulative number of 

firms at each revenue threshold (see Exhibit 2). (For example, Exhibit 2 shows that approximately 76,200 

firms earn under $5 million in revenues). By fitting a straight-line trend line at the lower end of this curve 

(see Exhibit 3), Excel generated the following formula for the curve: y = 0.0359x – 1283.6 (R2

=0.9985). 

We then use this formula to estimate the number of firms that would be impacted at the 1 percent and 3 

percent revenue threshold. 

 

24 The information provided by the U.S. Census Bureau is considered an “unpublished data request.” As such, while the Census Bureau provided 

the additional data we requested, they also included a letter noting that “these are not ‘official data’ from the Census Bureau, since they do not 

meet the Census Bureau’s quality standards. These data should be used with extreme caution, realizing the severe quality limitations that may 

exist.” However, given that we do not have another source of information, we use this as the best data available. 

 
EPA internal deliberative draft – do not cite or quote L-21

Given compliance costs of $963 per firm (in 2002 dollars), any firm making less than $96,300 

and $32,100 would be considered significantly impacted at the 1% and 3% revenue threshold, 

respectively. By solving for y where x is $96,300 in the formula generated above, we estimate that 

approximately 2,175 firms would be significantly impacted at the 1% threshold. Based on the formula, 

there are no firms that make under $35,750 in revenue. As a result, we estimate that there would be no 

firms significantly impacted at the 3% revenue threshold. 

Our estimate of 2,175 firms that would be significantly impacted at the 1% revenue threshold 

does exceed the 1,000 example cutoff provided in EPA guidance. However, we believe that we are able 

to certify that this proposed rulemaking will likely have no SISNOSE for the following three reasons. 

First, 2,175 firms represent less than three percent of all potentially affected small firms in this sector, 

which is much less than the 20 percent cutoff that is the other parameter typically used to determine 

“substantial number.” Second, assuming a minimum annual throughput of 120,000 gallons of gasoline 

sold at a gas station, compliance costs of $1,134 per firm would be equivalent to less than one cent per 

gallon. This relatively low cost could theoretically be passed-through to the consumer given the price 

inelasticity of gasoline demand.25 Finally, as described in the next paragraph, while we use data reported 

by the U.S. Census Bureau to support our analysis, we find it difficult to imagine that a retail gas station 

would be a viable business if it earned less than $100,000 in annual revenues. 

Assuming the firm sells only gasoline at $2 per gallon, if the firm only generates $100,000 in 

annual revenues, then this would mean the firm is selling less than 4,200 gallons of gas per month, which 

appears extremely low compared to the monthly industry average throughput of approximately 130,000 

gallons. In addition, given that the gross profit margin for gas stations with convenience stores averages 

14 percent,26 a quick back-calculation of the amount of revenues that would be needed to generate enough 

gross profit to cover just the direct cost of the wages of one full-time employee at minimum wage ($7.25 

* 2080 hours = $15,080) results in an estimate of $108,000. This means a gas station with a convenience 

store would need to make at least $108,000 in revenues in order to pay one person to work full-time at 

minimum wage, exclusive of all other direct and indirect costs that a gas station may need to pay (e.g., 

electricity, property taxes, franchise fees). As a result, while our supplemental analysis indicates that 

2,175 firms may be significantly impacted at the 1% revenue threshold, we find it hard to believe that any 

firm would be able to remain in continuing operation with annual revenues of less than $100,000. 

 

25 A 2005 Federal Trade Commission report indicates that in the short run, a gasoline price increase of 10 percent would reduce consumer 

demand by just 2 percent. (See Federal Trade Commission, “Gasoline Price Changes: The Dynamic of Supply, Demand, and Competition,” 2005, 

p. ii.) While we acknowledge that the competitive nature of the gasoline market on an individual gas station basis may deter owners from passing 

through the cost to consumers, we believe that a compliance cost equivalent to less than one cent per gallon is relatively minor compared to the 

other costs and fees that are associated with the cost of gas to an owner. 

26 See National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), 2009 Fact Book, Table III-38, Benchmark Store Profit and Loss by Size Category – 

2008. 

 
EPA internal deliberative draft – do not cite or quote 

Exhibit 1. Number of Firms in NAICS 447 (Gas Stations) by Revenue Size*

547

3,123 3,862

10,007

16,708

28,574

13,402

4,506

2,018

617 268 

0

5,000

10,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,000

0-0.05

0.05-0.15 0.15-0.25 0.25-0.50 0.5-1 1-2.5 2.5-5 5-10 10-25 25-50 50-100 

Revenue bin ($ million)

Number of firms

* Notes: 1. NAICS 447 is comprised of 447110 (Gas Stations with Convenience Stores) and 447190 (Other Gasoline Stations)  2. Revenues ranges are based on 2002 Census data. We assume the distribution of firms estimated in 2008 is proportional to the distribution of firms in 20

 
EPA internal deliberative draft – do not cite or quote 

Exhibit 2. Cumulative Number of Firms in NAICS 447 by Revenue Size*

 $150,000; 3,670 

$2

$10,000,000; 80,729 

 $2,500,000; 62,821 

 $1,000,000; 34,247 

$500,000; 17,539 

 $250,000; 7,532 

 $50,000; 547

$5,000,000; 76,223 

0

10,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,00090,000

$0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,0

Revenue

Number of Firms

* Notes: 1. NAICS 447 is comprised of 447110 (Gas Stations with Convenience Stores) and 447190 (Other Gasoline Stations)  2. Revenues ranges are based on 2002 Census data. We assume the distribution of firms estimated in 2008 is proportional to the distribution of f 3. For scaling reasons, we only show the number of firms earning up to $25 million in this chart.

 
EPA internal deliberative draft – do not cite or quote 

Exhibit 3. Estimated Curve 

 $50,000; 547

 $150,000; 3,670 

$250,000; 7,532 

$500,000; 17,539 

$

y = 0.0359x - 1283.6

R2 = 0.9985

0

5,000

10,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,000

$0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,00

Revenue

Number of Firms

 
Appendix M: 

Screening Analysis to Inform Impacts on Minority and Low-Income Populations
Date: 

To: 

From: 

Copy: 

Subject: 

This mem

vicinity o

primary o

racial min

UST facil

justice co

environm

risks. Fac

outside of

Methodo

This analy

of potenti

“potential

and “refer

potentiall

facilities. 

Potential

The poten

within a r

and other

UST relea

UST syste

occurring

The refere

populatio

The coun

of data at 

larger are

provide a

July 22, 2

ChoYi Kw

Michael L

(RTI), Jam

Cynthia M

Analysis o

morandum do

of undergroun

objective wa

nority and lo

lities. This a

oncerns regar

mental justice

cility-specific

f the scope f

ology 

ysis is based

ially disadva

lly affected c

rence comm

ly disadvanta

The various

lly Affected

ntially affect

radial buffer 

r sources (Be

ases typicall

ems is gener

g microbial c

ence commu

ns. We utiliz

ty-level Cen

the Census 

ea than the 10

a useful comp

010 

wan (EPA) 

Lowry (RTI)

mie Cajka (R

Manson (IEc)

of Statistics 

ocuments RT

nd storage ta

s to determin

ow-income c

analysis is in

rding the loc

e analysis an

c health risk

for the analy

d on populati

antaged popu

communities

munities” (cou

aged populat

s data source

d and Refere

ted commun

distance of 

edient et al, 1

ly does not e

rally limited 

communities

unities were 

zed county-l

nsus paramet

block group

000 ft buffer

parative mea

1

, Gordon Br

RTI), and Jam

)

for Populati

TI’s assessm

ank (UST) fa

ne whether s

communities

tended to pr

cation of US

nd does not c

ks were unav

sis. 

ion statistics

ulations (e.g

s” in the vic

unty-level p

tions are loc

es and analys

ence Comm

nities in the v

1000 ft. Thi

1994; Doohe

exceed this e

through bio

s (Wilson et 

used in this 

level populat

ter values we

p level. Coun

rs around US

asure of pop

1

rown (RTI), 

mes Rineer (

ons Residing

ment of popul

facilities (i.e.

socioeconom

) are located

rovide inform

T facilities. 

couple popul

vailable to su

s from the 20

., minorities

inity of UST

opulations). 

cated prefere

sis methods 

munities 

vicinity of U

is distance is

er, 1999), wh

xtent. The tr

odegradation

al, 1986). 

analysis to c

tion statistic

ere produced

nty-level data

ST facilities

ulations at a

Brandon Be

(RTI) 

g Near UST 

lation data f

., retail moto

mically disad

d preferentia

mation relate

However, th

lation inform

upport such a

000 Census t

). A compar

T facilities (p

This compa

entially withi

are describe

UST facilities

s based on th

hich indicate

ransport of p

n of the conta

compare wit

cs to define t

d through po

a represent a

. As such, th

a larger scale

ergenroth 

Facilities 

for communi

or fuel establ

dvantaged po

lly within th

ed to potentia

he analysis is

mation with p

an evaluation

that indicate

rison is made

populations w

arison indica

in the vicinit

ed below. 

s were define

he draft UST

e that contam

petroleum hy

aminants by 

th the potent

he reference

opulation we

aggregate co

he county-lev

e than at the 

ities in the 

lishments). T

opulations (e

he vicinity of

al environme

s not a full 

potential hea

n, and it was

e the prevalen

e between 

within 1000 

ates whether 

ty of UST 

ed as people

T risk assessm

mination from

ydrocarbons 

naturallytially affecte

e communitie

eighted avera

onditions wit

vel statistics 

local facility

The 

e.g., 

f

ental 

alth 

s

nce 

ft) 

ment 

m

from 

d 

es. 

aging 

thin a 

y. 

 
The comp

significan

evaluated

scale chan

communi

useful sca

Socioeco

The follow

potentiall

• Pe

• Pe

an

• Pe

• Pe

• Pe

These par

(Environm

are availa

communi

of block g

based on 

resolution

Synthetic

The same

undergoin

communi

“synthetic

Modeling

Health (se

household

dasymetri

LandScan

estimates 

populatio

distributio

precision 

statistics (

group dat

based on 

(defining 

socioecon

However,

parison indic

ntly from cou

d. However, 

nges in the p

ties is small 

ale for comp

onomic Cen

wing socioe

ly affected an

ercent minor

ercent white 

nd did not sp

ercent in pov

ercent under

ercent under

rameters are 

mental Justic

able is the Ce

ties) were de

group data w

a synthetic p

n than raw C

c Populatio

e population 

ng EPA revi

ties in the vi

c population

g of Infectiou

ee http://ww

d (and indivi

ic algorithm

n population

at a much fi

n dataset, ho

on of househ

population d

(e.g., percen

ta (the smalle

the synthetic

a potentially

nomic result

, if a buffer e

cates whethe

unty populat

larger region

population. G

(1000 ft buf

parison. 

nsus Data 

conomic par

nd the refere

rity 

alone (the p

pecify “hispa

verty (the pe

5 years old

18 years old

selected to 

ce) and EO 1

ensus block 

erived direct

within each c

population d

Census data. 

on Data 

data source 

ew) was util

icinity of US

n” dataset ori

us Disease A

ww.midasmod

idual) within

m based on de

n estimates (B

finer resoluti

ouseholds ar

holds represe

distribution 

nt minority) a

est Census u

c population

y affected co

s for that com

extended acr

2

er local-scale

tions. Larger

ns aggregate

Given that th

ffer distance

rameters from

ence commu

percentage of

anic”) 

rcentage of 

d

address the f

13045 (Child

group. Coun

tly from the 

county. Resu

dataset, whic

utilized for 

lized for esti

ST facilities.

iginally deve

Agents Study

dels.org). Th

n the contigu

emographic i

Bhaduri et al

on (90 m gri

re placed ran

ented in the 

available na

associated w

unit at which

n dataset. Ac

ommunity) w

mmunity wo

ross multiple

2

e, potentially

r-scale popu

e more peopl

he area of int

e from UST f

m the 2000 C

unities: 

f the populat

individuals b

following ex

dren’s Healt

nty-level pop

Census data

ults for the po

h is describe

the recent U

imating cond

. Specifically

eloped to sup

y (MIDAS), 

he synthetic 

uous United 

information 

l. 2007). The

id) than typi

ndomly withi

synthetic po

ationwide. Fo

with each hou

h the data are

ccordingly, if

were entirely

ould match t

e block grou

y affected co

ulations (e.g.,

le and thus w

terest for pot

facilities), th

Census were

tion that spe

below the fe

xecutive orde

th). The sma

pulation stat

a through pop

otentially af

ed below and

UST risk asse

ditions for th

y, the popula

pport infecti

funded by th

population d

States. Hous

from the 20

e LandScan 

cal Census b

in each Land

opulation dat

or the curren

usehold were

e available). 

f a 1000 ft bu

y within a sin

he associate

ups, the socio

ommunities d

, at the state 

would not ref

tentially affe

he county lev

e evaluated f

ecified their r

ederal povert

ers: EO 1289

llest unit at w

istics (for th

pulation wei

ffected popul

d provides g

essment (cur

he potentially

ation data so

ious disease 

he National 

data represen

seholds are l

000 U.S. Cen

dataset prov

blocks. In th

dScan grid c

ta reflect the

nt analysis, th

e based on C

Household 

uffer around

ngle block g

ed block grou

oeconomic r

differ 

level) could

flect smaller

ected 

vel provides 

for the 

race as “whi

ty line in 199

98 

which these 

he reference 

ighted avera

lations were 

greater spatia

rrently 

y affected 

ource was a 

models for t

Institutes of

nt each 

located using

nsus and 

vides populat

he synthetic 

cell. The 

e best, highes

he demograp

Census block

locations we

d a UST faci

roup, the 

up data. 

results for tha

d be 

ra 

ite” 

99) 

data 

aging 

al 

the 

f

g a 

tion 

st 

phic 

k

ere 

lity 

at 

 
 

1

 

facility

potentiall

the respec

UST Faci

The UST 

utilized fo

an ESRI B

database. 

(http://ww

• Sp

fin

• H

in

• N

Se

• 50

re

• Ev

(N

ac

This data 

These loc

on Tribal 

count of f

UST facil

These two

contained

facilities r

why the s

No known

reasonabl

 

The 220,000

. 

ly affected co

ctive populat

ility Data 

facility-loca

or the recent

Business An

The approac

ww.infousa.c

plit apart and

nd informati

and-key eac

nformation av

ext, add pub

ecretary of S

0,000 new bu

gistrations a

very month, 

NCOA), ZIP

ccurate. 

set includes

cations were 

lands (note 

facilities is s

lities across 

o data source

d 59,945 UST

represents ab

sample inclu

n biases exis

ly good spati

 

0 facilities is EP

ommunity w

tions falling

ation data su

t UST risk as

nalyst databa

ch for comp

com) as follo

d catalog 5,2

ion on nearly

h record and

vailable. 

blic record da

State data. 

usinesses are

and utility ho

match and c

+4 and Deliv

s nearly 60,0

supplement

that many fa

smaller than 

the country.

es were anal

T facilities in

bout 25% of

udes approxim

st in the data

ial coverage

PA’s 2009 esti

3

would be bas

g within the b

upporting the

ssessment. T

ase (ESRI, 20

iling busines

ows: 

200 phone bo

y every busin

d call every b

ata from cou

e added ever

ookups so yo

clean the dat

very Sequen

000 mapped 

ted with an E

acilities have

the count of

.

lyzed for dup

ncluding 727

f EPA’s estim

mately only 

aset. As show

 across the c

imate based on

3

ed on an ave

buffer. 

e analysis we

The primary 

009). The ES

ss data is do

ooks, annual

ness in the n

business to m

unty courtho

ry week from

ou can be the

ta with the U

nce File to st

gas station f

EPA databas

e several US

f USTs). Fig

plicate recor

7 of these lo

mated 220,0

25% of EPA

wn in Figure

country. 

n 611,449 know

erage of bloc

ere derived f

data source 

SRI data are

ocumented on

l reports and

nation. 

make sure yo

use filings, S

m sources su

e first to reac

USPS Nation

tandardize an

facility locat

se containing

STs listed in 

gure 1 shows

rds, and the r

ocations on T

00 active US

A’s estimated

e 1, the data 

wn active tanks

ck group dat

from the sam

was gas stat

e derived from

n the infoUS

d other busin

ou have the m

SEC and 10k

uch as new b

ch a hot new

nal Change o

nd keep the a

ions through

g approximat

the EPA dat

s the location

resulting com

Tribal lands. 

ST facilities

d number of

set appears t

s and an averag

ta weighted b

me source 

tion location

m an infoUS

SA website 

ness directori

most reliable

k filings, and

usiness 

w property. 

of Address 

addresses 

hout the coun

tely 1,600 U

ta source, so

ns of all of th

mbined data 

This numbe

.

1

 It is unkno

f active facili

to provide 

ge of 2.74 tanks

by 

ns in 

SA 

ies to 

e

d

ntry. 

USTs 

o the 

hese 

set 

er of 

own 

ities. 

s per 

 
Statistica

In additio

evaluate w

communi

unweight

each facil

analysis. F

increased

analysis f

associated

communi

difference

Results 

Table 1 p

each Cens

reference 

Figure 1. US

an

al Analysis 

on to basic su

whether mea

ties differ w

ed results as

lity. The pop

For unweigh

d emphasis on

from facility 

d hypothesis

ty). The test

e in the mean

provides resu

sus socioeco

communitie

ST location d

nd EPA’s Tri

ummary stat

an Census-pa

with statistica

s well as resu

pulations aro

hted results, 

n facilities s

to person. T

s test of the e

t statistic is t

ns. Two-tail

ults from the

onomic resul

es) as well as

4

data from ES

bal Lands U

tistics (mean

arameter val

al significanc

ults weighted

ound facilitie

the focus of

surrounded b

The T statisti

equality of m

the differenc

ed tests wer

e unweighted

lt and for eac

s the mean a

4

SRI Business

ST database

n, median), w

lues for the p

ce. These sta

d by the pop

es were treat

f the analysis

by lots of peo

ic and the pmeans (refere

ce in the mea

e used in all

d analysis, in

ch communi

and median d

s Analyst (gre

e (red points)

we performed

potentially a

atistics were 

pulation with

ted as survey

s is on facilit

ople, thereby

-value are th

ence versus p

ans divided b

 situations. 

ncluding the 

ity (i.e., pote

difference in

een points) 

). 

d a statistica

affected and r

calculated b

hin the 1000 

y weights in 

ties. The we

y changing th

e results of t

potentially a

by the standa

mean and m

entially affec

n percentages

al test (T test

reference 

both for

ft buffer aro

the weighted

eights put 

he focus of t

the T test an

affected 

ard error of t

median value

cted and 

s between 

t) to 

ound 

d

the 

nd the 

the 

es for 

 
communi

the potent

in the pot

generatin

95% conf

conclude 

bounds lis

The resul

small (les

(with the 

present at

values for

percentag

The perce

(white) oc

communi

negative, 

of childre

Table 2 p

errors of t

the mean 

of the diff

are statist

in the me

potentiall

observing

hypothesi

conclude 

of facilitie

significan

Tables 3 

the results

magnitud

The perce

difference

weighted 

more pron

reference

Conclus

In summa

communi

(county-le

between t

ties. The dif

tially affecte

tentially affe

g a distribut

fidence inter

with 95% co

sted in the ta

ts in Table 1

ss than 2 % i

exception of

t slightly gre

r each of the

ge within the

ent white alo

ccurs with m

ties. The per

indicating th

en. 

provides add

the mean (SE

of the refere

fference in m

tically signif

ans. The T t

ly affected co

g differences

is is true. Be

that the diff

es greatly in

nt difference

and 4 provi

s are similar

des of the pop

ent white alo

e; however, 

and unweig

nounced diff

, county leve

sion 

ary, this anal

ties in the vi

evel populat

the potential

fference valu

ed communit

ected commu

ion of nearly

rvals for the 

onfidence th

able. 

1 show that t

in all cases). 

f the percent

eater percent

e following s

e potentially 

one differenc

more predom

rcent under a

hat smaller p

ditional statis

E), a relative

ence commu

means (i.e., w

ficant), as we

est evaluates

ommunities 

s larger than 

ecause all of 

ferences in th

ncreases the s

s in the mea

ide results fr

r to the unwe

pulation diff

one was the o

the magnitu

ghted results 

ferences betw

el communit

lysis compar

icinity of US

tions). The d

lly affected a

5

ues result fro

ty values (so

unity). A diff

y 60,000 diff

mean differe

hat the differ

the mean dif

However, th

t under age 5

tages in the v

statistics are 

affected com

ce result is n

minance in th

age 5 and th

percentages 

stical results

e risk ratio (m

unities), resu

whether the d

ell as the est

s the null hy

are equal. T

the observe

the p-values

he means are

statistical po

ans even if th

om the popu

eighted resul

ferences are

only measur

de of the dif

suggests tha

ween the loc

ties. . 

red socioeco

ST facilities 

differences in

and the refer

5

om subtractin

o that a posit

fference resu

fference valu

ences. Based

rences in mea

fferences for

he difference

5) that the po

vicinity of U

positive (alb

mmunities: p

negative, indi

e reference v

e percent un

of the poten

for the unw

mean of pote

ults of a T tes

differences in

timated 95%

ypothesis tha

The resulting

d difference

s are very low

e statistically

ower of the t

he magnitude

ulation weigh

lts (Tables 1

generally gr

re that chang

fference rem

at facilities in

cal, potential

onomic Cens

(within 100

n the mean p

rence commu

ng the refere

tive result in

ult was produ

ues. Table 1 a

d on the stati

ans are betw

r the unweigh

es in the me

otentially dis

UST facilities

beit small) v

percent in po

icating that t

versus the po

nder age 18 d

ntially affecte

weighted anal

entially affe

st evaluating

n the estimat

% confidence 

at the means 

g p-values ind

s under the t

w, we can re

y significant

ests, allowin

es of the diff

hted statistic

 and 2). How

reater for the

ged from a ne

mains quite sm

n higher pop

lly affected c

sus data for p

0 ft) versus r

percentage so

unities are re

ence commu

ndicates a gre

uced for each

also provide

istical evalua

ween the upp

hted analysi

ans do consi

sadvantaged

s. Specifical

values, indica

overty and pe

the majority 

otentially aff

difference re

ed populatio

lysis, includi

cted commu

g the statistic

ted socioeco

intervals for

between the

dicate the pr

test assumpt

eject the null

. Note that th

ng detection 

ferences are 

cal analysis. 

wever, the re

e weighted a

egative to a 

mall. Comp

pulation area

communities

potentially a

reference co

ocioeconom

elatively sma

unity values f

eater percent

h facility, thu

es the estima

ation, we can

er and lower

s are relative

istently sugg

d populations

ly, the differ

ating a great

ercent minor

population 

ffected 

esults are slig

ns are made

ing standard

unities divide

cal significan

onomic statis

r the differen

e reference a

robability of

tion that the 

l hypothesis 

he large num

of statistical

small. 

The patterns

elative 

analysis resul

positive 

arison of the

as tend to hav

s and the 

affected 

ommunities 

mic results 

all (<2% 

from 

tage 

us 

ated 

n

r

ely 

gest 

s are 

rence 

ter 

rity. 

ghtly 

e up 

d

ed by 

nce 

stics 

nces 

and 

f

null 

and 

mber 

lly 

s in 

lts. 

e

ve 

 
difference

analysis).

potentiall

with respe

and perce

18) was in

Referen

Bedient, P

Re

Bhaduri, B

ge

Ge

Dooher, B

As

Ca

ESRI. 200

Su

ht

Wilson, J

wa

 

e in all cases

 However, th

ly disadvanta

ect to the fol

ent minority.

n most cases

ces 

P.B., H.S. R

emediation. 

B., E. Brigh

eospatial and

eoJournal 6

B.P. 1999. P

ssessment of

annon. Lawr

09. 2009 Me

ummary. ESR

ttp://www.es

J.T., L.E. Lea

ater remedia

s for the unw

he differenc

aged populat

llowing Cen

 The percen

s smaller in t

ifai, and C.J

Englewood 

t, P. Colema

d temporal m

69:103–117. 

otential grou

f the Use of E

rence Liverm

ethodology S

RI, Redland

sri.com/libra

ach, M. Hen

ation techniq

6

weighted ana

es are statist

tions are loc

nsus-based m

ntage of the p

the vicinity o

J. Newell. 19

Cliffs, NJ: P

an, and M. U

modeling app

und and surf

Ethanol as a

more Nationa

Statement: E

s, CA. availa

ary/whitepap

nson, and J.N

que. Ground 

6

alysis; <5% i

tically signif

cated prefere

measures: per

population m

of UST facil

994. Ground

PTR Prentice

Urban. 2007. 

proach for po

face water im

a Fuel Oxyge

al Laborator

ESRI Data—B

able at 

pers/pdfs/info

N. Jones. 198

Water Moni

in all cases f

ficant, and th

entially in the

rcent white a

made up of ch

lities. 

d Water Cont

e-Hall, Inc.

LandScan U

opulation dis

mpacts. In H

enate. Edited

ry, Livermor

Business Loc

ousa-busines

86. In situ bi

itoring Revie

for the popul

he results do

e vicinity of

alone, percen

hildren (und

tamination: 

USA: a highstribution an

Health and En

d by D.W. R

re, CA. 

cations and B

ss-database.p

orestoration

ew 6:56–64.

lation weigh

o suggest tha

f UST faciliti

nt in poverty

der 5 and und

Transport a

-resolution 

nd dynamics

nvironmenta

Rice and G. 

Business 

pdf. 

 as a ground

hted 

at 

ies 

y, 

der 

nd 

. 

al 

d

 
N

MsvrNa

Ce

Percent WhPercent UnPercent UnPercent in PPercent Min

Note: Difference summMean values reflect thsimply by subtracting values do not necessaresults of the analysis

PePePePePe

Note: There are >56,0a fraction of facilities h

ensus Paramet

hite Alone 

der Age 5 der Age 18 

Poverty 

nority 

mary statistics (mean

he entire distribution, 

the reference commu

arily match values de

s are based on mean 

ercent White Aloercent Under Agercent Under Agercent in Povertercent Minority 

033 degrees of freedo

have no people living 

Table 1. Su

ter

a

M

n and median) were ca

whereas the median 

unity mean from the p

rived by subtracting tvalues, median result

Table 2. Stand

one 

ge 5 ge 18 ty 

om for this test (i.e. nu

within the 1000 foot 

ummary Result

1000 ft Buffer 

around Facility

Mean Median

70.3 81.3

6.7 6.5 

24.7 24.913.3 10.324.0 14.6

alculated from the dis

values are based onl

potentially affected co

the median values fro

ts are provided for co

dard Error, T T

1000 ft 

Buffer 

around 

Facility 

C

w

Fa

L

SE of Mean 

0.120 0.010 0.104 0.045 0.104 

umber of facilities). N

buffer. 

7 

ts for Census P

County wh

Facility is

Located

n Mean Med

70.8 74

6.7 6

25.6 2512.2 1123.8 20

stribution of difference

y on the 50th percenti

ommunity mean (e.g., 

om the underlying dist

ompleteness and as a

Test, and Risk R

County 

where 

acility is 

Located 

SE of Mean 

SE

M

0.088 0.0.004 0.0.071 0.0.023 0.0.071 0.

ote that the total num

Parameters – U

ere 

s

d

dian Mean M

4.8 -0.44 

.7 -0.05 

5.5 -0.84 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.21 

e values (i.e., one res

ile result. For this rea

for mean percent pov

tributions (e.g., for me

an alternative indicato

Ratio Results –

E of 

ean 

T 

Statist

085 -5.23009 -5.18079 -10.5038 27.66079 2.71

mber of facilities in the 

Unweighted 

Diffe

Median

95%

Lowe

1.29 -

-0.12 -0-0.54 --0.64 0-1.48 0

ult per facility, yieldin

son, the mean differe

verty 13.3 – 12.2 = 1.

edian percent poverty

r of the distributions’ 

– Unweighted

Difference 

tic

pvalue R

3 <0.0018 <0.001

9 <0.001

6 <0.001

 0.0067

dataset (59,945) diffe

eren

% C

of M

er Bo

-0.61 

0.068 

-0.99 

0.99 0.06 

g a dis

ence re

1). In 

y 10.3 

centra

Ratio 

0.99 0.99 0.97 1.09 1.01 

ers fro

 
N

MsvpNa

Cen

Percent WhPercent UndPercent UndPercent in PPercent Min

Note: Difference summMean values reflect thsimply by subtracting values do not necessaprimary results of the 

PePePePePe

Note: There are >56,0a fraction of facilities h

Tab

nsus Parameter

ite Alone 

der Age 5 der Age 18 

Poverty 

nority 

mary statistics (mean

he entire distribution, 

the reference commu

arily match values de

analysis are based o

Table

ercent White Aloercent Under Agercent Under Agercent in Povertercent Minority 

033 degrees of freedo

have no people living 

ble 3. Summar

r

100

aro

Mea

53.8

6.9

24.716.236.6

n and median) were ca

whereas the median 

unity mean from the p

rived by subtracting t

on mean values, medi

e 4. Standard E

one 

ge 5 ge 18 ty 

om for this test (i.e. nu

within the 1000 foot 

ry Results for C

00 ft Buffer 

und Facility 

an Median 

88 59.63 

1 6.78 

74 24.91 22 13.34 61 29.54 

alculated from the dis

values are based onl

potentially affected co

the median values fro

an results are provide

Error, T Test, an

1000 ft 

Buffer 

around 

Facility 

C

w

Fa

L

SE of Mean 

0.288 0.020 0.065 0.108 0.255 

umber of facilities). N

buffer.

8 

Census Parame

County wher

Facility is 

Located 

Mean Media

58.79 57.7

6.80 6.85

25.36 25.513.33 12.833.16 31.9

stribution of difference

y on the 50th percenti

ommunity mean (e.g., 

om the underlying dist

ed for completeness a

nd Risk Ratio R

County 

where 

acility is 

Located 

SE of Mean 

SE

M

0.193 0.0.008 0.0.033 0.0.063 0.0.165 0.

ote that the total num

eters – Weighte

re 

an Mean M

0 -4.61 

5 0.11 

3 -0.62 3 2.89 2 3.45 

e values (i.e., one res

ile result. For this rea

for mean percent pov

tributions (e.g., for me

and as an alternative 

Results – Weig

E of 

ean 

T 

Statist

205 -22.4017 6.24058 -10.6085 34.02191 18.05

mber of facilities in the 

ed by Populati

Diffe

Median

95

Lowe

-2.55 -

0.04 0

-1.57 -

0.96 0.58 

ult per facility, yieldin

son, the mean differe

verty 16.2 – 13.3 = 2.

edian percent poverty

indicator of the distrib

ghted by Popul

Difference 

tic

pvalue R

8 <0.001

4 <0.001

2 <0.001

2 <0.0015 <0.001

dataset (59,945) diffe

on 

renc

% C

of M

er Bo

-5.0 

0.073 

0.73 

2.7 3.1 

g a dis

ence re

9). In 

y 13.3 

bution

atio

Ratio 

0.92 1.02 0.98 1.22 1.10 

ers fro

 
Appendix N 

Cost Savings to State Financial Assurance Funds 

This Appendix was prepared in December 2010, and document the methodology used to assess cost savings to 

state financial assurance funds under the rule. While the methodology presented in this appendix is accurate, 

the actual cost estimates associated with the proposed rulemaking have been revised, and the specific results 

presented in this appendix are therefore superceded by the results in Chapter 5.
N-1

The proposed rule is expected to result in fewer releases from UST systems and is also 

expected to reduce the size of releases. This should result in cost savings due to reduced demand 

for remediation. To the extent that states use financial assurance funds to remediate these 

releases, the rule should result in cost savings to these states. Moreover, if financial assurance 

funds reflect broad-based taxpayer contributions (e.g., through gasoline taxes), the rule could 

represent reduced burden on taxpayers. To assess the potential magnitude of a reduction in 

releases on distributions made by state financial assurance funds, we employ the following 

screening-level analytic approach: 

1. Identify states with active financial assurance funds: Classify each state or 

territory with an active financial assurance fund as Tier 1 (states that charge both a 

broad-based gasoline tax and a tank fee) or Tier 2 (generally, states that charge a tank 

fee and a limited gasoline tax). 

2. Develop rough estimates of per-state avoided releases due to proposed 

regulation: Count the number of instances in which UST systems in a state are 

affected by each requirement in the proposed rule and assign avoided releases or 

avoided groundwater incidents across states based on this count. 

3. Estimate avoided remediation costs per state: Multiply the number of releases 

avoided by the avoided cost per release or groundwater incident to obtain the gross 

avoided cost. 

4. Adjust for average deductible: Subtract the deductible paid by owners and 

operators from the gross avoided cost to obtain the net avoided cost to state funds. 

5. Calculate state cost savings: Sum net gains to state funds from avoided releases and 

avoided groundwater incidents. 

Below, we explain each step in greater detail. While we perform the steps below on all 56 states and 

territories, as well as Indian Country, only the results for states with active financial assurance programs 

are presented as candidates for potential cost savings in Chapter 5 of this RIA.

Step 1: Assign Each State to a Tier 

Among the 56 U.S. states and territories and Indian country, the status of financial 

assurance funds is as follows: 36 have active funds; seven have funds but no longer accept 

claims; and 13 do not have funds. In general, states with active financial assurance funds charge 

a combination of gasoline taxes and recurring tank fees to generate revenues for their funds. We 

classify active funds into two tiers.1

 1

 This classification is based on the status of state fund programs on November 5, 2010 as reported by EPA 

at http://www.epa.gov/OUST/states/fndstatus.htm and the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste 

Management Officials’ 2008 survey of state funds at 

http://www.astswmo.org/files/publications/tanks/2008StateFundSurvey/Table2FundingforStateFinancialAssuranceF

unds2008.pdf. 

 
N-2 

• Tier 1 funds charge a broad-based gasoline fee, which means that consumers in 

those states or territories fund remediation via these fees. In many cases, these 

funds also charge a tank fee. Among the active funds, we classify 26 in this tier. 2

• Tier 2 funds also levy gasoline fees, but these are narrower in scope. As a 

consequence, fewer consumers pay into the funds for these states. All Tier 2 states 

also charge tank fees. 

Exhibit N-1 summarizes the classification status for all states, territories, and Indian country. For 

this analysis, we consider only states with active funds. 

Exhibit N-1 

Status of Financial Assurance Funds in the U.S. 

Active funds 

Tier 2 if highlighted; otherwise, Tier 1

Fund exists, but no 

longer accepts claims No funds 

Alabama Nebraska Arizona Alaska 

Arkansas Nevada Florida Delaware 

California New Hampshire Iowa District of Columbia 

Colorado New Mexico Michigan Hawaii 

Connecticut New York New Jersey Maryland 

Georgia North Carolina Texas Oregon 

Idaho North Dakota Wisconsin Washington 

Illinois Ohio West Virginia 

Indiana Oklahoma American Samoa 

Kansas Pennsylvania 

Commonwealth of No. Mariana 

Islands 

Kentucky Rhode Island Guam 

Louisiana South Carolina Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

Maine South Dakota Virgin Islands 

Massachusetts Tennessee Indian country 

Minnesota Utah 

Mississippi Vermont 

Missouri Virginia 

Montana Wyoming 

Step 2: Count Instances in Which Systems are Affected and Assign Releases 

Because the data to determine the number of requirements that affect each system in each 

state are not available, we use a simple allocation approach to approximate impacts for this 

screening analysis. First, we developed a count of the number of times each requirement affects 

an UST system in each state system.3 For example, if spill prevention equipment testing affects 2

 We could not obtain clear information regarding funding mechanisms for Connecticut. We classify this 

state under Tier 1. 

3

 This includes all requirements except for removal of deferrals for FCTs and AHFDSs. We convert 

requirements tabulated on the basis of facilities to systems using a factor of 2.74. 

 
N-3 

10,000 systems per year, and interstitial integrity testing affects 5,000 systems, these 

requirements together affect systems 15,000 times. The total instances in which systems are 

affected across all requirements is 2,792,567 instances across 611,449 systems, or 4.6 

requirements per system. 

We assign avoided releases by state by first dividing the estimated total number of 2,212 

avoided releases and 609 avoided groundwater incidents by the total number of instances in 

which systems are affected. From these, we obtain the following slope factors: 

• For each additional instance in which a requirement affects an UST system, 

0.00079 releases are avoided. 

• For each additional instance in which a requirement affects an UST system, 

0.00022 groundwater incidents are avoided. 

We multiply these factors by the number of times systems are affected per state to obtain a statelevel distribution of avoided releases and avoided groundwater contamination incidents. Exhibit 

N-2 shows the distribution of avoided releases, ranked from lowest to highest. 

 
N-4 

Exhibit N-2 

Distribution of Avoided Releases, by State 

We note that this distribution can be misleading, as it does not normalize the data with respect to 

the number of systems located in each state or territory. Doing so results in the distribution of 

systems per release avoided as a consequence of the proposed rule, shown in Exhibit N-3. States 

that already have a relatively large number of requirements have fewer releases avoided per 

system (i.e., a greater number of systems per release avoided). For instance, compare the 

outcome in California, where many of the proposed requirements already exist, with Indian 

country, where few of the proposed requirements are in effect in the baseline. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

AS

MP

VI

GU

DC

AK

DE

RI

WY

HI

ND

ME

VT

NHMT

SD

IDNM

UT

Indi...

NVPR

COMS

WV

ORMA

NE

KS

MDAZ

IA

SC

CT

AR

WI

MO

WA

OK

MN

KY

LANJ

TN

IN

CA

AL

NY

OH

PAVA

MI

FL

IL

NCGA

TX

Number of Avoided Releases

Mean: 38.8 

Median: 29.5 

Std. dev.: 36.6 

 
N-5 

Exhibit N-3 

Distribution of Systems per Release Avoided, by State 

The slope factors calculated in this step substantially drive the results of our analysis. They are 

subject to two significant sources of uncertainty: 

1. We do not know how many systems in each state will actually be affected by the 

proposed rule. For example, suppose that two requirements each affect 10,000 and 

20,000 systems, respectively. It is possible that they could together affect as little as 

20,000 or as many as 30,000 total systems. For all states, we assume the upper end of 

this range as the basis for our analysis. Our results are biased to the extent that 

requirements in any state systematically overlap. 

2. As a simplifying assumption, we treat all requirements as equally effective in 

preventing releases or groundwater contamination. It is likely that requirements vary 

in their particular effectiveness. 

This distribution is too simplistic to refine specific estimates of avoided costs due to the 

rule. However, for the purpose of identifying the magnitude and distribution of cost impacts 

associated with state financial assurance funds, we believe this simple distribution is valid. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

CA

MSMACO

NY

WI

SC

RIMN

OH

DE

FL

PA

TX

MENJ

TNUT

WY

VT

NHMT

AK

NMMD

AL

ID

IL

IA

WV

OR

NE

GU

DC

CT

MIAR

IN

KY

OK

LA

SD

KS

MO

VA

PR

WA

MP

HI

AS

NC

GA

NV

AZ

ND

VI

Indian ...

Systems per Avoided Release

Mean: 271.8 

Median: 244.7 

Std. dev.: 60.7

 
N-6 

Step 3: Obtain Gross Avoided Cost 

We define gross avoided costs as the sum of average costs to remediate the releases that 

would be avoided under the proposed rule (including averted groundwater contamination 

incidents), before adjustments for deductibles paid by owners and operators. Gross avoided cost 

is calculated as total releases avoided (slope factor x number of times systems affected) 

multiplied by the average cost of an avoided release; that is, the avoided costs presented in 

Exhibit 4-11 before discounting. We obtain an undiscounted average cost per avoided release of 

$145,077 by summing the avoided cost across all experts and dividing it by the sum of their 

avoided releases. This average avoided cost per release is multiplied by the number of releases 

by state to obtain gross avoided costs. A similar procedure for groundwater incidents produces 

an undiscounted cost of $262,837. 4

We note that, because we proceed with undiscounted avoided costs in this analysis, these 

values will not reconcile to the discounted avoided costs presented as the central estimates of 

positive impacts in Chapter 4. Supplementary analysis indicates that discounting avoided costs 

decreases them by approximately 10 percent compared to other undiscounted costs; however; our 

general findings of possible substantial savings to funds does not change. 

Steps 4: Adjust Gross Avoided Cost for Deductibles 

To obtain the net avoided cost to state financial assurance funds, we reduce the gross 

avoided cost for each state as reported in ASTSWMO by the minimum and maximum of the 

range of deductibles (i.e., contributions to cleanup by owner/operator) possible for that state. In 

states with active trust funds, deductibles generally range from zero to $100,000. Lower-end 

deductibles average $8,114, while upper-end deductible average $20,212.5

 Note that we do not 

make any adjustment to deductibles to reflect time value of money. 

Two states significantly exceed this range: Minnesota, with deductibles that can reach 

$2,000,000; and Virginia, where deductibles can reach $1,000,000. These levels of deductibles 

lead to negative estimates of savings for these particular states’ funds, an outcome that likely 

follows from our approach in Step 2. To conservatively correct for this anomaly, we remove 

these states and their avoided releases from our calculation of net avoided costs. For all other 

states, we reduce gross avoided costs by the product of the lower- or upper-end deductible and 

the number of releases avoided. 

Steps 5: Sum Net Gains to State Funds from Avoided Contamination 

Exhibit N-4 summarizes the net cost savings to state financial assurance funds under the 

Preferred Option of the proposed rule. We repeat this process for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

 4

 Before discounting, avoided cost per release ranges from approximately $142,000 to $148,000 when 

considered by expert. Similarly, avoided groundwater remediation costs range from approximately $261,000 to 

$266,000. 

5

 These averages exclude Virginia and Minnesota for reasons subsequently discussed. For comparison, the 

median and mode deductibles for the lower-end deductibles are $5,000 and $10,000, while upper-end deductible 

median and mode are both $10,000. 

 
N-7

Exhibit N-4 

Net Avoided Release and Avoided Groundwater Incident Remediation Costs 

State 

Avoided Release Costs 1

Releases avoided x (Cost per release - deductible)

Avoided Groundwater 

Incident Costs 

Incidents avoided x Cost per 

incident

Total

Avoided release costs 

GW incidents c

Avoided 

Releases 

Low 

Deductible 

High 

Deductible Upper-end Lower-end Avoided Incidents Avoided GW Cost Upper-end Lo

AK 4.1 $0 $0 $0 $0 1.1 $0 $0 AL 66.2 $5,000 $5,000 $9,273,942 $9,273,942 18.2 $4,792,203 $14,066,145 $AR 39.5 $7,500 $7,500 $5,435,944 $5,435,944 10.9 $2,860,005 $8,295,949 $AS 0.1 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 AZ 32.2 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $0 8.9 $0 $0 CA 66.1 $0 $20,000 $9,586,841 $8,265,224 18.2 $4,783,157 $14,369,998 $CO 21.2 $10,000 $10,000 $2,864,815 $2,864,815 5.8 $1,535,157 $4,399,972 $CT 36.6 $0 $0 $5,313,998 $5,313,998 10.1 $2,651,310 $7,965,307 $DC 2.8 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.8 $0 $0 DE 4.7 $2,500 $2,500 $0 $0 1.3 $0 $0 FL 86.5 $500 $30,000 $0 $0 23.8 $0 $0 GA 136.0 $10,000 $10,000 $18,369,937 $18,369,937 37.5 $9,843,824 $28,213,761 $2GU 1.1 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.3 $0 $0 HI 7.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1.9 $0 $0 IA 32.2 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $0 8.9 $0 $0 ID 13.2 $10,000 $10,000 $1,777,571 $1,777,571 3.6 $952,540 $2,730,111 $IL 88.6 $10,000 $100,000 $11,970,454 $3,994,725 24.4 $6,414,559 $18,385,013 $IN 58.1 $20,000 $35,000 $7,272,936 $6,400,724 16.0 $4,208,911 $11,481,848 $KS 29.5 $3,000 $3,000 $4,186,327 $4,186,327 8.1 $2,132,784 $6,319,111 $KY 50.3 $500 $12,500 $7,278,098 $6,674,012 13.9 $3,643,815 $10,921,913 $LA 52.3 $5,000 $5,000 $7,325,127 $7,325,127 14.4 $3,785,175 $11,110,302 $MA 28.0 $5,000 $10,000 $3,918,140 $3,778,283 7.7 $2,024,653 $5,942,793 $MD 29.7 $500 $1,000 $0 $0 8.2 $0 $0 ME 10.5 $500 $97,000 $1,511,284 $502,559 2.9 $756,632 $2,267,916 $MI 83.4 $0 $0 $0 $0 23.0 $0 $0 MN 48.4 $900,000 $2,000,000 -$36,551,182 -$89,810,021 13.3 $3,504,596 -$33,046,586 -$8MO 41.5 $10,000 $10,000 $5,607,147 $5,607,147 11.4 $3,004,679 $8,611,826 $MP 0.3 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.1 $0 $0 MS 22.1 $0 $0 $3,202,100 $3,202,100 6.1 $1,597,622 $4,799,722 $

 
N-8 

Exhibit N-4 

Net Avoided Release and Avoided Groundwater Incident Remediation Costs 

State 

Avoided Release Costs 1

Releases avoided x (Cost per release - deductible)

Avoided Groundwater 

Incident Costs 

Incidents avoided x Cost per 

incident

Total

Avoided release costs 

GW incidents c

Avoided 

Releases 

Low 

Deductible 

High 

Deductible Upper-end Lower-end Avoided Incidents Avoided GW Cost Upper-end Lo

MT 11.3 $5,000 $17,000 $1,582,790 $1,447,197 3.1 $817,888 $2,400,678 $NC 121.7 $20,000 $75,000 $15,221,577 $8,528,229 33.5 $8,808,859 $24,030,436 $ND 9.7 $5,000 $5,000 $1,364,931 $1,364,931 2.7 $705,312 $2,070,244 $NE 28.8 $25,000 $25,000 $3,458,366 $3,458,366 7.9 $2,084,724 $5,543,090 $NH 10.9 $5,000 $30,000 $1,531,984 $1,258,567 3.0 $791,635 $2,323,620 $NJ 54.8 $0 $0 $0 $0 15.1 $0 $0 NM 13.8 $0 $10,000 $1,999,168 $1,861,368 3.8 $997,444 $2,996,612 $NV 17.2 $10,000 $10,000 $2,329,436 $2,329,436 4.7 $1,248,265 $3,577,701 $NY 73.5 $0 $0 $10,663,690 $10,663,690 20.2 $5,320,428 $15,984,118 $OH 76.0 $11,000 $55,000 $10,191,384 $6,846,892 20.9 $5,501,948 $15,693,332 $OK 45.9 $0 $5,000 $6,656,425 $6,427,016 12.6 $3,321,086 $9,977,512 $OR 24.7 $0 $0 $0 $0 6.8 $0 $0 PA 82.7 $5,000 $5,000 $11,582,737 $11,582,737 22.8 $5,985,246 $17,567,982 $PR 19.2 $0 $0 $0 $0 5.3 $0 $0 RI 5.2 $20,000 $20,000 $654,057 $654,057 1.4 $378,508 $1,032,565 $SC 35.3 $25,000 $25,000 $4,239,282 $4,239,282 9.7 $2,555,465 $6,794,746 $SD 13.0 $20,000 $20,000 $1,621,466 $1,621,466 3.6 $938,357 $2,559,823 $TN 57.9 $10,000 $10,000 $7,818,177 $7,818,177 15.9 $4,189,495 $12,007,673 $Indian country 15.8 $0 $0 $0 $0 4.4 $0 $0 TX 182.0 $1,000 $80,000 $0 $0 50.1 $0 $0 UT 13.8 $10,000 $10,000 $1,866,756 $1,866,756 3.8 $1,000,331 $2,867,086 $VA 83.1 $500 $1,000,000 $12,016,472 -$71,056,418 22.9 $6,016,105 $18,032,578 -$6VI 0.7 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.2 $0 $0 VT 10.9 $250 $10,000 $1,578,894 $1,472,601 3.0 $789,117 $2,368,011 $WA 42.3 $0 $0 $0 $0 11.7 $0 $0 WI 40.1 $2,500 $0 $0 $0 11.0 $0 $0 WV 22.8 $0 $0 $0 $0 6.3 $0 $0 WY 6.6 $30,000 $30,000 $756,341 $756,341 1.8 $475,737 $1,232,078 $Total, Tier 1 1,097 N/A N/A $148,524,313 $129,270,319 302 $79,396,571 $227,920,885 $20

 
N-9 

Exhibit N-4 

Net Avoided Release and Avoided Groundwater Incident Remediation Costs 

State 

Avoided Release Costs 1

Releases avoided x (Cost per release - deductible)

Avoided Groundwater 

Incident Costs 

Incidents avoided x Cost per 

incident

Total

Avoided release costs 

GW incidents c

Avoided 

Releases 

Low 

Deductible 

High 

Deductible Upper-end Lower-end Avoided Incidents Avoided GW Cost Upper-end Lo

Total, Tier 2 297 N/A N/A $41,487,811 $37,899,225 82 $21,500,299 $62,988,110 $5Total, No longer exists 175 N/A N/A $0 $0 48 $0 $0 Total, Dropped 132 N/A N/A -$24,534,710 -$160,866,439 36 $9,520,701 -$15,014,009 -$15Total, Not accepting claims 511 N/A N/A $0 $0 141 $0 $0 Notes: 1. Average cost of remediation for an avoided release is $145,077 before discounting and $130,986 after discounting each requirement by the appropriate numbaverage cost for an avoided groundwater incident is $262,837 before discounting and $239,014 after discounting. 

 
Appendix O: 

UMRA Written Statement 

 
1. Introduction 

Title II of the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA; 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), requires 

Federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory 

actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Specifically, Section 202 

of UMRA generally requires Federal agencies to prepare a written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for each proposed and final rule with “Federal mandates” that may result in 

expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any one year. Section 202 requires that “Written Statements” contain 

five elements of information: 

1. An identification of the provision of Federal law under which the rule is being 

promulgated; 

2. A qualitative and quantitative assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits of the 

Federal mandate, including the costs and benefits to State, local, and tribal governments or the 

private sector, as well as the effect of the Federal mandate on health, safety, and the natural 

environment, including: (A) an analysis of the extent to which such costs to State, local, and 

tribal governments may be paid with Federal financial assistance (or otherwise paid for by the 

Federal Government; and (B) the extent to which there are available Federal resources to carry 

out the intergovernmental mandate; 

3. Estimates by the agency, if and to the extent that the agency determines that accurate 

estimates are reasonably feasible, of: (A) the future compliance costs of the Federal mandate; 

and (B) any disproportionate budgetary effects of the Federal mandate upon any particular 

regions of the nation or particular State, local, or tribal governments, urban or rural or other types 

of communities, or particular segments of the private sector; 

4. Estimates by the agency of the effect on the national economy, such as the effect on 

productivity, economic growth, full employment, creation of productive jobs, and international 

competitiveness of United States goods and services, if and to the extent that the agency in its 

sole discretion determines that accurate estimates are reasonably feasible and that such effect is 

relevant and material; and 

5. Description of the extent of the agency’s prior consultation with elected representatives 

(under section 204) of the affected State, local, and tribal governments, including a summary of 

the comments and concerns that were presented by State, local, or tribal governments either 

orally or in writing to the agency; and a summary of the agency’s evaluation of those comments 

and concerns. 

This document constitutes the “Written Statement” to meet this requirement for the revisions to 

the UST Regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has conducted a regulatory 

impact assessment (RIA) for this action, which has been submitted in the docket entitled 

“Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Proposed Revisions to 

EPA’s Underground Storage Tank Regulations.” 

2. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

As stated in the Federal Register notice for the proposed rule, EPA is proposing to revise the 

1988 underground storage tank (UST) technical, financial responsibility, and state program 
approval regulations. These changes impose federal requirements that are similar to certain key 

portions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and make important targeted changes to the 1988 UST 

regulations. Proposed changes include: adding secondary containment requirements for new and 

replaced USTs and piping; adding operator training requirements for UST system owners and 

operators; adding periodic operation and maintenance requirements for UST systems; removing 

certain deferrals; adding new release prevention and detection technologies; updating codes of 

practice; closing gaps in the 1988 UST regulations; making editorial and technical corrections; 

and updating state program approval requirements to incorporate these new changes. The 

proposed rule presents three regulatory options, as summarized in the table below: 

3. Legal Authority of Proposed Rule 

As stated in the Federal Register notice for this rule, EPA is proposing these regulations under 

the authority of sections 2002, 9001, 9002, 9003, 9004, 9005, 9006, 9007, and 9009 of the Solid 

Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 

REQUIREMENT DESCRIPTION PREFERRED 

OPTION OPTION 1 OPTION 2 

Release Prevention 

Walkthrough inspections Monthly Monthly Quarterly 

Overfill prevention equipment tests 3 year 1 year 3 year 

Spill prevention equipment tests 1 year Require replacement 

every 3 years, no testing. 1 year 

Interstitial integrity tests 3 year 1 year Not required 

Testing after repairs to spill and overfill 

prevention equipment, and interstices Required Required Required 

Eliminate flow restrictors in vent lines for all 

new tanks and when overfill devices are 

replaced 

Required Required Not required 

Release Detection 

Operability tests for release detection 

methods 1 year 1 year 3 year 

Change leak rate probabilities from 95/5 to 

99/1 (Pd/Pfa) Not required Required Not required 

Add SIR/CITLD to regulations with 

performance criteria Required Required Required 

Response to interstitial monitoring alarms Required Required Required 

Eliminate groundwater and vapor monitoring 

as release detection methods 5 year Immediately Not required 

Remove deferral for emergency generator 

tanks Required Required Required 

Other 

Require notification of ownership change Required Required Required 

Closure of lined tanks that cannot be repaired 

according to a code of practice Required Required Required 

Requirements for determining compatibility Required Required Required 

Remove deferrals for airport hydrant fuel 

distribution systems and UST systems with 

field-constructed tanks 

Regulate under 

alternative release 

detection 

requirements 

Regulate under release 

detection requirements for 

conventional UST 

systems 

Maintain deferrals 

Energy Policy Act-related Provisions 

Operator training Required Required Required 

Secondary containment Required Required Required 
1976, as amended [42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991, 6991(a), 6991(b), 6991(c),6991(d), 6991(e), 6991(f), 

6991(h), 6991(i), and 6991(k)]. 

4. Summary of the Costs and Benefits 

4A. Cost to State, Local, and Tribal Governments and the Private Sector 

As estimated in the RIA, on an annualized basis, the total estimated regulatory compliance costs 

for the three options in today’s proposed action are $210 million (Preferred Option), $520 

million (Option 1), and $130 million (Option 2). Of this amount, annualized costs to State/local 

governments total $9 million under the Preferred Option, $19 million under Option 1, and $6 

million under Option 2. These costs consist of estimated regulatory compliance costs for 

State/local governments that currently own or operate UST systems and annualized costs of 

$120,000 for states to implement the proposed rule. EPA estimates that total annualized costs to 

owners and operators of tribally-owned UST systems are $0.7 million under the Preferred 

Option, $1 million under Option 1, and $0.6 million under Option 2. The estimated annualized 

cost to the private sector range is approximately $180 million under the Preferred Option, $350 

million under Option 1, and $120 million under Option 2. 

4B. Extent to Which Costs to State, Local, and Tribal Governments May Be Paid by EPA 

or Other Federal Agencies, or to Which There Are Available Federal/EPA Resources to 

Carry Out a Federal Intergovernmental Mandate 

EPA has historically provided substantial support to states, territories and tribes to support 

implementation of the UST program. In 2010, EPA provided $34.9 million in funding for UST 

release prevention program implementation in 50 states and 6 territories, and over $2 million in 

funding for tribal assistance. EPA does not anticipate providing additional UST release 

prevention funding for state/local/tribal governments. 

4C. Estimates of Future Compliance Costs and Budgetary Effects on Particular Regions of 

the Country, or Particular State, Local, or Tribal Governments or Communities, or 

Particular Segments of the Private Sector 

The RIA assessed a number of potential distributional effects of the proposed rule cost impacts 

on: 

(a) Retail motor fuels market sector: potential exits and employment impacts (Chapter 5) 

(b) Energy supply, distribution, and use (Chapter 5) 

(c) Public sector cost savings related to avoided releases (Chapter 5) 

(d) Small entities (Chapter 5) 

(e) Minority and low-income populations living near UST systems (Chapter 5) 

(f) State/local government costs (Chapter 6) 

(g) Tribal government costs (Chapter 6) 
4D. Estimates of the Potential Effect on the National Economy 

OMB’s 1995 guidance states: “...macro-economic effects tend to be measurable in nation-wide 

econometric models, only if the economic impact of the regulation reaches 0.25 percent to 0.5 

percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). A regulation with a smaller aggregate effect is 

highly unlikely to have any measurable impact in macro-economic terms unless it is highly 

focused on a particular geographic region or economic sector.”1

 Based on the 2009 US GDP of 

$14 trillion, the 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent threshold is equal to $35 billion to $70 billion. The 

estimated annualized cost for this proposed rule at $210 million does not exceed either threshold. 

5. Extent of EPA’s Prior Consultation with Elected Representatives of Affected State, 

Local, and Tribal Governments 

Today’s proposed rule is not expected to result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, of $100 million or more in any one year. As a result, EPA does 

not believe Section 204 of UMRA applies, and did not consult with elected representatives of 

affected state, local, and tribal governments. 

                                                           

1

 Source: Office of Management Budget, “Guidance for Implementing Title II of S. 1. [the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act],” March 31, 1995 memo.