*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 1 of 398

EO12866_UST Revisions_ 2050-AG46_ NPRM _NPRM_20110914

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 280 and 281

[EPA-HQ-UST-2011-0301; FRL_XXXX-X]

RIN 2050-AG46

Revising Underground Storage Tank Regulations - Revisions To Existing Requirements 

And New Requirements For Secondary Containment And Operator Training

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed Rule.

_________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make certain revisions to the 1988 underground storage tank 

(UST) technical, financial responsibility, and state program approval regulations. These changes 

establish federal requirements that are similar to key portions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; 

they also update certain 1988 UST regulations. Proposed changes include: adding secondary

containment requirements for new and replaced tanks and piping; adding operator training 

requirements; adding periodic operation and maintenance requirements for UST systems; 

removing certain deferrals; adding new release prevention and detection technologies; updating 

codes of practice; making editorial and technical corrections; and updating state program 

approval requirements to incorporate these new changes. These changes will likely protect 

human health and the environment by increasing the number of prevented UST releases and 

quickly detecting them, if they occur. 

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [insert date,] 90 days after publication in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 2 of 398

the Federal Register.] Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information 

collection provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before [insert date, thirty days after 

date of publication in the Federal Register.]

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2011-0301,

by one of the following methods:

 www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

 Email: mcdermott.elizabeth@epa.gov

 Mail: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPA-2009-0880, Mail 

Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20460. In addition, please 

mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: 

Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503.

 Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. N.W., Washington DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQUST-2011-0301. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2011-0301. EPA's policy

is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be 

made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 3 of 398

you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If 

you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your 

e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed 

in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, 

EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA’s public 

docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available 

either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA 

Docket Center (EPA/DC) is (202) 566-0276.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth McDermott, OSWER/OUST 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 4 of 398

(5401P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 

20460; telephone number: 703-603-7175; email address: mcdermott.elizabeth@epa.gov. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. General Information

Does This Action Apply To Me?

What Should I Consider As I Prepare My Comments For EPA?

II. Authority

III. Background 

Why Is EPA Changing The UST Regulations?

What Is The History Of The UST Laws And Regulations? 

What Is The Impact Of This Proposal? 

What Was EPA’s Process In Deciding Which Changes To Incorporate In The Regulations?

IV. Proposed Revisions To The Requirements For Owners And Operators Of Underground 

Storage Tanks

A. Changes To Establish Federal Requirements For Operator Training And Secondary

Containment

1. Operator Training 

2. Secondary Containment

B. Additional Requirements For Operation And Maintenance 

1. Walkthrough Inspections

2. Spill Prevention Equipment Tests

3. Overfill Prevention Equipment Tests
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 5 of 398

4. Secondary Containment Tests

5. Operation And Maintenance Requirements For Release Detection Equipment 

C. Addressing Deferrals 

1. Emergency Power Generator UST Systems

2. Airport Hydrant Fuel Distribution Systems 

3. UST Systems With Field-Constructed Tanks

4. Wastewater Treatment Tank Systems

5. Maintain Deferral For USTs Containing Radioactive Material And Emergency

Generator UST Systems At Nuclear Power Generation Facilities Regulated By

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

D. Other Changes 

1. Changes To Overfill Prevention Equipment Requirements

2. Internal Linings That Fail The Periodic Lining Inspection And Cannot Be 

Repaired 

3. Notification Requirements

4. Alternative Fuels And Compatibility

5. Improving Repairs

6. Phase Out Vapor Monitoring And Groundwater Monitoring As Release 

Detection Methods

7. Interstitial Monitoring Results, Including Interstitial Alarms, Under Subpart E

E. General Updates 

1. Incorporate Newer Technologies 

2. Updates To Codes Of Practice Listed In The UST Regulation
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 6 of 398

3. Updates To Remove Old Upgrade And Implementation Deadlines

4. Editorial And Technical Corrections

F. Alternative Options EPA Considered

V. Updates To State Program Approval Requirements

VI. Overview of Estimated Costs and Benefits

VII. Statutory And Executive Orders

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning And Overview and Executive Order 

13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation And Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health And 

Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, Or Use

I. National Technology Transfer And Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice In 

Minority Populations And Low-Income Populations

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 7 of 398

I. General Information 

Does This Action Apply To Me?

In the table below, EPA is providing a list of potentially affected entities. However, this 

proposed action may affect other entities not listed below. The Agency’s goal with this section 

is to provide a guide for readers to consider regarding entities that potentially could be affected 

by this action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 

entity, consult the person listed in the preceding section titled FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT.

Industry Sectors Potentially Affected By The Proposed Rule

Industry Sector NAICS Code

Retail Motor Fuel Sales 447

Commercial 

(wholesale trade, retail trade, accommodation, and food services) 

42, 44-45, 72 (excluding 

447)

Institutional (hospitals only) 622

Manufacturing 31-33

Transportation

(air, water, truck, transit, pipeline, and airport operations)

481, 483-486, 48811

Communications And Utilities

(wired telecommunications carriers; and electric power generation, 

transmission, and distribution)

5171, 2211

Agriculture 111, 112
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 8 of 398

(crop and animal production)

What Should I Consider As I Prepare My Comments For EPA?

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov

or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD 

ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so 

marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips For Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

 Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject 

heading, Federal Register date and page number).

 Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your 

requested changes.

 Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you 

used.

 If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in 

sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

 Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

 Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal 

threats.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 9 of 398

 Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 

II. Authority 

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 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)].

III. Background

EPA is proposing certain changes to the 1988 underground storage tank (UST) regulations in 40 

CFR part 280. In addition, EPA is planning to implement the delivery prohibition provision of 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (hereafter called Energy Policy Act) for EPA-led inspections, but 

will address that independent of today’s proposal. Finally, EPA is proposing to revise its state 

program approval (SPA) requirements in 40 CFR part 281 to incorporate the changes in 40 CFR 

part 280. While EPA’s proposed changes to the 1988 UST regulations will improve 

environmental protection, we are sensitive to future costs for UST owners and operators and, as a 

result, minimized required retrofits.

This proposal strengthens the 1988 UST regulation by increasing the emphasis on properly 

operating and maintaining equipment. The 1988 UST regulation required owners and operators 

have spill, overfill, and release detection equipment in place, but did not require proper operation 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 10 of 398

and maintenance for some of that equipment. For example, EPA required spill prevention 

equipment to capture drips and spills when the delivery hose is disconnected from the fill pipe 

but did not require periodic testing of that equipment. Today’s proposed revisions will require

that UST equipment is operated and maintained properly, which will improve environmental 

protection. These changes also acknowledge improvements in technology over the last 20 years, 

including the ability to detect releases from deferred UST systems. 

Why Is EPA Changing The UST Regulations?

EPA is proposing to revise the 1988 UST regulations to: 

 Establish federal requirements that are similar to certain key provisions of the Energy

Policy Act; 

 Ensure owners and operators properly operate and maintain their UST systems; 

 Include updates to current technology and codes of practices; 

 Make technical and editorial corrections; and

 Update SPA regulation to address the proposed changes listed above. 

In 1988, EPA first promulgated the UST regulations (40 CFR part 280) to prevent, detect, and 

clean up petroleum releases into the environment. The 1988 UST regulations required new UST 

systems to be designed, constructed, and installed to prevent releases; existing UST systems had 

to be upgraded to prevent releases. In addition, owners and operators were required to perform 

release detection, demonstrate financial responsibility, and clean up releases. 

The Energy Policy Act amended Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), the statute 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 11 of 398

that authorized the UST program. Key Energy Policy Act provisions (such as secondary

containment and operator training) apply to all states receiving federal Subtitle I money under 

SWDA, regardless of their state program approval status, but do not apply in Indian country (or 

in states and U.S. territories that do not meet EPA’s operator training or secondary containment 

grant guidelines). The U.S. has a unique legal relationship with federally recognized Indian 

tribes. This government to government relationship includes recognizing the rights of tribes as 

sovereign governments to self-determination and acknowledging the federal government’s trust 

responsibility to tribes. As a result, EPA directly implements the UST program in Indian 

country.

In order to establish federal UST requirements that are similar to the UST secondary containment 

and operator training requirements of the Energy Policy Act, EPA decided to revise the 1988 

UST regulations. EPA also decided to revise the 1988 UST regulations in order to achieve better 

release prevention and compliance results (see section IV.B. Additional Requirements for 

Operation and Maintenance for additional information). Today’s proposed revisions also fulfill 

objectives in EPA’s UST Tribal Strategy (August 2006), where both EPA and tribes recognized 

the importance of requirements that ensure parity in program implementation among states and 

in Indian country. Requiring secondary containment will reduce releases to the environment by 

containing them within a secondary area and detecting them before they reach the environment. 

Operator training will educate UST system operators and help them prevent releases by

complying with the regulation and performing better operation and maintenance of their UST 

systems.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 12 of 398

Since the beginning of the UST program, preventing petroleum and hazardous substance releases 

from UST systems into the environment has been one of the primary goals of the program. 

Although EPA and our partners have made significant progress in reducing the number of new 

releases, approximately 7,000 releases are discovered each year as of FY 2009.

2

 Lack of proper 

operation and maintenance of UST systems is a main cause of new releases. Information on 

sources and causes of releases shows that releases from tanks are less common than they once 

were. However, releases from piping and spills and overfills associated with deliveries have 

emerged as more common problems. In addition, releases at the dispenser are one of the leading 

sources of releases. Finally, data show that release detection equipment is only detecting 

approximately 50 percent of releases it is designed to detect. These problems are partly due to 

improper operation and maintenance (see section IV.B. Additional Requirements for Operation 

and Maintenance for a more detailed discussion of problems).

4,5

EPA relies on two draft causes of release studies to help support this proposed rule. Petroleum 

Releases at Underground Storage Tank Facilities in Florida contains release data on 512 

releases from new and upgraded tanks in Florida.6 The second draft study, Evaluation of 

Releases from New and Upgraded Underground Storage Tank Systems, contains release data on 

580 releases from new and upgraded tanks in 23 states across the Northeast, South, and Central 

 

2

Semi-Annual Report Of UST Performance Measures, End Of Fiscal Year 2009, 

http://epa.gov/oust/cat/camarchv.htm.

4

Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities In Florida, Peer Review Draft, US EPA/OUST, 

March 2005.

5 Evaluation Of Releases From New And Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks, Peer Review Draft, US 

EPA/OUST, August 2004.

6

Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities In Florida, Peer Review Draft, US EPA/OUST, 

March 2005.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 13 of 398

parts of the United States.7 Taken together, these draft studies provide information about 1092 

releases in 24 of the 50 states. The data in the two studies, when taken as a whole, generally

provide a representative sampling of releases across the United States because nearly half of the 

states contributed to the studies. Both drafts were peer reviewed but never finalized because the 

passage of Energy Policy Act of 2005 required a reallocation of personnel and resources. Even 

though these studies were never finalized, the underlying data and calculations can be used to 

support this proposed rule because that information did not change as a result of the peer review 

process.

Many USTs currently in the ground were upgraded to meet the spill, overfill, corrosion 

protection, and release detection requirements in the 1988 UST regulation. As these USTs 

continue to age, it is vital that we improve UST operation and maintenance and test components 

to ensure they are still working as intended. Today’s proposed revisions to the 1988 UST 

regulation focus on ensuring equipment is working, rather than requiring UST owners and 

operators to replace or upgrade equipment already in place. The 1988 UST regulation require 

owners and operators to use equipment that could help prevent releases; today’s proposed 

revisions highlight the importance of operating and maintaining UST equipment so releases are 

prevented and detected early in order to avoid or minimize potential soil and groundwater 

contamination. 

EPA is proposing changes to the SPA regulation (40 CFR part 281) to address today’s proposed 

changes to 40 CFR part 280. By doing so, EPA will require states to generally adopt the 40 CFR 

 

7 Evaluation Of Releases From New And Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks, Peer Review Draft, US 

EPA/OUST, August 2004.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 14 of 398

part 280 changes proposed today in order to obtain or retain SPA.

What Is The History Of The UST Laws And Regulations?

In 1984, Congress responded to the increasing threat to groundwater posed from leaking USTs 

by adding Subtitle I to the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA.) Subtitle I of SWDA required 

EPA to develop a comprehensive regulatory program for USTs storing petroleum or certain 

hazardous substances, ensuring that the environment and human health are protected from UST 

releases. In 1986, Congress amended Subtitle I of SWDA and created the Leaking Underground 

Storage Tank Trust Fund to implement a cleanup program and pay for cleanups at sites where the 

owner or operator is unknown, unwilling, or unable to respond, or which require emergency

action.

In 1988, EPA promulgated the UST regulation (40 CFR part 280), which set minimum standards 

for new tanks and required owners and operators of existing tanks to upgrade, replace, or close 

them. In addition, after 1988 owners and operators were required to report and clean up releases 

from their USTs. The 1988 UST regulation set deadlines for owners and operators to meet those 

requirements by December 22, 1998. Owners and operators who chose to upgrade or replace 

had to ensure their UST systems included spill and overfill prevention equipment and were 

protected from corrosion. In addition, owners and operators were required to monitor their UST 

systems for releases using release detection (phased in during the 1990s, depending on when 

their UST systems were installed). Finally, owners and operators were required to have financial 

responsibility (phased in through 1998), which ensured they have financial resources to pay for 

cleaning up releases. EPA has not significantly changed the UST regulation since 1988.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 15 of 398

In 1988, EPA also promulgated a regulation for state program approval (40 CFR part 281). 

Since states are the primary implementers of the UST program, EPA established a process where 

state programs could operate in lieu of the federal program if states met certain requirements and 

obtained state program approval from EPA. The state program approval regulation describes 

minimum requirements states must meet so their programs can be approved and operate in lieu

of the federal program.

In 2005, the Energy Policy Act further amended Subtitle I of SWDA. The Energy Policy Act 

required states receiving Subtitle I money from EPA meet certain requirements. EPA developed 

grant guidelines for states regarding operator training, inspections, delivery prohibition, 

secondary containment, financial responsibility for manufacturers and installers, public record, 

and state compliance reports on government USTs. The operator training and secondary

containment requirements are two major pieces of the Energy Policy Act that currently do not 

apply in Indian country, but will apply when EPA finalizes today’s proposed regulation.

What Is The Impact Of This Proposal?

This proposal will ensure parity in program implementation among states and in Indian country. 

This proposal will achieve parity by adding certain requirements to the federal UST regulation 

(that would apply in Indian country) that are similar to the operator training and secondary

containment requirements in the Energy Policy Act. This action will also further strengthen 

protection of human health and the environment from UST releases by increasing the emphasis 

on proper operation and maintenance of release prevention and detection equipment. Today’s 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 16 of 398

proposed revisions also reflect improvements in technology that allow for the ability to prevent 

and quickly detect releases for many tank systems that are currently deferred. The regulatory 

changes proposed today impose costs to owners and operators of existing regulated UST 

systems, owners and operators of certain deferred USTs, as well as costs associated with state 

review of the regulatory changes. EPA prepared an analysis of the potential incremental costs 

and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in the regulatory impact 

analysis (RIA) titled Assessment Of The Potential Costs, Benefits, And Other Impacts Of The 

Proposed Revisions To EPA’s Underground Storage Tank Regulations, which is available in the 

docket for this proposal. A summary of these impacts is provided under the Statutory Review 

section of this preamble and in the table below. 

Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Rule (2008$ millions)

7% Discount Rate 3% Discount Rate

Total Annual Social Costs $210 $210

Total Annual Avoided Costs $300 - $740 $330 - $770

Net Cost (Savings) to Society ($530 - $90) ($560 - 120)

EPA also prepared a risk assessment titled Risk Analysis to Support Potential Revisions to 

Underground Storage Tank (UST) Regulations, associated with the regulatory changes. The risk 

assessment examines potential impacts to groundwater and subsequent chemical transport, 

exposure and risk. It is available for review in the docket for this proposal. 

What Was EPA’s Process In Deciding Which Changes To Incorporate In The Regulations?

After the Energy Policy Act became law, EPA recognized a need to revise the 1988 UST 

regulations. The Energy Policy Act required additional measures to protect groundwater (either 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 17 of 398

with secondary containment or financial responsibility for manufacturers and installers) and 

operator training requirements in states receiving federal Subtitle I money from EPA. However, 

no similar requirements would apply in Indian country until EPA promulgates a regulation. Both 

EPA and tribes are committed to ensuring program parity between states and in Indian country, 

and today’s proposed regulation, when final, will achieve this parity. 

For over 20 years, the 1988 UST regulations worked well. However, two decades of experience 

implementing the UST program have shown there are a number of areas where EPA can improve 

the UST program and increase environmental protection. For example, updating the regulation 

to reflect current technologies and ensuring release prevention and release detection equipment 

are properly operated and maintained have surfaced as important regulatory changes.

From the start, EPA embraced an open, inclusive, and transparent process so all UST

stakeholders had an opportunity to share their ideas and concerns. EPA recognizes concerns 

about costs to owners and operators and the importance of limiting requirements for retrofits. In

developing this rule, we reached out to stakeholders involved in all aspects of the tank program, 

provided multiple opportunities for sharing ideas, and kept stakeholders informed of progress. 

Using information from our extensive outreach, EPA compiled potential proposed changes to the 

1988 UST regulations. We added or deleted items to the list of changes based on data, analysis, 

costs and benefits resulting from the proposed changes, and EPA discretion. Ultimately, EPA 

identified the items in today’s proposal as most appropriate. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 18 of 398

IV. Proposed Revisions To The Requirements For Owners And Operators Of 

Underground Storage Tanks 

The following sections describe EPA’s proposal, starting with requirements for operator training 

and secondary containment. The next four sections address changes to the existing regulation in 

40 CFR part 280, organized by topic: additional requirements for operation and maintenance; 

proposed approach for currently deferred tanks; other changes to improve release prevention and 

release detection; and general updates to the 1988 UST regulation. Finally, there is a section 

describing alternative options considered.

After each proposed regulatory change, EPA poses some questions to which readers may wish to 

respond. In addition to these specific questions, readers may provide comments to any other area 

of the proposal on which they wish to comment. 

A. Changes To Establish Federal Requirements For Operator Training And Secondary 

Containment

1. Operator Training

What Is EPA Proposing?

EPA is proposing to add a new subpart, subpart J – Operator Training, to 40 CFR part 280. 

Through subpart J, EPA is proposing the following training requirements for three UST system 

operator classes. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 19 of 398

New Definitions 

EPA is proposing the following new terms and definitions: 

 Class A operator – individual with primary responsibility for operating and maintaining 

an UST system according to applicable requirements established by the implementing 

agency. The Class A operator typically manages resources and personnel, such as 

establishing work assignments, to achieve and maintain compliance with regulatory

requirements. 

 Class B operator – individual with day-to-day responsibility for implementing applicable 

regulatory requirements established by the implementing agency. The Class B operator 

typically implements in the field aspects of operation, maintenance, and associated 

recordkeeping for an UST system. 

 Class C operator – employee responsible for initially addressing emergencies presented 

by a spill or release from an UST system. The Class C operator typically controls or 

monitors dispensing or sale of regulated substances. 

 Training program – any program established by the implementing agency that provides 

information to and evaluates the knowledge of a Class A, Class B, or Class C operator 

regarding requirements for UST systems. 

Training Requirements 

 How operators are designated – UST owners and operators must designate individuals for 

each of the three operator classes. UST owners and operators must designate at least one 

Class A and one Class B operator for each UST or group of USTs at a facility. UST 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 20 of 398

owners and operators must designate all of their employees who meet the Class C 

operator definition as Class C operators. 

 Who must be trained – This proposed training requirement covers all UST systems 

storing regulated substances. UST owners and operators must ensure designated 

individuals meet specific training requirements according to the operator class in which 

they are designated. 

 Requirements for operator training – UST owners and operators must ensure operators in 

each class successfully complete training programs or comparable examinations that, at a 

minimum, cover these areas:

 Class A operator – spill and overfill prevention; release detection; corrosion 

protection; emergency response; product and equipment compatibility; financial 

responsibility; notification and storage tank registration; temporary and permanent 

closure; related reporting and recordkeeping; environmental and regulatory 

consequences of releases; and training requirements for Class B and C operators. 

Training for Class A operators is general on all listed areas.

 Class B operator – operation and maintenance; spill and overfill prevention; 

release detection and related reporting; corrosion protection and related testing; 

emergency response; product and equipment compatibility; reporting and 

recordkeeping; environmental and regulatory consequences of releases; and 

training requirements for Class C operator. Training for Class B operators may be 

general or specific to a Class B operator’s site. 

 Class C operator – appropriate action to take in response to emergencies 

(including situations posing an immediate danger or threat to the public or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 21 of 398

environment and that require immediate action) or alarms caused by spills or 

releases from an UST system. Training for Class C operators may be general or 

specific to a Class C operator’s site.

 Training programs for Class A and B operators must, at a minimum, teach and evaluate 

their knowledge on the purpose, methods, and functions of items listed in the minimum 

training areas above. Training programs for Class C operators must teach and evaluate 

their knowledge of the items listed in the minimum training areas above.

 A training program must meet the minimum requirements discussed above and evaluate 

knowledge through a test, practical demonstration, or another approach acceptable to the 

implementing agency. In lieu of a training program, all three operator classes must pass 

comparable examinations that assess their knowledge in the minimum training areas 

above. 

 The evaluation component of training programs and comparable examinations must be 

developed and administered by an independent organization, the implementing agency, or 

delegated authority. 

 When designated operators must complete operator training – UST owners and operators 

must ensure all designated Class A, B, and C operators are trained or successfully

complete a comparable examination according to criteria and within time frames in the 

schedule below. Phase in is based on when USTs were installed because newer UST 

systems tend to have fewer releases than older UST systems.

8

 

 

8 Evaluation Of Releases From New And Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks, Peer Review Draft, US 

EPA/OUST, August 2004.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 22 of 398

Phase-In Schedule For Operator Training

Criteria Date When Operator Training 

Or Comparable Examination Is Required

One or more USTs at the facility

were installed on or before 

12/22/1988 

One year after effective date of rule

No USTs at the facility were installed 

on or before 12/22/1988 and at least 

one UST at the facility was installed 

on or before 12/22/1998

Two years after effective date of rule

All USTs at the facility were installed 

after 12/22/1998

Three years after effective date of rule

After the last date in the table above, UST owners and operators must ensure designated 

Class A and B operators are trained within 30 days of assuming duties. Designated Class 

C operators must be trained before assuming their duties. 

 Retraining – Class A and B operators of UST systems determined by the implementing 

agency to be out of compliance must complete a training program or comparable 

examination in accordance with requirements in § 280.242. At a minimum, training must 

cover the area(s) determined to be out of compliance. Retraining must occur within 30 

days from the date an implementing agency determines an UST system is out of 

compliance. Retraining is not required if:

o Class A and B operators take annual refresher training which covers all applicable 

training requirements for their operator class; or

o The implementing agency, at its discretion, grants a waiver relinquishing the 

Class A and B operators from meeting the retraining requirement.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 23 of 398

 Documentation – UST owners and operators must maintain documents that identify all 

operators by class and demonstrate that training or retraining, if necessary, was 

completed. These documents must contain: 

o A list of designated Class A, B, and C operators for each UST facility – Include 

names, operator class trained, date assumed duties, date completed initial training, 

and date of any retraining. These records must be maintained for all Class A, B, 

and C operators at the facility for the previous three years.

o Proof of training or retraining – A paper or electronic record that, at a minimum, 

includes name of trainee, date trained, and operator class. In addition, records 

from classroom or field training programs or a comparable examination, must be 

signed by the trainer or examiner and include the printed name of the trainer or 

examiner, company name, address, and phone number. Records from computerbased training, at a minimum, must include the name of the training program and 

web address, if Internet-based. Records of retraining must include those areas on 

which the Class A or B operator was retrained. Records of training or retraining 

must be maintained as long as the Class A, Class B, and Class C operators are 

designated at the facility.

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change? What Background Information Is Available About 

This Change?

EPA is proposing operator training requirements to ensure that all regulated UST systems are 

operated by properly trained individuals. The operator training provision of the Energy Policy

Act requires state implementing agencies, as a condition of receiving federal Subtitle I money, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 24 of 398

develop state-specific training requirements for three classes of UST system operators. EPA 

issued grant guidelines that provide minimum requirements state operator training programs 

must include in order for states to continue receiving federal Subtitle I money.

9

 The operator 

training grant guidelines apply to most UST systems in the United States; however, not all are 

covered. UST systems not covered include those in Indian country where EPA is the primary

implementing agency, and in states and territories that do not meet the requirements of EPA’s 

operator training grant guidelines. 

Through today’s proposal, EPA is closing the gap in coverage and ensuring all operators are 

trained according to their level of responsibility, as designated as Class A, B, or C. Sufficiently

training UST operators will increase compliance with regulatory requirements. In addition, 

operator training may decrease UST system releases by educating Class A, B, and C operators 

about their UST system requirements, and may result in greater protection of human health and 

the environment. 

Today’s proposed operator training regulation for UST owners and operators is consistent with 

the requirements in EPA’s operator training grant guidelines for states. In both, EPA establishes 

minimum operator training requirements, yet allows flexibility to tailor training programs for 

specific needs. This means that although there may be variations among operator training 

programs, all Class A, B, and C operators will be trained to meet minimum requirements. 

Definitions – EPA is proposing specific definitions of the three operator classes to distinguish 

 

9Grant Guidelines To States For Implementing The Operator Training Provision Of The Energy Policy Act Of 2005: 

www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/optraing.htm.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 25 of 398

them from the term operator defined in the 1988 UST regulation. Only if a Class A, B, or C 

operator meets the definition of operator in the 1988 UST regulation will he or she then be 

subject to the same responsibilities and liabilities as an operator. EPA’s proposed definitions of 

Class A, B, and C operators do not relieve owners and operators, as defined in the 1988 UST 

regulation, from any legal responsibility. EPA based the proposed three operator class 

definitions on duties each typically perform at UST facilities. 

EPA is proposing a definition for training program. It is important that training programs for 

Class A, B, and C operators include both sharing information and evaluating knowledge. 

How operators are designated – EPA is proposing how UST owners and operators designate the 

three operator classes for their facilities. EPA is taking the position that designating at least one 

Class A and B operator at each facility is sufficient. Class A and B operators can provide 

adequate training to Class C operators, which should ease UST owners’ and operators’ ability to 

comply with this requirement. Because a Class C operator’s duties typically place him or her in 

a position of providing initial response to an emergency, any UST owner’s and operator’s 

employee who meets the Class C operator definition must be designated as such and trained in 

emergency response. 

EPA will allow UST owners and operators to designate contractors as their Class A and B 

operators as long as they are responsible for all areas required in the training for the class of 

operator designated. UST owners and operators must maintain documentation containing 

individual names of Class A and B contractors who complete operator training. It will be easier 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 26 of 398

for implementing agencies to verify training, retraining, and refresher training using individual 

names rather than company names. All Class C operators must be employees of the UST system 

owner and operator. 

EPA wants to ensure Class A and B operator training addresses all components and encompasses 

the entire UST system. If an UST system is out of compliance and the implementing agency

determines retraining is required, Class A or B operators must either be retrained or take annual 

refresher training. EPA cautions UST owners and operators to consider whether contractors 

serving as Class A or B operators can be designated. Because some contractors specialize in 

UST services, they might not be eligible to be Class A or B operators. For example, if a 

contractor is only responsible for release detection compliance, that contractor would not be 

eligible to be a Class A or B operator because he or she is not responsible for all required 

training areas. 

EPA realizes many UST owners and operators may want to designate one person at an UST 

facility as responsible for all Class A, B, and C operator duties. EPA will allow one person to 

serve in multiple operator classes; however, that person must be trained for each class 

designated.

Who must be trained – When final, today’s proposal will require training for designated Class A, 

B, and C operators at UST systems regulated under Subtitle I. This includes UST systems of all 

attended and unattended facilities. An unattended UST facility means a Class A, B, or C 

operator may not be present during times when a facility is operating. Nonetheless, even at 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 27 of 398

unattended UST facilities, designated Class A, B, and C operators must still meet the operator 

training requirement. 

 

Requirements for operator training – EPA based the three operator classes on duties each 

typically perform at UST facilities. Building on that, EPA is proposing each person designated 

in an operator class pass an examination comparable to the training program, or meet a specific 

training program, which will:

 For Class A operator, teach and evaluate his or her knowledge to make informed 

decisions regarding compliance and determine whether appropriate people are fulfilling 

the operation, maintenance, and recordkeeping requirements for UST systems. 

 For Class B operator, teach and evaluate his or her knowledge and skills to implement 

UST regulatory requirements on typical UST system components or site-specific 

equipment at the UST facility.

 For Class C operator, teach and evaluate his or her knowledge to take appropriate action 

in response to emergencies (including situations posing an immediate danger or threat to 

the public or environment and that require immediate action) or alarms caused by spills 

or releases from an UST system. 

For each class of operator, EPA considered developing specific training curricula that would 

prescribe length of training, areas to cover, and trainer qualifications. EPA decided that 

providing the general criteria requirements presented in today’s proposal is the best approach 

because they provide flexibility while being comparable to EPA’s operator training grant 

guidelines for states and ensuring each class of operator is trained. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 28 of 398

EPA proposes not to restrict who may develop and administer the training component of a 

training program. However, to avoid potential conflicts of interest, EPA proposes to only allow 

independent organizations to develop and administer the evaluation component training 

programs and comparable examinations, as long as they meet the minimum requirements in 

today’s proposal. EPA considers independent organizations to include a wide array of program 

providers who are not affiliated with the Class A, B, or C operators they are training. For 

example, Class A or B operators can train other Class A or B operators at the same UST facility, 

but they cannot develop or conduct the evaluation component of the training program for those 

operators. However, as discussed earlier, Class A or B operators can train and evaluate Class C 

operators. In addition, the implementing agency may develop and administer a training program 

or comparable examination. 

Although not specifically listed in the regulation, EPA will allow a variety of ways to train 

operators. These include classroom, computer-based, hands on, and any combination of these. 

Accepted in lieu of completing a training program, Class A, B, or C operators can pass a 

comparable examination (for example, via classroom, Internet, or computer program) that meets 

the requirements for operator training criteria described in today’s proposal. 

When designated operators must complete operator training – EPA is proposing that UST 

owners and operators ensure all Class A, B, and C operators successfully complete a training 

program or a comparable examination over three years, based on UST installation dates. This 

phased-in approach will stagger the need for operator training and reduce a rush at the end of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 29 of 398

initial three year period. Since older USTs potentially pose a greater risk to the environment, 

EPA decided Class A, B, and C operators of those systems should be trained first. 

After the initial three year phase-in period and for consistency with EPA’s operator training grant 

guidelines for states, EPA is proposing new Class A, B, and C operators be trained as follows: 

 Class A and B operators must be trained within 30 days of assuming duties. 30 days are 

sufficient for Class A and B operators to receive operator training.

 Class C operators must be trained before they assume their duties; it is critical that they

are trained immediately in order to respond to emergencies. 

Retraining – UST system noncompliance can be an indication that Class A and B operators are 

not doing what is necessary to maintain compliance. If an UST system is out of compliance,

then generally, Class A and B operators designated for that UST system need to be retrained. 

Retraining must, at a minimum, cover those areas determined by the implementing agency to be 

out of compliance. Retraining must be completed within 30 days of the implementing agency

making a final determination of noncompliance. EPA is proposing to allow annual refresher 

training in lieu of retraining as long as all training areas required by regulation are covered. 

Refresher training must have been in place at the time the implementing agency determined the 

UST system was out of compliance. 

EPA is also proposing to allow implementing agencies, at their discretion, to waive the retraining 

requirement. EPA recommends that such a waiver be in writing. In granting a waiver, EPA 

expects the implementing agency to consider factors such as the severity and areas of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 30 of 398

noncompliance. In those instances where UST system noncompliance violations do not warrant 

retraining, EPA encourages implementing agencies to provide information to Class A and B 

operators so they are able to return their facilities to compliance. These allowances will provide 

greater flexibility for UST owners and operators to meet the retraining requirement. This 

proposal is consistent with EPA’s retraining requirement for noncompliance with significant 

operational compliance requirements and an annual refresher training allowance provided in our 

operator training grant guidelines for states. 

EPA considered requiring retraining when UST facilities change equipment, but decided this 

would be an unnecessary burden on both the regulated community and implementing agencies. 

If an UST system is out of compliance because of an equipment change, EPA is proposing that 

the implementing agency require that UST owners and operators ensure Class A and B operators 

are retrained as proposed above.

Documentation – EPA is proposing UST owners and operators maintain a list of Class A, B, and 

C operators at each UST facility for the previous three years. Keeping this list for three years is 

adequate because it is consistent with the inspection frequency provided by the Energy Policy

Act. Owners and operators must have a list of trained operators for the past three years each 

time they are inspected. In addition, UST owners and operators must also document verification 

of training or retraining, as appropriate, for each class of operator. EPA will require basic 

information to document Class A, B, and C operators and confirm they are appropriately trained. 

For example, classroom training must be signed by the trainer; computer based training does not 

require a signature but must indicate the name of the training. Records verifying training or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 31 of 398

retraining must be maintained as long as the Class A, B, and C operators are designated at the 

facility. This time frame will allow owners and operators to demonstrate Class A, B, and C 

operators are trained as long as they are designated at the facility.

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?

 Should EPA impose a limit on the number of USTs or facilities a Class A or B operator is 

responsible for? If so, what should the limit be and why? 

 EPA is seeking information about the number of unattended regulated UST facilities in 

the United States. How many regulated UST facilities are unattended in the United 

States?

 EPA is basing the initial period for meeting the training requirement on the UST 

installation date. Should we consider other criteria? If so, what and why?

 Is there a need for a phased-in schedule for operator training? If so, is EPA’s proposed 

schedule reasonable? 

 Does EPA’s proposal prohibit training approaches currently available? If so, which ones 

and why?

 Should EPA prohibit particular training approaches? If so, which ones and why?

 Although operators can access any available information source to obtain necessary

knowledge of UST systems, in order to address potential conflicts of interest concerns, 

only independent organizations are allowed to develop and administer the evaluation 

component of training programs and comparable examinations. Are there cases where 

EPA should consider exceptions to this proposed requirement?
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 32 of 398

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different 

from EPA’s proposal. 

2. Secondary Containment

What Is EPA Proposing?

EPA is proposing to add in 40 CFR part 280 secondary containment and interstitial monitoring 

requirements for new and replaced tanks and piping. In addition, UST systems must have underdispenser containment for new dispenser systems. 

New Definitions

EPA is proposing the following new terms and definitions: 

 Dispenser system – Equipment located above ground that meters the amount of regulated 

substances transferred to a point of use outside the UST system, such as a motor vehicle. 

This system includes equipment necessary to connect the dispenser to the UST system. 

 Replaced –

 For a tank: to remove a tank and install another tank. 

 For piping: to remove 50 percent or more of piping and install other piping, 

excluding connectors, connected to a single tank. For tanks with multiple piping 

runs, this definition applies independently to each piping run.

 Secondary containment or secondarily contained – A release prevention and release 

detection system for a tank and/or piping. This system has an inner and outer barrier with 

an interstitial space that is monitored for leaks.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 33 of 398

 Under-dispenser containment (UDC) – Containment underneath a dispenser system 

designed to prevent dispenser system leaks from reaching soil or groundwater.

Secondary Containment 

EPA is proposing owners and operators install secondary containment (including interstitial 

monitoring) for new or replaced tanks and piping installed after the effective date of the final 

UST regulation. EPA is not proposing secondary containment for the following types of piping: 

 Suction piping that meets the requirements of § 280.41(b)(2) (i) through (v), sometimes 

called safe suction piping; and 

 Piping associated with field-constructed tanks and airport hydrant fuel distribution 

systems.

EPA is proposing secondarily contained tanks and piping be:

 Able to contain regulated substances leaked from the primary containment until they are 

detected and removed; 

 Able to prevent release of regulated substances to the environment at any time during the 

operational life of the UST system; and 

 Monitored for a leak at least once every 30 days using interstitial monitoring according to 

§ 280.43(g).

In addition to the requirements above, pressurized piping must have an automatic line leak 

detector according to § 280.44(a).
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 34 of 398

EPA is proposing to remove the option in § 280.42 for owners and operators to use a release 

detection method other than interstitial monitoring for hazardous substance USTs installed after 

the effective date of the final UST regulation. 

Under-Dispenser Containment 

EPA is proposing owners and operators install under-dispenser containment beneath new 

dispenser systems at UST systems. EPA will incorporate this new requirement by adding a new 

subsection (f) to § 280.20, which will require under-dispenser containment beneath each new 

dispenser system at an UST system. 

EPA is proposing a dispenser system be considered new when both the dispenser system and 

equipment needed to connect the dispenser system to the UST system are installed at an UST 

facility. The equipment connecting the dispenser system to the UST system includes check 

valves, shear valves, unburied risers or flexible connectors, or other transitional components 

beneath the dispenser that connect it to underground piping. Finally, under-dispenser 

containment must be liquid tight on its sides, bottom, and at any penetrations and allow for visual 

inspection and access to the components in the containment system, or must be continuously

monitored for leaks from the dispenser system.

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change? What Background Information Is Available About 

This Change?

EPA is proposing this change to prevent regulated substances from reaching the environment and 

ensure a consistent level of environmental protection for regulated UST systems across the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 35 of 398

United States. Data from release sites show a higher number of releases from single-walled 

tanks and piping when compared to secondarily contained systems.10,11 Releases could be 

reduced for tanks and piping if they are secondarily contained.

The Energy Policy Act requires state implementing agencies, as a condition of receiving federal 

Subtitle I money, implement additional measures to protect groundwater. Under the law, state 

implementing agencies’ choices to protect groundwater were secondary containment (including 

under-dispenser containment) or financial responsibility for manufacturers and installers (and 

installer certification). 54 of 56 state implementing agencies chose secondary containment. The 

Energy Policy Act did not specifically require additional measures to protect groundwater in 

Indian country. As the primary implementer for more than 2,600 UST systems in Indian 

country,

12 EPA is proposing secondary containment for new and replaced tanks and piping along 

with under-dispenser containment beneath all new dispenser systems at UST systems. Over the 

last seven years, approximately 25 new UST systems per year were installed in Indian country.

13

 

The final UST regulation will bring UST systems in Indian country to the same level of 

environmental protection as those regulated by states.

The Energy Policy Act requires states that receive federal Subtitle I money (and that choose the 

secondary containment option) to have secondary containment and under-dispenser containment 

 

10 Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities In Florida, Peer Review Draft, US EPA/OUST, 

March 2005.

11 Evaluation Of Releases From New And Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks, Peer Review Draft, US 

EPA/OUST, August 2004.

12 Semi-Annual Report Of UST Performance Measures, End Of Fiscal Year 2009, 

http://epa.gov/oust/cat/camarchv.htm.

13 E2, Incorporated, memoranda and analyses submitted under Contract EP-W-05-018, “U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Analytical And Technical 

Support.” These supporting materials can be found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 36 of 398

for tanks, piping, and dispensers only if they are installed or replaced within 1,000 feet of an 

existing community water system or potable drinking water well.14 However, EPA is proposing 

all new and replaced tanks and piping have secondary containment and UST systems have underdispenser containment beneath all new dispenser systems for the following reasons:

 Nearly all new and replaced tanks and piping are installed within 1,000 feet of an existing 

community water system or potable drinking water well. We assume that any UST listed 

with a commercial ownership type (i.e., gas station) is located within 1,000 feet of an onsite well or public water line because nearly all commercially-owned facilities with USTs 

require water utilities in order to operate and all privately owned facilities (i.e., fleet 

fueling for non-marketers) are also assumed to be in close proximity to some type of 

water supply given that these sites are typically combined with other functional 

operations (office, maintenance, manufacturing, etc.) and require water for restrooms, 

water fountains, shops, etc.;

15

 

 Some state implementing agencies that require secondary containment only within 1,000 

feet of one of these water sources have informed EPA that installations of single-walled 

tanks or piping are not occurring; and 

 Secondary containment and under-dispenser containment will help protect other sensitive 

areas, such as designated source water protection areas, natural springs, and surface 

waters.

EPA is not proposing secondary containment for piping that meets the requirements of 

 

14 Title XV, Subtitle B, Section 1530 of Energy Policy Act of 2005, 109th Congress Public Law 58, August 8, 2005.

15 E2, Incorporated, memoranda and analyses submitted under Contract EP-W-05-018, “U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Analytical And Technical 

Support.” These supporting materials can be found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 37 of 398

280.41(b)(2)(i) through (v), sometimes called safe suction piping because it is currently not 

required to meet release detection requirements. This type of piping uses a suction pump to 

deliver regulated substances from the UST to the dispenser. Safe suction piping operates at less 

than atmospheric pressure, slopes back towards the UST so regulated substances drain to the 

UST if suction is lost, and has only one check valve located close to the suction pump. As 

discussed in the 1988 UST regulation preamble, these characteristics ensure that little, if any, 

regulated substances will be released if a break occurs in the line.16

EPA is not proposing secondary containment for piping associated with field-constructed tanks 

and airport hydrant fuel distribution systems. EPA understands this piping typically is larger 

diameter and runs for long distances, making it difficult to slope the piping back to an interstitial 

monitoring area. In addition, EPA understands it is difficult to keep water out of the interstitial 

area of these long piping runs. Since nearly all this piping is steel, corrosion can occur in the 

interstitial area when an electrolyte, such as water, is in the interstitial area. This corrosion can 

significantly shorten the piping’s life. Corrosion protection safeguards piping in contact with the 

ground, but does not protect the inside part of piping from corrosion. To prevent corrosion 

caused by water in the interstitial area, owners and operators would need to add corrosion 

protection inside the interstitial area of piping, which EPA realizes would be difficult, if not 

impossible, to do. Given all of these issues, secondary containment for these piping runs could 

potentially reduce environmental protection.

EPA is proposing owners and operators install tank and piping secondary containment that: will 

contain regulated substances leaked from the primary containment until they are detected and 

 

16 Preamble to 40 CFR part 280, FR Vol. 53, No. 185, Friday, September 23, 1988, p. 37154. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 38 of 398

removed; is able to prevent the release of regulated substances to the environment at any time 

during the operational life of the UST system; and is monitored for a leak at least once every 30 

days using interstitial monitoring. These requirements are consistent with the 1988 UST 

regulation for secondarily contained hazardous substance tanks (§ 280.42) and are necessary to 

help prevent releases to the environment. 

The secondary containment requirement applies to new or replaced underground tanks and 

piping regulated under Subtitle I except those excluded by regulation at 40 CFR 280.10(b) and 

those deferred by regulation at 40 CFR 280.10(c). All petroleum and hazardous USTs are 

intended to meet the secondary containment requirement with the corresponding use of 

interstitial monitoring. EPA’s current regulation allows variances to the use of interstitial 

monitoring as the method of release detection for hazardous substance USTs. Since these 

variances are no longer an option, EPA is eliminating this language to avoid confusion.

EPA is not proposing secondary containment and/or under-dispenser containment for UST 

systems where installation began on or before the effective date of the final UST regulation. 

Similar to the definition of existing tank system in the 1988 UST regulation, EPA considers an 

installation to have begun after the owner or operator has obtained all federal, state, and local 

approvals or permits and:

 Physical construction or installation began; or

 The owner or operator entered into a contractual agreement that cannot be cancelled or 

modified without substantial loss and physical construction or installation will commence 

within a reasonable time frame.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 39 of 398

Requiring retrofits would be a significant financial burden for owners and operators. EPA 

anticipates owners and operators will replace single-walled UST systems as they age. When 

owners and operators replace singled-walled UST systems after the effective date of the final 

UST regulation, new tanks and piping will need to be secondarily contained and new dispensers 

will have under-dispenser containment. 

To implement secondary containment and under-dispenser containment, EPA is proposing to add 

new terms and definitions: dispenser system; replaced; secondary containment or secondarily

contained; and under-dispenser containment. EPA defined these terms so they are no less 

stringent than the definitions contained in EPA’s secondary containment grant guidelines to state 

implementing agencies.17

EPA’s secondary containment grant guidelines provide states with significant flexibility to 

define “replaced” as it applies to piping. The guidelines require that states, at a minimum, 

consider replacing piping when 100 percent of piping, excluding connectors, connected to a 

single UST is removed and other piping is installed. When deciding how to best define replaced 

as it applies to piping, EPA analyzed state UST regulations for approximately 40 states that 

currently require secondary containment and interstitial monitoring.18 About 75 percent of these 

states have requirements as stringent as, or more stringent than, the 50 percent threshold EPA 

proposes. 

 

17 Grant Guidelines To States For Implementing The Secondary Containment Provision Of The Energy Policy Act 

Of 2005: http://epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/secondco.htm.

18 E2, Incorporated, memoranda and analyses submitted under Contract EP-W-05-018, “U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Analytical And Technical 

Support.” These supporting materials can be found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 40 of 398

In addition, EPA performed a screening analysis using limited, readily-available data to 

determine when repair cost approached replacement cost (and at what point owners and 

operators were most likely to replace the entire piping run rather than repair it).19 The screening 

analysis suggested replacement cost of an entire piping run became equal to repair cost when 

about 60 percent of a piping run is repaired. Based on this information, EPA is proposing 

owners and operators secondarily contain an entire piping run when 50 percent or more of a 

piping run is replaced. This is consistent with most state implementing agency decisions and 

existing economic incentives. This will also prevent owners and operators from leaving small 

pipe sections in the ground to avoid this proposed secondary containment requirement. If an 

UST has multiple piping runs, the secondary containment requirement will only apply to those 

where 50 percent or more of piping is replaced. Currently installed piping runs, and piping runs 

where less than 50 percent of the piping is repaired, will not require secondary containment.

For pressurized piping, EPA considers a piping run to be the piping that connects the 

submersible turbine pump (STP) to all of the dispensers fed by that pump. For example, if a tank 

has two STPs, the piping associated with each STP would be considered separate piping runs. 

For suction piping, a piping run is the piping that runs between the tank and the suction pump.

Consistent with EPA’s current policy, if an owner or operator chooses to reinstall a secondarily 

contained tank or piping that was previously installed, that tank or piping must meet new tank 

and piping standards in § 280.20 at the time of installation. 

 

19 IEc Incorporated, Work Assignment # 1-19, “Methodology and Calculator for Secondary Containment for 

Piping,” October 3, 2008.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 41 of 398

The Energy Policy Act defined secondary containment as a release detection and prevention 

system that meets the interstitial monitoring requirement in § 280.43(g). Based on this 

definition, EPA is proposing to include interstitial monitoring as part of the secondary

containment definition. Therefore, secondary containment means having an interstitial space to 

monitor and monitoring that space for a leak. Consistent with the 1988 UST regulation release 

detection requirements, EPA is proposing interstitial monitoring of new and replaced secondarily 

contained tanks and piping at least once every 30 days.

EPA is proposing owners and operators install under-dispenser containment beneath new 

dispenser systems at UST systems. Data from release sites show dispensers are one of the 

leading release sources. 20,21 Under-dispenser containment is located underground and will 

prevent some releases by containing small releases that occur inside and beneath the dispenser. 

EPA considers a dispenser system new when both the dispenser and equipment needed to 

connect the dispenser to an UST system are installed at an UST facility. EPA is proposing check 

valves, shear valves, unburied risers or flexible connectors, and other transitional components be 

included as equipment that connects a dispenser to an UST system. This equipment is located 

beneath the dispenser and typically connects underground piping to a dispenser. If an owner or 

operator replaces a dispenser but uses existing equipment to connect a dispenser to the UST 

system, then under-dispenser containment is not required.

 

20 Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities In Florida, Peer Review Draft, US EPA/OUST, 

March 2005.

21 Evaluation Of Releases From New And Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks, Peer Review Draft, US 

EPA/OUST, August 2004.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 42 of 398

To contain small releases from the dispenser, piping, and other equipment, the under-dispenser 

containment must be liquid tight. EPA is proposing under-dispenser containment be liquid tight 

on its sides, bottom, and at any penetrations through the containment. EPA is proposing periodic 

testing of under-dispenser containment in the secondary containment tests section (see section B4). In addition, an owner or operator must have access to and be able to visually inspect the 

containment. If visual inspection and access are not available, then under-dispenser containment 

must be continuously monitored to ensure containment is intact and free of liquids. Continuous

monitoring and visual inspections (required in the proposed walkthrough inspections discussed 

in section B-1) will ensure problems with the under-dispenser containment will be detected

before a release to the environment occurs.

The Energy Policy Act requires under-dispenser containment beneath new motor fuel dispenser 

systems at UST systems. However, EPA is aware of a small number of dispenser systems which 

do not dispense motor fuel (for example, kerosene dispensers). Small releases can occur at these 

dispensers in the same manner as they occur at motor fuel dispensers.22,23,24 Therefore, EPA is 

proposing owners and operators install under-dispenser containment beneath new dispenser 

systems at UST systems, irrespective of whether they dispense motor fuel.

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?

 If you have any of the following data, please provide the: 

 

22 Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities In Florida, Peer Review Draft, US EPA/OUST, 

March 2005..

23 Evaluation Of Releases From New And Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks, Peer Review Draft, US 

EPA/OUST, August 2004.

24 Frequency And Extent Of Dispenser Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities In South Carolina (EPA510-R-04-004, September 2004). http://epa.gov/oust/pubs/dispenser.htm.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 43 of 398

 Number of UST systems not installed within 1,000 feet of any existing 

community water system or potable drinking water well.

 Number of non-motor fuel dispensers connected to UST systems in the United 

States. 

 Typical length or percentage of piping repaired during a typical repair. 

 Costs, types and frequency of piping repairs and replacements.

 Are there regulatory incentives that EPA should consider to encourage owners and 

operators to move toward secondary containment? If yes, what are those incentives?

 In addition to the three types of piping identified for exclusion by EPA, are there other 

types of piping for which secondary containment is impractical or unnecessary? If yes, 

what are those types and why is secondary containment impractical or unnecessary?

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different 

from EPA’s proposal. 

B. Additional Requirements For Operation And Maintenance

The 1988 UST regulation required owners and operators to install improved UST system 

equipment to detect and prevent releases; however, it did not require operation and maintenance 

for all of that equipment. Owners and operators need to properly operate and maintain their UST 

system equipment in order to prevent and quickly detect releases. Therefore, we propose to add 

requirements for periodic spill, overfill, secondary containment, and release detection testing 

along with periodic walkthrough inspections to prevent and quickly detect releases. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 44 of 398

When a test or inspection occurs, owners and operators may find problems with the UST system. 

When a test or inspection indicates a problem, owners and operators must repair the problem to 

remain in compliance with the 1988 UST regulation. Section 280.33 of the 1988 regulation 

describes repair requirements for UST systems.

1. Walkthrough Inspections

What Is EPA Proposing?

In § 280.37, EPA is proposing owners and operators perform walkthrough inspections of their 

UST systems at least once every 30 days and meet one of these three options:

 Option 1: Conduct operation and maintenance walkthrough inspections that, at a 

minimum and as appropriate to the facility, check the following equipment: 

o Spill prevention equipment

 Open and visually check for any damage;

 Remove any liquid or debris;

 Check each fill cap to make sure it is securely on the fill pipe; and 

 If secondarily contained with continuous interstitial monitoring, check for 

a leak in the interstitial area.

o Sumps and dispenser cabinets

 Open and visually check for any damage, leaks to the containment area, or 

releases to the environment; 

 Remove any liquid (in contained areas) or debris; and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 45 of 398

 If contained areas are secondarily contained with continuous interstitial 

monitoring, check for a leak in the interstitial area.

o Monitoring/observation wells

 Check covers to make sure they are secured.

o Cathodic protection

 Check to make sure impressed current cathodic protection rectifiers are on 

and operating; and 

 Ensure records of three year cathodic protection testing and 60 day 

impressed current system inspections are reviewed and current.

o Release detection

 Check to make sure the release detection system is on and operating with 

no alarm conditions or other unusual operating conditions present; 

 Check any devices such as tank gauge sticks, groundwater bailers, and 

hand-held vapor monitoring devices for operability and serviceability; and

 Ensure records of release detection testing are reviewed monthly and 

current.

 Option 2 – Conduct operation and maintenance walkthrough inspections according to a 

standard code of practice developed by a nationally recognized association or 

independent testing laboratory that are comparable to the specific requirements listed 

above.

 Option 3 – Conduct operation and maintenance walkthrough inspections developed by 

the implementing agency that are comparable to the specific requirements listed above.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 46 of 398

EPA is proposing owners and operators maintain walkthrough inspection records for one year. 

Each record must include a listing of each area checked, whether each area checked was 

acceptable or needed to have some action taken, and a description of actions taken to correct an 

issue.

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change? What Background Information Is Available About 

This Change?

The 1988 UST regulation focused on owners and operators installing improved UST equipment, 

but did not require significant equipment operation and maintenance activities. After more than 

20 years of experience with UST requirements, EPA finds both using improved equipment and 

operating and maintaining UST equipment are necessary to protect human health and the 

environment. 12 states have adopted monthly walkthrough inspection requirements for their 

UST facilities. Of those states, only California has been implementing the requirement long 

enough to provide input about the effectiveness of walkthrough inspections. California indicates

that, according to UST inspectors and industry people, the monthly inspections decreased the 

number of violations found, reduced the frequency and duration of release detection alarms, 

prompted better record keeping, and resulted in overall better operations at the UST facility.

25

As part of operating and maintaining UST systems, EPA proposes owners and operators conduct 

walkthrough inspections at least once every 30 days. Periodic walkthrough inspections will help 

owners and operators detect problems earlier, resulting in fewer releases to the environment and 

reduced environmental impacts of releases that reach the environment. 

 

25 Email from Laura Fisher, California State Water Resources Control Board, April 30, 2010.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 47 of 398

Walkthrough inspections are designed to verify proper function or operating condition of easily

accessible UST system components and ensure required records are current. These inspections 

typically include reviewing records and checking components to confirm function or condition. 

For example, owners and operators will be required to review current records and ensure 

equipment is operating properly; containment sumps are free of liquid and debris; and leaks are 

not occurring at dispensers, submersible turbine pumps, and other areas. EPA used the 

Petroleum Equipment Institute’s Recommended Practice 900, Recommend Practices for the 

Inspection and Maintenance of UST Systems, as a guide as we developed the proposed 

walkthrough inspection requirements. EPA is proposing allowing owners and operators to hire a 

third party to conduct walkthrough inspections instead of performing the inspection themselves. 

EPA is proposing three options for owners and operators to choose from in conducting 

walkthrough inspections: follow the specific requirements (described below) appropriate to the 

UST facility; use a code of practice developed by a nationally recognized association or 

independent testing laboratory; or follow requirements developed by the implementing agency. 

At a minimum, walkthrough inspections conducted according to a code of practice or developed 

by the implementing agency need to be comparable to the following requirements. The specific 

requirements proposed and reasons for their inclusion in the regulation are:

 For spill prevention equipment – open each spill prevention area, check for damage, and 

remove any liquid or debris; check the fill cap to make sure it is securely on the fill pipe; 

and for secondarily contained spill prevention equipment with continuous interstitial 

monitoring, check for a leak in the interstitial area. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 48 of 398

o Damaged spill prevention equipment can release regulated substances into the 

environment and liquid or debris can reduce the equipment’s capacity. Fill caps 

not secure on the fill pipe can result in vapors exiting the tank and can render 

overfill prevention inoperable in tanks that use flow restrictors in the vent line. 

Some spill prevention equipment construction materials may not be designed to 

contain regulated substances for long periods of time. For spill prevention 

equipment with two walls and continuous interstitial area monitoring, owners and 

operators need to check the monitoring device or area to make sure the interstitial 

monitoring is operating properly and does not indicate a leak in the interstitial 

area.

 For sumps, including submersible turbine pump sumps and transition sumps – open and 

visually check for damage, leaks to the containment area, or releases to the environment; 

remove any liquid (in contained sumps) or debris; and for secondarily contained sumps 

with continuous interstitial monitoring, check for a leak in the interstitial area. 

o Drips and other small releases from damaged components contained by the sump 

can result in regulated substances remaining in the sump. Damaged sumps can 

release regulated substances into the environment. Liquid or debris can reduce 

the capacity of a contained sump. Some sump construction materials may not be 

designed to contain regulated substances for long periods of time. For sumps with 

two walls and continuous interstitial area monitoring, owners and operators need 

to check the monitoring device or area to make sure the interstitial monitoring is 

operating properly and does not indicate a leak in the interstitial area.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 49 of 398

 For dispenser cabinets – open each cabinet; visually check for damage, leaks to the 

containment area, or releases to the environment; remove any liquid (in dispensers with 

under-dispenser containment) or debris; and for dispenser sumps with continuous 

interstitial monitoring, check for a leak in the interstitial area. 

o Visual checks for dispensers are important because the 1988 UST regulation does 

not require release detection for dispensers. Drips and other small releases from 

damaged components in the dispenser cabinet can result in regulated substances 

remaining in the dispenser sump or being released to the environment. Damaged 

under-dispenser containment (if present) can release regulated substances into the 

environment. If under-dispenser containment is present, liquid or debris can 

reduce the capacity of the containment sump. Some under-dispenser containment 

construction materials may not be designed to contain regulated substances for 

long periods of time. For dispenser sumps with two walls and continuous 

interstitial area monitoring, owners and operators need to check the monitoring 

device or area to make sure the interstitial monitoring is operating properly and 

does not indicate a leak in the interstitial area.

 For monitoring or observation wells – check the covers to make sure they are secured.

o These wells need to be secured to avoid potential contamination of wells through 

the well cover (for example by surface runoff or accidental fuel delivery to the 

well). 

 For cathodic protection – check to make sure impressed current cathodic protection 

rectifiers are on and operating; ensure records of three year cathodic protection testing 

and 60 day impressed current system inspections are reviewed and up to date. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 50 of 398

o Impressed current cathodic protection systems need to be on and operating to 

protect underground metal components of the UST system that routinely contain 

regulated substances from corrosion. In addition, owners and operators need to 

retain records of the most recent two cathodic protection tests (required once 

every three years) and the most recent three inspections (required once every 60 

days) for impressed current systems. These records show that cathodic protection 

systems are on and operating properly to protect UST system components from 

corrosion. Owners and operators who record rectifier readings and compare those 

readings to the normal operating parameters of the rectifier during the 30 day

walkthrough inspections will meet the 60 day impressed current inspection 

requirement in § 280.31(c) without further activity. Failure to operate and 

maintain cathodic protection could mean that metal UST system components are 

corroding and could result in a release to the environment.

 For release detection – check to make sure the release detection system is on and 

operating with no alarm conditions or other unusual operating conditions present; check 

any devices such as tank gauge sticks, groundwater bailers, and hand-held vapor 

monitoring devices for operability and serviceability; and ensure records of release 

detection testing are reviewed monthly and up to date. 

o Release detection equipment needs to be operable in order to detect releases when 

they occur. Owners and operators must respond to release detection alarms. 

Manual release detection equipment needs to be serviceable and operational so 

owners and operators can perform proper release detection. In addition, owners 

and operators need to ensure they review the most recent month’s release 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 51 of 398

detection information and retain the most recent year’s worth of release detection 

records. These records are required for all methods of release detection, and 

reviews ensure UST systems are being checked for a release at least once every

30 days. Failure to perform these checks could mean release detection equipment 

is not operating properly and could result in a release to the environment.

Owners and operators using continuous interstitial monitoring for double-walled spill prevention 

devices, sumps, or dispenser containment areas need to check the interstitial monitoring to make 

sure it is operating properly and does not indicate a leak in the interstitial area. EPA is aware of 

these continuous interstitial monitoring methods: vacuum, pressure, or liquid-filled interstitial 

area monitoring and placing sensors in the interstitial area. For vacuum, pressure, or liquid-filled 

interstitial area monitoring using electronic devices and sensors, owners and operators will need 

to check the electronic device to make sure it is not in alarm. For interstitial areas monitored 

using vacuum, pressure, or liquid-filled interstitial area monitoring not using some type of 

electronic monitoring, owners and operators will need to make sure the vacuum, pressure, or 

liquid is maintaining its appropriate level. Owners and operators who do not check the 

interstitial monitoring of spill prevention devices must perform periodic spill prevention 

equipment testing described in § 280.35(a)(ii) of the proposed UST regulation. Owners and 

operators who do not check the interstitial monitoring of sumps or dispenser containment areas 

and who use those areas for interstitial monitoring for their piping must perform the periodic 

testing of secondary containment described § 280.36(a)(iii) of the proposed UST regulation.

EPA is proposing walkthrough inspections be conducted at least every 30 days. 30 days is a
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 52 of 398

reasonable time frame because:

 Deliveries occur frequently – often daily or every few days; 

 Dispenser filters are changed every few weeks or months; 

 It is consistent with the 30 day release detection monitoring requirement; and 

 Current operation and maintenance industry standards (Petroleum Equipment Institute 

Recommended Practice 900) recommend monthly checks as one of the periodic 

inspection frequencies. 

EPA is proposing owners and operators retain the most recent year’s worth of records to 

demonstrate compliance with the walkthrough inspection requirement. Owners and operators 

will be required to document they performed each of the required activities at least once every 30 

days. Keeping one year’s worth of records is consistent with the current recordkeeping 

requirement for release detection monitoring. EPA is proposing owners and operators document 

each area checked, whether each area checked was acceptable or needed to have some action 

taken, and provide a description of any actions taken to correct an issue. This information is 

important to assist implementing agencies in determining proper operation and maintenance.

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?

 Is a 30 day inspection frequency an appropriate time frame for owners and operators to 

conduct walkthrough inspections?

 Is it reasonable for owners and operators to begin conducting walkthrough inspections 

immediately after the final UST regulation becomes effective? 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 53 of 398

 Is specialized training required for individuals completing walkthrough inspections? If 

yes, what should EPA establish as the extent of the training?

 Are there other codes of practice that should be included for conducting walkthrough 

inspections?

 Is requiring owners and operators to keep the most recent year’s worth of records 

sufficient?

 Are the items EPA proposes checking appropriate? Should EPA add anything? Are 

there checks EPA is proposing that should not be required?

 Should EPA consider not requiring owners and operators to remove water from contained 

sumps when both of the following conditions exist?

o owners and operators choose to connect an anode to the metal components in the 

sump for corrosion protection and 

o the sump is not used for interstitial monitoring.

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different 

from EPA’s proposal. 

2. Spill Prevention Equipment Tests

What Is EPA Proposing?

In § 280.35, EPA is proposing owners and operators test spill prevention equipment (such as a 

catchment basin, spill bucket, or other spill containment device) at installation and at least once 

every 12 months. This test must ensure spill prevention equipment is liquid tight by performing 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 54 of 398

a vacuum, pressure, or liquid test according to one of the following: 

 Requirements developed by the manufacturer (Note that owners and operators may use 

this option only if the manufacturer developed spill prevention equipment test 

requirements);

 Code of practice developed by a nationally recognized association or independent testing 

laboratory; or

 Requirements determined by the implementing agency to be no less protective of human 

health and the environment than the two bulleted items above. 

Exception: EPA is proposing spill prevention equipment tests not be required in those situations 

where spill prevention equipment has two walls and the space between the walls is monitored 

continuously (interstitial monitoring) to ensure the integrity of both the inner and outer wall. 

EPA is proposing owners and operators maintain the following: 

 Records of spill prevention equipment tests for three years; or 

 Documentation showing the spill prevention equipment has two walls and is monitored 

continuously for each spill prevention device installed at the facility. Owners and 

operators must maintain this documentation for as long as the spill prevention equipment 

is monitored continuously and for three additional years after continuous monitoring 

ends.

EPA is proposing owners and operators meet this requirement within one year after the effective 

date of the final UST regulation for existing UST systems and at installation for UST systems 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 55 of 398

installed after the effective date of the final regulation. 

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change? What Background Information Is Available About 

This Change?

EPA is proposing this change to help ensure small releases occurring when the delivery transfer 

hose is disconnected from the fill pipe are contained in the spill prevention equipment. Owners 

and operators need to properly operate and maintain their spill prevention equipment in order to 

prevent releases to the environment. If a small release occurs at the fill port and the spill 

prevention equipment is not liquid tight, then the release can exit the spill prevention equipment 

and reach the environment. EPA is aware of various problems with spill prevention equipment. 

Examples include damage due to: vehicle drive over; ground movement or freeze/thaw cycles; 

inadequate installation practices; and normal wear and tear. In addition, the typical life of spill 

prevention equipment is about three to seven years, but the 1988 UST regulation does not have a 

replacement requirement. Today’s proposed periodic spill prevention equipment test will 

minimize problems and ensure spill prevention equipment will contain small releases from the 

delivery hose when disconnected from the fill pipe. 

EPA is proposing not to require owners and operators of double-walled spill prevention 

equipment with continuous interstitial monitoring to conduct annual tests because this spill 

prevention equipment is continuously checked for tightness through interstitial monitoring. EPA 

is proposing owners and operators in the monthly walkthrough inspections visually check 

continuous interstitial monitoring methods that do not alert the owner and operator with an 

alarm. Additional information on these inspections is available in section B-1. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 56 of 398

EPA is proposing to require vacuum, pressure, or liquid methods when testing spill prevention 

equipment. We believe these options provide owners and operators with significant flexibility

for testing this equipment.

EPA is proposing to specifically allow owners and operators to use manufacturer’s requirements 

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

laboratory for spill prevention equipment tests. The manufacturer’s requirement is an option 

only when the manufacturer has developed a testing requirement. In response to today’s 

proposed regulation, EPA anticipates nationally recognized associations or independent testing 

laboratories will develop codes of practice for spill prevention equipment tests and 

manufacturers will develop testing requirements. In addition, EPA is providing implementing 

agencies flexibility to allow other methods they determine to be as protective of human health 

and the environment as the manufacturer’s requirements or a code of practice. This option 

allows alternatives in the event codes of practice and manufacturer’s testing requirements are not 

developed.

EPA is proposing owners and operators conduct spill prevention equipment tests at least once 

every 12 months. We propose this frequency because spill prevention equipment is prone to 

problems that can occur over the course of a year and frequent tests will catch problems earlier. 

In addition, testing every 12 months is consistent with other testing requirements, such as annual 

automatic line leak detector testing, in the 1988 regulation.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 57 of 398

EPA is proposing owners and operators maintain spill prevention equipment test records three 

years for each spill containment device at a facility. These records will enable implementing 

agencies to determine whether owners and operators conducted annual spill prevention 

equipment testing during the three year inspections required by the Energy Policy Act. These 

records will also demonstrate that owners and operators tested their spill prevention equipment, 

ensuring it will contain small drips and spills that can occur when the transfer hose is 

disconnected from the fill pipe. In order for double-walled spill prevention equipment with 

continuous interstitial monitoring to be exempt from spill prevention equipment tests, owners 

and operators will need to maintain documentation showing spill prevention equipment has two 

walls and uses continuous interstitial monitoring. In addition, EPA is proposing owners and 

operators maintain this documentation for three years after continuous interstitial monitoring 

ends. EPA is proposing maintaining this documentation so owners and operators can 

demonstrate compliance with the spill prevention equipment testing requirement.

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?

 Is a 12 month frequency an appropriate time frame for spill prevention equipment tests? 

For example, should EPA consider more frequent tests in sensitive areas, such as source 

water protection areas?

 Are there other acceptable test methods in addition to vacuum, pressure, or liquid spill 

prevention equipment tests?

 Is the one year time frame proposed for owners and operators to begin implementing this 

requirement reasonable?
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 58 of 398

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different 

from EPA’s proposal. 

3. Overfill Prevention Equipment Tests

What Is EPA Proposing?

In § 280.35, EPA is proposing owners and operators test proper operation of overfill prevention 

equipment (automatic shutoff devices, flow restrictors, and high level alarms) at installation and 

at least once every three years. The test must ensure overfill prevention equipment is set to 

activate at the appropriate level in the tank (as specified in § 280.20(c)) and the equipment will 

activate when the regulated substance reaches that height. EPA is proposing owners and 

operators test according to one of the following:

 Requirements developed by the manufacturer (Note that owners and operators may use 

this option only if the manufacturer developed overfill prevention equipment test 

requirements);

 Code of practice developed by a nationally recognized association or independent testing 

laboratory; or

 Requirements determined by the implementing agency to be no less protective of human 

health and the environment than the two bulleted items above. 

EPA is proposing owners and operators maintain records of overfill prevention equipment tests 

for three years for each overfill device installed at a facility.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 59 of 398

For UST systems installed after the effective date of the final UST regulation, EPA is proposing 

owners and operators meet this requirement at installation. For UST systems installed on or 

before the final UST regulation is effective, EPA is proposing owners and operators meet this 

requirement within three years and according to the time frames in the following table: 

Phase-In Schedule For Overfill Prevention Equipment Tests

Criteria Date By Which First Test Must Be Conducted

One or more USTs at the facility

were installed on or before 

12/22/1988 

One year after effective date of rule

No USTs at the facility were installed 

on or before 12/22/1988 and at least 

one UST at the facility was installed 

on or before 12/22/1998

Two years after effective date of rule

All USTs at the facility were installed 

after 12/22/1998

Three years after effective date of rule

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change? What Background Information Is Available About 

This Change?

EPA is proposing this change to help ensure overfill prevention equipment is operating properly 

and will activate before an UST is overfilled. Owners and operators need to properly operate 

and maintain their overfill prevention equipment in order to prevent releases to the environment. 

If overfill prevention equipment is not working properly, an UST can be overfilled and release 

product to the environment. EPA is aware that USTs are being overfilled and there are problems 

with overfill prevention equipment. Examples include: tampering; improper use; and normal 

wear and tear. The proposed periodic overfill prevention equipment tests will minimize 

problems and ensure overfill prevention equipment is operating properly.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 60 of 398

Overfill prevention test methods should not overfill the tank to determine whether overfill 

prevention equipment is operating properly. Rather, the equipment should be tested or inspected 

to determine whether it will operate or activate properly according to requirements set forth in 

the UST regulation. For example, a test or inspection for an automatic shutoff device in the fill 

pipe might include removing the device and checking it for the ability to operate and measuring 

the position of the device in the tank to determine whether it will activate at the correct height. 

For overfill prevention equipment tests, EPA is proposing owners and operators use 

manufacturer’s requirements or a code of practice developed by a nationally recognized 

association or independent testing laboratory. The manufacturer’s requirement is an option only

when the manufacturer has developed a testing requirement. In response to this proposed 

regulation, EPA anticipates nationally recognized associations or independent testing 

laboratories will develop codes of practice for overfill prevention equipment tests, and 

manufacturers will develop testing requirements. In addition, EPA is providing implementing 

agencies flexibility to allow other methods they determine to be as protective of human health 

and the environment as the manufacturer’s requirements or a code of practice. This option 

allows alternatives in the event that codes of practice and manufacturer’s testing requirements 

are not developed.

EPA is proposing owners and operators conduct overfill prevention equipment tests at least once 

every three years. We propose this frequency because overfill prevention equipment is less 

prone to problems than spill prevention equipment, but still needs periodic testing. In addition, a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 61 of 398

three year time frame is consistent with other testing requirements, such as cathodic protection 

testing and the proposed three year interstitial integrity testing.

EPA is proposing to stagger implementation over a three year period based on the installation 

date of the oldest UST at the facility. The proposed phase-in will require overfill prevention 

equipment in older UST systems that pose a greater risk to the environment to be tested first. 

The phase-in approach will allow overfill prevention equipment tests to be spread out and reduce 

the risk of a last-minute rush of owners and operators obtaining overfill prevention equipment 

tests at the end of the initial three-year period. 

EPA is proposing owners and operators maintain overfill prevention equipment test records for 

three years for each overfill device at a facility. These records will demonstrate to implementing 

agencies that the overfill prevention equipment has been tested, is set at the appropriate height in 

the tank, and will activate when regulated substances reach that height. EPA is proposing 

owners and operators maintain records for three years to coincide with the three year inspection 

frequency required by the Energy Policy Act.

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?

 Is a three year frequency an appropriate time frame for overfill prevention equipment 

tests? For example, should EPA consider more frequent tests in sensitive areas such as 

source water protection areas? Should EPA consider less frequent testing?

 Should EPA consider owners and operators retain overfill prevention equipment test 

records for a different time frame? 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 62 of 398

 Is the three year time frame and phase-in proposed for owners and operators to begin 

implementing this requirement reasonable?

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different 

from EPA’s proposal. 

4. Secondary Containment Tests 

What Is EPA Proposing?

In § 280.36, EPA is proposing owners and operators test secondary containment areas that use 

interstitial monitoring at least once every three years. A secondary containment test (also called 

an interstitial integrity test) is performed in the space between tank walls, pipe walls, or in a 

secondary containment sump area and ensures the area being tested has integrity and will contain 

a leak. Secondary containment areas include tank and piping interstitial areas, as well as 

containment sumps used as part of the piping secondary containment and interstitial monitoring. 

EPA is proposing owners and operators test interstitial integrity areas using a vacuum, pressure, 

or liquid method according to one of the following: 

 Requirements developed by the manufacturer (Note that owners and operators may use 

this option only if the manufacturer developed interstitial integrity test requirements); 

 Code of practice developed by a nationally recognized association or independent testing 

laboratory; or

 Requirements determined by the implementing agency to be no less protective of human 

health and the environment than the two bulleted items above. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 63 of 398

Exceptions: EPA is proposing the following exceptions apply to interstitial integrity tests:

 Tanks – Owners and operators using continuous interstitial monitoring on their tanks will 

not be required to perform periodic interstitial integrity tests. 

 Piping – Owners and operators using vacuum monitoring, pressure monitoring, or liquidfilled interstitial space monitoring on their underground piping will not be required to 

perform periodic interstitial integrity tests.

 Containment sumps – Owners and operators using containment sumps which have two 

walls and continuously monitor the interstitial space between the walls for releases will 

not be required to perform interstitial integrity tests.

EPA is proposing owners and operators maintain the following: 

 Records of interstitial integrity tests for three years; or 

 Documentation demonstrating that the tanks, piping, or containment sumps are not 

required to have a periodic interstitial integrity test according to the exceptions above. 

Owners and operators must maintain this documentation for as long as the tank, piping, 

or containment sump uses one of the continuous methods listed in the exceptions and for 

three additional years after continuous monitoring ends.

For UST systems installed after the effective date of the final UST regulation, EPA is proposing 

owners and operators meet this requirement at installation. For UST systems installed on or 

before the final UST regulation is effective, EPA is proposing owners and operators meet this 

requirement within three years and according to the time frames in the following table: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 64 of 398

Phase-In Schedule For Interstitial Integrity Tests

Criteria Date By Which First Test Must Be Conducted

One or more USTs at the facility

were installed on or before 

12/22/1988 

One year after effective date of rule

No USTs at the facility were installed 

on or before 12/22/1988 and at least 

one UST at the facility was installed 

on or before 12/22/1998

Two years after effective date of rule

All USTs at the facility were installed 

after 12/22/1998

Three years after effective date of rule

This proposed requirement only applies to UST systems using interstitial monitoring. It does not 

apply to UST systems without secondary containment or those with secondary containment but 

not using interstitial monitoring for release detection. 

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change? What Background Information Is Available About 

This Change?

The Energy Policy Act requires states that receive federal Subtitle I money implement additional 

measures to protect groundwater, either with secondary containment for new and replaced tanks 

and piping or financial responsibility for manufacturers and installers. 54 of 56 states have 

implemented the secondary containment option. To ensure secondary containment is working 

properly, the integrity of the interstitial space needs to be tested. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

periodic interstitial integrity tests of the interstitial space in secondarily-contained UST systems 

which use interstitial monitoring for release detection. These systems need to contain a leak until 

interstitial monitoring detects the regulated substance. Currently, EPA has no requirement for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 65 of 398

ensuring the integrity of secondary containment areas.

Since most states implemented the secondary containment requirements in the Energy Policy Act 

for most new and replaced tanks and piping, new and replaced UST systems will be secondarily 

contained with interstitial monitoring. This requirement signals a move from non-secondarily

contained UST systems using methods of release detection that detect a release only after 

regulated substances have reached the environment to secondary containment with interstitial 

monitoring that identifies a problem before regulated substances reach the environment. 

Interstitial integrity tests will confirm for owners and operators that secondary containment will 

contain a leak until it is detected and the problem is repaired. 

Some interstitial monitoring methods for tanks, piping, and containment sumps already 

continuously ensure the interstitial area’s integrity. When an owner or operator uses one of these 

methods, EPA will not require periodic interstitial integrity tests.

 Tanks – According to EPA’s source and cause of release information, tanks are not the 

leading source of releases26,27 In addition, tanks are nearly always constructed in a 

factory under controlled conditions, making it less likely problems will occur in 

interstitial areas after installation. For these reasons, EPA proposes not to require owners 

and operators to conduct periodic interstitial integrity tests of tanks using continuous 

interstitial monitoring. Methods of continuous interstitial monitoring for tanks include 

liquid filled, vacuum, pressure, and sensors in the interstitial space.

 

26 Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities In Florida, Peer Review Draft, US EPA/OUST, 

March 2005.

27 Evaluation Of Releases From New And Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks, Peer Review Draft, US 

EPA/OUST, August 2004.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 66 of 398

 Piping – EPA’s source and cause of release information shows that a significant number 

of releases occur from piping. 28,29 In addition, piping and containment sumps are 

assembled in the field during the installation process, potentially creating increased 

opportunities for releases. Therefore, unless owners and operators use continuous liquidfilled, vacuum, or pressure interstitial monitoring for piping release detection, EPA is 

proposing to require periodic interstitial integrity testing for piping. For example, owners 

and operators who choose to use sensors in containment sumps for piping interstitial 

monitoring must also perform three year interstitial integrity tests of the piping interstitial 

space.

 Containment sumps – Similar to piping, EPA’s source and cause of release information 

shows that a significant number of releases occur in containment sump areas. EPA is 

also aware of issues with the tightness of containment sumps. Based on this information, 

EPA is proposing owners and operators conduct periodic interstitial integrity tests of 

containment sumps used for piping interstitial monitoring, unless the containment sump 

has two walls and the interstitial space between the walls in the sump is continuously

monitored. For example, if an owner or operator has a double-walled containment sump 

and uses a sensor, vacuum, pressure, or liquid-filled interstitial area to continuously

monitor the space between the two walls, then periodic interstitial integrity tests of that 

sump are not required under this proposal. Owners and operators of double-walled 

sumps without continuous interstitial monitoring must perform three year interstitial 

integrity tests. 

 

28 Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities In Florida, Peer Review Draft, US EPA/OUST, 

March 2005.

29 Evaluation Of Releases From New And Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks, Peer Review Draft, US 

EPA/OUST, August 2004.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 67 of 398

Continuous interstitial monitoring means the secondary containment space is monitored all the 

time by a method or device and owners and operators check the continuous monitoring method 

or device for a leak at least once every 30 days. In addition, owners and operators must 

immediately respond to any alarms they encounter. Methods of continuous interstitial 

monitoring include vacuum, pressure, and liquid-filled interstitial areas along with sensors and 

probes located in the interstitial area.

EPA is proposing owners and operators conduct interstitial integrity tests for tanks, piping, and 

sumps at least once every three years. EPA is proposing this frequency because we believe 

secondarily contained UST systems are much less prone to releases than single-walled UST 

systems. However, since owners and operators are relying on the interstitial space to detect 

problems, the interstitial areas still need periodic tests to ensure proper operation and 

maintenance. A three year time frame is consistent with other testing requirements, such as 

cathodic protection testing and the proposed overfill prevention equipment testing. 

EPA is proposing to stagger implementation over a three year period based on the installation 

date of the oldest UST at the facility. The proposed phase-in will require older UST systems that

may pose a greater risk to the environment to be tested first. The phase-in approach will allow 

interstitial tests to be spread out and reduce the risk of a last-minute rush of owners and operators 

obtaining tests at the end of the initial three-year period. 

EPA is proposing owners and operators maintain interstitial integrity test records for three years 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 68 of 398

for each regulated tank, pipe, and containment sump at a facility or maintain documentation 

demonstrating periodic interstitial integrity tests are not required. Documentation supporting that 

periodic interstitial integrity tests are not required could include: the tank or piping uses vacuum, 

pressure, or liquid-filled interstitial monitoring; the tank uses continuous interstitial sensors for 

interstitial monitoring; or the containment sump has two walls and the space between the 

containment sump walls is continuously monitored. In addition, EPA is proposing owners and 

operators maintain this documentation for three years after continuous interstitial monitoring 

ends. EPA is proposing owners and operators maintain this documentation so they can 

demonstrate to implementing agencies compliance with the interstitial integrity test requirement. 

This documentation coincides with the three year inspection requirements in the Energy Policy

Act.

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?

 Is a three year frequency an appropriate time frame for interstitial integrity tests? For 

example, should EPA consider more frequent tests in sensitive areas such as source water 

protection areas?

 Should EPA consider owners and operators retain records of interstitial integrity tests for 

a different time frame? 

 Should EPA consider interstitial integrity tests for tanks using continuous interstitial 

sensors? Should EPA consider limiting this exclusion to discriminating sensors?

 Is there a need for a phased-in schedule to implement this requirement? Is the three year 

time frame and phase-in proposed for owners and operators to begin implementing this 

requirement reasonable?
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 69 of 398

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different 

from EPA’s proposal. 

5. Operation And Maintenance Requirements For Release Detection Equipment 

What Is EPA Proposing?

In § 280.40, EPA is proposing UST owners and operators perform annual operation and 

maintenance tests on electronic and mechanical components of their release detection equipment 

to ensure the equipment is operating properly. Owners and operators will be required to check 

the following equipment:

 ATG and other controllers 

 Test alarm; 

 Verify system configuration; and 

 Test battery back-up. 

 Probes and sensors 

 Inspect for residual build-up; 

 Ensure floats move freely; 

 Ensure shaft is not damaged; 

 Ensure cables are free of kinks, bends, and breaks; and 

 Test alarm operability and communication with controller. 

 Line leak detector 

 Simulate leak which determines capability to detect a leak; and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 70 of 398

 Inspect leak sensing o-ring. 

 Vacuum pumps and pressure gauges 

 Ensure communication with sensors and controller. 

EPA is proposing owners and operators meet this requirement according to one of the following: 

manufacturer’s instructions; a code of practice developed by a nationally recognized association 

or independent testing laboratory; or requirements developed by the implementing agency. 

EPA is proposing owners and operators maintain records of the annual operation tests for three 

years. At a minimum, records must: list each component tested; indicate whether each 

component met the criteria listed above or needed to have action taken; and describe any action 

taken to correct an issue.

EPA is proposing owners and operators begin meeting this requirement no later than one year 

after the effective date of the final UST regulation.

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change? What Background Information Is Available About 

This Change?

EPA is concerned about the performance of release detection equipment. Inspectors routinely 

find release detection equipment installed on UST systems, but that equipment is not properly

operated and maintained. In addition, information from an analysis in Florida indicates, “Leak 

detection successfully detected 26 percent of all releases. Conversely, leak detection was 

specifically identified as failing to detect 23 percent of releases.” The analysis also says the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 71 of 398

exact reason for the leak detection failure could not be determined. However, the analysis 

provided these possible reasons, “... faulty equipment; improper installation; operation or 

maintenance; or insufficient performance standards.” 30 To increase the effectiveness of release 

detection, EPA is targeting operation and maintenance. 

The 1988 UST regulation in § 280.40(a)(2) requires that release detection “Is installed, 

calibrated, operated, and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, 

including routine maintenance and service checks for operability or running condition;”. Most

owners and operators installed the required release detection equipment, but some owners and 

operators are not properly operating and maintaining their equipment. To achieve optimal 

performance from equipment and meet release detection requirements, it is important for UST 

system owners and operators to both install the equipment and properly operate and maintain it. 

In the 1988 UST regulation, EPA did not provide specifics on minimum requirements to ensure 

adequate operation and maintenance of release detection equipment. As a result, operation and 

maintenance requirements vary greatly, even between similar types of equipment. 

Some manufacturers’ requirements do not adequately address operation and maintenance. For 

example, some manufacturers only recommend operation and maintenance checks; but EPA is 

taking the position that checks should be mandatory instead of optional. In addition, similar 

release detection components should be tested in a similar manner, which will increase the 

likelihood all release detection equipment will function at optimal levels for as long as possible. 

California’s in-field analysis of sensors used for release detection and anecdotal feedback 

 

30 Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities In Florida, Peer Review Draft, US EPA/OUST, 

March 2005.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 72 of 398

supports EPA’s belief. 31 

EPA is proposing this change to improve and standardize operation and maintenance for all 

release detection equipment. This proposed change will provide owners and operators with an 

understanding of equipment tests necessary to ensure equipment is properly operated and 

maintained. EPA is proposing a set of minimum operation and maintenance criteria owners and 

operators must follow for all electronic- and mechanical-based release detection equipment. 

EPA is also addressing equipment that is neither electronically nor mechanically based (for 

example, bailers and measuring sticks used for activities such as statistical inventory

reconciliation [SIR]) separately under the walkthrough inspections section (see section B-1). 

EPA based these proposed operation and maintenance minimum requirements for release 

detection on common requirements and recommendations by various equipment manufacturers 

of similar equipment. EPA used the National Work Group on Leak Detection Evaluation’s 

(NWGLDE) list of leak detection equipment to identify commonly used equipment.32 In

addition, EPA’s publication, Operating And Maintaining Underground Storage Tanks Systems: 

Practical Help And Checklists and Petroleum Equipment Institute’s Recommended Practices for 

the Inspection and Maintenance of UST Systems (RP 900) also helped establish proper operation 

and maintenance activities.

Regarding our proposal to use a code of practice developed by a nationally recognized 

 

31 California’s “Field Evaluation Of Underground Storage Tank System Leak Detection Sensors,” August 2002. 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ust/leak_prevention/sensors/index.shtml. 

32 National Work Group On Leak Detection Evaluation’s (NWGLDE) List Of Leak Detection Evaluations For 

Storage Tank Systems: http://www.nwglde.org/. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 73 of 398

association or independent testing laboratory, EPA knows of one code of practice currently being 

developed that may address operability testing for release detection equipment. After that code 

of practice is final, EPA will review it and decide whether to include it in the final UST 

regulation.

EPA is proposing owners and operators maintain records of annual operation tests for three 

years. Results of tests must include: a list of each component tested; whether it tested 

acceptable or needed action; and a description of any action taken to correct an issue. Three 

years worth of records are consistent with the three year inspection cycle, and content of the 

records will allow owners and operators to demonstrate compliance with this operation and 

maintenance requirement. 

Finally, EPA is allowing owners and operators up to one year from the effective date of the final 

UST regulation to meet this requirement. One year is consistent with the annual test frequency

requirement already in place for automatic line leak detectors, and many third-party service 

providers nationwide already perform the testing. 

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?

 Are the proposed minimum operation and maintenance requirements sufficient to cover 

release detection equipment on regulated UST systems? 

 Are there additional performance tests EPA should consider? 

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 74 of 398

from EPA’s proposal. 

C. Addressing Deferrals

Note about the overlap of UST regulations and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures 

(SPCC) regulations: At the time of the 1988 UST regulation, facilities with an aggregate 

completely buried storage capacity greater than 42,000 gallons and located near navigable waters 

of the U.S. or adjoining shorelines were subject to both UST rules and SPCC rules. Since then, 

SPCC rules have been amended and the rule exempts completely buried storage tanks, as well as 

connected underground piping, underground ancillary equipment, and containment systems, 

when subject to the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 280. In today's proposal, EPA 

proposes to continue to defer the aboveground components associated with airport hydrant 

systems and USTs with field-constructed tanks. Only those deferred aboveground components 

will be subject to SPCC requirements. EPA is proposing to regulate the underground 

components associated with airport hydrant systems and USTs with field-constructed tanks. In 

addition, EPA is proposing to regulate wastewater treatment tank systems and UST systems that 

store fuel solely for use by emergency power generators deferred under the 1988 regulation. 

Once the proposal becomes final, these UST systems will no longer be subject to SPCC

requirements.

1. Emergency Power Generator UST Systems

What Is EPA Proposing?
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 75 of 398

EPA is proposing to eliminate the current deferral in § 280.10(d) for UST systems storing fuel 

solely for use by emergency power generators. This means emergency power generator USTs 

will no longer be deferred from release detection requirements in 40 CFR part 280, subpart D 

and will be subject to all UST requirements. 

In addition, EPA is proposing that, no later than 30 days after the effective date of the final UST 

regulation, owners of UST systems storing fuel solely for use by emergency power generators 

notify appropriate implementing agencies that their systems exist. 

EPA is proposing owners and operators of UST systems storing fuel solely for use by emergency

power generators begin meeting these requirements as follows:

 For systems installed after the effective date of the final UST regulation, at the time of 

installation.

 For systems installed on or before the effective date of the final UST regulation, within 

one year of the effective date of the final UST regulation.

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change? What Background Information Is Available About 

This Change?

EPA is proposing to regulate UST systems storing fuel solely for use by emergency power 

generators because our previous rationale for deferring release detection no longer applies. To 

allow time for developing workable release detection requirements, EPA in the 1988 UST 

regulation deferred release detection requirements for UST systems storing fuel solely for use by

emergency power generators. The 1988 UST regulation preamble indicated that monthly
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 76 of 398

monitoring requirements were unworkable because these tanks often were located at unmanned 

stations in remote areas and visited infrequently. 

EPA always intended for these systems to meet release detection requirements when appropriate 

release detection methods became available. Since the 1988 UST regulation, release detection 

technologies have matured greatly. In addition, technology is now available to perform release 

detection at remote sites. Emergency generator tanks and piping can now be monitored for 

releases by the majority of methods listed in § 280.43. EPA estimates about 30 percent of active 

UST systems storing fuel solely for use by emergency power generators already have release 

detection. 

Effective remote monitoring methods for release detection are now available and used to monitor 

unmanned UST systems storing fuel solely for use by emergency power generators. Numerous 

contractors perform remote monitoring for releases at these unmanned sites. Remote monitors 

transmit visual or audible alarms to a receiving console at a manned location when there is a 

suspected or confirmed release. This provides owners and operators with real-time release 

detection data for immediate response to suspected or confirmed releases at sites with unmanned 

UST systems storing fuel solely for use by emergency power generators. 

Emergency power generator UST systems are located throughout the country. EPA’s review of 

several state databases revealed these systems are located at hospitals, universities, 

communication utilities, military installations, and other locations relying on backup power 

sources. EPA estimates UST systems storing fuel solely for use by emergency power generators 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 77 of 398

now represent approximately 3 percent of the active tank population.33

Additionally, 21 states currently require release detection for emergency power generator UST 

systems. Automatic tank gauging and secondary containment with interstitial monitoring are the 

most common release detection methods used for tanks associated with these systems. Line 

tightness testing, line leak detectors, or secondary containment with interstitial monitoring are 

the most common release detection methods used for piping. Note that safe suction piping does 

not require release detection. With technology now available to detect releases from emergency

power generator UST systems and because these systems pose the same risk to human health and 

the environment as any other UST system, EPA is proposing to remove the deferral from release 

detection.

EPA is proposing owners and operators of emergency power generator UST systems installed on 

or before the effective date of the final UST regulation begin performing release detection within 

one year of the effective date of the final regulation. EPA is taking the position that one year is 

reasonable because these USTs are fully regulated except for release detection, and some are 

already performing release detection. After the effective date of the final regulation, all 

emergency power generator UST systems must include release detection when installed.

Notification

To make implementing agencies aware that emergency power generator UST systems exist, EPA 

is proposing owners of these systems submit a one-time notification to the implementing agency. 

 

33 Industrial Economics, Inc., “Detailed Assessment of UST Universe by Tank Use and Industry Sector,” Work 

Assignment 1-15, Task 6, January 23, 2009.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 78 of 398

Owners must notify within 30 days of the effective date of the final regulation. This will allow 

implementing agencies to include emergency power generator UST systems in their inventories. 

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?

 Is EPA’s estimate of 3 percent for UST systems storing fuel solely for use by

emergency power generators accurate?

 Are there technical concerns EPA should address in requiring release detection for 

emergency power generator UST systems? 

 Is EPA’s estimate of 30 percent installed release detection on UST systems storing 

fuel solely for use by emergency power generators accurate?

 How many UST facilities have 10 or more emergency power generator UST systems? 

Who owns these facilities?

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different 

from EPA’s proposal. 

2. Airport Hydrant Fuel Distribution Systems

What Is EPA Proposing?

EPA is proposing to regulate currently deferred airport hydrant fuel distribution systems (also 

referred to as airport hydrant systems). This means airport hydrant systems will no longer be 

deferred from the requirements of 40 CFR part 280, subparts B (UST Systems: Design, 

Construction, Installation and Notification); C (General Operating Requirements); D (Release 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 79 of 398

Detection); E (Release Reporting, Investigation, and Confirmation); G (Out-of-Service UST 

Systems and Closure); and H (Financial Responsibility). 

Airport hydrant systems installed on or before the effective date of the final UST 

regulation must begin meeting the requirements of subparts B (except § 280.22) and C within 

three years of the effective date of the final UST regulation, subpart D according to the schedule 

in the table below, and § 280.22 of subpart B along with subparts E, G, and H on the effective 

date of the final UST regulation. Airport hydrant systems installed after the effective date of the 

final UST regulation must meet these requirements at the time of installation. Airport hydrant 

systems with aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) directly connected to the underground hydrant 

piping are not regulated UST systems under 40 CFR part 280, unless 10 percent or more of the 

total capacity of the system, including underground piping, is beneath the surface of the ground. 

Schedule For Phase In Of Subpart D

Component and Type of 

Release Detection Used

Time Frame (after 

[effective date of rule ])

Description of Requirement

Piping using periodic 

pressurized bulk line 

tightness testing

Within three years

Conduct one piping tightness test 

according to the bulk line tightness 

testing requirement using the 

maximum detectable leak rates for 

semiannual testing. For bulk piping 

segments not capable of meeting 

the 3.0 gallon per hour leak rate, 

owners and operators may use a 

leak rate of up to 6.0 gallons per 

hour. 

Between years three and 

six

Between years six and 

seven

Conduct one piping tightness test 

according to the bulk line tightness 

testing requirement using the 

maximum detectable leak rates for 

semiannual testing.

After year seven

Begin conducting piping tightness 

testing according to the bulk line 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 80 of 398

tightness testing requirement.

All other piping and tank 

release detection methods Within three years

Perform release detection according 

to this subpart.

EPA is proposing to define an airport hydrant fuel distribution system as an UST system that is a 

combination of one or more tanks directly connected to underground hydrant piping used to fuel 

aircraft. These systems do not have a dispenser at the end of the piping run, but rather a hydrant 

(fill stand). If an AST is feeding an intermediary tank or tanks, this proposed definition does not 

include the AST, but does include all underground piping entering and leaving intermediary

tanks and the intermediary tank(s). Intermediary tanks are those tanks directly connected to the 

hydrant piping.

Release Detection – Tanks 

EPA is proposing airport hydrant system tanks installed prior to the effective date of the final 

UST regulation meet these requirements: 

 The following tanks must be monitored using release detection methods specified in § 

280.43.

o Shop fabricated tanks.

o Field-constructed tanks with a capacity less than or equal to 50,000 gallons.

 Field-constructed tanks with capacity greater than 50,000 gallons must either be 

monitored using release detection methods specified in § 280.43 or use one of the 

alternatives for tanks listed in section C-3 – UST Systems With Field-Constructed Tanks.

EPA is proposing new or replaced airport hydrant system tanks installed after the effective date 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 81 of 398

of the final UST regulation be secondarily contained and perform interstitial monitoring 

according to § 280.43(g).

Release Detection – Piping 

EPA is proposing airport hydrant system piping meet these release detection requirements: 

 Piping must be monitored using release detection methods specified in §280.44; or 

 Use one of these alternatives: 

Perform a semiannual or annual bulk line tightness test at or above operating pressure in 

accordance with the table below. Bulk piping segments ≥ 100,000 gallons not capable of meeting 

the maximum 3.0 gallon per hour leak rate for the semiannual test may be tested at a leak rate up 

to 6.0 gallons per hour according to the schedule in §280.40(c): Maximum Detectable Leak 

Rate Per Test Section Volume

Test Section Volume

(Gallons)

Semiannual Test

Maximum Detectable Leak 

Rate (Gallons Per Hour)

Annual Test

Maximum Detectable Leak 

Rate (Gallons Per Hour)

< 50,000 1.0 0.5

≥ 50,000 to < 75,000 1.5 0.75

≥ 75,000 to < 100,000 2.0 1.0

≥ 100,000 3.0 1.5

The bulk line tightness test must be capable of detecting the maximum detectible 

leak rate listed in the table above with a probability of detection of 0.95 and a 

probability of false alarm of 0.05.

o Perform continuous interstitial monitoring designed to detect a release from any

portion of the underground piping that routinely contains product according to § 

280.43(g). 

o Use an automatic line leak detector that alerts the presence of a leak by restricting 

or shutting off flow of regulated substances through piping or triggering an 

audible or visual alarm. This method may be used only if it can detect a leak of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 82 of 398

three gallons per hour at 10 pounds per square inch line pressure within one hour 

or equivalent. When using this method, also:

– At least every three months, perform interstitial monitoring, designed to 

detect a release from any portion of the underground piping that routinely 

contains product, according to § 280.43(g); and

– Conduct an annual leak detector operation test according to § 

280.40(a)(3). 

o The implementing agency may approve another method if the owner and operator 

can demonstrate the method can detect a release as effectively as any of the other 

three methods. In comparing methods, the implementing agency shall consider 

the size of release the method can detect and frequency and reliability of 

detection. Owners and operators must comply with conditions imposed by the 

implementing agency. 

All recordkeeping requirements in § 280.45 apply to these proposed release detection methods.

Release Prevention 

EPA is proposing airport hydrant systems meet corrosion protection, spill, and overfill 

requirements. For corrosion protection, EPA is proposing airport hydrant systems meet one of 

these:

 The new tank and piping standards described in § 280.20; or

 Airport hydrant systems installed on or before the effective date of the final UST 

regulation can be constructed of metal and cathodically protected according to a code of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 83 of 398

practice developed by a nationally recognized association or independent testing 

laboratory and meet the following:

o Field installed cathodic protection systems must be: designed by a corrosion 

expert; designed to allow for the determination of current operating status for 

impressed current systems; and operated and maintained in accordance with § 

280.31 or guidelines established by the implementing agency; and

o Tanks greater than 10 years old without cathodic protection must be assessed to 

ensure they are structurally sound and free of corrosion holes prior to adding 

cathodic protection. The assessment must be by internal inspection or another 

method the implementing agency determines adequately assesses the tank for 

structural soundness and corrosion holes.

EPA is proposing airport hydrant systems installed on or before the effective date of the final 

UST regulation that are not upgraded according to § 280.21 within three years of the effective 

date of the final UST regulation be permanently closed according to § 280.70. EPA is proposing 

internal lining not be allowed for meeting the corrosion protection upgrade requirement. 

EPA is proposing to exclude new and replaced piping in airport hydrant systems from secondary

containment requirements in § 280.20(b). 

Notification 

EPA is proposing that, no later than 30 days after the effective date of the final UST regulation, 

owners of regulated airport hydrant systems installed prior to the effective date of final UST
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 84 of 398

regulation notify appropriate implementing agencies that their systems exist. 

Financial Responsibility 

EPA is proposing airport hydrant systems no longer be deferred. This means airport hydrant 

systems that have not been permanently closed will be subject to financial responsibility

requirements in subpart H. 

Deferred Components

Aboveground components of airport hydrant systems are currently regulated by SPCC because 

they are not fully regulated under the UST regulations.34 EPA is proposing to continue deferring 

aboveground tanks associated with airport hydrant systems that meet the UST system definition 

from the requirements of subparts B, C, D, E, and G. 

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change? What Background Information Is Available About 

This Change?

EPA is proposing to regulate airport hydrant systems because a release from one of these 

systems may pose a significant threat to human health and the environment. In addition, 

technology is now available for release prevention and adequate release detection monitoring. In 

some cases airport hydrant system piping stores millions of gallons of fuel; airport hydrant 

systems handle large volumes of regulated substances on a daily basis. Leaks from underground 

piping and other appurtenances can contaminate subsurface soil beneath the airport apron and 

runways, groundwater, and nearby surface water. Even though there is a small universe of these 

 

34 Spill Prevention, Control, And Countermeasure Rule. http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/spcc/index.htm.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 85 of 398

systems, mainly owned by the Department of Defense (DoD), evidence shows a substantial 

release can have a major impact on the environment. 

For example, at Pease Air Force Base, jet fuel was delivered to the runway apron via an 

underground fueling system. Throughout the life of the system, releases contaminated soils and 

groundwater, forming plumes of regulated substances in the groundwater.

37

 A site release study

identified 60 to 70 release points with varying degrees of severity along the refueling system 

line. Free product was found under the apron when the systems were closed.38 There are no 

available historical records showing the sources of release or the volumes of regulated 

substances released. However, the presence of soil and groundwater contamination poses a 

significant threat to public health and the environment.

In the 1988 UST regulation, EPA deferred airport hydrant systems because release detection and 

prevention technologies were not readily available for these unique systems. Given current 

availability of those technologies, requiring release prevention equipment and regular release 

detection tests are keys to preventing and quickly identifying releases before they contaminate 

the surrounding environment. Additionally, 16 state UST programs which include approximately

40 percent of the existing universe of these UST systems, no longer defer airport hydrant systems 

and now regulate them. 

 

37 New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Air Resources Division. 2009. Permit Application 

Review Summary, Former Pease AFB Remediation Project, 09-0113. 10 March 2010, see: 

http://www2.des.state.nh.us/OneStopPub/Air/330159094909-0113TypeSummary.pdf.

38 Hilton, Scott. Site Summaries Pease Air Force Base Newington/Portsmouth. 2008. NH Department of 

Environmental Services. 10 March 2010 see: 

http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/waste/hwrb/fss/superfund/summaries/pease.htm.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 86 of 398

EPA is proposing to define airport hydrant system in order to clarify which components of these 

systems will be regulated. There is currently some uncertainty about what an airport hydrant 

system is because of the lack of a federal definition and inconsistencies between different state 

definitions. Today’s proposed definition of airport hydrant system clarifies which components 

will be regulated. Examples of tank and piping configurations for airport hydrant systems can be 

found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.

39

EPA is proposing airport hydrant systems installed on or before the effective date of the final 

UST regulation begin meeting the requirements of subparts B (except § 280.22) and C within 

three years of the effective date of the final UST regulation, subpart D according to the phase in 

schedule in the table above, and § 280.22 of subpart B along with subparts E, G, and H on the 

effective date of the final UST regulation. Airport hydrant systems installed after the effective 

date of the final UST regulation must meet all requirements at installation. Three years allows 

owners and operators enough time to implement the requirements of subparts B (except §280.22)

and C. EPA is providing a phase in period for bulk line tightness testing in subpart D to allow 

owners and operators ample time to upgrade their piping systems and meet the leak rate criteria. 

EPA is proposing to allow owners and operators for the first six years (two test periods) to meet a 

higher threshold of up to 6.0 gallons per hour for those piping segments that cannot meet the 

more stringent maximum 3.0 gallons per hour threshold due to technical reasons. These 

technical reasons include exceeding capabilities of currently available pressure-based methods to 

achieve the required leak rate. Currently available methods are capable of testing larger volume 

test sections to a leak rate of 6.0 gallons. The higher threshold of 6.0 gallons per hour provides 

for use of existing test methods during the first six year period. Six years will provide owners 

 

39 Example Tank and Piping Configurations for Airport Hydrant Systems developed by EPA/OUST.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 87 of 398

and operators time to upgrade their piping systems to meet the up to 3.0 gallon per hour 

threshold for semiannual testing. Between years six and seven of the phase in, EPA proposes to 

allow owners and operators to conduct one additional bulk tightness test that meets the 

semiannual testing threshold. Beginning in year seven, owners and operators must begin

meeting the semiannual and annual bulk line tightness testing requirements described earlier in 

this section. For all other tank and piping release detection options, EPA is proposing a three 

year phase in because these methods will not require significant construction or upgrades for 

implementation. Finally, owners and operators can implement the requirements of §280.22 of 

subpart B along with subparts E, G, and H beginning on the effective date of the final UST

regulation because upgrades or special equipment are not needed to meet the requirements in 

these subparts.

Release Detection 

EPA is proposing release detection for airport hydrant systems because, unlike in the 1980s, 

release detection technologies are now available. Airport hydrant systems typically consist of a 

series of large diameter shop-fabricated tanks; although some airport hydrant systems use fieldconstructed tanks. EPA is proposing release detection requirements for shop-fabricated tanks 

and field-constructed tanks in airport hydrant systems. See section C-3 for proposed release 

detection requirements for UST systems with field-constructed tanks. 

EPA discussed airport hydrant systems in the 1988 UST regulation preamble. These systems 

were very large, contained great volumes of fuel (capacities in the millions of gallons), and 

consisted of miles of piping that was typically eight to 24 inches in diameter. Airport hydrant 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 88 of 398

systems typically had cathodic protection and were monitored for releases periodically. 

Inventory control was often used, but the sensitivity of this technique was limited due to the 

large volume airport hydrant systems typically handled. No single leak test appeared to be an 

industry standard. 

Between proposing and finalizing the 1988 UST regulation, EPA became aware of several 

airport hydrant system leaks that harmed the environment. However, limited information kept 

EPA from realizing the extent of airport hydrant system problems. At the time, EPA believed 

release detection was not feasible for airport hydrant systems. To allow more time to gather 

information, EPA deferred airport hydrant systems in the 1988 regulation from release detection 

requirements in subpart D as well as subparts B, C, E, G, and H requirements. 

Over the last 20 years, the petroleum services industry developed release detection monitoring 

technologies for airport hydrant systems. NWGLDE’s list in Large Diameter Line Leak 

Detection Methods (6 Inches Diameter Or Above)40 identifies methods capable of detecting 

releases from airport hydrant systems. 

EPA contacted several vendors to determine strengths and limitations of release detection 

methods for airport hydrant systems. EPA also talked with DoD’s Defense Logistics Agency

(DLA) Energy41 about their challenges in addressing release detection requirements in states, 

such as California, which do not defer airport hydrant systems from release detection. DLA 

Energy also monitors airport hydrant systems in other states, which provides them with 

 

40 National Work Group On Leak Detection Evaluation’s (NWGLDE) List Of Leak Detection Evaluations For 

Storage Tank Systems: http://www.nwglde.org/.

41 Defense Logistics Agency Energy was formerly known as Defense Energy Support Center (DESC).
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 89 of 398

significant information about airport hydrant system release detection. 

EPA acknowledges airport hydrant systems vary greatly and most of these systems cannot meet 

underground piping release detection requirements in the 1988 UST regulation because of issues 

such as time to conduct the test and leak rate thresholds. Nonetheless, other release detection 

methods are currently available to monitor airport hydrant systems. EPA is not proposing 

release detection methods monitor at the same leak rate or frequency as pressurized piping 

systems at retail service stations. Standard release detection systems can successfully test and 

detect releases on USTs and pressurized piping at retail service stations, but cannot achieve the 

same accuracy within a reasonable time frame on underground piping in airport hydrant systems. 

The large diameters and varying pipe lengths in airport hydrant systems introduce variables that 

prohibit accurate monitoring at leak rates within a reasonable time frame required in the 1988 

UST regulation. 

Compared to typical retail service stations, airport hydrant systems have large product volume 

throughputs. The 1988 UST regulation release detection test methods are limited by volume. To 

produce accurate test results, underground hydrant system piping needs to be isolated in 

appropriately sized segments. Some airport hydrant systems have numerous isolation points 

with available connections for release detection equipment; others have up to one-half mile 

between underground piping segments available for accurate testing. The greater the volume of 

a segment, the more time it takes to obtain a valid result at a given leak rate.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 90 of 398

Product temperature fluctuations present challenges for release detection testing of airport 

hydrant system piping. As temperatures fluctuate, product expands or contracts, increasing or 

decreasing product volume and pressure. Fluctuating line pressure during a release detection test 

can mask an existing release or falsely indicate one occurred. To lessen this, an out of service 

period when testing large diameter airport hydrant piping could range from one to several days 

after the last product transfer in order to meet maximum leak detection rates in the 1988 UST 

regulation. Removing airport hydrant systems from service for these extended periods will 

greatly impede their purpose. In contrast, out of service periods on underground piping at retail 

service stations can last up to several hours after the last product transfer prior to pressure 

testing. 

Although technology is available, it would be cost prohibitive and require significant facility

down time for owners and operators to monitor airport hydrant systems for releases at the rates 

and frequencies required in the 1988 UST regulation.42 As a result, EPA is proposing several 

options for owners and operators to meet the release detection requirement. These options 

provide flexibility for a wide variety of airport hydrant systems. In those instances where airport 

hydrant systems can meet the release detection methods in § 280.43 and § 280.44, owners and 

operators may use those methods. EPA is also proposing the following four alternatives to meet 

the airport hydrant system release detection requirement for piping. 

 Perform semiannual or annual bulk line testing at or above operating pressure with a 

probability of detection of 0.95 and a probability of false alarm of 0.05. EPA thinks this

 

42 See section F of this preamble and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the proposed rule, available as a 

separate document in the docket, for information on the cost differences between meeting conventional release 

detection requirements and the proposed alternative requirements for airport hydrant systems and UST systems with 

field-constructed tanks.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 91 of 398

will be the most frequently used method due to cost and minimal impact on down time 

for the piping system. It allows owners and operators to meet a variable leak rate based 

on piping test section volume. The leak rate ranges from one to three gallons43 per hour, 

depending on piping volume for semiannual testing and from 0.5 to 1.5 gallons per hour 

for annual testing. EPA is proposing three gallons per hour as the maximum threshold 

because the majority of available bulk line testing methods are capable of meeting this 

leak detection rate. To effectively detect leaks from the pressurized piping systems, 

industry practice involves performing pressure-based testing at levels above standard 

operating pressure. EPA is proposing requiring a test pressure at or above operating 

pressure in consideration of these bulk piping systems typically operating at pressures 

much higher than conventional gasoline stations. Testing at 1.5 times operating pressure 

may not be practical or safe for these piping systems. The probabilities of detection and 

false alarm are consistent with the line leak detection requirements in the 1988 UST 

regulation. 

 Use continuous interstitial monitoring – This monitoring method is designed to detect a 

release from any portion of the underground piping that routinely contains product; it 

must operate in an uninterrupted manner. EPA considered requiring an automatic line 

leak detector in combination with this alternative method, similar to conventional 

pressurized piping requirements in the 1988 UST regulation. However, conventional line 

leak detectors today cannot properly operate on bulk pressurized piping in airport hydrant 

systems.

 Use an automatic line leak detector – Conventional pressurized piping systems operate at 

 

43 Owners and operators of bulk piping systems with test section volumes of 100,000 gallons or greater, due to 

technical reasons discussed in this section, may test their systems at a higher threshold of up to 6.0 gallons per hour

within the six year phase-in period.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 92 of 398

a significantly lower pressure than airport hydrant systems. In addition, EPA is not aware 

of a line leak detector that adequately detects releases on airport hydrant systems. Yet 

because some states regulate airport hydrant systems and industry has experience with 

these systems, comparable release detection technology may be developed in the future. 

With that in mind, EPA is proposing line leak detectors be capable of detecting a release 

rate of three gallons per hour at 10 pounds per square inch line pressure within one hour 

or equivalent. This is consistent with the 1988 UST regulation. To detect a release from 

any portion of the underground piping that routinely contains product, EPA is proposing 

to combine this alternative with interstitial monitoring performed at least once every three 

months. This combination will quickly detect catastrophic releases while checking for 

much smaller problems on a less frequent – every three month – basis. Owners and 

operators will be required to conduct an annual test of the line leak detector’s operation 

according to the final UST regulation. See section B-5 for more information on the 

annual test. 

 Approval by the implementing agency of another method if the owner and operator can 

demonstrate that the method can detect a release as effectively as any of the methods 

listed above – The implementing agency must consider the size of the release that the 

method can detect as well as the frequency and reliability of detection when comparing 

methods. Owners and operators must comply with any conditions imposed by the 

implementing agency on the method’s use.

Release Prevention 

In § 280.20, EPA is proposing new or replaced tanks and piping have secondary containment 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 93 of 398

with interstitial monitoring. Airport hydrant systems’ piping ranges from eight to 24 inches in 

diameter with very long lengths, sometimes miles. In contrast, pressurized piping at a typical 

retail gas station is two inches in diameter with relatively short lengths. 

EPA discussed with DLA Energy and industry the feasibility of installing secondary containment 

on piping associated with airport hydrant systems. These systems, primarily located on military

installations, are complex and lack similarity. EPA is taking the position that installing 

secondary containment on airport hydrant system piping may be impracticable.

To detect a leak, secondary containment must be a liquid tight barrier designed to hold the leak 

between the tank and the barrier. Piping is sloped in fractions of an inch per foot of piping run to 

direct a leak toward the interstitial monitor. Because airport hydrant system piping lengths can 

typically be thousands of feet, it would be very difficult to install a system with enough slope 

that could adequately monitor the lowest point of a piping run. In addition, variable sized fittings 

are needed to join different diameters of piping, increasing the complexity of installing 

secondary containment. Finally, airport hydrant system piping is normally constructed of steel. 

Condensation can accumulate between the inner and outer walls, promoting corrosion of both 

pipe walls in the interstitial space and increasing the likelihood of a release to the environment. 

EPA acknowledges engineering and design challenges (that is, varying piping diameter and 

length, along with corrosion) that can occur when providing secondary containment for piping 

associated with airport hydrant systems.44 Therefore, EPA is proposing not to require this piping 

meet secondary containment requirements. However, EPA is proposing new and replaced 

 

44 DOD’s DLA Energy, “Response to EPA - Release Detection Point Paper,” dated 03/10.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 94 of 398

underground tanks associated with airport hydrant systems meet secondary containment 

requirements. See section A-2 for more information about proposed secondary containment 

requirements for tanks.

As with all other regulated UST systems, EPA is proposing all airport hydrant systems meet 

corrosion protection requirements. Because interim prohibition has been in effect since May

1985, these systems generally are already equipped with corrosion protection (that is, constructed 

of: non-corrodible material; coated and cathodically protected steel; fiberglass reinforced 

plastic; or steel tank clad with fiberglass reinforced plastic). 

EPA is proposing not to allow adding internal lining as a means of corrosion protection for tanks 

in airport hydrant systems that are not already upgraded. In the 1988 UST regulation, EPA 

allowed internal lining as a corrosion protection upgrade, but stated in the preamble that internal 

lining of steel tanks was a temporary upgrade to meet corrosion protection requirements, only if 

the lining continued meeting original design specifications. After 1998, if an inspected lining did 

not meet original design specifications and could not be repaired according to industry codes, it 

no longer met the upgrade requirements and had to be replaced. In addition, lining inspections 

show there are issues with internal linings.45 Reports of premature failures due to improper 

installation cause additional concerns about the long-term integrity of the lining.46 A study of 

lined tanks up to12 years old concluded that 44 percent of tanks’ linings were cracked, 

discolored, and flaked from tank walls.47 If internal lining fails, the chance of a leak into the 

 

45 LUSTLINE, Bulletin 38, June 2001. http://www.neiwpcc.org/lustline/.

46 Wisconsin Department Of Commerce website: 

http://www.commerce.state.wi.us/er/pdf/bst/ProgramLetters_PL/ER-BST-PL-LINING.pdf.

47 LUSTLINE, Bulletin 30, September 1998. http://www.neiwpcc.org/lustline/. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 95 of 398

environment is greater when there is no external corrosion protection on the tank. Because of 

these concerns, EPA is proposing internal lining not be an option for meeting the corrosion 

protection requirements for tanks in airport hydrant systems.

As with all other regulated UST systems, EPA is proposing airport hydrant systems meet spill 

and overfill requirements to prevent releases to the environment. After discussion with industry

and DLA Energy, EPA is taking the position that existing airport hydrant systems are already 

equipped with spill prevention devices that will adequately prevent spills and overfills.

Airport hydrant systems installed on or before the effective date of the final UST regulation that 

do not meet the upgrade requirements within three years after the effective date of the rule must 

be permanently closed according to § 280.70. EPA is requiring permanent closure to prevent 

releases to the environment from airport hydrant systems that have not been upgraded. 

Notification 

To make implementing agencies aware airport hydrant systems exist, EPA is proposing owners 

of these systems submit a one-time notification to the implementing agency. Owners must notify

within 30 days of the effective date of the final regulation. This will allow implementing 

agencies to include airport hydrant systems in their inventories. 

Financial Responsibility

Because EPA is proposing to eliminate the deferral for airport hydrant systems, they will no 

longer be exempt from financial responsibility requirements in subpart H. Owners and operators 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 96 of 398

will be required to comply by the effective date of the final UST regulation. The 1988 UST 

financial responsibility regulation exempts state and federal entities. Therefore, federal and state 

owners and operators of airport hydrant systems will not have to meet the financial responsibility

requirement. Nearly all airport hydrant systems are owned by the federal government.

Deferred Components

EPA is proposing to continue deferring aboveground tanks associated with airport hydrant 

systems from the requirements of subparts B, C, D, E, and G. EPA regulates underground 

storage tanks and piping through 40 CFR part 280 and aboveground tanks through 40 CFR part 

112 (Oil Pollution Prevention). Facilities with 1,320 gallons of aboveground oil storage capacity 

that could reasonably be expected to discharge oil into navigable waters or adjoining shoreline 

are subject to the SPCC regulation, under the authority of the Clean Water Act (CWA).48 The 

SPCC regulation includes requirements for oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response to 

prevent oil discharges to navigable waters and adjoining shorelines.

49

 The SPCC regulation 

requires periodic integrity testing and inspection of bulk storage containers and periodic integrity 

testing and leak testing of valves and piping associated with containers. The SPCC regulation 

also requires regulated facilities prepare and maintain a written plan that includes measures to 

prevent, prepare for, and respond to oil discharges that threaten navigable waters and adjoining 

shorelines. For these reasons, we believe the SPCC regulation is the most effective means of 

addressing aboveground tanks associated with airport hydrant systems. 

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?

 

48 Overview Of Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations. http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/lawsregs/opprover.htm.

49 Spill Prevention, Control, And Countermeasure Rule. http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/spcc/index.htm.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 97 of 398

 Are the release detection options and time frames appropriate and sufficient?

 Is the performance requirement of three gallons per hour at 10 pounds per square inch 

line pressure within one hour or equivalent proposed for line leak detectors for bulk 

piping appropriate?

 Should EPA consider including specific requirements for non-pressurized piping 

tightness testing methods such as chemical marker methods? If so, what should those 

requirements be?

 Are there other release detection options EPA should consider? 

 In order to address potential concerns associated with over pressurizing bulk piping 

systems, EPA proposed testing at the system’s operating pressure instead of above it.

EPA understands there are industry standards that recommend testing above operating 

pressure. Is testing these systems at operating pressure sufficient? Please provide specific 

detail to accompany your answer. 

 Is the definition of airport hydrant fuel distribution system clear and appropriate? 

 Are you aware of any releases from airport hydrant systems? If so, what were the 

sources, causes, and impacts to the environment?

 Should EPA consider revising the date in 280.73 for previously deferred UST systems? 

Revision of this date would mean that these UST systems closed prior to the effective 

date of the final rule would not have to meet Subpart G unless the implementing agency

directs otherwise based on a current or potential threat to human health and the 

environment. How many of these UST systems have been closed since December 22, 

1988?
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 98 of 398

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different 

from EPA’s proposal. 

3. UST Systems With Field-Constructed Tanks 

What Is EPA Proposing?

EPA is proposing to regulate currently deferred UST systems with field-constructed tanks. This 

means field-constructed tanks will no longer be deferred from the requirements of 40 CFR part 

280, subparts B (UST Systems: Design, Construction, Installation and Notification), C (General

Operating Requirements), D (Release Detection), E (Release Reporting, Investigation, and 

Confirmation), G (Out-of-Service UST Systems and Closure), and H (Financial Responsibility). 

UST systems with field-constructed tanks installed on or before the effective date of the final 

UST regulation must begin meeting the requirements of subparts B (except §280.22) and C

within three years of the effective date of the final UST regulation, subpart D according to the 

schedule in the table below, and §280.22 of subpart B along with subparts E, G, and H on the 

effective date of the final UST regulation. UST systems with field-constructed tanks installed 

after the effective date of the final UST regulation must meet these requirements at the time of 

installation. 

Schedule For Phase In Of Subpart D

Component and Type of 

Release Detection Used

Time Frame (after 

[effective date of rule ])

Description of Requirement

Piping using periodic 

pressurized bulk line 

tightness testing Within three years

Conduct one piping tightness test 

according to the bulk line tightness 

testing requirement using the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 99 of 398

maximum detectable leak rates for 

semiannual testing. For bulk piping 

segments not capable of meeting 

the 3.0 gallon per hour leak rate, 

owners and operators may use a 

leak rate of up to 6.0 gallons per 

hour. 

Between years three and 

six

Between years six and 

seven

Conduct one piping tightness test 

according to the bulk line tightness 

testing requirement using the 

maximum detectable leak rates for 

semiannual testing.

After year seven

Begin conducting piping tightness 

testing according to the bulk line 

tightness testing requirement.

All other piping and tank 

release detection methods Within three years

Perform release detection according 

to this subpart.

Release Detection – Tanks 

EPA is proposing that UST systems with field-constructed tanks installed prior to the effective 

date of the final UST regulation meet these release detection requirements: 

 Field-constructed tanks with capacity less than or equal to 50,000 gallons must be 

monitored using the release detection methods in § 280.43.

 Field-constructed tanks with a capacity greater than 50,000 gallons must either be 

monitored using release detection methods in § 280.43 or use one of these alternatives: 

 Conduct an annual bulk tank tightness test that can detect a 0.5 gallon per hour 

leak rate;

 At least once every 30 days, use an automatic tank gauging system to perform 

release detection, which can detect a leak rate of one gallon per hour or less. At 

least every three years, this method must be combined with a bulk tank tightness 

test that can detect a 0.2 gallon per hour leak rate;

 At least once every 30 days, use an automatic tank gauging system to perform 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 100 of 398

release detection, which can detect a leak rate of two gallons per hour or less. At 

least every two years, this method must be combined with a bulk tank tightness 

test that can detect a 0.2 gallon per hour leak rate; or

 The implementing agency may approve another method if the owner and 

operators can demonstrate the method can detect a release as effectively as any of 

the other three methods. In comparing methods, the implementing agency shall 

consider the size of release the method can detect and frequency and reliability of 

detection. Owners and operators must comply with conditions imposed by the 

implementing agency.

All bulk tank tightness testing must be capable of detecting leak rates with a probability of 

detection of 0.95 and a probability of false alarm of 0.05.

All recordkeeping requirements in § 280.45 apply to these proposed release detection methods.

Tanks associated with new or replaced UST systems with field-constructed tanks installed after 

the effective date of the final UST regulation must be secondarily contained and perform 

interstitial monitoring according to § 280.43(g). 

Release Detection – Piping 

EPA is proposing underground piping of UST systems with field-constructed tanks meet the 

release detection requirements for hydrant piping described in C-2 – Airport Hydrant Fuel 

Distribution Systems. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 101 of 398

Release Prevention 

EPA is proposing UST systems with field-constructed tanks meet corrosion protection, spill, and 

overfill requirements. For corrosion protection, EPA is proposing UST systems with fieldconstructed tanks meet one of these:

 The new tank and piping standards described in § 280.20; or

 UST systems with field-constructed tanks installed on or before the effective date of the 

final UST regulation can be constructed of metal and cathodically protected according to 

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

testing laboratory and meet the following:

o Field installed cathodic protection systems must be: designed by a corrosion 

expert; designed to allow for the determination of current operating status for 

impressed current systems; and operated and maintained in accordance with § 

280.31 or guidelines established by the implementing agency; and

o Tanks greater than 10 years old without cathodic protection must be assessed to 

ensure they are structurally sound and free of corrosion holes prior to adding 

cathodic protection. The assessment must be by internal inspection or another 

method the implementing agency determines adequately assesses the tank for 

structural soundness and corrosion holes.

EPA is proposing UST systems with field-constructed tanks installed on or before the effective 

date of the final UST regulation that are not upgraded according to § 280.21 within three years of 

the effective date of the final UST regulation must be permanently closed according to § 280.70. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 102 of 398

EPA is proposing internal lining not be allowed for meeting the corrosion protection upgrade 

requirement. 

EPA is proposing to exclude new and replaced piping of UST systems with field-constructed 

tanks from secondary containment requirements in § 280.20(b). 

Notification

EPA is proposing that, no later than 30 days after the effective date of the final UST regulation, 

owners of regulated UST systems with field-constructed tanks notify appropriate implementing 

agencies that their systems exist. 

Financial Responsibility 

EPA is proposing UST systems with field-constructed tanks no longer be deferred. This means 

UST systems with field-constructed tanks that have not been permanently closed will be subject 

to financial responsibility requirements in subpart H.

Deferred Components

EPA is proposing to continue deferring aboveground tanks associated with UST systems with 

field-constructed tanks from the requirements of subparts B, C, D, E, and G. 

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change? What Background Information Is Available About 

This Change?

EPA is proposing to regulate UST systems with field-constructed tanks because they are very
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 103 of 398

large and pose a substantial threat to human health and the environment. Typical tank sizes 

range from 20,000 gallons to greater than two million gallons. The total universe of UST 

systems with field-constructed tanks is small. There are approximately 239 UST systems with 

field-constructed tanks. 

Several releases from bulk field-constructed tanks have been recorded at the Craney Island Fuel 

Terminal in Portsmouth, VA.50 For example, a 2.1 million gallon field-constructed UST system 

that operated from the 1950s to the mid 1980s released an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gallons 

of product into the environment. Free product was found within 20 feet of a nearby creek, and 

the resulting plume covered more than five acres. Remediation efforts have been on-going since 

1986. The release was attributed to tank and/or piping failures and possibly from a nearby tank 

that had a 127,000 gallon overfill in 1986. Another 2.1 million gallon field-constructed tank 

system that operated from the 1950s until 2000 released an estimated 175,000 to 250,000 gallons 

of jet fuel into the environment. The release was attributed to piping failures. The resulting 

plume covered three acres and threatened a nearby creek. In both of these examples, release 

prevention and release detection requirements could have reduced the severity of these releases 

and may well have prevented these releases.

EPA is also proposing this change because design and construction standards for UST systems 

with field-constructed tanks are now available. In the 1988 UST regulation preamble, EPA 

indicated tank design and construction methods for field-constructed tanks differed from factorybuilt tanks; we did not have sufficient time to develop an appropriate regulation related to design 

and construction for those tanks. Although design standards are now available for aboveground 

 

50 Virginia Department Of Environmental Quality.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 104 of 398

field-constructed tanks, EPA is not aware of standards written according to a national code of 

practice developed by a nationally recognized or independent testing laboratory. However, 

military construction standards, written as guidance for aboveground and underground storage 

tank construction projects on military installations, are available.51 EPA considers current 

military construction standards appropriate to sufficiently address field-constructed tank design 

and construction. Implementing agencies may use military design and construction standards to 

address the site specific nature of field-constructed tank systems on military installations. Note 

that more stringent standards will prevail if a field-constructed tank is installed in a locale with 

more stringent design standards. EPA expects owners and operators to use these existing 

standards and specifications for design and construction of UST systems with field-constructed 

tanks. 

EPA is proposing UST systems with field-constructed tanks installed on or before the effective 

date of the final UST regulation begin meeting the requirements of subparts B (except §280.22)

and C within three years of the effective date of the final UST regulation, subpart D according to 

the phase in schedule in the table above, and §280.22 of subpart B along with subparts E, G, and 

H on the effective date of the final UST regulation. UST systems with field-constructed tanks 

installed after the effective date of the final UST regulation must meet all requirements at 

installation. Three years allows owners and operators enough time to implement the 

requirements of subparts B (except §280.22) and C. EPA is providing a phase in period for bulk 

line tightness testing in subpart D to allow owners and operators ample time to upgrade their 

 

51 United Facilities Criteria (UFC) 3-460-01, “Petroleum Fuel Facilities,” prescribes basic specifications and 

guidance for designing fueling systems on military installations. Unless otherwise noted, the handbook uses 

nationally recognized association and institute standards in accordance with the appropriate service policy. For the 

purposes of this preamble, a “field-constructed tank” is analogous to a “cut and cover” tank.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 105 of 398

piping systems and meet the leak rate criteria. EPA is proposing to allow owners and operators 

for the first six years (two test periods) to meet a higher threshold of up to 6.0 gallons per hour 

for those piping segments that cannot meet the more stringent maximum 3.0 gallons per hour 

threshold, due to technical reasons. These technical reasons include exceeding capabilities of 

currently available pressure-based methods to achieve the required leak rate. Currently available 

methods are capable of testing larger volume test sections to a leak rate of 6.0 gallons. The 

higher threshold of 6.0 gallons per hour provides for use of existing test methods during the first 

six year period. Six years will provide owners and operators time to upgrade their piping 

systems to meet the up to 3.0 gallon per hour threshold for semiannual testing. Between years 

six and seven of the phase in, EPA proposes to allow owners and operators to conduct one 

additional bulk tightness test that meets the semiannual testing threshold. Beginning in year 

seven, owners and operators must begin meeting the semiannual and annual bulk line tightness 

testing requirements described earlier in this section. For all other tank and piping release 

detection options, EPA is proposing a three year phase in because these methods will not require 

significant construction or upgrades for implementation. Finally, owners and operators can 

implement the requirements of §280.22 of subpart B along with subparts E, G, and H beginning 

on the effective date of the final UST regulation because upgrades or special equipment are not 

needed to meet the requirements in these subparts.

Release Detection 

In the 1988 UST regulation, EPA deferred UST systems with field-constructed tanks in part due 

to lack of appropriate release detection methods. At that time, EPA believed the majority of 

release detection methods applied to factory-built tank systems and did not adequately work for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 106 of 398

UST systems with field-constructed tanks. Over the last 20 years, effective release detection 

methods for UST systems with field-constructed tanks have evolved. However, prescribed leak 

rates for field-constructed tanks differ from those in § 280.43 of the 1988 UST regulation, which 

generally apply to factory-built tanks. Additionally, 19 state UST programs, which include 

approximately 60 percent of the existing universe of these UST systems, now regulate UST 

systems with field-constructed tanks. 

NWGLDE’s list in Bulk Underground Storage Tank Leak Detection Methods (50,000 Gallons 

Or Greater)52 identifies several methods applicable to field-constructed tanks. Third party 

evaluators verified those release detection methods achieve a variety of performance standards. 

EPA contacted several vendors and DLA Energy to find out about their experiences with release

detection methods for field-constructed tanks in states, such as California, which require UST 

systems with field-constructed tanks meet release detection requirements. 

EPA recognizes that most release detection methods for factory-built tanks are capable of 

monitoring UST systems with field-constructed tanks up to 50,000 gallons. After evaluating 

current methods, EPA realized existing release detection options for tanks in § 280.41 of the 

1988 UST regulation are generally not applicable to UST systems greater than 50,000 gallons 

because most methods are limited by tank capacity. As a result, EPA is proposing alternative 

release detection monitoring methods at different leak rates and frequencies for UST systems 

with field-constructed tanks greater than 50,000 gallons than for factory-built tanks. 

 

52 National Work Group On Leak Detection Evaluation’s (NWGLDE) List Of Leak Detection Evaluations For 

Storage Tank Systems: http://www.nwglde.org/.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 107 of 398

Based on limited data about leaks from field-constructed tanks, EPA is proposing two release 

detection requirements depending on tank size. UST systems with field-constructed tanks up to 

50,000 gallons will be required to meet requirements in § 280.41(a). UST systems with fieldconstructed tanks greater than 50,000 gallons will be required either to meet requirements in § 

280.41(a) or use an alternative release detection method described below. EPA estimates a 

subset of larger size tanks will be able to use automatic tank gauging systems set to achieve leak 

rates in 280.43(d). NWGLDE’s list identifies numerous automatic tank gauging systems capable 

of detecting leaks on tanks up to 100,000 gallons.53

Owners and operators of UST systems with field-constructed tanks greater than 50,000 gallons 

will be allowed to choose several alternative release detection methods. They must either 

perform annual bulk underground tank tightness testing that can detect a 0.5 gallon per hour leak 

rate or use an automatic tank gauging system that can detect up to a two gallon per hour leak 

rate. Depending on the automatic tank gauging system’s leak rate, a bulk underground tank 

tightness test at a rate of 0.2 gallon per hour will be required at least every two or three years. 

This proposed automatic tank gauging requirement is different from the 1988 release detection 

requirement for factory-built tanks. These proposed leak rates and time frames for release 

detection testing are appropriate because they will detect releases within a reasonable time frame 

given the large tank sizes and time needed to perform testing on these tanks.

In addition, implementing agencies may approve another method of release detection for UST 

systems with field-constructed tanks if the owner and operator can demonstrate the method can 

 

53 National Work Group On Leak Detection Evaluation’s (NWGLDE) List Of Leak Detection Evaluations For 

Storage Tank Systems: http://www.nwglde.org/.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 108 of 398

detect a release as effectively as any of the methods listed above. The implementing agency

must consider the size of release the method can detect as well as frequency and reliability of 

detection when comparing methods. Owners and operators must comply with any conditions 

imposed by the implementing agency on the method’s use.

EPA acknowledges the complexities in performing release detection on tanks significantly larger 

than 50,000 gallons. Perhaps the most critical aspect is allowing sufficient time for a tank to 

reach a state of equilibrium. As tank size increases, the time for a tank to reach an equilibrium 

state increases significantly. Based on discussions with release detection vendors, many larger 

tanks require multiple inactive days to yield an accurate test result.

Most UST systems with field-constructed tanks are owned by DoD. Taking these tanks out of 

service for multiple days to meet the 1988 release detection requirement would impede DoD’s 

mission, be impractical to sustain, and result in significant costs.54 Our proposed alternatives for 

release detection provide appropriate environmental protection without substantially

compromising DoD’s mission. DoD can choose to combine an automatic tank gauge, at leak 

rates achievable by automatic tank gauges on the market for monthly tank monitoring, with 

precision bulk tank tightness testing. The probabilities of detection and false alarm EPA 

proposes for bulk tank tightness testing are consistent with the line leak detection requirements in 

the 1988 UST regulation. DoD can also choose to perform bulk tank tightness testing as a standalone method of release detection. Staggering the test frequency will allow DoD to take tanks 

 

54 See section F of this preamble and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the proposed rule, available as a 

separate document in the docket, for information on the cost differences between meeting conventional release 

detection requirements and the proposed alternative requirements for airport hydrant systems and UST systems with 

field-constructed tanks.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 109 of 398

out of service at different intervals without hindering its mission. 

Although current release detection methods can successfully perform tests and detect leaks on 

pressurized piping at retail service stations, these systems cannot achieve the same level of 

accuracy on large diameter underground piping of UST systems with field-constructed tanks. 

EPA is proposing piping of UST systems with field-constructed tanks meet the same 

requirements proposed for airport hydrant system piping. See section C-2 for proposed release 

detection requirements for airport hydrant system piping. 

Release Prevention

In § 280.20, EPA is proposing new or replaced tanks and piping have secondary containment. 

Secondary containment poses a much smaller risk to the environment by providing an additional 

measure for containing released regulated substances in the interstitial space between the two 

walls of the UST system. Secondary containment must be: able to contain regulated substances 

released from the UST system until they are detected and removed; able to prevent the release of 

regulated substances to the environment at any time during the operational life of the UST 

system; and checked for evidence of a leak at least once every 30 days using interstitial 

monitoring that meets the requirements of 280.43(g) for tanks. For UST systems with fieldconstructed tanks, EPA is proposing only new and replaced tanks meet the secondary

containment requirement. 

EPA discussed with DLA Energy and other vendors the feasibility of installing secondary

containment on piping of UST systems with field-constructed tanks. Field-constructed tank 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 110 of 398

system pipes range from four to 20 inches in diameter, with lengths normally greater than 30,000 

feet.55 Due to complex configurations and varying pipe lengths, we believe installing secondary

containment on piping of UST systems with field-constructed tanks may be impractical. It 

would be difficult to design a liquid tight barrier that could accommodate varying diameters of 

underground piping. Because leaks occur at fittings and valves, installing fittings and valves to 

join pipes with various diameters along the piping run increases the likelihood of a release. 

Because field-constructed tank system pipe lengths are normally significantly greater than 

lengths of piping at a typical retail gasoline station, it would be very difficult to install a system 

with enough sloping that could adequately monitor the lowest point of a piping run. Finally, 

condensation can accumulate in the interstice between the inner and outer steel pipe walls, 

promoting corrosion of both pipe walls in the interstitial space and increasing the likelihood of a 

release to the environment. 

EPA acknowledges there are engineering and design challenges (that is, varying pipe diameter 

and length, along with water accumulation in the interstitial space) when secondarily containing 

piping of UST systems with field-constructed tanks. 56 Therefore, EPA is proposing not to 

require secondary containment for piping of UST systems with field-constructed tanks. 

However, EPA is proposing new and replaced field-constructed tanks meet secondary

containment requirements. See section A-2 for more information about the proposed secondary

containment requirements for tanks.

As with all other regulated UST systems, EPA is proposing UST systems with field-

 

55 DOD’s DLA Energy, “Response to EPA - Release Detection Point Paper,” dated 03/10.

56 DOD’s DLA Energy, “Response to EPA - Release Detection Point Paper,” dated 03/10.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 111 of 398

constructed tanks meet corrosion protection requirements. Because interim prohibition has 

been in effect since May 1985, UST systems with field-constructed tanks generally are already 

equipped with corrosion protection (that is, constructed of: non-corrodible material; coated 

and cathodically protected steel; fiberglass reinforced plastic; or steel tank clad with fiberglass 

reinforced plastic). Field-constructed UST systems made of concrete would meet the corrosion 

protection requirement because they are constructed of a non-corrodible material.

As with airport hydrant systems, EPA is proposing not to allow adding an internal lining as a 

means of corrosion protection for UST systems with field-constructed tanks that are not already 

upgraded. See section C-2 for an explanation of why EPA is not allowing these USTs to be 

upgraded with internal lining.

As with all other regulated UST systems, EPA is proposing UST systems with fieldconstructed tanks meet spill and overfill requirements to prevent releases to the environment. 

After discussion with industry and DoD’s DLA Energy, EPA is taking the position that 

existing UST systems with field-constructed tanks are already equipped with spill and overfill 

prevention devices that will adequately prevent spills and overfills. 

UST systems with field-constructed tanks installed on or before the effective date of the final

UST regulation that do not meet the upgrade requirements within three years after the effective 

date of the rule must be permanently closed according to § 280.70. EPA is requiring permanent 

closure to prevent releases to the environment from UST systems with field-constructed tanks 

that have not been upgraded.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 112 of 398

Notification

To make implementing agencies aware that UST systems with field-constructed tanks exist, EPA 

is proposing owners of these systems submit a one-time notification to the implementing agency. 

Owners must notify within 30 days of the effective date of the final regulation. This will allow 

implementing agencies to include UST systems with field-constructed tanks in their inventories. 

Financial Responsibility

Because EPA is proposing to eliminate the deferral for UST systems with field-constructed 

tanks, they will no longer be exempt from financial responsibility requirements in subpart H. 

Owners and operators will be required to comply by the effective date of the final UST 

regulation. The 1988 UST financial responsibility regulation exempts state and federal entities. 

Therefore, federal and state owners and operators of UST systems with field-constructed tanks 

will not have to meet the financial responsibility requirement. Nearly all UST systems with 

field-constructed tanks are owned by the federal government.

Deferred Components 

As with airport hydrant systems, EPA is proposing to continue deferring the aboveground tanks 

associated with UST systems with field-constructed tanks from subparts B, C, D, E, and G. See 

section C-2 for an explanation of why EPA proposes to continue deferring these aboveground 

components.

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 113 of 398

 Are the release detection options and time frames appropriate and sufficient? 

 Are there other release detection options EPA should consider? 

 Are you aware of any releases from UST systems with field-constructed tanks? If so, 

what were the sources, causes, and impacts to the environment?

 Is the proposed time frame for implementing the requirements for UST systems with 

field-constructed tanks reasonable? If not, please explain why.

 Should EPA consider alternative options for closing very large UST systems in place? 

For example, should EPA consider requiring removal or allowing closure in place 

without filling the UST?

 Should EPA consider revising the date in 280.73 for previously deferred UST systems? 

Revision of this date would mean that these UST systems closed prior to the effective 

date of the final rule would not have to meet Subpart G unless the implementing agency

directs otherwise based on a current or potential threat to human health and the 

environment. How many of these UST systems have been closed since December 22, 

1988?

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different 

from EPA’s proposal. 

4. Wastewater Treatment Tank Systems

What Is EPA Proposing?

EPA is proposing to regulate wastewater treatment tank systems that are not part of a wastewater 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 114 of 398

treatment facility regulated under § 402 or 307(b) of the CWA.. 

This means wastewater treatment tank systems that are currently deferred in § 280.10(c)(1) will 

no longer be deferred from the requirements of 40 CFR part 280 subparts B (UST Systems: 

Design, Construction, Installation and Notification), C (General Operating Requirements), D 

(Release Detection), E (Release Reporting, Investigation, and Confirmation), G (Out-of-Service 

UST Systems and Closure), and H (Financial Responsibility). These wastewater treatment tanks 

that are currently deferred in § 280.10(c)(1) will be referred to as “wastewater treatment tanks” 

in the discussion below. 

Wastewater treatment tank systems installed on or before the effective date of the final UST 

regulation must begin meeting the requirements of subparts B (except §280.22), C, and D within 

three years of the effective date of the final UST regulation and §280.22 of subpart B along with 

subparts E, G, and H on the effective date of the final UST regulation. Wastewater treatment 

tank systems installed after the effective date of the final UST regulation must meet these 

requirements at the time of installation.

Release Detection

EPA is proposing wastewater treatment tank systems no longer be deferred from release 

detection. This means wastewater treatment tank systems must meet the release detection 

requirements in 40 CFR part 280, subpart D. 

Release Prevention 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 115 of 398

EPA is proposing wastewater treatment tank systems meet corrosion protection, spill, and 

overfill requirements. For corrosion protection, EPA is proposing wastewater treatment tank 

systems meet one of these:

 The new tank and piping standards described in § 280.20; or

 Wastewater treatment tank systems installed on or before the effective date of the final 

UST regulation can be constructed of metal and cathodically protected according to a 

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

laboratory and meet the following:

o Field installed cathodic protection systems must be: designed by a corrosion 

expert; designed to allow for the determination of current operating status for 

impressed current systems; and operated and maintained in accordance with § 

280.31 or guidelines established by the implementing agency; and

o Tanks greater than 10 years old without cathodic protection must be assessed to 

ensure they are structurally sound and free of corrosion holes prior to adding 

cathodic protection. The assessment must be by internal inspection or another 

method the implementing agency determines adequately assesses the tank for 

structural soundness and corrosion holes.

EPA is proposing wastewater treatment tank systems installed on or before the effective date of 

the final UST regulation that are not upgraded according to § 280.21 within three years of the 

effective date of the final UST regulation be permanently closed according to § 280.70. EPA is 

proposing internal lining not be allowed for meeting the corrosion protection upgrade 

requirement.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 116 of 398

Notification

EPA is proposing that, no later than 30 days after the effective date of the final UST regulation, 

wastewater treatment tank system owners notify appropriate implementing agencies that their 

systems exist. 

Financial Responsibility 

EPA is proposing wastewater treatment tank systems no longer be deferred. This means 

wastewater treatment tank systems that have not been permanently closed will be subject to 

financial responsibility requirements in subpart H. 

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change? What Background Information Is Available About 

This Change?

EPA is proposing to regulate wastewater treatment tank systems (including oil-water separators) 

containing regulated substances in 40 CFR part 280 if they are not part of a wastewater treatment 

facility regulated under § 402 or 307(b) of the CWA. In the 1988 UST regulation, EPA deferred 

these systems because we were uncertain about how many of these UST systems exist and the 

appropriateness of some release detection systems for these systems. EPA still is uncertain about 

how many wastewater treatment tank systems exist. Removing the deferral will allow us to 

determine how many are subject to 40 CFR part 280;. In addition, release detection methods are 

available to detect releases from these systems. EPA is proposing to regulate these types of UST 

systems to protect human health and the environment from discharges of regulated substances 

contained in these systems. When wastewater treatment tank systems are not part of a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 117 of 398

wastewater treatment facility regulated under § 402 or 307(b) of the CWA, they must meet all 

requirements in 40 CFR part 280, including requirements for design, construction, installation, 

and notification; general operating; release detection; and closure.

To help determine the universe of wastewater treatment tank systems we are proposing to 

regulate, EPA queried several field experts. They were not aware of any wastewater treatment 

tank systems that are part of a wastewater treatment facility not regulated under § 402 or 307(b) 

of the CWA. Based on the experts’ information, all wastewater treatment tanks, including those 

at most publicly-owned treatment works and many private treatment facilities, are all part of a 

wastewater treatment facility regulated by either § 402 or § 307(b) of the CWA and, therefore, 

are excluded from 40 CFR part 280. As a result, it appearsthere are no wastewater treatment 

tank systems currently deferred. However, in the event such tanks exist, they present the same 

risks as other UST systems currently regulated and need to meet the requirements in 40 CFR part 

280 in order to protect human health and the environment.

EPA is proposing that wastewater treatment tank systems installed on or before the effective date 

of the final UST regulation begin meeting the requirements in 40 CFR 280 subparts B (except 

§280.22), C, and D within three years of the effective date of the final UST regulation and 

§280.22 of subpart B along with subparts E, G, and H on the effective date of the final UST 

regulation. This includes requirements for design, construction, and installation (including spill, 

overfill, and corrosion protection); release detection; notification; operation and maintenance; 

recordkeeping; and closure. In the 1988 UST regulation, deferred wastewater treatment tank 

systems were required to meet the interim prohibition requirements of § 280.11 (that is, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 118 of 398

corrosion protected, made of non-corrodible materials, or otherwise designed and constructed to 

prevent releases during the operating life of the facility due to corrosion or structural failure). 

Therefore, wastewater treatment tank systems are already equipped with corrosion protection. 

Wastewater treatment tank systems installed after the effective date of the final UST regulation 

must meet all 40 CFR part 280 requirements at installation. Three years allows owners and 

operators enough time to implement the requirements of subparts B (except §280.22), C, and D. 

EPA also is taking the position that owners and operators can implement the requirements of 

§280.22 of subpart B along with subparts E, G, and H beginning on the effective date of the final 

UST regulation because upgrades or special equipment are not needed to meet the requirements 

in these subparts.

As with airport hydrant systems and UST systems with field-constructed tanks, EPA is proposing 

not to allow adding an internal lining as a means of corrosion protection for wastewater 

treatment tank systems that are not already upgraded. See section C-2 for an explanation of why

EPA is not allowing these USTs to be upgraded with internal lining.

Wastewater treatment tank systems installed on or before the effective date of the final UST 

regulation that do not meet the upgrade requirements within three years after the effective date of 

the rule must be permanently closed according to § 280.70. EPA is requiring permanent closure 

to prevent releases to the environment from wastewater treatment tank systems that have not 

been upgraded.

Notification
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 119 of 398

EPA is proposing owners submit a one-time notification to implementing agencies for 

wastewater treatment tank systems not regulated by the CWA. Owners must notify within 30 

days of the effective date of the final regulation. EPA is proposing this to ensure implementing 

agencies are aware these systems exist. 

Financial Responsibility

Because wastewater treatment tank systems will no longer be deferred, those systems not 

permanently closed will need to meet financial responsibility requirements as described in 40 

CFR part 280, subpart H. Federal- and state-owned facilities are exempt from this requirement. 

Therefore, federal and state owners and operators of wastewater treatment tank systems will not 

have to meet this requirement.

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?

 EPA is taking the position that there are no wastewater treatment tank systems affected 

by this proposal. Are you aware of systems that would be subject to this proposed 

change? If yes, please provide information about the number and location of wastewater 

treatment tank systems that would be regulated. For instance are there units associated 

with natural gas drilling that are not regulated by 402 or 307(b)?

 If there are wastewater tank systems, is it most appropriate to regulate, exempt, or 

continue to defer these systems? Please explain why.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 120 of 398

 Should EPA consider revising the date in 280.73 for previously deferred UST systems? 

Revision of this date would mean that these UST systems closed prior to the effective 

date of the final rule would not have to meet Subpart G unless the implementing agency

directs otherwise based on a current or potential threat to human health and the 

environment. How many of these UST systems have been closed since December 22, 

1988?

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different 

from EPA’s proposal. 

5. Maintain Deferral For USTs Containing Radioactive Material And Emergency 

Generator UST Systems At Nuclear Power Generation Facilities Regulated By The Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission 

EPA is not proposing changes to the 1988 UST regulation deferral in § 280.10(c)(2) and (3) for 

USTs containing radioactive material and for emergency generator UST systems at nuclear 

power generation facilities regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Currently, 

these types of UST systems are deferred from most UST requirements but are subject to 

requirements for interim prohibition, release response and corrective action, and where 

applicable, lender liability (40 CFR part 280, subparts A, F, and I, respectively). EPA has 

decided to keep the deferral in order to retain EPA’s requirements for cleaning up releases from 

these USTs. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 121 of 398

EPA compared Department of Energy (DOE) Orders57 and NRC requirements to the 1988 UST 

regulation. This assessment revealed DOE and NRC requirements are comparable to EPA 

requirements for new and existing USTs regarding spill and overfill control (§ 280.30); operation 

and maintenance of corrosion protection (§ 280.31); compatibility (§ 280.32); and release 

detection (40 CFR part 280, subpart D). However, there is no independent regulatory authority 

for DOE and NRC to remediate releases. With that in mind, EPA is taking the position that it is 

appropriate to maintain the deferral for these USTs as it currently exists in order for EPA to 

continue requiring release response and corrective action. 

D. Other Changes

1. Changes To Overfill Prevention Equipment Requirements

What Is EPA Proposing?

In § 280.20, EPA is proposing to eliminate flow restrictors (also called ball float valves) in vent 

lines as an overfill prevention option either when an UST system is installed or when an UST 

system’s overfill prevention equipment is replaced. 

Owners and operators using a vent line flow restrictor before the final UST regulation becomes 

effective may continue using a flow restrictor to meet the overfill prevention requirements, as 

long as it restricts the flow of regulated substances into the UST when the device activates. 

 

57 DOE Orders establish management objectives, identify performance requirements and assign responsibilities 

consistent with policy and regulations. See: https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives/types-of-directives.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 122 of 398

Owners and operators may continue to use flow restrictors not in vent lines (such as flow 

restrictors in fill pipes), automatic shutoff devices, and high level alarms as overfill prevention 

for all UST systems. 

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change? What Background Information Is Available About 

This Change?

Spills and overfills are a common cause of UST system releases (see sections B-2 and B-3 for 

additional discussion). Through extensive stakeholder outreach, EPA identified vent line flow 

restrictors as a significant concern for operability and safety. To reduce the frequency of UST 

releases due to operability and to address system safety and personnel safety concerns, EPA is 

proposing to eliminate vent line flow restrictors for new installations and replacements. 

 Operability – For a vent line flow restrictor to operate properly, the device must restrict 

the flow of regulated substance into the UST when the flow restrictor engages. If the 

tank top is not liquid or vapor tight, flow into the UST is not restricted because vapors 

continue to escape through these non-tight areas. If vapors continue to escape the UST, 

there is no pressure buildup in the vapor area of the tank, resulting in no reduced flow 

rate into the UST. Examples where non-tight tank tops may result in ineffective flow 

restrictors include: loose tank bungs or other tank top components; tanks with coaxial 

stage I vapor recovery installed; and tanks with both tank top and remote fill areas. 

 System safety – Vent line flow restrictors can create safety concerns when they activate. 

USTs can become over pressurized and damaged during a pressurized delivery. The 

2005 version of the Petroleum Equipment Institute’s installation standard, RP100, 

recommends against using vent restriction devices because the vent line flow restrictor 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 123 of 398

pressurizes the UST, creating a hazardous condition when the device operates as 

designed. 

 Personnel safety – Delivery personnel can be sprayed with regulated substances when 

they disconnect the delivery hose from the fill pipe and the vent line flow restrictor 

activates.

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?

 EPA considered eliminating or phasing out vent line flow restrictors for currently

installed UST systems, but finds the cost burden for owners and operators could be high. 

Please provide input and information in support of or against eliminating or phasing out 

vent line flow restrictors. 

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different 

from EPA’s proposal. 

2. Internal Linings That Fail The Periodic Lining Inspection And Cannot Be Repaired

What Is EPA Proposing?

In § 280.21, EPA is proposing owners and operators permanently close an UST that uses internal 

lining as the sole method of corrosion protection when both of these conditions exist:

 A lining inspection determines the internal lining is no longer performing according to 

original design specifications; and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 124 of 398

 The internal lining cannot be repaired according to a code of practice developed by a 

nationally recognized association or independent testing laboratory.

For tanks with both internal lining and cathodic protection, EPA is proposing to allow owners 

and operators continue operating an UST if it fails the lining inspection and cannot be repaired if 

both of these criteria are met:

 The cathodic protection is operated and maintained according to § 280.31; and 

 The tank was assessed and found to be structurally sound and free of corrosion holes 

when the cathodic protection was added to the tank.

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change? What Background Information Is Available About 

This Change? 

About 3 percent of tanks today rely on internal lining as the sole method of corrosion protection 

to meet the 1988 UST regulation.58 Tanks that are internally lined to meet the 1988 UST 

regulation corrosion protection requirement at § 280.21 are typically older, bare steel tanks 

installed before 1986. The 1988 UST regulation preamble says that internal lining, when used as 

the sole method for corrosion protection, is not regarded as a permanent upgrade. However, it is 

adequate if the lining continues to meet original design specifications. If the internal lining no 

longer meets original design specifications and cannot be repaired according to industry codes, 

then the lined tank is subject to unprotected tank requirements and must be replaced after 1998. 

However, the language from the 1988 preamble was not included in § 280.21(b)(1).

 

58 E2, Incorporated, memoranda and analyses submitted under Contract EP-W-05-018, “U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Analytical And Technical 

Support.” These supporting materials can be found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 125 of 398

EPA is proposing to revise the internal lining requirements to match EPA’s intent of replacing 

internally lined tanks that fail a lining inspection and cannot be repaired according to a code of 

practice. EPA is proposing that a lined tank must be permanently closed if, when inspected, it 

cannot be repaired according to a code of practice.

Owners and operators may continue using internal lining to meet the corrosion protection 

requirement, as long as: 

 The internal lining is periodically inspected according to § 280.21(b)(1)(ii); and

 The internal lining passes the inspection or is repaired so it meets original design 

specifications according to a code of practice developed by a nationally recognized 

association or independent testing laboratory. 

Consistent with current EPA policy,

59 tanks using the combination of cathodic protection and 

internal lining for corrosion protection are not required to be closed if the internal lining fails and 

cannot be repaired as long as:

 The cathodic protection is operated and maintained according to § 280.31; and 

 The tank was assessed and found to be structurally sound and free of corrosion holes 

when the cathodic protection was added to the tank.

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?

 

59 EPA UST Technical Compendium Question And Answer # 14: http://epa.gov/oust/compend/nus.htm.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 126 of 398

 Should EPA consider requiring lined tanks be closed when they fail a lining inspection 

independent of whether the lining can be repaired? If yes, please provide information to 

support your answer.

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different 

from EPA’s proposal. 

3. Notification Requirements

What Is EPA Proposing?

EPA is proposing these notification requirement changes in § 280.22: 

 Notify implementing agencies within 30 days of assuming ownership of an UST system. 

A new owner is required to submit a form which provides the new owner’s name, 

mailing address, physical location of USTs, and name of previous owner; 

 Require owners who bring new UST systems into service notify implementing agencies 

of USTs, rather than state or local agencies designated by EPA;

 Merge the paragraph about minimum information with the paragraph explaining what 

forms to use for notification and delete the minimum information paragraph; 

 Require owners of deferred UST systems EPA is proposing to require a one-time 

notification to implementing agencies within 30 days of the effective date of the final 

UST regulation. 

EPA is proposing changes to the “Notification For Underground Storage Tanks” form in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 127 of 398

Appendix I. EPA is proposing changes to the form as a result of today’s proposal, and to change 

“State” to “Implementing Agency” throughout the form.

EPA is proposing a new form titled “Notification of Ownership Change for Underground 

Storage Tanks” under Appendix II.

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change? What Background Information Is Available About 

This Change?

EPA is proposing the new ownership change notification to more effectively administer the UST 

program. EPA required a one-time notification of regulated USTs by May 8, 1986,60 and owners 

who purchased newly installed UST systems completed and submitted notification forms to 

implementing agencies. However, EPA did not require people notify implementing agencies 

when acquiring a regulated UST, such as when purchasing an existing service station.

Without a requirement to notify when persons assume ownership of UST systems, implementing 

agencies have difficulty administering the UST program. Persons can assume ownership 

through purchase, inheritance, acquisition of property, or other means. EPA estimates on 

average 10 percent of retail UST facilities change ownership in a given year.61 Any 

communication or outreach is impaired if implementing agencies do not know the correct owners 

of a large proportion of regulated USTs. When final, this change will ensure implementing 

agencies know the current ownership of regulated UST systems.

 

60 Solid Waste Disposal Act § 9002(a)(1).

61 E2, Incorporated, memoranda and analyses submitted under Contract EP-W-05-018, “U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Analytical And Technical 

Support.” These supporting materials can be found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 128 of 398

 

At least 48 of 56 states and territories realized this need and instituted some form of ownership 

change notification. EPA is following the example of these states and will require an ownership 

change notification to more effectively administer the UST program. 

EPA is proposing to include a form in Appendix II titled “Notification of Ownership Change for 

Underground Storage Tanks.” The new form specifies the information persons need to submit to 

the implementing agency after they become owners of underground storage tanks. EPA is 

proposing these owners provide their name, address, phone number, name of the facility, 

location of USTs, as well as the name, address, and phone number of the previous owner.

EPA is also proposing owners who bring UST systems into service notify implementing 

agencies, rather than state and local agencies identified by EPA. This change is needed for two 

reasons. First, an unintended result of the existing requirement is owners in Indian country

submitted notification forms to state or local agencies, not to EPA, even though EPA is the 

implementing agency in Indian country. When final, this change will greatly assist EPA in 

implementing the UST program in these areas. Second, many of the agency names and 

addresses EPA identified in 1988 are no longer accurate. When final, this change will provide 

owners with clarity about where to send notification forms and better accommodate changes of 

implementing agencies.

 

EPA is proposing to merge the paragraphs discussing the minimum information owners and 

operators need to submit and the form to be submitted to implementing agencies. This will 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 129 of 398

reduce redundancy and ease understanding of this requirement. As a result, a separate paragraph 

explaining what minimum information to submit for notification will be unnecessary. 

EPA is proposing owners of previously deferred UST systems notify implementing agencies 

within 30 days of the effective date of the final UST regulation. EPA is proposing this one-time 

notification because owners of previously deferred UST systems brought into service after May

8, 1986 were not required to notify implementing agencies. Because EPA is proposing to 

regulate previously deferred UST systems and to ensure they meet requirements of the final UST 

regulation, it is imperative implementing agencies receive notice about these UST systems. 

Due to EPA’s proposed changes to the UST regulation, we are proposing changes to the 

notification form under Appendix I. This will make the form request appropriate information 

according to today’s proposal. For instance, the release detection section of the 1988 UST 

regulation form did not include statistical inventory reconciliation or bulk tightness testing. The 

proposed form includes these methods.

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?

 Is a one-time notification for all UST owners also necessary to effectively administer the 

UST program in jurisdictions (eight states and territories and Indian country) where 

implementing agencies do not currently require ownership change notification? EPA is 

posing this question because of the high rate of UST ownership changes and resulting 

likelihood implementing agencies do not know who owns numerous UST systems. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 130 of 398

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different 

from EPA’s proposal. 

4. Compatibility

What Is EPA Proposing?

EPA is proposing changes to two definitions in § 280.12 of the 1988 UST regulation. 

 Regulated substance – delete “...derived from crude oil though62 [sic] processes of 

separation, conversion, upgrading, and finishing...” 

 Motor fuel – include explanatory language that a petroleum or petroleum-based substance 

is typically used to operate a motor engine and provide example products (motor 

gasoline, aviation gasoline, No. 1 or No. 2 diesel fuel, or any blend containing one or 

more of these substances, such as motor gasoline blended with alcohol) meeting the 

definition. 

In addition, EPA is proposing changes to the compatibility requirement in § 280.32 of the 1988 

UST regulation. These changes explain how owners and operators storing certain regulated 

substances must demonstrate that their UST systems are compatible with substances stored. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing: 

 Owners and operators storing any regulated substance blended with greater than 10 

percent ethanol or greater than 20 percent biodiesel, or any other regulated substance 

 

62 This is an error in 40 CFR 280; “though” should be “through.”
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 131 of 398

identified by the implementing agency, must use one or more of the following methods to 

demonstrate UST system compatibility with these regulated substances:

o Certification or listing of UST system components by a nationally recognized,

independent testing laboratory for use with the fuel stored;

o Equipment or component manufacturer approval. The manufacturer’s approval must 

be in writing; indicate an affirmative statement of compatibility; specify the range of 

ethanol or biodiesel blends the component is compatible with; and be from the 

equipment or component manufacturer; or

o Another method determined by the implementing agency to be no less protective of 

human health and the environment than the previously listed methods.

 Owners and operators must maintain the following records (according to § 280.34) for 

the life of the equipment or component:

o Documentation of compliance with the above section as applicable; and

o Records of all equipment or components installed or replaced after the effective date 

of the final UST regulation. At a minimum, each record must include the date of 

installation or replacement, manufacturer, and model. 

EPA is also proposing to delete these codes of practice. 

 American Petroleum Institute Publication 1626, “Storing and Handling Ethanol and 

Gasoline-Ethanol Blends at Distribution Terminals and Service Stations” 

 American Petroleum Institute Publication 1627, “Storage and Handling of GasolineMethanol/Cosolvent Blends at Distribution Terminals and Service Stations” 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 132 of 398

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change? What Background Information Is Available About 

This Change?

Regulated Substance And Motor Fuel Definitions 

EPA is proposing a change in the regulated substance definition to clarify that petroleum does 

not need to be derived from crude oil in order to be regulated when stored in USTs. The 

preamble to the supplement to the proposal for the original UST regulation indicates that 

petroleum products can be derived from other materials, such as biomass, plant material, organic 

waste, coal, and shale oil. 63 Petroleum is comprised of a complex blend of hydrocarbons 

regardless of its source material; therefore, all petroleum poses risks to human health and the 

environment. 

Many people interpreted the 1988 UST regulation definition of regulated substance as applying 

to petroleum USTs only if the petroleum was derived from crude oil. Over time, this 

misinterpretation may become more problematic as the amount of petroleum derived from noncrude oil based products, such as natural gasoline, increases as a result of requirements in the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Today’s regulated substance clarification will 

eliminate uncertainty about the regulatory status of tanks storing petroleum products derived 

from sources other than crude oil. 

EPA is proposing a change in the motor fuel definition to better accommodate new motor fuels 

that may be marketed and stored in the future. The 1988 UST regulation definition listed motor 

 

63 “40 CFR Parts 280 and 281 USTs; Supplement to Proposed Rule,” 52 Federal Register 246 (23 December 1987), 

pg. 48640.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 133 of 398

fuel products, leading to confusion as to whether new fuels, such as petroleum blended with 

ethanol or biodiesel, are motor fuels. Today’s proposal clarifies the motor fuel definition to 

explain that it is any fuel typically used to operate a motor engine. 

Compatibility

EPA understands that the chemical and physical properties of ethanol and biodiesel can be more 

degrading to certain UST system materials than petroleum alone. As the use of ethanol- and 

biodiesel-blended fuels increases, EPA is concerned that not all UST system components are 

compatible with these fuel blends. 

Gasoline containing 10 percent or less ethanol (known as E10) has been used in parts of the 

United States for many years, and UST equipment manufacturers accommodated the E10 market 

by producing compatible equipment. According to the Renewable Fuels Association, ethanol is 

blended into over 90 percent of all gasoline sold in the country,

67 predominantly as E10. 

Recently, there has been a movement toward higher blends of ethanol, due in part to federal and 

state laws encouraging the increased use of biofuels. While most UST system equipment and 

components are compatible with E10, blends greater than 10 percent ethanol do not have a long 

history of storage and may not be compatible with certain materials used in UST systems. 

According to a 2011 report published by U.S. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory,

68 some elastomeric materials are particularly affected by intermediate ethanol blends 

and certain sealants may not be suitable for any ethanol-blended fuels. A 2007 report from 

 

67 Renewable Fuels Association, “Building Bridges to a More Sustainable Future: 2011 Ethanol Industry Outlook.”

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/page/-/2011%20RFA%20Ethanol%20Industry%20Outlook.pdf?nocdn=1 .

68 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, “Intermediate Ethanol Blends Infrastructure Materials Compatibility Study: 

Elastomers, Metals, and Sealants” (March 2011). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 134 of 398

Underwriters Laboratories (UL)

69 evaluated the effect of 85 percent ethanol and 25 percent 

ethanol blends on dispenser components. Results indicated some materials used in the 

manufacture of seals were degraded more when exposed to the 25 percent ethanol test fluid than 

when exposed to the 85 percent ethanol test fluid. Other literature suggests ethanol fuel blends 

can be more aggressive toward certain materials than independent fuel constituents, with 

maximum polymer swelling observed at approximately 15 percent ethanol by volume.70 

Therefore, EPA is clarifying the compatibility requirements for owners and operators who 

choose to store regulated substances containing greater than 10 percent ethanol.

EPA is also clarifying the compatibility requirements for owners and operators who choose to 

store regulated substances containing greater than 20 percent biodiesel. Although the total use of 

biodiesel is significantly less than that of ethanol, it has become increasingly available across the 

United States and may also be incompatible with certain materials used in UST systems. Pure 

biodiesel (B100), for example, has known compatibility issues with certain materials. According 

to the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Biodiesel 

Handling and Use Guide, Fourth Edition,

71 “B100 will degrade, soften, or seep through some 

hoses, gaskets, seals, elastomers, glues, and plastics with prolonged exposure...Nitrile rubber 

compounds, polypropylene, polyvinyl, and Tygon® materials are particularly vulnerable to 

B100.” 

 

69 Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., “Underwriters Laboratories Research Program on Material Compatibility and 

Test Protocols for E85 Dispensing Equipment” (December 2007). Available in the UST Docket under Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651.

70 Westbrook, P.A., “Compatibility and Permeability of Oxygenated Fuels to Materials in Underground Storage and 

Dispensing Equipment” (January 1999). Available in the UST Docket under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2010-

0651.

71 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, “Biodiesel Handling and Use Guide, Fourth Edition.” (2009). Available 

in the UST Docket under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 135 of 398

In contrast, the properties of very low blends of biodiesel (B5 or less) are so similar to those of 

petroleum diesel that ASTM International (ASTM) considers conventional diesel that contains 

up to 5 percent biodiesel to meet its “Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils”.72 For 

biodiesel blends between 5 and 100 percent, there is very little compatibility information; 

however, NREL’s handling and use guide concludes that biodiesel blends of B20 or less have 

less of an effect on materials and very low blends of biodiesel (for example, B5 and B2) “...have 

no noticeable effect on materials compatibility.”73 In addition, fleet service sites have stored B20 

in USTs for years, and EPA is not aware of compatibility-related releases associated with those 

USTs storing B20. Therefore, EPA is proposing to require tank owners and operators who store 

greater than 20 percent biodiesel in their UST systems demonstrate compatibility of UST 

equipment by one of the methods proposed in §280.32.

To avoid risk of increased releases due to incompatibility of ethanol or biodiesel blends with 

UST system components, EPA is proposing several options for owners and operators to 

demonstrate that their UST systems are compatible with regulated substances containing greater

than 10 percent ethanol or greater than 20 percent biodiesel. These options provide owners and 

operators with flexibility in demonstrating compatibility, yet still protect human health and the 

environment. In the past, tank owners typically demonstrated compatibility by using equipment 

certified or listed by a nationally recognized, independent testing laboratory, such as 

Underwriters Laboratories (UL). Many UST components in the ground today were 

manufactured before regulated substances containing ethanol or biodiesel existed and are not 

 

72 ASTM Standard D975, 2010c “Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils,” ASTM International, West 

Conshohocken, PA, 2010, DOI: 10.1520/D0975-10C, www.astm.org.

73 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, “Biodiesel Handling and Use Guide, Fourth Edition.” (2009). Available 

in the UST Docket under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 136 of 398

approved by nationally recognized, independent testing laboratories for use with these fuel

blends. Currently, certain tanks and piping have been tested and are listed by UL for use with 

higher-level ethanol blends. Many other components of the UST system, such as leak detection 

devices, sealants, and containment sumps, may not be listed by UL or another nationally

recognized, independent testing laboratory for use with these blends.

In addition, EPA is not aware of any nationally recognized, independent testing laboratory that 

has performed testing on UST system components with biodiesel-blended fuels. Absent 

certification or listing from a nationally recognized, independent testing laboratory, or other 

verification that components may be used with anything beyond conventional fuels, the 

suitability of these components for use with ethanol or biodiesel blends comes into question. As 

a result, EPA is providing options for demonstrating compatibility to reduce the risk of releases 

due to material incompatibility. Owners and operators choosing to store regulated substances 

blended with greater than 10 percent ethanol or greater than 20 percent biodiesel must 

demonstrate compatibility of the UST system before storing those regulated substances.

EPA is proposing owners and operators use one of these two methods for demonstrating 

compatibility of UST equipment or components with regulated substances containing greater 

than 10 percent ethanol or greater than 20 percent biodiesel: using equipment or components 

that are certified or listed by a nationally recognized, independent testing laboratory for use with 

the fuel stored; or using equipment or components approved by the manufacturer to be 

compatible with the fuel stored. In addition, implementing agencies will have the flexibility to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 137 of 398

evaluate and allow other methods, if they are no less protective of human health and the 

environment than those EPA is proposing today.

For those components tested and approved by a nationally recognized, independent testing 

laboratory, owners and operators will be able to demonstrate compatibility solely by keeping 

records of these components. In this instance, the testing laboratory’s listing, labeling, or 

approval demonstrates the equipment or component’s suitability to be used with the regulated 

substance stored, which means owners and operators will be able to demonstrate compatibility

by retaining equipment or component records. 

Owners and operators will also be able to demonstrate compatibility by obtaining manufacturer’s 

approval of components’ compatibility with the regulated substance to be stored. The 

manufacturer’s approval must be in writing and include an affirmative statement that the 

component is compatible with the fuel blend stored. To add clarity for tank owners and

operators, the manufacturer’s approval must also specify the range of fuel blends for which the 

component is compatible. Finally, the manufacturer’s approval must be issued from the 

equipment or component manufacturer, not another entity (such as the installer or distributor). A

manufacturer’s approval will enable owners and operators to demonstrate compatibility for 

components not approved for use by a nationally recognized, independent testing laboratory. It 

will also provide confidence for implementing agencies that the component is compatible with 

the fuel stored.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 138 of 398

EPA is proposing an additional option which would allow implementing agencies to approve 

other methods for demonstrating compatibility with regulated substances containing greater than 

10 percent ethanol or greater than 20 percent biodiesel. Implementing agencies will be able to 

approve methods they consider no less protective of human health and the environment in 

addition to the manufacturer’s approval or the listing, labeling, or approval by a nationally

recognized, independent testing laboratory. This will provide owners and operators with 

additional flexibility when new methods to determine UST system component compatibility are 

developed. 

Although these methods for demonstrating compatibility will apply to UST systems storing 

regulated substances containing greater than 10 percent ethanol and greater than 20 percent 

biodiesel, EPA is proposing to extend the methods to other regulated substances identified by 

implementing agencies. This will provide implementing agencies with flexibility when new 

regulated substances (for example, biobutanol) enter the fuel market and allow implementing 

agencies to apply these methods for determining UST system compatibility to other regulated 

substances. 

EPA is proposing owners and operators maintain records for the life of UST systems, if the UST 

system stores regulated substances containing greater than 10 percent ethanol or greater than 20

percent biodiesel or another regulated substance identified by implementing agencies. Owners 

and operators will be required to retain equipment or component records in order to demonstrate 

their systems are compatible with these regulated substances. Without records of the equipment 

or components, owners and operators will not be allowed to store regulated substances 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 139 of 398

containing greater than 10 percent ethanol or greater than 20 percent biodiesel in their UST 

systems. 

To demonstrate compatibility with regulated substances stored in UST systems, owners and 

operators of new and replaced equipment or components must retain records for the life of the 

equipment or component. This will ensure new and replaced equipment and components are

compatible with the regulated substances stored. As equipment or components are replaced, 

records will be available for all UST system equipment or components, making it easier for 

owners and operators to demonstrate compatibility with new regulated substances. 

Owners and operators must demonstrate compatibility for the following UST system equipment 

or components: tank or internal tank lining; piping; line leak detector; flexible connectors; drop 

tube; spill and overfill prevention equipment and components; submersible turbine pump 

equipment and components; sealants (including pipe dope and thread sealant); fittings; gaskets; 

bushings; couplings; boots; containment sumps (including submersible turbine sumps and under 

dispenser containment); release detection floats, sensors, and probes; fill and riser caps; and the 

product shear valve. These equipment or components are a subset of an UST system, as defined 

by §280.12, which, if incompatible, would lead to a liquid release to the environment. 

EPA is clarifying that the requirements in this section also apply to both newly installed 

equipment or components and equipment where one or more components are replaced. For 

newly installed equipment comprised of multiple individual, smaller components and assembled 

by the manufacturer, some manufacturers provide a compatibility certification for the equipment 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 140 of 398

as a whole. For example, a manufacturer may certify the entire submersible turbine pump as 

being compatible. The submersible turbine pump certification would include all components 

(gaskets, sealants, bushings, etc.) of the equipment assembled by the manufacturer. Therefore, 

an owner may obtain one certification for newly installed manufacturer-assembled equipment, as 

long as the manufacturer certifies the entire piece of equipment as compatible. However, over 

the lifetime of a typical UST system, equipment is likely to require maintenance, which may

involve replacing components such as gaskets, sealants, and bushings. It is important for tank 

owners to use compatible replacement components, especially since these components are 

sometimes constructed of materials that are not compatible with biofuel blends. Therefore, 

components (such as gaskets, sealants, bushings, etc.) replaced after the equipment was 

originally installed will not be covered by the original manufacturer’s approval. Owners and 

operators will need to obtain manufacturer’s certification indicating the replaced component is 

compatible with the regulated substance stored in the UST system. 

These proposed changes will protect human health and the environment from potential additional 

releases as a result of incompatible UST systems. Also, the changes are not overly burdensome, 

nor do they require costly retrofits. These changes will give owners and operators flexibility, yet 

provide EPA with confidence that UST systems will be compatible with new fuel blends when 

owners and operators use one or more of the proposed methods to determine compatibility. The 

additional language also provides owners and operators with certainty on what is acceptable in 

demonstrating UST system compatibility with the substances stored. 

EPA is also proposing to delete two codes of practice listed in the 1988 UST regulation. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 141 of 398

EPA included codes of practice to help owners and operators demonstrate compliance with the 

compatibility requirement. EPA is now proposing methods for determining compatibility, so 

referencing codes of practice is unnecessary.

In August 2010, American Petroleum Institute (API) published an updated version of API 

Recommended Practice 1626. Today’s proposal incorporates several methods API recommends 

owners and operators storing blends of greater than 10 percent ethanol use to demonstrate UST 

system compatibility. If owners and operators follow API Recommended Practice 1626, Section 

7 requirements, for regulated substances blended with ethanol, they will meet today’s proposed § 

280.32(b) changes.

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?

 How many UST systems currently store petroleum not derived from crude oil (such as 

natural gasoline)?

 Should EPA consider allowing professional engineers to make compatibility

determinations? 

 Are there additional methods for effectively demonstrating compatibility? If yes, please 

provide details. 

 Are there other alternatives to demonstrating compatibility (such as using secondarily 

contained USTs) that tank owners and operators should be allowed to use, that are no less 

protective of human health and the environment?
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 142 of 398

 Are the proposed criteria for manufacturer’s approval reasonable? 

 Should EPA consider tiering methods? For example, if an approval or listing from a 

nationally recognized, independent third party is available, then the manufacturer

approval is not an option for that component? 

 Should EPA waive the compatibility requirement for UST systems with secondary

containment and interstitial monitoring? Why or why not?

 While this proposal requires owners and operators maintain records to demonstrate 

compatibility, we are not requiring owners and operators transfer records to new owners 

and operators. Should EPA consider requiring records transfer?

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different 

from EPA’s proposal. 

5. Improving Repairs

What Is EPA Proposing?

EPA is proposing to revise the definition of repair in § 280.12 to: 

 Clarify that all UST system components, including piping, spill prevention equipment, 

overfill prevention equipment, corrosion protection equipment, and release detection 

equipment are included under the repairs allowed section of the regulation, and

 Remove the link that repairs are only associated with a release from an UST system by

adding to the definition suspected release and equipment that has failed to function 

properly.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 143 of 398

For repairs to secondary containment areas of UST systems, overfill prevention equipment, and 

spill prevention equipment, EPA is proposing to add tests after a repair to the repairs allowed 

section (§ 280.33). The tests after repair requirements for these areas are the same as those for 

periodic spill and overfill tests discussed in sections B-2 and B-3. The tests for interstitial areas 

after a repair and periodic interstitial integrity (in section B-4) are the same, except tanks with 

continuous interstitial sensors must perform a vacuum, pressure, or liquid test following the 

repair. These tests must be conducted within 30 days of a repair. 

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change? What Background Information Is Available About 

This Change?

Clarification of UST system components in the definition of repair – EPA is proposing to 

add the following UST system components to the definition of repair: piping; spill prevention 

equipment; overfill prevention equipment; corrosion protection equipment; and release detection 

equipment. By adding these UST system components, EPA is making it clear that these specific 

components are subject to the repairs allowed section of the regulation. This means owners and 

operators performing repairs on these UST system components must follow the repairs allowed 

section (§ 280.33). The 1988 UST regulation definition of repair uses the generic term UST 

system component and provides less detail about what an UST system component is. 

Including repairs not associated with a confirmed release or suspected release from the 

UST system – It is common practice for owners and operators to fix UST components that have 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 144 of 398

not caused a release or suspected release of product from the UST system. However, the repair 

definition in the 1988 UST regulation does not consider these non-release fixes as repairs. EPA 

is proposing to modify the repair definition to include the concept of repairing equipment that 

failed to function properly, delinking a repair with a release from the UST system. This 

proposed change will ensure repair activities not associated with a release are conducted 

properly. For example, under the 1988 UST regulation, fixing a cathodic protection system 

would not be considered a repair because the UST component likely has not yet caused a release 

of product from the UST system. In addition, EPA is proposing to include a suspected release as 

part of the definition, so repairs associated with suspected releases are covered under the repair 

definition. 

By removing the link between repair and release, EPA is proposing owners and operators meet 

the repairs allowed section (§ 280.33) when fixing UST system components that have not caused 

a release of product from the UST system. This means owners and operators will need to have 

repairs performed in accordance with a code of practice developed by a nationally recognized 

association or independent testing laboratory and test the equipment after the repair is completed.

Tests after repairs – To ensure equipment is operating as intended after a repair, EPA is 

proposing to require tests within 30 days of repairing spill, overfill, and secondary containment 

equipment. Except for interstitial integrity tests in USTs with continuous interstitial sensors, the 

tests after repairs proposal uses periodic tests described in sections B-2, B-3, and B-4. For USTs 

with continuous interstitial sensors, owners and operators must conduct vacuum, pressure, or 

liquid tests to ensure the secondary containment area is operating as intended. EPA is proposing 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 145 of 398

to require tests because sensors alone cannot immediately determine whether repairs were 

completed properly. Vacuum, pressure, and liquid tests will be able to ensure the adequacy of 

the repair by evaluating the interstitial area. Tests after repairs will only apply to those UST 

components being repaired and not to all components at the UST site.

EPA is proposing that tests of spill, overfill, and interstitial areas after a repair occur within 30 

days of the repair. EPA chose 30 days to be consistent with the time frame for the tightness 

testing requirement after repairing tanks and piping in § 280.33.

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?

 Should EPA consider changing the time frame for conducting an interstitial, spill, or 

overfill test from 30 days to before returning the UST system to service?

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different 

from EPA’s proposal. 

6. Phase Out Vapor Monitoring And Groundwater Monitoring As Release Detection 

Methods

What Is EPA Proposing?

EPA is proposing to phase out vapor monitoring and groundwater monitoring as methods of 

release detection for tanks and piping in § 280.43. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 146 of 398

Owners and operators of UST systems installed before the effective date of the final UST 

regulation will have five years to comply with another release detection monitoring method in 40 

CFR 280, subpart D. 

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change? What Background Information Is Available About 

This Change?

Although EPA is proposing new and replaced tanks and piping use interstitial monitoring (see 

section A-2), UST systems installed before the effective date of the final UST regulation may

continue to use internal or interstitial release detection methods listed in subpart D of the 1988 

UST regulation. Automatic tank gauging and statistical inventory reconciliation are internal 

monitoring methods and are characterized by activities within the tank or piping to monitor any

discrepancies. Groundwater monitoring and vapor monitoring are external monitoring methods 

and are characterized by monitoring external areas (specifically groundwater or soil-vapor) that 

surround an UST system. An interstitial method monitors the space between tank or piping walls 

and detects a release before it reaches the environment.

EPA is proposing to phase out the two external release detection methods – vapor monitoring 

and groundwater monitoring – because these methods detect releases well after they enter the 

environment. In addition, there are inherent problems with installing and confirming proper use 

of these methods. As methods of release detection, they are less protective of the environment 

than others. Regulators inspecting UST systems report common problems they encounter when 

inspecting UST systems using vapor or groundwater monitoring methods, such as an insufficient 

number of wells or wells improperly located to sufficiently monitor for potential releases. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 147 of 398

Vapor monitoring problems pertain to confirming whether certain site conditions exist. In 

particular, surrounding soil should be sufficiently porous to readily allow diffusion into the 

excavation area; the ability to measure vapors should not be affected by groundwater, rainfall, or 

soil moisture; and background contamination should not interfere with monitoring methods. 

A commonly encountered groundwater monitoring problem is that groundwater, at times, can be 

more than 20 feet from the ground surface, due to seasonal water table variations. According to 

the 1988 UST regulation, groundwater must never be more than 20 feet from the ground surface 

and well slotting must be designed to allow entry of regulated substances on the water table into 

the well under both high and low groundwater conditions. Unfortunately, many wells are not 

installed appropriately resulting in the depth of groundwater requirement not being met. 

Many UST facilities do not have site assessments that confirm whether site conditions support 

use of vapor monitoring and groundwater monitoring release detection. In instances when site 

assessments are available, they are often not thorough enough to verify whether regulatory

requirements are met. Without site assessments, regulators are unable to determine whether site 

conditions are met. Reassessing sites to verify if site conditions support use of vapor monitoring 

or groundwater monitoring is intrusive and costly. Some UST facilities switch between vapor 

monitoring and groundwater monitoring, depending on seasonal variations. This practice further 

complicates using these methods, such as whether groundwater rendered the vapor monitoring 

inoperable or whether the wells are designed for both methods. Even if optimal operating 

conditions are met in both of these external methods, by the time a release is detected, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 148 of 398

contamination has already significantly impacted the environment. 

In contrast, internal release detection methods have an advantage over external monitoring 

methods. Internal methods provide an early warning to owners and operators because they 

indicate unusual operating conditions, such as water in the tank or incremental loss of product. 

An early warning alerts owners and operators to take action and minimize releases to the 

environment. 

EPA estimates approximately 5 percent of all active UST systems are using vapor monitoring or 

groundwater monitoring to comply with release monitoring requirements.74 Because of the time 

it may take for owners and operators to convert to another method of release detection, five years 

will allow sufficient time for UST system owners and operators to begin using another method of 

release detection. 

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?

 Is five years for owners and operators using vapor monitoring and groundwater 

monitoring to switch to another method too short, too long, or an appropriate length? 

 

74 E2, Incorporated, memoranda and analyses submitted under Contract EP-W-05-018, “U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Analytical And Technical 

Support.” These supporting materials can be found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 149 of 398

 Are there circumstances at existing facilities that would warrant a subset of UST systems 

to use vapor monitoring or groundwater monitoring beyond the proposed period of five 

years. If so, what are the circumstances?

 Is EPA’s assumption of 5 percent accurate for the number of active UST systems using 

vapor monitoring or groundwater monitoring to comply with release detection 

requirements?

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different 

from EPA’s proposal. 

7. Interstitial Monitoring Results, Including Interstitial Alarms, Under Subpart E

What Is EPA Proposing?

EPA is proposing clarifications of UST owners’ and operators’ responsibilities regarding 

interstitial monitoring results, including alarms, under 40 CFR part 280, subpart E. Specifically, 

EPA is proposing these changes: 

 § 280.50(b) – add interstitial spaces of secondarily contained UST systems and provide 

examples of unusual operating conditions.

 § 280.50(c) – clarify that an alarm during release detection monitoring is subject to the 

reporting requirement. 

 § 280.52(a) – require owners and operators of UST systems with secondary containment 

using interstitial monitoring follow integrity test requirements (proposed in section B-4) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 150 of 398

to confirm a suspected release, and clarify actions UST owners and operators must take if 

a test confirms a leak or indicates a release exists. 

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change? What Background Information Is Available About 

This Change?

The 1988 UST regulation adequately covers interstitial monitoring. Nonetheless, EPA is 

proposing these changes to reinforce that a leak into an interstitial space of a secondarily

contained UST system is also a potential threat to the environment and must be investigated, 

addressed, and as necessary, reported.

In section A-2, EPA is proposing interstitial monitoring for all new or replaced tanks and piping. 

As new systems are installed, interstitial monitoring will become more widely used as a method 

of release detection. With this in mind, EPA wants UST owners and operators to clearly 

understand how interstitial monitoring results, including interstitial alarms (and alarms 

associated with other types of release detection monitoring if interstitial monitoring is not used), 

must be handled. 

In the 1988 UST regulation, EPA intended that product or water in the interstice, and alarms 

signifying the presence of those conditions, are unusual operating conditions and must be 

investigated appropriately. However, EPA did not indicate how UST owners and operators were 

to address discrepancies with interstitial spaces. As a result, some UST owners and operators 

were uncertain about how best to respond to interstitial monitoring results and alarms associated 

with interstitial monitoring that indicate a release may have occurred. This section provides 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 151 of 398

specific information to alleviate uncertainty for owners and operators. 

 Add interstitial spaces of secondarily contained UST systems and provide examples of 

unusual operating conditions 

o Two unusual operating condition examples – water in the interstitial space 

(presumably from a breach in the secondary wall) and product in the interstitial 

space (presumably from a breach in the primary wall) – are important along with 

other suspected release conditions listed in the 1988 UST regulation. Water or 

product in the interstitial space indicates there is a problem with the UST system 

that needs to be resolved. As a result, EPA is specifying these conditions as 

unusual operating conditions and will require UST owners and operators 

investigate and address them. 

 Clarify that an alarm during release detection monitoring, which indicates a potential 

release or compromise of the interstitial space, is subject to the reporting requirement 

o UST owners and operators must appropriately address release detection 

monitoring alarms. For example, continuously monitored systems will trigger an 

alarm indicating a potential release or that the interstitial space has been 

compromised. UST owners and operators must appropriately address all alarms 

in the same manner. EPA is adding interstitial monitoring in subpart E to 

emphasize its importance because the proposed secondary containment 

requirement for new and replaced system discussed in section A-2 will increase 

the use of interstitial monitoring. UST owners and operators will not be required 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 152 of 398

to report alarms from defective equipment or false alarms as suspected releases. 

Also, UST owners and operators will not have to report leaks that are contained in 

the interstitial space, but they must investigate and repair the problems. However, 

as required in § 280.43(g), groundwater, soil moisture, or rainfall must not render 

the testing or sampling method inoperative so that a release could go undetected 

for more than 30 days. Finally, regulated substance in the interstitial space poses 

safety concerns and can also affect testing and sampling methods. For safety 

reasons, owners and operators must ensure the method of interstitial monitoring 

continues to operate and should always remove any regulated substance from the 

interstitial area. 

 Require owners and operators of UST systems with secondary containment using 

interstitial monitoring follow integrity test requirements (proposed in section B-4) to 

confirm a suspected release and clarify actions UST owners and operators must take if a 

test confirms a leak or indicates a release exists 

o Requiring UST owners and operators to follow integrity test requirements of the 

interstitial area will ensure both inner and outer walls are checked when 

investigating a suspected release. EPA also is taking the position that it is 

important to clarify actions UST owners and operators must take if a test confirms 

a leak or indicates a release exists. If a leak is confirmed, UST owners and 

operators must correct or address the problem. In addition to options listed in the 

1988 UST regulation, EPA is proposing to include closure as another option. 

Nothing in this proposal changes the requirement in subpart F for UST owners 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 153 of 398

and operators to take corrective action if a release occurred. 

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?

EPA did not identify specific issues for comment. 

E. General Updates

1. Incorporate Newer Technologies

What Is EPA Proposing?

EPA is proposing to include technologies developed since issuing the 1988 UST regulation and 

clarify the use of those technologies. EPA is proposing these changes: 

 Tanks – revise steel-fiberglass-reinforced-plastic composite in § 280.20(a)(3) to steel 

tank clad or jacketed with a non-corrodible material. UST owners and operators will be 

able to use jacketed tanks to meet EPA’s proposed requirement for secondary

containment and interstitial monitoring described in section A-2.

 Piping – revise fiberglass-reinforced plastic in § 280.20(b)(1) to non-corrodible material. 

This will allow UST owners and operators to install other piping, such as flexible plastic, 

that does not corrode.

 Release detection – add two release detection options: continuous in-tank leak detection 

(CITLD) and statistical inventory reconciliation (SIR). UST owners and operators will 

be able to use these additional options to meet release detection requirements in § 280.40, 

as long as the methods meet the following:
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 154 of 398

 CITLD – automatic tank gauge operating on an uninterrupted basis or operating 

within a process that allows the system to gather incremental measurements to 

determine the leak status of the tank at least once every 30 days. 

 SIR – quantitative analysis with a calculated leak rate capable of detecting a 0.2 

gallon per hour leak rate within 30 days with a probability of detection of 0.95 

and a probability of false alarm of 0.05 is required, based on a threshold that does 

not exceed one-half the minimum leak rate. 

EPA is proposing to list three additional continuous interstitial monitoring methods in § 

280.43(g): liquid-filled, pressure, and vacuum interstitial monitoring. These methods must be

capable of detecting a breach in both the inner and outer walls of the tank and piping. 

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change? What Background Information Is Available About 

This Change?

Since EPA promulgated the 1988 UST regulation, newer tank, piping, and release detection 

technologies have been developed and are being used. EPA is proposing this change to 

acknowledge newer UST related technologies and clarify the use of these technologies. 

Clad And Jacketed Tanks

The 1988 UST regulation allows these tank technologies: coated and cathodically protected steel; 

fiberglass reinforced plastic; steel-fiberglass-reinforced-plastic composite; and metal without 

additional corrosion protection, provided that a corrosion expert determines the site is not 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 155 of 398

corrosive enough to cause a release from corrosion during the tank’s life. The 1988 regulation 

also allows use of other tank technologies that implementing agencies determine are no less 

protective of human health and the environment than those listed above. Additional noncorrodible materials are now used as claddings for steel tanks, and they are as effective at 

preventing corrosion as technologies in the 1988 regulation. EPA considers a cladding to be a 

non-corrosive dielectric material, bonded to the steel tank with sufficient durability to prevent 

corrosion during the tank’s life. EPA did not include jacketed tanks in the 1988 regulation, even 

though they are no less protective of human health and the environment than technologies listed 

in the regulation. EPA considers jacketed to be a non-corrosive dielectric material that: is 

constructed as secondary containment (jacketed) around a steel tank; has sufficient durability to 

prevent corrosion during the tank’s life; and prevents a regulated substance released from the 

primary steel tank wall from reaching the environment. EPA estimates 10 percent of regulated 

tanks today are jacketed with a non-corrodible material and 18 percent are clad with a noncorrodible material.75

 

Non-corrodible Piping

The 1988 UST regulation allows fiberglass-reinforced plastic piping as a non-corrodible piping 

option, as well as other piping technologies that implementing agencies determine are no less 

protective of human health and the environment than those in the regulation. Non-corrodible 

piping not made of fiberglass-reinforced plastic (in particular, flexible plastic piping) was 

installed beginning in the 1990s and has evolved over the past 20 years. Flexible plastic piping 

is made of various non-corrodible materials, such as polyethylene and polyurethane. EPA 

 

75 E2, Incorporated, memoranda and analyses submitted under Contract EP-W-05-018, “U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Analytical And Technical 

Support.” These supporting materials can be found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 156 of 398

estimates at least 13 percent of regulated piping currently installed is made of non-corrodible 

materials that are not fiberglass-reinforced plastic.76 Revising fiberglass-reinforced piping to 

non-corrodible piping will allow UST owners and operators to install other types of noncorrodible piping, such as flexible plastic, without requiring implementing agencies to make a 

determination. 

Release Detection Technologies

The 1988 UST regulation allows UST owners and operators to use other methods that meet 

release detection performance criteria listed at § 280.43(h). Although CITLD and SIR are 

allowed under § 280.43(h), it is important to specify both by name. 

CITLD 

The 1988 UST regulation allows ATG systems as a recognized method of release detection. 

However, it is generally listed with performance requirements consistent with the method being 

used to perform a static test. ATG relies on system down time, absent product delivery or 

dispensing activities. In static testing mode, the ATG system analyzes product level and 

determines whether or not a leak is present during that down time. Yet for years, UST owners 

and operators used ATG systems as a means of continually monitoring tanks for potential 

releases. Continuous in-tank leak detection has evolved as a reliable means of providing release 

detection equivalent to other methods specified in § 280.41. Within this category of methods, 

EPA will also allow continuous in-tank methods where the system incrementally gathers 

measurements to determine the tank’s leak status within the 30-day monitoring period. Today’s 

 

76 E2, Incorporated, memoranda and analyses submitted under Contract EP-W-05-018, “U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Analytical And Technical 

Support.” These supporting materials can be found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 157 of 398

proposal formally recognizes CITLD as a release detection method in § 280.43(d). Per § 280.41, 

a conclusive pass or fail result must be obtained within the 30-day monitoring period. All 

monitoring records must be maintained according to § 280.45. Another method of release 

detection is required in the event of an inconclusive result. UST owners and operators may

perform an in-tank static test using the ATG system or another method in subpart D. 

SIR

Today’s proposal adds SIR by name to the final UST regulation and clarifies its use. SIR must: 

 Report a quantitative result with calculated leak rate;

 Be capable of detecting a leak rate of at least 0.2 gallon per hour with a probability of 

detection of not less than 0.95 and a probability of false alarm of no greater than 0.05; 

and

 Use a threshold that does not exceed one-half the minimum detectable leak rate.

A quantitative result with a calculated leak rate is necessary to effectively perform release 

detection using SIR. Some SIR methods are qualitative based methods that simply provide a 

result of pass or fail without any additional information for UST owners and operators to gauge 

the validity of the reported results. Based on information in NWGLDE’s list,77 approximately 15 

percent of SIR methods listed are qualitative-based methods. Many state UST implementing 

agencies already only allow the use of quantitative methods. Today’s proposal will no longer 

allow qualitative SIR as an option for meeting the release detection requirement.

 

77 National Work Group On Leak Detection Evaluation’s (NWGLDE) List Of Leak Detection Evaluations For 

Storage Tank Systems: http://www.nwglde.org/. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 158 of 398

Consistent with some of the release detection methods described in § 280.43(h), EPA maintained 

the performance standard of 0.2 gallon per hour with a probability of detection of 0.95 and a 

probability of false alarm of 0.05. However, we are not requiring the additional standard of 150 

gallons within a month per § 280.43(h). EPA included this additional standard in the 1988 UST

regulation to primarily address external methods. EPA added the standard because it is more 

difficult to demonstrate that external methods meet a small hourly leak rate than a larger, though 

equivalent, volume. SIR is an in-tank monitoring method and the 0.2 gallon per hour standard 

with a probability of detection (Pd) of 0.95 and a probability of false alarm (Pfa) of 0.05 is the 

applicable standard to use.

SIR must also meet EPA’s established requirement for probability of detection and probability of 

false alarm. In a normal probability distribution, SIR data typically analyzed through the 

calculation of the reportable values of minimum detectable leak rate (MDL) and the leak 

declaration threshold (T) are related as follows: 

 MDL is always greater than T 

 Pd = (1-Pfa), then MDL = 2 times T (i.e., T = 1⁄2 MDL) 

Any analysis of data indicating a threshold value greater than one-half minimum detectable leak 

rate should be appropriately investigated as a suspected release. 

In this proposal, EPA is addressing the following issues associated with using SIR: 

 SIR is not the same as inventory control 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 159 of 398

o For years, users, vendors, and regulators incorrectly linked SIR to the inventory

control method described in § 280.43(a). SIR is more sophisticated than 

inventory control and not subject to the same requirement to combine it with tank 

tightness testing and limit its use to 10 years. Note § 280.50(c)(2) states, “In the 

case of inventory control, a second month of data does not confirm the initial 

result.” This language allowed owners and operators to use a second month of 

inventory control data to confirm initial possible failure results. However, this 

allowance does not apply to SIR.

 Results for release detection, including SIR, are required within the 30-day monitoring 

period 

o EPA considered including a requirement that UST owners and operators obtain a 

record of SIR results within 30 days. However, we believe this requirement is 

adequately covered in 40 CFR part 280, subpart D of the 1988 UST regulation. 

As § 280.41 states, “Tanks...must be monitored for releases at least every 30 days 

using one of the methods listed in § 280.43(d) through (h)...”. In today’s 

proposal, EPA is adding a subsection to formally recognize SIR. A definitive 

result of pass or fail that identifies the tank’s leak status is required within the 30-

day monitoring period for all release detection methods, including SIR. 

 Owners and operators must use another method of release detection if SIR results are 

inconclusive results 

o For years, implementing agencies have been concerned about inconclusive results 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 160 of 398

when using SIR for release detection. In 1993, EPA issued a policy regarding 

inconclusive SIR results,78 which says all methods used to meet release detection 

requirements in § 280.41 must obtain a conclusive result of pass or fail within the 

30-day monitoring period. All monitoring records must be maintained according 

to § 280.45. For SIR, this means UST owners and operators must obtain a report 

determining release status within the 30-day monitoring period. Another method 

of release detection is required: when results are inconclusive; prior to sufficient 

data being gathered to generate an initial report at startup; or when a report is not 

available for any month of monitoring.

 Initial SIR report at startup 

o SIR methods need to gather data over a period of time in order to determine 

whether the tank is leaking. In some cases, regulatory agencies have addressed 

significant lag times between when data is collected to when a tank status 

determination is available to owners and operators. NWGLDE’s list of thirdparty evaluated methods indicates the data collection period required for SIR 

methods ranges from 15 to 90 days. However, most methods require between 23 

to 30 days to gather sufficient measurements that provide an accurate result. Any

method that goes beyond a 30-day monitoring period is inconsistent with the 

established requirement and does not protect human health and the environment. 

It is imperative that UST owners and operators determine the status of their tanks 

within the established monitoring period to avoid increased risk of contamination.

o EPA recognizes that a rolling collection of data may be used to analyze the leak 

 

78 UST Technical compendium, question and answer number 21: http://epa.gov/oust/compend/rd.htm.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 161 of 398

status of the tank. For example, data from the previous 30-day monitoring period 

may be added to measurements taken within the current 30-day monitoring period 

to determine whether or not the tank is leaking. However, the majority of data 

must come from the current 30-day period and another method of release 

detection must be used to monitor the tank during this startup period. Subsequent 

monitoring continuously rolls data forward and provides sufficient data in a 

timely manner to determine pass or fail. 

Interstitial Monitoring

EPA is proposing to add three methods of interstitial monitoring – vacuum, pressure, and liquidfilled methods – in § 280.43(g)(4). Although these interstitial methods are covered under the 

general description provided in § 280.43(g), These methods should be included as distinct 

interstitial monitoring options. Each of these methods must be capable of detecting breaches in 

both the inner and outer walls of secondarily contained tanks and secondarily contained piping.

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?

 Should EPA require specific performance standards for vacuum, pressure, and liquidfilled interstitial monitoring? If so, what should the performance standards be and why?

 Are there performance standards for release detection methods that should be added or 

removed? 

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 162 of 398

from EPA’s proposal. 

2. Updates To Codes Of Practice Listed In The UST Regulation 

What Is EPA Proposing?

EPA is proposing to update the codes of practice (also called standards or recommended 

practices) listed in the 1988 UST regulation to reflect new codes, changes to code names, and 

new nationally recognized associations and independent testing laboratories. EPA proposes to 

update, add, or remove codes of practice to the following specific areas of the 1988 UST 

regulation:

§ 280.11 – interim prohibition for deferred UST systems

Updated Codes:

- NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, Corrosion Control of 

Underground Storage Tank Systems by Cathodic Protection

Added Codes:

- NACE International Standard Practice SP 0169, Control of External Corrosion on 

Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems

- American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1632, Cathodic Protection of 

Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks and Piping Systems

- Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R892, Recommended Practice for 

Corrosion Protection of Underground Piping Networks Associated with Liquid Petroleum 

Storage and Dispensing Systems
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 163 of 398

§ 280.20(a)(1) – fiberglass tanks

Updated Codes:

- Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1316, Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Underground 

Storage Tanks for Petroleum Products, Alcohols, and Alcohol-Gasoline Mixtures

- Underwriters Laboratories of Canada S615, Standard for Reinforced Plastic 

Underground Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids

Removed Codes:

- American Society of Testing and Materials Standard D4021-86, Standard Specification 

for Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polyester Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks

§ 280.20(a)(2) – steel tanks with cathodic protection

Updated Codes:

- Steel Tank Institute Specification sti-P3® Specification and Manual for External 

Corrosion Protection of Underground Steel Storage Tanks

- Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1746, Standard for External Corrosion Protection 

Systems for Steel Underground Storage Tanks

- Underwriters Laboratories of Canada S603, Standard for Steel Underground Tanks for 

Flammable and Combustible Liquids

- Underwriters Laboratories of Canada S603.1, Standard for External Corrosion 

Protection Systems for Steel Underground Tanks for Flammable and Combustible 

Liquids

- Underwriters Laboratories of Canada S631, Standard for Isolating Bushings for Steel 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 164 of 398

Underground Tanks Protected with External Corrosion Protection Systems

- NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, Corrosion Control of 

Underground Storage Systems by Cathodic Protection

- Underwriters Laboratories Standard 58, Standard for Steel Underground Tanks for 

Flammable and Combustible Liquids

Added Codes:

- Steel Tank Institute Standard F841, Standard for Dual Wall Underground Steel Storage 

Tanks

§ 280.20(a)(3) – clad or jacketed steel tanks

Updated Codes:

- Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1746, Standard for External Corrosion Protection 

Systems for Steel Underground Storage Tanks

Added Codes:

- Steel Tank Institute Specification F894, ACT-100® Specification for External 

Corrosion Protection of FRP Composite Steel USTs

- Steel Tank Institute Specification F961, ACT-100-U® Specification for External 

Corrosion Protection of Composite Steel Underground Storage Tanks

- Steel Tank Institute Specification F922, Steel Tank Institute Specification for 

Permatank®

Removed Codes:

- Association for Composite Tanks ACT-100, Specification for the Fabrication of FRP 

Clad Underground Storage Tanks
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 165 of 398

§ 280.20(a)(6) – secondary containment tanks (new addition to the regulation – see section A-2) 

Added Codes:

- Underwriters Laboratories Standard 58, Standard for Steel Underground Tanks for 

Flammable and Combustible Liquids

- Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1316, Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Underground 

Storage Tanks for Petroleum Products, Alcohols, and Alcohol-Gasoline Mixtures

- Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1746, Standard for External Corrosion Protection 

Systems for Steel Underground Storage Tanks

- Steel Tank Institute Standard F841, Standard for Dual Wall Underground Steel Storage 

Tanks

- Steel Tank Institute Specification F922, Steel Tank Institute Specification for 

Permatank®

§ 280.20(b)(1) – non-corrodible piping

Updated Codes:

- Underwriters Laboratories Standard 971, Standard for Non-Metallic Underground 

Piping for Flammable Liquids

- Underwriters Laboratories of Canada Standard S660, Standard for Non-Metallic 

Underground Piping for Flammable Liquids

Removed Codes:

- Underwriters Laboratories Standard 567, Pipe Connectors for Flammable and 

Combustible and LP Gas
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 166 of 398

- Underwriters Laboratories of Canada Standard CAN 4-S633-M81, Flexible 

Underground Hose Connectors

§ 280.20(b)(2) – steel piping with cathodic protection

Updated Codes:

- American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1632, Cathodic Protection of 

Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks and Piping Systems

- NACE International Standard Practice SP 0169, Control of External Corrosion on 

Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems

Added Codes:

- Underwriters Laboratories Subject 971A, Outline of Investigation for Metallic 

Underground Fuel Pipe

- Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R892, Recommended Practice for 

Corrosion Protection of Underground Piping Networks Associated with Liquid Petroleum 

Storage and Dispensing Systems

- NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, Corrosion Control of 

Underground Storage Systems by Cathodic Protection

Removed Codes:

- National Fire Protection Association Standard 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids 

Code

- American Petroleum Institute Publication 1615, Installation of Underground Petroleum 

Storage Systems
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 167 of 398

§ 280.20(b)(3) – metal piping without additional corrosion protection

Removed Codes:

- National Fire Protection Association Standard 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids 

Code

- National Association of Corrosion Engineers Standard RP-01-69, Control of External 

Corrosion on Submerged Metallic Piping Systems

§ 280.20(b)(5) – secondary containment piping (new addition to the regulation – see section A-2)

Added Codes:

- Underwriters Laboratories Standard 971, Standard for Non-Metallic Underground 

Piping for Flammable Liquids

- Underwriters Laboratories Subject 971A, Outline of Investigation for Metallic 

Underground Fuel Pipe

§ 280.20(d) – installation

Updated Codes:

- American Petroleum Institute Publication 1615, Installation of Underground Petroleum 

Storage System

- Petroleum Equipment Institute Publication RP100, Recommended Practices for 

Installation of Underground Liquid Storage Systems

Added Codes:

- National Fire Protection Association Standard 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids 

Code 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 168 of 398

- National Fire Protection Association Standard 30A, Code for Motor Fuel Dispensing 

Facilities and Repair Garages

Removed Codes:

- American National Standards Institute Standard B31.3, Petroleum Refinery Piping

- American National Standards Institute Standard B31.4, Liquid Petroleum 

Transportation Piping System

§ 280.21 – lining inspection standards (new addition to the regulation – see section E-3)

Added Codes:

- American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1631, Interior Lining and 

Periodic Inspection of Underground Storage Tanks

- National Leak Prevention Association Standard 631, Entry, Cleaning, Interior 

Inspection, Repair, and Lining of Underground Storage Tanks

- Ken Wilcox Associates Recommended Practice, Recommended Practice for Inspecting 

Buried Lined Steel Tanks Using a Video Camera

§ 280.21(e) – upgrade requirements for previously deferred UST systems (new addition to the 

regulation – see section C)

Added Codes:

- NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, Control of Underground Storage 

Tank Systems by Cathodic Protection

- NACE International Standard Practice SP 0169, Control of External Corrosion on 

Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 169 of 398

- National Leak Prevention Association Standard 631, Entry, Cleaning, Interior 

Inspection, Repair, and Lining of Underground Storage Tanks

- American Society for Testing and Materials Standard G158, Standard Guide for Three 

Methods of Assessing Buried Steel Tanks

§ 280.30 – spill and overfill control

Updated Codes:

- National Fire Protection Association Standard 385, Standard for Tank Vehicles for 

Flammable and Combustible Liquids

- American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1621, Bulk Liquid Stock Control 

at Retail Outlets

Added Codes:

- American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1007, Loading and Unloading of 

MC 306/DOT 406 Cargo Tank Motor Vehicles

Removed Codes:

- National Fire Protection Association Standard 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids 

Code 

§ 280.31 – operation and maintenance of corrosion protection

Updated Codes:

- NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, Control of Underground Storage 

Tank Systems by Cathodic Protection

Added Codes:
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 170 of 398

- NACE International Standard Practice SP 0169, Control of External Corrosion on 

Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems

- NACE International Test Method TM 0101, Measurement Techniques Related to 

Criteria for Cathodic Protection on Underground or Submerged Metallic Tank Systems

- NACE International Test Method TM0497, Measurement Techniques Related to 

Criteria for Cathodic Protection on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems

- Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R051, Cathodic Protection Testing 

Procedures for sti-P3 USTs

§ 280.32 – compatibility

Removed Codes:

- American Petroleum Institute Publication 1626, Storing and Handling Ethanol and 

Gasoline-Ethanol Blends at Distribution Terminals and Service Stations

- American Petroleum Institute Publication 1627, Storage and Handling of GasolineMethanol/Cosolvent Blends at Distribution Terminals and Service Stations

§ 280.33 – repairs

Updated Codes:

- National Fire Protection Association Standard 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids 

Code

- American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice RP 2200, Repairing Crude Oil, 

Liquified Petroleum Gas, and Product Pipelines

- American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice RP 1631, Interior Lining and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 171 of 398

Periodic Inspection of Underground Storage Tanks

- National Leak Prevention Association Standard 631, Entry, Cleaning, Interior 

Inspection, Repair, and Lining of Underground Storage Tanks

Added Codes:

- National Fire Protection Association Standard 326, Safeguarding of Tanks and 

Containers for Entry, Cleaning, or Repair

- Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R972, Recommended Practice for the 

Addition of Supplemental Anodes to sti-P3® Tanks

- NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, Control of Underground Storage 

Tank Systems by Cathodic Protection

- Fiberglass Tank and Pipe Institute Recommended Practice T-95-02, Remanufacturing 

of Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Underground Storage Tanks

§ 280.36 – secondary containment testing (new addition to the regulation – see section B-4)

Added Codes:

- Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R012, Recommended Practice for 

Interstitial Tightness Testing of Existing Underground Double Wall Steel Tanks

- Fiberglass Tank and Pipe Institute Protocol, Field Test Protocol for Testing the Annular 

Space of Installed Underground Fiberglass Double and Triple-Wall Tanks with Dry

Annular Space

§ 280.37 – walkthrough inspections (new addition to the regulation – see section B-1)

Added Codes:
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 172 of 398

- Petroleum Equipment Institute Recommended Practice RP 900, Recommended 

Practices for the Inspection and Maintenance of UST Systems

§ 280.43(a) – inventory control

Updated Codes:

- American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice RP 1621, Bulk Liquid Stock 

Control at Retail Outlets

§ 280.43(g) – interstitial monitoring

Removed Codes:

- Steel Tank Institute Standard F841, Standard for Dual Wall Underground Steel Storage 

Tanks (moved to new section 280.20(a)(6))

§ 280.71 – permanent closure

Updated Codes:

- American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice RP 1604, Closure of 

Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks

- American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice RP 1631, Interior Lining and 

Periodic Inspection of Underground Storage Tanks

- The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Publication 80-106, Criteria 

for a Recommended Standard...Working in Confined Space

Added Codes:

- American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 2016, Guidelines and Procedures 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 173 of 398

for Entering and Cleaning Petroleum Storage Tanks

- National Fire Protection Association Standard 326, Safeguarding of Tanks and 

Containers for Entry, Cleaning, or Repair

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change? What Background Information Is Available About 

This Change?

EPA is proposing this change to update the codes of practice associated with regulated UST 

systems. The 1988 UST regulation relies heavily on codes of practice developed by nationally

recognized associations or independent testing laboratories. 

EPA reviewed information on more than 200 codes of practice from more than 25 code-making 

groups that have been developed or revised since the 1988 regulation.79 As a result of this 

review, EPA proposes to add 18 codes of practice not previously listed in the 1988 regulation, 

remove or move 12, and update all codes of practice in the 1988 UST regulation (see the specific 

additions, updates, and removals listed above). EPA is proposing to add the 18 codes of practice 

that were previously not listed because they are applicable to the UST regulation and did not 

exist when EPA originally promulgated the 1988 UST regulation. EPA is proposing to remove 

or move the 12 codes of practice in the 1988 UST regulation for one of the following reasons:

 The code of practice is out of date, no longer available, was withdrawn, or rescinded;

 The code of practice did not provide any information appropriate to the section of the 

regulation where it was referenced; 

 

79 E2, Incorporated, memoranda and analyses submitted under Contract EP-W-05-018, “U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Analytical And Technical 

Support.” These supporting materials can be found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 174 of 398

 The information in the code of practice did not adequately address the part of the 

regulation where it was referenced; or

 The code of practice is no longer needed.

For example, the Association for Composite Tanks ACT-100 tank standard was listed in § 

280.20(a)(3) as a code of practice for meeting the clad tank requirement. EPA is removing this 

code of practice because both the association and code of practice no longer exist.

In several cases, EPA is proposing to move a code of practice from one section of the 1988 UST 

regulation to another section. For example, EPA is proposing to move Steel Tank Institute 

Standard F841, Standard for Dual Wall Underground Steel Storage Tanks from § 280.43(g) -

interstitial monitoring to § 280.20(a)(6) - secondary containment tanks. EPA is proposing this 

because we are adding secondary containment requirements to the performance standards for 

new UST systems portion of this proposed UST regulation.

Note: EPA is aware of at least one code of practice (Petroleum Equipment Institute standard for 

testing of spill, overfill, interstitial areas, and release detection) currently being developed that 

could be potentially relevant to this proposed UST regulation. Other standards may be 

developed before EPA publishes a final UST regulation. If so, EPA will consider including them 

in the final UST regulation.

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 175 of 398

 Should other codes of practice be added to or removed from the UST regulation? If so, 

please provide EPA with information about the code and the specific location in the UST 

regulation where the code should be included or removed.

 The regulations at § 280.20(d) require that all tanks and piping be properly installed in 

accordance with a code of practice developed by a nationally recognized association or 

independent testing laboratory and in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. Since 

the installation codes of practice also address other UST system components such as spill 

and overfill, should EPA consider revising § 280.20(d) such that all portions of the UST 

system must be installed according to a code of practice and according to manufacturer’s 

instructions?

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different 

from EPA’s proposal. 

3. Updates To Remove Old Upgrade And Implementation Deadlines

What Is EPA Proposing?

EPA is proposing to revise the UST regulation to remove references to the 1998 deadline and old 

phase-in schedules, while continuing to allow testing of corrosion protection and release 

detection. For those deferred UST systems EPA is proposing to regulate, we are proposing those 

systems be allowed to upgrade with spill, overfill, and corrosion protection. EPA is proposing 

the following specific revisions: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 176 of 398

Revise upgrading of existing UST systems in the 1988 UST regulation (§ 280.21). 

 Remove the 1998 upgrade deadline references, but continue to allow:

o Testing of internally-lined USTs;

o Tanks and piping with cathodic protection; and

o Upgrades of deferred UST systems EPA is proposing to regulate, including 

wastewater treatment tank systems, airport hydrant systems, UST systems with 

field-constructed tanks, and UST systems that store fuel solely for use by 

emergency power generators. See section C for additional information on 

deferred UST systems.

 Require UST systems not upgraded with corrosion protection, spill, or overfill prevention 

be permanently closed according to subpart G, unless the implementing agency

determines an upgrade is appropriate or the UST system was deferred in the 1988 UST 

regulation.

Revise release detection requirements in the 1988 UST regulation. 

 § 280.40 

 Remove phase-in schedule for release detection probabilities; 

 Remove phase-in schedule for release detection monitoring; 

 Remove references to upgrade deadlines; 

 Remove references to existing USTs; and

 Address deferred UST systems EPA is proposing to regulate, add language about 

implementing release detection monitoring for these systems in § 280.40(c).

 § 280.41 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 177 of 398

 Remove inventory control and annual tightness testing as a regulatory option; 

 Remove reference to upgrade deadlines; and

 Make the inventory control and five year tightness testing language historical by

putting language in this section in the past tense. 

 § 280.42

 Remove 1998 references and upgrade language for existing hazardous substance 

UST systems. 

EPA is proposing to remove the phase-in schedule in § 280.91 of subpart H to acknowledge that 

financial responsibility implementation deadlines are passed and remove references to § 280.91 

and the deadlines in § 280.90. In addition, EPA is proposing to revise § 280.91 to reference the 

phase-in schedule for deferred UST systems EPA is proposing to regulate at § 280.10. 

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change? What Background Information Is Available About 

This Change?

EPA is proposing these changes to acknowledge that the 1998 deadline for upgrading UST 

systems with release prevention and the 1990s release detection and financial responsibility

deadlines passed more than a decade ago. Owners and operators had more than two decades to 

upgrade their UST systems and meet the 1988 UST regulation. In addition, all UST facilities 

have been inspected at least once and are required to meet release detection, release prevention, 

and financial responsibility requirements. EPA is proposing owners and operators of upgraded 

UST systems continue conducting cathodic protection and internal lining testing consistent with 

how they previously performed these tests. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 178 of 398

For release detection, EPA is proposing to eliminate the phase-in for both release detection 

probabilities and release detection monitoring. EPA is proposing to eliminate these two phase-in 

parts because the deadlines for implementing these requirements have passed. Owners and 

operators have been implementing these requirements for more than two decades. The last 

phase-in period applied to systems installed between 1980 and 1988, giving owners and 

operators until 1993 to meet the subpart D requirements. Any new UST installed after 1993 had 

to meet release detection requirements when installed. 

To meet the release detection requirement, § 280.41 allows owners and operators of USTs less 

than 10 years old to use a combination of monthly inventory control with tank tightness testing 

every five years, until the UST has been installed for 10 years. When the UST is 10 years old, 

owners and operators must use another release detection method listed in subpart D. For new 

and replaced UST systems installed after the effective date of the final UST regulation, 

interstitial monitoring will be required. The new interstitial monitoring requirement will make 

inventory control and tank tightness testing obsolete as a release detection method 10 years after 

the UST regulation is finalized. 

For hazardous substance UST systems release detection, EPA is proposing to remove 1998 

deadline and upgrade references. The 1988 UST regulation in § 280.41 required existing UST 

systems meet the requirements for petroleum UST systems until 1998. After 1998, all new and 

existing hazardous substance UST systems must meet requirements for new hazardous substance 

UST systems. Since the 1998 deadline has passed, these changes will clarify the hazardous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 179 of 398

substance UST system requirements.

For financial responsibility, EPA is proposing to remove the phase-in dates in § 280.91. These 

phase-in dates passed more than a decade ago and are no longer needed. In addition, §280.90(b) 

and (e) contain references to § 280.91 and compliance dates that need to be removed. 

UST systems with field constructed tanks, airport hydrant systems, and wastewater treatment 

tank systems may be upgraded according to § 280.21. However, EPA is proposing to no longer 

allow UST systems regulated under the 1988 UST regulation to be upgraded if they have never 

met the upgrade requirements. Unless the implementing agency determines that an UST system 

is acceptable to upgrade, non-upgraded UST systems must be permanently closed according to 

the closure requirements in subpart G. UST systems that have not been upgraded are older and 

have been in the ground for more than two decades. In addition, metal USTs and piping without 

corrosion protection pose a significant risk to human health and the environment because the 

metal in contact with soil corrodes. EPA is proposing that implementing agencies make case-bycase determinations on when to allow upgrades. EPA does not expect implementing agencies to 

allow continued use of USTs or piping not upgraded with corrosion protection. However, some 

implementing agencies may decide to allow owners and operators of UST systems with 

corrosion protection, but without spill or overfill prevention, to add spill or overfill prevention 

instead of requiring permanent closure. 

The proposed requirements in § 280.21 will allow UST systems EPA is proposing to no longer 

defer to be upgraded. See section C for additional information on upgrading these UST systems.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 180 of 398

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?

 Does removing the deadlines and making upgrades historical cause any unintended 

regulatory consequences?

 Should EPA consider not allowing the implementing agency the flexibility of making a 

determination to allow an upgrade? 

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different 

from EPA’s proposal. 

4. Editorial And Technical Corrections

What Is EPA Proposing?

EPA is proposing these editorial corrections to the 1988 UST regulation: 

 Where “industry codes” and “codes and standards” are used, replace with “codes of 

practice”

 Revise to appropriately use the terms: part, subpart, section, and paragraph

 § 280.10(c)(3) – change “10 CFR part 50 Appendix A” to “10 CFR part 50”

 § 280.20(a)(2), paragraph (C) in the note – change “G03.1” to “603.1”

 § 280.21(b)(2)(iii) – change “by conducting two (2) tightness tests that meet the 

requirements of § 280.43(c). The first tightness test must be conducted prior to installing 

the cathodic protection system. The second tightness test must be conducted between

three (3) and six (6) months following the first operation of the cathodic protection 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 181 of 398

system; or” to “by conducting two tightness tests that meet the requirements of § 

280.43(c). The first tightness test must be conducted prior to installing the cathodic

protection system. The second tightness test must be conducted between three and six 

months following the first operation of the cathodic protection system; or”

 § 280.20(c)(1)(ii)(C) – change “operator” to “transfer operator”

 § 280.22(a) – change “Any owner who brings an underground storage tank system into 

use after May 8, 1986, must within 30 days of bringing such tank into use, submit, in the 

form prescribed in Appendix I of this part, a notice of existence of such tank system to 

the state or local agency or department designated in Appendix II of this part to receive 

such notice.” to “After May 8, 1986, an owner must submit notice of a tank system’s 

existence to the implementing agency within 30 days of bringing the underground storage 

tank system into use. Owners must use the form in Appendix I of this part.”

 § 280.22(g) – change “The form provided in Appendix III of this part may be used to 

comply with this requirement.” to “The statement provided in Appendix III of this part, 

when used on shipping tickets and invoices, may be used to comply with this 

requirement.”

 § 280.31 – change “for as long as the UST system is used to store regulated substances” 

to “until the UST system is permanently closed or undergoes a change-in-service 

pursuant to § 280.71.”

 § 280.31 – change “steel” to “metal”

 § 280.33(c) – change “fiberglass pipes” to “non-corrodible pipes”
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 182 of 398

 § 280.33(g) – change “for the remaining operating life of the UST system” to “until the 

UST system is permanently closed or undergoes a change-in-service pursuant to § 

280.71.”

 § 280.34 – change “Resource Conservation and Recovery Act” to “Solid Waste Disposal 

Act”

 § 280.34(b)(2) – change cite from “280.31” to “280.31(d)”

 § 280.40(a)(3) – change “probability of detection (Pd) of 0.95 and probability of false 

alarm (Pfa) of 0.05.” to “probability of detection of 0.95 and probability of false alarm of 

0.05.”

 § 280.41(b)(2) – change “conduct” to “conducted”

 § 280.42(a)(1)(ii) – change “released from the tank system” to “leaked from the primary

containment”

 § 280.42(d) – delete “jacketing of” from “...jacketing of double-walled pipe)...”

 § 280.43(b)(4) – change “leak” to “release”

 § 280.43(b)(5) – delete “manual” from “manual inventory control”

 § 280.52(a)(1) – change “repair, replace, or upgrade the UST system” to “repair, replace, 

upgrade, or close the UST system”

 § 280.52(a)(1) – change “leak” to “release”

 § 280.52(a)(2) – change “leak” to “release”

 § 280.52(a)(3) – change “leak” to “release”

 § 280.92 – definition for provider of financial assurance – change “§§ 280.95 – 280.103” 

to “§§ 280.95 – 280.107”
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 183 of 398

 § 280.92, § 280.95(b)(1)(iii), § 280.95(c)(5), and § 280.95(d) – change “Rural 

Electrification Administration” to “Rural Utilities Service” 

 § 280.94(a)(1) – change “§§ 280.95 – 280.103” to “§§ 280.95 – 280.107”

 § 280.95(b)(1)(ii) – change “165.145” to “§ 265.145”

 § 280.95(c)(5)(i) – change “form” to “from”

 § 280.95(d) – change “[insert: “suddent accidential releases” and/or “nonsudden 

accidential releases]” to “[insert: “sudden accidental releases” or “nonsudden accidental 

releases” or “accidental releases”]”

 § 280.95(d) – change “Liabilitly” to “Liability” under Letter From Chief Financial 

Officer

 § 280.95(d) – change “lastest” to “latest” under Letter From Chief Financial Officer, 

Alternative I, Number 11

 § 280.95(d) – remove “$” symbol for Number 8 under Alternative II of the Letter From 

Chief Financial Officer

 § 280.95(d) – add “$” symbol for Numbers 13 and 14 under Alternative II of the Letter 

From Chief Financial Officer

 § 280.96(b) – change “§ 280.110(c)” to “§ 280.114(e)”

 § 280.96(c), Guarantee (Recital 3) – change three “40 CFR 280.108” citations to “40 

CFR § 280.112”

 § 280.96(c), Guarantee (Recital 3) – change “accidential” to “accidental”

 § 280.96(d) – change “280.108” to “§ 280.112”

 § 280.97(a) – change “§ 290.93” to “§ 280.93”
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 184 of 398

 § 280.98(b) – change “Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)” to Solid 

Waste Disposal Act”

 § 280.98(b), Performance Bond, paragraph 4, – change “[... either “sudden” or 

“nonsudden” or “sudden and nonsudden”] accidental releases arising from” to “either 

“sudden accidental releases” or “nonsudden accidental releases” or “accidental releases”] 

arising from...”

 § 280.98(b) – change two “40 CFR 280.108” citations to “40 CFR 280.112”

 § 280.98(b) – add end brackets to “State of Incorporation” and “Liability Limit”

 § 280.98(d) – change “40 CFR 280.108” citation to “40 CFR 280.112”

 § 280.99(b) – change “Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976” to Solid Waste 

Disposal Act”

 § 280.99(b) – change “persuant" to “pursuant”

 § 280.99(b) – change “curent” to “current”

 § 280.99(c) – change “40 CFR 280.108” citation to “40 CFR 280.112”

 § 280.101(d) – change “280.107(b)(5)” to “§ 280.111(b)(8)”

 § 280.103(b)(1), Trust Agreement, paragraph 2 – change “standpoint” to “[insert 

“standby” where trust agreement is standby trust agreement]”

 § 280.103(b)(1), Trust Agreement, section 4 – add opening quotation mark for “ThirdParty Liability Claims”

 § 280.103(b)(1), Trust Agreement, section 4 – add opening quotation mark for 

“compensating third parties for bodily injury and property damage caused by”

 § 280.104(b) – change “Moody’s rating of Aaa, A, A” to “Moody’s rating of Aaa, Aa, A”

 § 280.104(b) – change “refunded issues and” to “refunded issues, and”
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 185 of 398

 § 280.104(e), Letter From Chief Financial Officer – change “[insert: “sudden accidental 

releases” and/or “nonsudden accidental releases”]” to “[insert: “sudden accidental 

releases” or “nonsudden accidental releases” or “accidental releases”]”. Note that this 

change occurs in two places in the letter. 

 § 280.104(e), Letter From Chief Financial Officer, last paragraph – change “not backed 

by third-party credit enhancement or are insured by a municipal bond insurance 

company.” to “not backed by third-party credit enhancement or insured by a municipal 

bond insurance company.”

 § 208.105(c) – change “[insert: “sudden accidental releases” and/or “nonsudden 

accidental releases”]” to “[insert: “sudden accidental releases” or “nonsudden accidental 

releases” or “accidental releases”]”

 § 208.105(c) – change 10(a) and 11(a) under Worksheet for Municipal Financial Test, 

Part II from “Debt Service (from 4d)” to “Debt Service (from 4c)”

 § 280.106(a)(1) – change “§ 280.104(c)” to “§ 280.104(d) and § 280.104(e)”

 § 280.106(b) – change “§ 280.114(c)” to “§ 280.114(e)”

 § 280.106(d), under Local Government Guarantee With Standby Trust Made by a State, 

recital 7d – change “loaded” to “loaned”

 § 280.106(e), under Local Government Guarantee Without Standby Trust Made by a 

State, recital 7d – change “loaded” to “loaned”

 § 280.106(e), under Local Government Guarantee Without Standby Trust Made by a 

Local Government, recital 8d – change “loaded” to “loaned”
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 186 of 398

 § 280.107(d) – change “[insert: “sudden accidental releases” and/or “nonsudden 

accidental releases”]” to “[insert: “sudden accidental releases” or “nonsudden accidental 

releases” or “accidental releases”]”

 § 280.107(d), third paragraph under Letter From Chief Financial Officer – change “ten” 

to “five”

 § 280.109(b)(3) – change “§ 280.107(b)” to “§ 280.111(b)”

 § 280.111(b)(9)(ii) – change “§ 280.107(a)(3)” to “§ 280.107(c)”

 § 280.111(b)(9)(iii) – change “§ 280.107(a)(3)” to “§ 280.107(c)”

 § 280.111(b)(9)(iii) – change “§ 280.107(a)(3)(i)” to “§ 280.107(c)(1)”

 § 280.111(b)(9)(iii) – change “§ 280.107(a)(3)(ii)” to “§ 280.107(c)(2)”

 § 280.113 – change “properly” to “permanently”

EPA is proposing these technical corrections to the 1988 UST regulation: 

 § 280.12 – revise exclusion (d) of the definition of UST to incorporate a revision in 

section 9001 of the SWDA as shown below 

“(d) Pipeline facility (including gathering lines):

(1) Which is regulated under chapter 601 of Title 49, or

(2) Which is an intrastate pipeline facility regulated under state laws as provided in 

 chapter 601 of Title 49,
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 187 of 398

and which is determined by the Secretary of Transportation to be connected to a 

pipeline or to be operated or intended to be capable of operating at pipeline 

pressure or as an integral part of a pipeline;”

 § 280.43(b)(1) – replace “a period of at least 36 hours” with “the minimum duration of 

test in the table below”; this updates current UST capacity allowances when using 

manual tank gauging as a method of release detection 

 § 280.43(b)(4) – replace existing table with the one below; this ensures 

information in the table is consistent with the change in § 280.43(b)(1) 

Nominal Tank 

Capacity

Minimum Duration 

Of Test

Weekly Standard 

(One Test)

Monthly Standard 

(Four Test Average)

550 gallons or less 36 hours 10 gallons 5 gallons

551-1,000 gallons

(when tank diameter is 

64”)

44 hours 9 gallons 4 gallons

551-1,000 gallons

(when tank diameter is 

48”)

58 hours 12 gallons 6 gallons

551-1,000 gallons

(also requires periodic 

tank tightness testing)

36 hours 13 gallons 7 gallons

1,001-2,000 gallons 

(also requires periodic 

tank tightness testing)

36 hours 26 gallons 13 gallons

 § 280.41(a)(2) – modify tank sizes in text so it is consistent with the table above. 

“Tanks with capacity of 550 gallons or less and tanks with a capacity of 551 to 

1000 gallons that meet the tank diameter criteria in § 280.43(b) may use manual 

tank gauging (conducted in accordance with § 280.43(b))”; and
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 188 of 398

 § 280.43(b)(5) – modify tank sizes in text so it is consistent with the table above. 

“Tanks of 550 gallons or less nominal capacity and tanks with a nominal capacity 

of 551 to 1000 gallons that meet the tank diameter criteria in the table in (b)(4) 

may use this as the sole method of release detection. All other tanks with a 

nominal capacity of 551 to 2,000 gallons may use the method in place of manual 

inventory control in § 280.43(a). Tanks of greater than 2,000 gallons nominal 

capacity may not use this method to meet the requirements of this subpart.” 

 § 280.43 – remove the requirement for inventory control in the automatic tank gauging 

release detection method 

 § 280.92 – change the definition of accidental release from “release of petroleum from an 

underground storage tank” to “release of petroleum arising from operating an 

underground storage tank” 

 § 280.104(h) – add this subsection: “(h) If the local government owner or operator fails 

to obtain alternate assurance within 150 days of finding that it no longer meets the 

requirements of the bond rating test or within 30 days of notification by the Director of 

the implementing agency that it no longer meets the requirements of the bond rating test, 

the owner or operator must notify the Director of such failure within 10 days.” 

 Revise Appendix III to read: “Note. A federal law (the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as 

amended, requires owners of certain underground storage tanks to notify implementing 

agencies of the existence of their tanks. Notifications must be made within 30 days of 

bringing the tank into use. Consult EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 280.22 to determine if 

you are affected by this law."
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 189 of 398

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change? What Background Information Is Available About 

This Change?

EPA is proposing to make editorial and technical corrections to the 1988 UST regulation. 

Proposed editorial corrections include: correcting misspellings; capitalizing words; removing 

unused acronyms; using conventional number formatting; and appropriately referring to parts, 

subparts, sections, and paragraphs. In addition, EPA is proposing technical corrections which 

include updating the regulation to incorporate statutory changes that occurred since the 1988 

regulation was promulgated and clarifying long-standing Agency policies.

The editorial change to § 280.10(c)(3) makes the citation to Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

regulation more general, in the event requirements for emergency generator UST systems at 

nuclear power facilities are moved from Appendix A to some other part of the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission regulation.

The editorial change to § 280.22(a) makes the language easier to understand and consistent with 

the proposed new paragraphs of § 280.22(b) and § 280.22(h).

The editorial change to § 280.20(c)(1)(ii)(C) clarifies that the transfer operator needs to be 

alerted. This change makes the language consistent with § 280.20(c)(1)(ii)(B).

The editorial change to § 280.22(g) clarifies the content of and how to use Appendix III of the 

1988 UST regulation to meet the notification requirement.

The editorial changes to § 280.31 will eliminate any potential confusion with the temporary
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 190 of 398

closure requirement and ensure all metal components comply with this section. Temporary

closure requires owners and operators operate and maintain corrosion protection even when the 

UST system is emptied. The operation and maintenance of corrosion section indicates that 

releases due to corrosion must be prevented as long as the UST system is used to store regulated 

substances. While EPA has interpreted that the UST system is used to store regulated substances 

even if it is empty during temporary closure, this proposed change will clarify this position. In 

addition, UST systems have metal components, other than steel, protected from corrosion. 

Changing the word steel to metal at the beginning of this section will make it clear that the 

operation and maintenance requirements for corrosion protection apply to all metal components.

The editorial change to § 280.33(g) will clarify when the operating life of an UST system ends. 

EPA does not define an operating life; rather, we describe permanent closure and change-inservice. With this change, EPA is proposing the operating life of an UST system ends when an 

owner or operator permanently closes the UST system or the UST system undergoes a changein-service from regulated to unregulated.

EPA is proposing a technical correction to revise the definition of UST as it relates to pipeline 

facilities. This revision directly incorporates a change made to Section 9001 of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act after the 1988 UST regulation was promulgated.

EPA is proposing a technical correction to clarify that hazardous substance USTs must be able to 

contain regulated substances released from the UST system until the substances are detected and 

removed. Based on the 1988 UST regulation definition of release, the statement implies that a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 191 of 398

regulated substance has reached the environment. Because a regulated substance should be 

contained in the UST system’s secondary containment, EPA is proposing to change the term 

released to leaked, indicating a leak occurred from the primary containment but did not reach the 

environment. Therefore, secondary containment would then contain the leak. The editorial 

change to § 280.42(d) removes confusion about whether piping that is already double-walled 

also needs to be jacketed. 

EPA is proposing technical corrections to § 280.43(d) which will codify long-standing Agency

policies for using manual tank gauging and automatic tank gauging. These changes update UST 

capacity allowances when using manual tank gauging and remove the requirement for USTs 

using automatic tank gauging to conduct additional inventory control. Since 1990 and 1989, 

EPA allowed these deviations from the 1988 UST regulation through policy for manual tank 

gauging and automatic tank gauging, respectively. EPA also stated these allowances in our 

publications: Manual Tank Gauging For Small Underground Storage Tanks; Musts For USTs: 

A Summary of Federal Regulations For Underground Storage Tank Systems; and Straight Talk 

On Tanks: Leak Detection Methods For Petroleum Underground Storage Tanks And Piping. 

With regard to manual tank gauging, note the expanded coverage of larger tanks is limited in 

some respects by the diameter of the tank as noted in the revised table. 

EPA is proposing to add closure as an option at § 280.52(a)(1) to provide owners and operators 

additional flexibility when suspected and confirmed releases occur.

EPA is proposing an editorial correction of “leak” to “release” in § 280.43(b)(4) and § 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 192 of 398

280.52(a)(1), (2), and (3) because release is defined as regulated substance reaching the 

environment in the 1988 UST regulation. 

EPA is updating references of “Rural Electrification Administration” (REA) to “Rural Utilities 

Services” (RUS). Under the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture 

Reorganization Act of 1994, REA reorganized to RUS.

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of “accidental release” under § 280.92 so it matches 

the definition stated in the original preamble for the financial responsibility requirements (53 FR 

43334). EPA intended the definition in the preamble to be included in the 1988 UST regulation, 

but two important words were inadvertently omitted. By changing this, EPA is clarifying that 

owners and operators are required to have financial responsibility for releases arising from 

operating USTs (including releases due to filling USTs and releases occurring at dispensers).

The editorial change to § 280.103(b)(1) will correct a typographical error [i.e., “standpoint”] and 

clarify the trust fund language.

The editorial change to the last paragraph of the Letter to the Chief Financial Officer under § 

280.104(e) clarifies that no credit enhancement of any type is permitted for revenue bonds, 

consistent with the preamble to the 1988 UST regulation (58 FR 9033).

The editorial addition of § 280.104(h) will make requirements for the local government bond 

rating test under § 280.104 consistent with requirements of the financial test under § 280.95(g). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 193 of 398

EPA included this requirement for private owners and operators in the 1988 UST regulation but 

inadvertently omitted it for local government owners and operators.

The editorial change to the third paragraph of the Letter From Chief Financial Officer under § 

280.107(d) will make the wording of the letter consistent with the amount of coverage required 

in § 280.107(b).

EPA defines and discusses permanent closure, not proper closure, in the 1988 UST regulation. 

This clarified that in § 280.113, financial responsibility is required during temporary closure. 

The update to Appendix III removes old dates and clarifies the language in the statement for 

shipping tickets and invoices. 

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?

 Are there other editorial corrections (such as typographical errors or inaccurate 

references) EPA should make? 

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different 

from EPA’s proposal. 

F. Alternative Options EPA Considered

What Options Did EPA Consider? 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 194 of 398

In developing today’s proposed regulatory changes (hereafter the Preferred Option), EPA 

considered and evaluated variations of a subset of the proposed regulatory requirements using 

two alternative options (hereafter Option 1 and Option 2). The table below highlights 

differences between our Preferred Option and Options 1 and 2. Some of the proposed regulatory

requirements do not vary across the options (for example, notification of ownership changes is 

required in all three). As a result, proposed regulatory changes discussed earlier in the preamble, 

but not listed here, mean those changes are in effect in all three options. Overall, Options 1 and 

2 consist of regulatory changes that are more and less stringent, respectively, than proposed 

changes in the Preferred Option. After reviewing comments, EPA may use one or more of these 

options in whole or in part to establish the final UST regulation. 

Comparison Of Preferred Option And Options 1 and 2

Proposed Requirement

Options

 Preferred 1 2

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

Secondary containment tests 3 year 1 year Not required

Elimination of flow restrictors in vent 

lines for all new tanks and when 

overfill devices are replaced

Required Required No change

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
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 195 of 398

Eliminate groundwater and vapor 

monitoring as release detection 

methods 

5-year phaseoutImmediately No change

Remove deferrals for airport hydrant 

fuel distribution systems and UST 

systems with field-constructed tanks

Regulate under 

alternative 

release 

detection 

requirements

Require them to 

meet same release 

detection 

requirements as 

conventional USTs

Maintain 

deferrals

Below we explain Options 1 and 2, as well as our rationale for each. (Note that EPA conducted 

a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for all three options. The results are discussed in the RIA 

document titled Assessment Of The Potential Costs, Benefits, And Other Impacts Of The 

Proposed Revisions To EPA’s Underground Storage Tank Regulations which is available in the 

docket for this proposed regulation.) 

What Is EPA’s Rationale For Option 1?

In Option 1, EPA considered requiring annual tests of overfill prevention equipment and 

interstitial areas. EPA assessed the costs of conducting annual tests for these components and 

decided instead to propose overfill prevention equipment testing and interstitial integrity testing 

every three years. This will reduce the overall compliance cost burden on owners and operators 

without significantly compromising benefits of these tests. When compared to other components 

such as spill prevention equipment, both interstitial areas and overfill prevention equipment are 

less likely to fail or be damaged. Overfill prevention equipment is in the tank; interstitial areas 

for tanks and piping are typically buried several feet underground. Spill prevention equipment 

encounters frequent human and climate interaction, making it prone to frequent damage and 

failure. Secondary containment reduces the likelihood that a release into the environment will 

occur because a leak is contained if a breach of the inner wall occurs. As a result, less frequent 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 196 of 398

periodic tests of overfill prevention equipment and interstitial areas would adequately ensure the 

integrity and functionality of equipment. In addition, a three year test requirement for these two 

components will match the inspection cycle, allowing inspectors to ensure tests are completed. 

Therefore, testing overfill prevention equipment and interstitial areas every three years is

sufficient. 

In Option 1, EPA considered mandatory replacement of spill prevention equipment every three 

years, regardless of the spill prevention equipment’s condition. As discussed earlier in the 

preamble, various sources indicated spill prevention equipment is a major source of confirmed 

releases and typically has a short lifespan. After EPA evaluated the cost of requiring spill 

prevention equipment replacement every three years, we determined the cost burden of this 

requirement on owners and operators would be significant. While developing today’s proposal, 

EPA made a conscious effort to limit removing or replacing existing UST system equipment (for 

example, eliminating the use of ball floats as a form of overfill prevention in new tanks instead 

of requiring removal in existing tanks) to minimize impacts on owners and operators, both in 

terms of reducing compliance costs and interrupting daily operations. As a result, EPA instead is 

proposing annual tests of spill prevention equipment. This balances the benefits of properly 

functioning spill prevention equipment with the potential costs imposed on owners and 

operators.

When considering changes to existing release detection requirements, EPA evaluated the 

possibility of modifying the leak probability of detection (Pd) from 95 percent to 99 percent and 

the leak probability of false alarm (Pfa) from 5 percent to 1 percent. EPA initially believed 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 197 of 398

increasing the Pd rate for release detection equipment performance would be a relatively low 

cost action that would significantly increase identifying potential releases to the environment. 

EPA also believed that decreasing the Pfa rate would be a relatively low cost means of reducing 

the number of nuisance alarms owners and operators experience. Because they would have a 

higher confidence that alarms identify real problems, owners and operators would be more likely 

to respond. Even though most equipment in use today is capable of meeting more stringent 

probability rates, almost all release detection devices would require some modification to 

achieve these results. Even a relatively minor software upgrade could be a significant cost to 

owners and operators. In addition, release detection vendors would need to perform significant 

testing and verification to determine whether their equipment would meet the new Pd/Pfa rates. 

After considering the potential cost impacts, other proposed requirements, such as training 

owners and operators and requiring periodic walkthrough inspections, are sound alternatives for 

environmental protection. Therefore, EPA instead is proposing periodic operation and 

maintenance for existing release detection equipment to ensure its proper operation. 

EPA is proposing to eliminate groundwater and vapor monitoring as permissible methods of 

release detection. In Option 1, EPA considered an immediate ban of these two options as release 

detection methods because inspectors told us these methods are unsuitable and should be 

removed as soon as possible. Approximately 5 percent of UST systems use groundwater or 

vapor monitoring for release detection, which means the affected population of users is relatively 

small. Yet EPA recognizes this would require retrofitting or replacing existing equipment. To 

accommodate owners and operators and provide them with sufficient lead time to meet this 

requirement, EPA today is proposing a five year phase out for owners and operators to select, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 198 of 398

install, and begin using another method of release detection. 

In evaluating release detection methods suitable for UST systems with field-constructed tanks 

and airport hydrant fuel distribution systems, EPA considered requiring these tanks and systems 

comply with the same release detection requirements conventional UST systems meet under 40 

CFR part 280, subpart D. After assessing costs, technical feasibility, and potential impacts to 

facility operations, EPA decided to propose a release detection regulatory structure specific to 

field-constructed tanks and airport hydrant fuel distribution piping, per § 280.46 and § 280.47, 

respectively. It is sometimes impossible for very large tanks and piping volumes to achieve 

thresholds for current release detection methods. When a threshold is achievable, the time 

needed to reach it is often very long and impractical. The RIA indicates the total annual costs to 

meet conventional release detection requirements are $153 million, while total annual costs 

under the proposed alternative release detection requirements are $23 million. As a result, it is 

appropriate to propose release detection methods specific to these systems. This will effectively 

protect the environment by quickly detecting releases from these tanks and piping. 

What Is EPA’s Rationale For Option 2?

In comparing costs with benefits of potential proposed changes, EPA weighed different 

frequencies for walkthrough inspections and periodic equipment testing. In Option 2, EPA 

assessed quarterly walkthrough inspections and not requiring interstitial integrity testing as ways 

to reduce potential cost impacts on owners and operators. While quarterly walkthrough 

inspections would reduce costs to owners and operators, EPA is taking the position that a period 

less frequent than monthly walkthrough inspections would considerably reduce benefits. High 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 199 of 398

operator turnover, frequency of small leaks at dispensers and submersible turbine sumps, and 

frequency of deliveries all contribute to the need for monthly walkthrough inspections. With that 

in mind, EPA today is proposing monthly walkthrough inspections so owners and operators can 

consistently and routinely verify proper UST system component performance. This will ensure 

problems are detected before a release occurs or contaminates the environment. 

The 1988 UST regulation does not require owners and operators to ensure the integrity of 

secondarily contained areas, and EPA considered not requiring periodic interstitial integrity 

testing. Because of the Energy Policy Act secondary containment requirement for nearly all new 

and replaced tanks and piping, all UST systems will eventually be secondarily contained 

(including interstitial monitoring for release detection) and we should require periodic interstitial 

integrity testing to ensure leaks into secondary containment areas will be properly detected and 

contained. As described in Option 1, EPA considered annual interstitial integrity testing, but 

decided to propose a three year testing requirement, which will lower cost impacts of this 

requirement on owners and operators while retaining the environmental benefit of testing.

To reduce total compliance costs of today’s proposal for owners and operators, EPA considered 

allowing continued use of flow restrictors in vent lines (that is, ball float valves) as an acceptable 

form of overfill prevention equipment. After considering stakeholders’ concerns, EPA is taking

the position that vent line flow restrictors present problems for operability and safety reasons. 

As described previously, EPA is proposing to eliminate ball float valves as overfill prevention 

for all new tanks and when overfill prevention is replaced in existing tanks. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 200 of 398

EPA considered maintaining groundwater and vapor monitoring as acceptable forms of release 

detection in Option 2. All tanks and piping will eventually use secondary containment with 

interstitial monitoring as their release detection method, and as a result, groundwater and vapor 

monitoring will eventually not be used. Stakeholders raised concerns about these two release 

detection methods, more than other methods. For both groundwater and vapor monitoring, 

releases travel through the environment to sampling points before releases are discovered. Other 

release detection methods provide more immediate detection of releases. In addition, numerous 

concerns were raised about frequent misapplications and improper designs of monitoring wells 

for these two methods. Consequently, EPA today is proposing to phase out groundwater and 

vapor monitoring as release detection methods. This will address stakeholders’ concerns that 

UST systems using these two methods represent an unacceptable risk to the environment.

V. Updates To State Program Approval Requirements

What Is EPA Proposing?

EPA is proposing these substantive changes to the 1988 state program approval (SPA) regulation 

(40 CFR part 281) to make it consistent with certain Energy Policy Act requirements and certain 

proposed changes to the 1988 UST technical regulation (40 CFR part 280). 

 § 281.30(a), § 281.33(c)(2), and § 281.33(d)(3) – require secondary containment for new 

or replaced tanks and piping and under-dispenser containment for new motor fuel 

dispenser systems for UST systems located within 1,000 feet of a potable drinking water 

well or community water system, unless a state requires manufacturer and installer 

financial responsibility according to § 9003(i)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 201 of 398

 § 281.30(b) – eliminate flow restrictors for new or replaced overfill prevention 

 § 281.30(c) – add notification for ownership changes 

 § 281.31 and § 281.33(b) and (c) – delete upgrading requirements and eliminate phase-in 

schedule; add phase-in schedule for previously deferred UST systems 

 § 281.32(e) and (f) and § 281.33(a)(3) – add periodic testing of spill and overfill 

prevention equipment, secondary containment areas, and mechanical and electronic 

components; and operation and maintenance walkthrough inspections, as well as 

maintaining associated records 

 § 281.33(c) – limit use of monthly inventory control in combination with tank tightness 

testing conducted every five years for the first 10 years after the tank is installed or 

upgraded, if the tank was installed prior to a state receiving SPA 

 § 281.33(e) – require hazardous substance USTs to only use secondary containment with 

interstitial monitoring 

 § 281.34(a)(1) – add “interstitial space may have been compromised” to suspected 

releases 

 § 281.37 – eliminate phase-in requirement for financial responsibility

 § 281.39 – require operator training according to § 9010 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 

 § 281.40(a) –require states to have delivery prohibition in accordance with § 9012 of the 

SWDA. 

 § 281.60 – add requirement for the Administrator to initiate proceedings to withdraw 

program approval when an approved program fails to submit a revised application within 

three years of 40 CFR part 281 changes that require a program revision, which will 

follow the proceedings procedures from the 1988 SPA regulation
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 202 of 398

EPA is not proposing to add the proposed compatibility requirement changes (see § 280.32) to 

40 CFR part 281.

EPA is also proposing these technical changes to the SPA regulation. 

 § 281.10 – change “subpart” to “part”

 § 281.11(c), § 281.12(b)(2), § 281.23, § 281.50(a), and formerly § 281.51 – eliminate 

interim approval 

 § 281.12(a)(2) – change “Indian lands” to “Indian country” 

 Formerly § 281.32(e) – eliminate requirement to maintain upgrade records 

 Formerly § 281.38 – eliminate reserved section for financial responsibility for USTs 

containing hazardous substances 

 Move § 281.39 to § 281.38 – Lender Liability 

 § 281.51, formerly § 281.52 – add requirement for approved states to submit a revised 

application within three years of 40 CFR part 281 changes that require a program revision 

 § 281.61 – move § 281.60(b) to § 281.61(b)(2)

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change? What Background Information Is Available About 

This Change?

The 1988 SPA regulation in 40 CFR part 281 sets criteria state UST programs must meet to 

receive EPA’s approval to operate in lieu of the federal UST program. The 1988 SPA regulation 

sets performance criteria states must meet to be considered no less stringent than the 1988 UST 

regulation (hereafter 40 CFR part 280) and provides requirements for states to have adequate 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 203 of 398

enforcement. It also details the components of a SPA application. 

EPA is proposing certain changes to the 1988 SPA regulation to make it consistent with today’s 

proposed changes to the 1988 UST technical regulation. By doing so, EPA will require states to 

adopt UST technical regulation changes when final, in order to obtain or retain SPA. EPA is 

proposing to keep the general format of the 1988 SPA regulation. We are not proposing to make 

the SPA regulation as explicit or prescriptive as the UST technical regulation. Finally, EPA is

proposing technical corrections and adding a deadline for state program revisions whenever EPA 

makes substantive changes to the SPA regulation. 

Addressing Energy Policy Act Requirements And Proposed 40 CFR Part 280 Changes 

How SPA Works 

EPA’s proposed UST technical regulation changes and Energy Policy Act requirements 

primarily impact the 1988 SPA regulation in 40 CFR part 281, Subpart C – Criteria for No Less 

Stringent. Thirty-six states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have state program 

approval and run their own underground storage tank programs in lieu of the federal program. 

To ensure these jurisdictions, and any other states or territories obtaining SPA, adopt the 40 CFR 

part 280 changes when final, EPA must update Subpart C. To continue providing states with 

flexibility and not disrupt current state programs, EPA is proposing to revise the SPA regulation 

to make it consistent with, but not identical to, the 40 CFR part 280 changes. Instead, EPA is 

proposing changes to the SPA regulation in a less prescriptive manner than in the changes in 40 

CFR part 280. EPA decided to continue this successful approach to implement the UST SPA 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 204 of 398

program. 

The 1988 SPA regulation developed no less stringent criteria in the form of objectives.80 EPA is 

continuing this format so that, taken as a whole, state programs will be no less stringent than the 

federal requirements, even though they may deviate slightly from what is explicitly required in 

40 CFR part 280. For example, § 281.30 covers the no less stringent requirement for new UST 

system design, construction, and installation; it corresponds to § 280.20 of the UST technical 

regulation, but is much less explicit about requirements. 

According to § 281.30 and to receive SPA, a state must require all new UST systems “...[b]e 

designed, constructed, and installed in a manner that will prevent releases for their operating life 

due to manufacturing defects, structural failure, or corrosion...”. In contrast, § 280.20 is much 

more explicit about how tank owners and operators ensure their tanks and piping prevent 

releases. It states what is required to prevent releases and provides codes of practice to comply. 

Although § 281.30 is less explicit, it nonetheless ensures owners and operators in approved states 

install UST systems that prevent releases and provides states flexibility in achieving that goal. 

Proposed Goal Oriented Changes 

EPA is proposing these goal oriented changes to Subpart C – Criteria for No Less Stringent. By

the term “goal oriented changes,” EPA means changes in which states have some flexibility as to 

how they will meet the goals of the particular SPA regulation section. They reflect certain 40 

CFR part 280 proposed changes. 

 § 281.30(c) – add notification for ownership changes 

 

80 Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 185, September 23, 1988, page 37216.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 205 of 398

 § 281.31 and § 281.33(b) – add a phase-in schedule for upgrading previously deferred 

UST systems 

 § 281.32(e) and (f) and § 281.33(a)(3) – add periodic testing of spill and overfill 

prevention equipment, secondary containment areas, and mechanical and electronic 

components; and operation and maintenance walkthrough inspections, as well as 

maintaining associated records 

EPA’s proposed ownership change notification requires anyone who assumes ownership of an 

UST system to notify the implementing agency within 30 days of assuming ownership and 

specifies what notification must include. Our proposed SPA regulation change in § 281.30(c) is 

much less prescriptive and indicates states require owners and operators to “...adequately notify 

the implementing state agency within a reasonable timeframe when assuming ownership of an 

UST system using a form designated by the state agency.” This provides states some flexibility

in complying, including allowing them to continue relying on an annual tank registration 

program to meet this requirement. This is a reasonable way to ensure states know who owns 

USTs in their jurisdiction. EPA does not have an annual registration program, so we specify a 

timeframe in § 280.22 because we want to know who owns tanks in jurisdictions where we are 

the implementing agency. 

In § 280.21, EPA is proposing that previously deferred wastewater treatment tank systems, 

airport hydrant fuel distribution systems, and UST systems with field-constructed tanks meet 

specific upgrade requirements. This is one way of achieving the goal states need to meet in § 

281.31. In § 281.31, states will be required to ensure tanks are upgraded to prevent releases due 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 206 of 398

to corrosion, spills, and overfills or be permanently closed. These more general requirements are 

sufficient for a state program to protect human health and the environment because they require 

UST systems to “...prevent releases for their operating life...”. EPA finds it is also adequate to 

upgrade previously deferred systems to this standard. 

Additionally, EPA is proposing previously deferred UST systems be upgraded within three years 

of a state submitting its SPA application for approval or revision. In the past, EPA experienced 

problems with requiring states to have a particular requirement by a certain date in order to 

receive SPA. States applying for SPA after a deadline passed often have difficulty implementing 

or obtaining a retroactive requirement. A retroactive or deadline leads to complications with 

little added benefit. 

In today’s proposal, EPA is adding various operation and maintenance requirements. In 40 CFR 

part 280, EPA is proposing specific frequencies and procedures for testing spill and overfill 

prevention equipment, secondary containment integrity testing, release detection equipment 

testing, and operation and maintenance walkthrough inspections. In § 281.32, EPA is proposing 

states require these tests in a manner and frequency that ensures proper functionality of 

equipment, includes proper operation and maintenance of the UST system, and prevents releases 

for the life of the equipment and UST system. This approach allows states who have these 

requirements, despite different frequencies or manners, to receive SPA, as long as their 

requirements sufficiently ensure properly functioning non-releasing UST systems. EPA is also 

proposing to update § 281.32(g) by adding these tests to the recordkeeping requirements of SPA.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 207 of 398

Proposed Energy Policy Act Changes

In today’s SPA regulation proposal, EPA is addressing Energy Policy Act requirements more 

generally than in today’s UST technical regulation proposal, yet they are slightly different than 

the goal oriented approach above. The Energy Policy Act amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act 

and requires states that receive federal Subtitle I money to adopt operator training requirements, 

delivery prohibition, and additional measures to protect groundwater from contamination. In the 

additional measures to protect groundwater provision, states must meet either secondary

containment and interstitial monitoring for new or replaced tanks and piping within 1,000 feet of 

a potable drinking water well or community water system, or manufacturer and installer financial 

responsibility and installer certification. The secondary containment requirement includes 

under-dispenser containment on any new motor fuel dispenser system within 1,000 feet of a 

potable drinking water well or community water system.

EPA developed guidelines for states to implement Energy Policy Act requirements; many states 

and territories implemented the Energy Policy Act requirements according to these guidelines. 

In order to establish similar requirements in Indian country and in states and territories that do 

not adopt Energy Policy Act requirements, EPA is adding secondary containment and operator 

training to today’s 40 CFR part 280 proposal. In proposing those requirements, EPA does not 

want to supersede programs states developed to meet Energy Policy Act requirements. 

Requiring states to alter newly implemented provisions would be a disservice to them, as well as 

UST owners and operators. Therefore, EPA is proposing to address in today’s SPA regulation 

proposal the secondary containment, manufacturer and installer financial responsibility and 

installer certification, delivery prohibition, and operator training requirements that appear in the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 208 of 398

Energy Policy Act. So, states already meeting these Energy Policy Act requirements need not 

change their programs to receive SPA.

EPA is proposing additional measures to protect groundwater and operator training requirements 

in Subpart C (§ 281.22(d)(3), § 281.30(a), § 281.33(c)(2), and § 281.39). Delivery prohibition is 

in Subpart D – Adequate Enforcement of Compliance (§ 281.40(a)). Because delivery

prohibition is an enforcement tool, EPA is proposing to require states have authority to prohibit 

deliveries according to Energy Policy Act, rather than make this a no less stringent requirement. 

EPA is not proposing to add delivery prohibition to 40 CFR part 280 because delivery

prohibition is primarily an enforcement tool for implementing agencies; it is not a requirement 

for owners and operators. Because the Energy Policy Act gives EPA clear delivery prohibition 

enforcement authority, we do not need to add delivery prohibition to the UST technical 

regulation. However, the only way to ensure states have that same authority is to require states 

to have authority to implement delivery prohibition as a prerequisite for SPA, as proposed in § 

281.40(a). 

Proposed Specific Changes 

EPA is proposing specific changes below to Subpart C – Criteria for No Less Stringent. They

reflect proposed 40 CFR part 280 changes. This specific approach is the only way for states to 

adopt this group of proposed changes. The goal of these proposed sections remain intact, yet the 

specific changes ensure states adopt the 40 CFR part 280 changes when final, and are able to 

receive SPA. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 209 of 398

 § 281.30(b) – eliminate flow restrictors for new or replaced overfill prevention 

 § 281.31 – delete upgrading requirements 

 § 281.33(c) – limit use of monthly inventory control in combination with tank tightness 

testing conducted every five years for the first 10 years after the tank is installed or 

upgraded, if the tank was installed prior to a state receiving SPA 

 § 281.33(e) – require hazardous substance USTs to only use secondary containment with 

interstitial monitoring 

 § 281.34(a)(1) – add “...interstitial space may have been compromised...” to suspected 

releases 

 § 281.37 – eliminate phase-in requirement for financial responsibility

EPA is proposing in § 281.30(b) states wishing to receive SPA not allow installation of flow 

restrictors (commonly referred to as ball floats) in vent lines for overfill protection. The existing 

goal of § 281.30(b) is for states to require that UST systems have spill and overfill prevention 

equipment. In the proposed language, EPA maintains the overall goal to prevent spills and 

overfills; however, owners and operators can no longer install ball floats to achieve that goal. 

The deadlines for upgrades and for owners and operators to obtain financial responsibility have 

passed. As a result, EPA is proposing to eliminate these UST technical regulation deadlines in 

the SPA regulation. In § 281.31 and § 281.33(b), EPA is removing UST upgrades, except for 

previously deferred USTs. In § 281.37, we are eliminating the financial responsibility phase-in 

schedule. Please note EPA is proposing states allow upgrades prior to submitting their approval 

or revision applications for SPA, rather than only until December 22, 1998. EPA is taking this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 210 of 398

action due to states’ previous problems with implementing a retroactive requirement when 

applying for SPA after the upgrade deadline. 

In § 281.33(c), EPA is proposing monthly inventory control in combination with tank tightness 

testing conducted every five years for the first 10 years after a tank is installed or upgraded, only

if a tank was installed prior to a state receiving SPA. This reflects a proposed change in 40 CFR 

part 280 and avoids another problem in the 1988 SPA regulation. First, EPA is proposing to 

eliminate this method. Second, EPA is proposing to tie the date for eliminating this method to a 

state’s submission of its SPA application for approval or revision. As discussed earlier, EPA is 

taking the position that it is better to tie deadlines in the SPA regulation to states’ submission of 

SPA applications, rather than specific dates.

In today’s notice, EPA is proposing states wishing to receive SPA will no longer be able to allow 

installation of non-secondarily contained hazardous substance UST systems. This is consistent 

with EPA’s proposed change in § 280.42(e); an equivalent and specific proposed change to the 

SPA regulation is the only way to ensure states adopt it. For consistency with proposed changes 

in the UST technical regulation and to ensure states wishing to receive SPA adopt this change, in 

§ 281.34(a)(1), EPA is proposing to add “...interstitial space may have been compromised...” to 

suspected releases conditions. 

Proposed UST Technical Regulation Changes Not Addressed In Proposed SPA Regulation 

EPA is not proposing to address in the proposed SPA regulation (§ 281.32) the methods for 

determining compatibility. Today’s proposed compatibility proposal in § 281.32 allows owners 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 211 of 398

and operators to use any method for determining compatibility approved by an implementing 

agency, as long as the method is no less protective of human health and the environment. It is 

unnecessary to change the SPA regulation because the proposed UST technical regulation in § 

281.32 will provide states with discretion to ensure compatibility. Also, the proposed UST 

technical regulation change delineates how owners and operators can demonstrate they are 

storing substances in UST systems made of or lined with materials that are compatible with the 

substances stored. This is more prescriptive than the general format of the SPA regulation, and 

thus is not appropriate for the SPA regulation.

Addressing SPA Revision Process

EPA is proposing to add a requirement for approved states to submit a revised application within 

three years of SPA regulation changes that require a program revision under § 281.51. Approved 

states are required to revise their programs and submit revised applications whenever the federal 

program changes or EPA’s Administrator requests a revised application based on changes to a 

state’s program. Given today’s proposed significant changes, it is necessary to develop a 

timeframe which will ensure approved states meet SPA regulation changes in a reasonable time. 

After discussions with states and reviews of other EPA programs, EPA is taking the position that

three years is a reasonable time for approved states to submit revised applications resulting from 

SPA regulation changes. Also, EPA will work with states to ensure they meet this three-year 

deadline. EPA’s proposed language in § 281.51 is intended only to require a state program 

revision within three years if EPA makes changes that necessitate state program changes. For 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 212 of 398

instance, EPA changes to Subpart C – Criteria for No Less Stringent would likely require a state 

program revision, unless EPA is only making minor editorial changes. 

While most states will be able to meet the three-year deadline for program revision, EPA is 

aware that some states may need additional time. EPA will notify states that have not revised 

their program within three years. EPA will ask those states to demonstrate their level of effort, 

show progress to date, and provide dates when they will achieve major milestones for revising 

their programs and submitting a revised application. EPA will consider these factors before 

initiating program approval withdrawal.

Additional Proposed Changes To SPA Regulation 

EPA is proposing these additional SPA regulation changes; they are not a direct result of 

proposed 40 CFR part 280 changes. Rather, the majority are corrections to the 1988 SPA 

regulation. 

 § 281.10 – change “subpart” to “part”

 § 281.11(c), § 281.12(b)(2), § 281.23, and formerly § 281.51 – eliminate interim 

approval 

 § 281.12(a)(2) – change “Indian lands” to “Indian country” 

 § 281.32(e) – eliminate requirement to maintain upgrade records 

 Formerly § 281.38 – eliminate reserved section for financial responsibility for USTs 

containing hazardous substances 

 Move § 281.39 to § 281.38 – Lender Liability 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 213 of 398

 § 281.61 – move § 281.60(b) to § 281.61(b)(2)

The SPA regulation incorrectly uses the term subpart in § 281.10, and therefore EPA is 

proposing to correctly change this to part. EPA has been using the term Indian country instead 

of Indian lands for years. We are proposing to incorporate this term, which does not alter the 

meaning, in the SPA regulation. EPA is proposing to remove the reserved financial 

responsibility for USTs containing hazardous substances section (formerly § 281.38); move the 

lender liability section from § 281.39 to § 281.38; and include the new operator training section 

in § 281.39. Because operator training needs to be in Subpart C, which has no remaining section 

numbers, this eliminates the need to renumber Subpart D. Also, the reserved financial 

responsibility for hazardous substances section is unnecessary since there is no corresponding 

requirement in 40 CFR part 280. 

EPA is proposing to delete the interim SPA approval language (in § 281.11(c) and § 281.51). In 

more than 20 years of the UST program, no state has sought interim approval; it is more 

beneficial to receive full approval all at once, rather than in steps. Also, because 36 states plus 

the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have SPA, interim SPA approval is unnecessary at this 

time. 

EPA is proposing to eliminate the requirement to maintain upgrade records for the operational 

life of an UST facility. This requirement in § 281.32(e) of the 1988 SPA regulation does not 

exist in 40 CFR part 280. In addition, EPA is proposing to no longer allow upgrades. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 214 of 398

EPA is also proposing to move § 281.60(b) to § 281.61(b). This paragraph explains the 

procedure EPA will follow to withdraw approval. This paragraph is better suited for § 281.61, 

which explains the procedures for withdrawing approval, as opposed to § 281.60, which explains 

the criteria for withdrawal.

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?

EPA requests comments on: 

 Is three years an appropriate timeframe for requiring a SPA state to submit a revised 

application? Please provide justification. 

 Should EPA address the proposed procedures for determining compatibility of § 280.32 

into the SPA regulation?

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different 

from EPA’s proposal. 

VI. Overview of Estimated Costs and Benefits

EPA prepared an analysis of the potential incremental costs and benefits associated with this 

action. This analysis is contained in the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) document titled 

Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Proposed Revisions to 

EPA’s Underground Storage Tank Regulations, which is available in the docket for this 

proposal. RIA estimated regulatory implementation and compliance costs, and benefits for three 

regulatory options as described above in section V, subsection F. On an annualized basis, the 

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). Separately, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 215 of 398

this analysis assessed the potential benefits of the proposed regulation. As discussed in the RIA, 

a substantial portion of the beneficial impacts associated with the proposed regulation are 

avoided cleanup costs as a result of preventing releases and reducing the severity of releases. 

Today’s action is expected to have annual cost savings related to avoided costs of $300 - $740

million per year under the Preferred Option, $310 - $770 million per year under Option 1, and 

$110 - $590 million per year under Option 2. 

We recognize that the estimated number of avoided releases and releases reduced in severity is 

based on expert judgment. Moreover, the cost savings estimates reflect cost data from only a 

small number of state programs (e.g., such as New Hampshire). We solicit public input on the 

accuracy of the expected reduction in releases due to the proposed requirements provided by the 

experts, as well as remediation cost data for releases of different sizes and types. Please provide 

relevant data and studies on this topic.EPA solicits comment on the methodology and results 

from the RIA, as well as any data that the public feels would be useful in a revised analysis

including specifically cost estimates for remediation and EPA’s methods for estimating 

prevented releases under the proposed rule. 

VII. Statutory And Executive Orders 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning And Review and Executive Order 13563: 

Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is an “economically significant regulatory action” because it is likely to have an annual 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 216 of 398

effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and EO 13563 (76 FR 

3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval 

to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been 

assigned EPA ICR number [XXXX.XX]. [Insert EPA ICR number.]

Today’s proposed regulation contains mandatory information collection requirements. The labor 

burden and associated costs for these requirements are estimated in the ICR supporting statement 

for today’s proposed action. The supporting statement identifies and estimates the burden for 

each of the changes to the regulations that include recordkeeping or reporting requirements. 

Proposed changes include: adding secondary containment requirements for new and replaced 

tanks and piping; adding operator training requirements; adding periodic operation and 

maintenance requirements for UST systems; removing certain deferrals; adding new release 

prevention and detection technologies; and updating state program approval requirements to 

incorporate these new changes. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 217 of 398

Based on the same data and cost calculations applied in the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) 

for today’s action, but using the burden estimations for ICRs, the ICR supporting statement 

estimates an average annual labor hour burden of 2.7 million hours and $134 million for the 

proposed regulation. One time capital and hourly costs are included in these estimates based on 

a three year annualization period. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The total universe of 

respondents for this ICR is comprised of 223,558 facilities and 56 states and territories.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9. 

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden 

estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a 

public docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-UST2011-0301. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to 

OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 

725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is 

required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [Insert date of 

publication in the Federal Register.], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it by [Insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.]. 

The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 218 of 398

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, a small entity is defined 

as: (1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 

13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, 

town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of today’s proposed regulation on small entities, EPA 

certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. The small entities directly regulated by this proposed rule are small businesses 

and small governmental jurisdictions. We have determined that at most 1 percent of potentially

affected small firms in the retail motor fuel sector (NAICS 447) will experience an impact over 

1 percent of revenues but less than 3 percent of revenues. No small firms have impacts above 3 

percent of revenues. In addition, we estimate that no small governmental jurisdictions would be 

impacted at 1 percent or 3 percent of revenues. This certification is based on the small entities 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 219 of 398

analysis contained in the RIA for today’s proposal.

Although this proposed regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, EPA nonetheless tried to reduce the impact of this regulation on the 

regulated community in general, which is primarily comprised of small businesses. EPA 

conducted extensive outreach in order to determine which changes to make to the 1988 

regulations. EPA worked with representatives of owners and operators and reached out 

specifically to small businesses. In addition, EPA considered the impacts of each potential 

regulatory change and worked to limit changes that required retrofits, since changes requiring 

retrofits would place a high financial burden on small businesses. Finally, EPA maintained 

numerous options for compliance in order to provide small entities with as much flexibility as 

possible.

We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and 

welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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. This rule contains a 

Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for the private sector in 

any one year. Accordingly, EPA prepared under section 202 of the UMRA a written statement 

(an appendix to the RIA), which is summarized below.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 220 of 398

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 total annualized costs to 

owners and operators of tribally-owned UST systems are $0.7 million under the Preferred 

Option. 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. 

While the proposed regulation may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for the private 

sector, thereby triggering section 202 of the UMRA, this rule is not subject to the requirements 

of section 204 of UMRA because EPA does not believe state, local, and tribal governments will 

incur aggregate costs of over $100 million per year.

Consistent with section 205, EPA identified and considered a reasonable number of regulatory

alternatives. Today’s proposed regulation identifies a number of regulatory options, and the RIA 

estimates the annual cost across the three considered options may range between $130 million 

and $520 million. Section 205 of the UMRA requires federal agencies to select the least costly

or most cost-effective regulatory alternative unless the Agency publishes with the final rule an 

explanation of why such alternative was not adopted. As discussed earlier in the preamble, as 

part of EPA’s deliberative process for today’s proposed rule, EPA considered and evaluated 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 221 of 398

variations of a subset of the proposed requirements using two alternative options (Options 1 and 

2). The preferred option provides the greatest difference between beneficial impact and costs of 

any of the options. The requirements proposed under the Preferred Option provides for greater 

protection of human health and the environment and better addresses stakeholder concerns, 

compared to the lower cost and proposed requirements of Option 2.

This rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no 

regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on 

the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in 

EO 13132. Under the proposed rule, total costs to all affected states and local governments 

(including direct compliance costs, notification costs, and state program costs) are approximately

$9 million. This is not considered to be a substantial compliance cost under federalism 

requirements. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits 

comment on this proposed action from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation And Coordination With Indian Tribal 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 222 of 398

Governments

Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) EPA may not issue a 

regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that 

is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the 

direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal officials 

early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact 

statement. 

EPA concluded that this action will have tribal implications to the extent that tribally-owned 

entities with UST systems on Indian country would be affected. However, it will neither impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Total 

annualized costs for tribally-owned UST systems in Indian country are estimated to be $0.7 

million. 

EPA consulted with tribal officials early in the process of developing this proposed regulation to 

welcome meaningful and timely input into its development. EPA began its consultation with 

tribes on possible changes to the UST regulation shortly after the passage of the Energy Policy

Act of 2005. The Energy Policy Act directed EPA to coordinate with tribes to develop and 

implement an UST program strategy in Indian country to supplement the program’s existing 

approach. EPA and tribes worked collaboratively to develop a tribal strategy. 

There are certain key provisions of the Energy Policy Act that apply to states receiving federal 

Subtitle I money, but do not apply in Indian country. Nonetheless, EPA’s goal is to establish in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 223 of 398

Indian country similar federal requirements to these Energy Policy Act provisions as an 

important step in achieving more consistent program results in release prevention. Both EPA 

and tribes recognize the importance of having policies that can help ensure parity in program 

implementation between states and in Indian country. 

In addition to our early consultation with tribes, EPA also reached out again to tribes as we 

started the official rulemaking process and throughout the development of this proposed 

regulation. EPA sent letters to leaders of over 500 tribes as well as to tribal regulatory staff to 

invite their participation in the development of the regulation. EPA heard from both tribal 

officials who work as regulators as well as representatives of owners and operators of UST 

systems in Indian country. The tribal regulators raised concerns about ensuring parity of 

environmental protection between states and Indian country.

EPA finds that today’s proposed changes to the UST regulation are needed to ensure parity 

between UST systems in states and in Indian country. This regulation is also needed to ensure 

equipment is not just installed but is working properly to protect the environment from potential 

releases. 

EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection Of Children From Environmental Health And 

Safety Risks

This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because the Agency does 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 224 of 398

not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. EPA’s risk assessment for this proposed rulemaking examines 

potential impacts to groundwater and subsequent chemical transport, exposure and risk. While 

the risk assessment did not specifically measure exposure to children, the general exposure 

scenarios reflect four exposure pathways that have the most significant potential for human 

health impacts. These are: (1) ingestion of chemicals in groundwater that have migrated from 

the source area to residential drinking water wells; (2) inhalation of volatile chemicals when 

showering with contaminated groundwater; (3) dermal contact with chemicals while bathing or 

showering with contaminated groundwater; and (4) inhalation of vapors that may migrate 

upward from contaminated groundwater into overlying buildings.

Adults and children can potentially be exposed through all four exposure pathways considered. 

For adults, inhalation of vapors while showering is the most significant exposure pathway; for 

children, ingestion is the most significant pathway, because they are assumed to take baths and 

are, therefore, not exposed via shower vapor inhalation. As a result of the longer exposure from 

showering, adults are the more sensitive receptors for cancer effects compared to children, 

particularly those under five who are assumed to take more baths and fewer showers.

81

While the screening level risk assessment is limited in that it only examines benzene impacts, the 

proposed rule would likely reduce other contaminant exposures to children in a similar pattern

and would not create significant adverse impacts on children’s health.

The screening level population analysis performed to examine EO 12898 shows that children 

 

81 United States Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry, “Toxicological Profile For Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons,” August 1995.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 225 of 398

under 18 years and children under five years are slightly less likely to be found in the vicinity of 

UST facilities. This suggests that the impacts of the proposed rule will not have a 

disproportionate impact on children’s health. Moreover, because all regulatory options proposed 

today would increase regulatory stringency and reduce the number and size of releases, EPA 

does not expect the proposed regulation to have any disproportionate adverse impact on children. 

The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed studies and data that assess 

effects of early life exposure to petroleum products. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, 

Or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. The following summarizes EPA’s assessment of the energy

impacts that the proposed rulemaking will have on energy supply, distribution, and use. 

The proposed regulation consists of additional regulatory requirements that apply to the owners 

and operators of underground storage tanks. To the extent that the proposed regulation affects 

the motor fuel sector, it does so at the retail motor fuel sales level, rather than the level of 

refineries or distributors, who supply the retail stations with motor fuel. Therefore, we do not 

expect the proposed regulation to have a significant adverse impact on energy supply or 

distribution.

The additional regulatory requirements contained in the proposed regulation may increase 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 226 of 398

compliance costs for owners and operators of retail motor fuel stations. If owners and operators 

of retail motor fuel stations affected by the proposed regulation can pass through their increased 

compliance costs, energy use may be affected via higher energy prices caused by the proposed 

regulation. However, we do not expect a significant change in retail gasoline prices to result 

from this proposed regulation for the following reasons: (1) economic analyses of retail fuel 

prices have revealed that demand for gasoline is highly sensitive to price (elastic) within 

localized geographic areas. As a result, if one motor fuel retailer in an area passes through 

increases in compliance costs by increasing gasoline prices, while another does not, the one with 

higher prices is at a competitive disadvantage; and (2) retail motor fuel stations often have 

associated stores and/or services, such as car washes, repair operations, and convenience outlets, 

on which they can more successfully pass through increases in compliance costs. 

Furthermore, when considered in the context of total fuel consumption in the United States, the 

proposed rule would represent only a very small fraction of motor fuel prices even if it was fully 

passed through to consumers. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the United 

States consumed approximately 171 billion gallons of motor fuel (including gasoline and diesel) 

in 2008 at an average price of $3.27.82 This implies that U.S. consumers spent $558 billion in 

2008 on motor fuel. The overall cost of the proposed regulation is approximately $210 million, 

less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the amount spent by end users on motor fuel in 2008. In 

comparison, an increase of 1 cent in the average price of motor fuel in 2008 would have 

 

82 The 2008 prices per gallon for all grades of retail motor gasoline and No. 2 diesel fuel (all concentrations of 

sulfur) were $3.32 and $3.15, respectively, as reported by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics in Table 3-8: Sales 

Price of Transportation Fuel to End-Users in National Transportation Statistics 2010 (at 

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/pdf/entire.pdf). We weight these prices according 

to prime supplier sales volumes in 2009 published by the Energy Information Administration, which summed to 

362,798.5 thousands of gallons per day for gasoline and 132,489.3 thousands of gallons per day for all grades of 

diesel fuel (at http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_prim_dcu_nus_a.htm).
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 227 of 398

increased the total cost to consumers by approximately $1.7 billion. Given these circumstances, 

the proposed regulations should not have a measurable impact on retail motor fuel prices. 

As a result, EPA does not expect the proposed regulations to have a significant adverse impact 

on energy prices or use.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), 

Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards 

in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 

voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. 

This proposed regulation involves technical standards. EPA is proposing to use voluntary

consensus standards, called codes of practice identified in section E-2 of the preamble. These 

codes of practice meet the objectives of today’s proposed regulation by establishing criteria for 

the design, construction, and maintenance of underground storage tanks.

EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed regulation and, specifically, invites the 

public to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such 

standards should be used in this regulation.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 228 of 398

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice In Minority 

Populations And Low-Income Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States. 

To inform us about the socioeconomic characteristics of communities potentially affected by the 

proposed regulation, EPA conducted a screening analysis to examine whether there is a 

statistically significant disparity between socioeconomic characteristics of populations located 

near UST facilities and those that are not.83 As discussed in the RIA, the results indicate that 

minority and low-income populations are slightly more likely to be located near UST facilities. 

An environmental justice analysis would then require an assessment of whether there would be 

disproportionate and adverse impacts on these populations. However, because all regulatory

options considered in this proposed regulation would increase regulatory stringency and reduce 

the number and size of releases, EPA does not anticipate the proposed regulation to have any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on these minority or 

low-income communities or any community.

 

83 Note that the affected populations identified in the screening analysis summarized here are simply defined by 

specific demographics surrounding UST locations. These affected populations are not necessarily equivalent to 

communities that others have specifically identified as “environmental justice communities.” 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 229 of 398

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 280 

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Confidential business 

information, Groundwater, Hazardous materials, Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Underground storage tanks, Water pollution control, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 281

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Hazardous materials, 

Petroleum, State program approval, Underground storage tanks.

Dated:

_____________________________________________

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, Title 40 Chapter I of Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 230 of 398

PART 280 -- TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION 

REQUIREMENTS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF UNDERGROUND 

STORAGE TANKS (UST)

1. The authority citation for part 280 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 USC 6912, 6991, 6991(a), 6991(b), 6991(c), 6991(d), 6991(e), 6991(f), 6991(g), 

6991(h), 6991(i).
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 231 of 398

2. Revise § 280.10 to read as follows:

§ 280.10 Applicability.

(a) The requirements of this part apply to all owners and operators of an UST system as 

defined in § 280.12 except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.

(1) Previously deferred UST systems. UST systems previously deferred from subparts B, 

C, D, E, G and H (airport hydrant fuel distribution systems, UST systems with field-constructed 

tanks, and wastewater treatment tank systems) and UST systems previously deferred from 

subpart D (UST systems that store fuel solely for use by emergency power generators) must 

begin meeting the requirements of this part as follows: 

(i) UST systems installed on or before [effective date of rule] must meet the schedule in 

the following table.

Type Of UST System Subpart Or Section Effective Date

UST systems that store fuel 

solely for use by emergency

power generators

D [1 Year after effective date of 

rule]

Airport hydrant fuel 

distribution systems; UST 

systems with field-constructed 

tanks; and wastewater 

treatment tank systems

B (except § 280.22) and C [3 Years after effective date of 

rule]

D See the phase in schedule in § 

280.40(c)

§ 280.22 of subpart B, E, G 

and H

[effective date of rule]
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 232 of 398

(ii) UST systems installed after [effective date of rule] must meet all requirements at 

installation. 

 (2) Any UST system listed in paragraph (c) of this section must meet the requirements of § 

280.11.

(b) The following UST systems are excluded from the requirements of this part:

(1) Any UST system holding hazardous wastes listed or identified under Subtitle C of the 

Solid Waste Disposal Act, or a mixture of such hazardous waste and other regulated substances.

(2) Any wastewater treatment tank system that is part of a wastewater treatment facility

regulated under Section 402 or 307(b) of the Clean Water Act.

(3) Equipment or machinery that contains regulated substances for operational purposes 

such as hydraulic lift tanks and electrical equipment tanks.

(4) Any UST system whose capacity is 110 gallons or less.

(5) Any UST system that contains a de minimis concentration of regulated substances.

(6) Any emergency spill or overflow containment UST system that is expeditiously
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 233 of 398

emptied after use.

(c) Deferrals. Subparts B, C, D, E, and G of this part do not apply to:

(1) Aboveground tanks associated with:

(i) Airport hydrant fuel distribution systems; and 

(ii) UST systems with field-constructed tanks;

(2) Any UST systems containing radioactive material that are regulated under the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954 (42 USC 2011 and following); and

(3) Any UST system that is part of an emergency generator system at nuclear power 

generation facilities regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under 10 CFR part 50.

3. In § 280.11 revise the Note at the end of the section to read as follows:

§ 280.11 Interim prohibition for deferred UST systems. 

* * * * * 

Note to paragraphs (a) and (b): The following codes of practice may be used as guidance 

for complying with this section:
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 234 of 398

(A) NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, "Corrosion Control of 

Underground Storage Systems by Cathodic Protection”;

(B) NACE International Standard Practice SP 0169, “Control of External Corrosion on 

Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems”; 

(C) American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1632, "Cathodic Protection of 

Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks and Piping Systems"; or 

(D) Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R892, “Recommended Practice for 

Corrosion Protection of Underground Piping Networks Associated with Liquid Petroleum 

Storage and Dispensing Systems”.

4. § 280.12 is amended as follows: a. By adding in alphabetical order definitions for “Airport 

hydrant fuel distribution system,” “Class A operator,” “Class B operator,” “Class C operator,” 

“Dispenser system,” “Replaced,” “Secondary containment,” “Training program,” and “Underdispenser containment,” and b. By revising the definitions for “Motor fuel,” “Regulated 

substance,” “Repair,” and “Underground storage tank.” 

§ 280.12 Definitions.

* * * * * 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 235 of 398

Airport hydrant fuel distribution system means an UST system that is a combination of one 

or more tanks directly connected to underground hydrant piping used to fuel aircraft. These 

systems do not have a dispenser at the end of the piping run, but rather have a hydrant (fill 

stand). If an aboveground storage tank (AST) is feeding an intermediary tank or tanks, this 

definition does not include the AST, but does include all underground piping entering and 

leaving the intermediary tank(s) and the intermediary tank(s). Intermediary tanks are those tanks 

directly connected to the hydrant piping.

* * * * * 

Class A operator means the individual who has primary responsibility to operate and 

maintain the UST system in accordance with applicable requirements and standards established 

by the implementing agency. The Class A operator typically manages resources and personnel, 

such as establishing work assignments, to achieve and maintain compliance with regulatory

requirements. 

Class B operator means the individual who has day-to-day responsibility for implementing 

applicable regulatory requirements and standards established by the implementing agency. The 

Class B operator typically implements in-field aspects of operation, maintenance, and associated 

recordkeeping for the UST system. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 236 of 398

Class C operator means the employee responsible for initially addressing emergencies 

presented by a spill or release from an UST system. The Class C operator typically controls or 

monitors the dispensing or sale of regulated substances. 

* * * * *

Dispenser system means equipment located aboveground that meters the amount of 

regulated substances transferred to a point of use outside the UST system, such as a motor 

vehicle. This system includes the equipment necessary to connect the dispenser to the 

underground storage tank system. 

* * * * * 

Motor fuel means petroleum or a petroleum-based substance that is typically used in the 

operation of a motor engine, such as motor gasoline, aviation gasoline, No. 1 or No. 2 diesel fuel, 

or any blend containing one or more of these substances (for example: motor gasoline blended 

with alcohol). 

* * * * *

Regulated substance means 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 237 of 398

(a) any substance defined in section 101(14) of the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 (but not including any substance 

regulated as a hazardous waste under subtitle C), and 

(b) petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof that is liquid at standard 

conditions of temperature and pressure (60 degrees Fahrenheit and 14.7 pounds per square inch 

absolute). The term "regulated substance" includes but is not limited to petroleum and 

petroleum-based substances comprised of a complex blend of hydrocarbons, such as motor fuels, 

jet fuels, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants, petroleum solvents, and used oils.

* * * * *

Repair means to restore a tank, pipe, spill prevention equipment, overfill prevention 

equipment, corrosion protection equipment, release detection equipment or other UST system 

component that has caused a release or a suspected release of product from the UST system or 

has failed to function properly. 

Replaced means

(a) for a tank - to remove a tank and install another tank.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 238 of 398

(b) for piping - to remove 50 percent or more of piping and install other piping, excluding 

connectors, connected to a single tank. For tanks with multiple piping runs, this definition 

applies independently to each piping run.

* * * * * 

Secondary containment or Secondarily contained means a release prevention and release 

detection system for a tank and/or piping. These systems have an inner and outer barrier with an 

interstitial space that is monitored for leaks.

* * * * * 

Training program means any program established by the implementing agency that 

provides information to and evaluates the knowledge of a Class A, Class B, or Class C operator 

regarding requirements and standards for UST systems. 

Under-dispenser containment or UDC means containment underneath a dispenser system 

designed to prevent dispenser system leaks from reaching soil or groundwater.

* * * * * 

Underground storage tank or UST means any one or combination of tanks (including 

underground pipes connected thereto) that is used to contain an accumulation of regulated 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 239 of 398

substances, and the volume of which (including the volume of underground pipes connected 

thereto) is 10 percent or more beneath the surface of the ground. This term does not include any:

(a) Farm or residential tank of 1,100 gallons or less capacity used for storing motor fuel 

for noncommercial purposes;

(b) Tank used for storing heating oil for consumptive use on the premises where stored;

(c) Septic tank;

(d) Pipeline facility (including gathering lines):

(1) Which is regulated under U.S.C. chapters 601 and 603, or

(2) Which is an intrastate pipeline facility regulated under state laws as provided in U.S.C. 

49 chapters 601 and 603,and which is determined by the Secretary of Transportation to be 

connected to a pipeline, or to be operated or intended to be capable of operating at pipeline 

pressure, or as an integral part of a pipeline;

(e) Surface impoundment, pit, pond, or lagoon;

(f) Storm-water or wastewater collection system;
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 240 of 398

(g) Flow-through process tank;

(h) Liquid trap or associated gathering lines directly related to oil or gas production and 

gathering operations; or

(i) Storage tank situated in an underground area (such as a basement, cellar, mineworking, 

drift, shaft, or tunnel) if the storage tank is situated upon or above the surface of the floor.

The term underground storage tank or UST does not include any pipes connected to any tank 

which is described in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this definition.

* * * * * 

5. Revise Subpart B to read as follows:

Subpart B -- UST Systems: Design, Construction, Installation and Notification

280.20 Performance standards for new UST systems.

280.21 Upgrading of existing UST systems.

280.22 Notification requirements.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 241 of 398

Subpart B -- UST Systems: Design, Construction, Installation and Notification

§ 280.20 Performance standards for new UST systems.

In order to prevent releases due to structural failure, corrosion, or spills and overfills for as 

long as the UST system is used to store regulated substances, all owners and operators of new 

UST systems must meet the following requirements.

(a) Tanks. Each tank must be properly designed and constructed, and any portion 

underground that routinely contains product must be protected from corrosion, in accordance 

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

laboratory as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section. In addition, all new or 

replaced tanks where installation began after [effective date of rule] must be secondarily

contained in accordance with paragraph (a)(6) of this section:

(1) The tank is constructed of fiberglass-reinforced plastic; or

Note to paragraph (a)(1): The following codes of practice may be used to comply with 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section: 

(A) Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1316, "Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Plastic 

Underground Storage Tanks for Petroleum Products, Alcohols, and Alcohol-Gasoline Mixtures"; 

or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 242 of 398

(B) Underwriter's Laboratories of Canada S615, "Standard for Reinforced Plastic 

Underground Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids".

(2) The tank is constructed of steel and cathodically protected in the following manner:

(i) The tank is coated with a suitable dielectric material; 

(ii) Field-installed cathodic protection systems are designed by a corrosion expert;

(iii) Impressed current systems are designed to allow determination of current operating 

status as required in § 280.31(c); and

(iv) Cathodic protection systems are operated and maintained in accordance with § 280.31 

or according to guidelines established by the implementing agency; or

Note to paragraph (a)(2): The following codes of practice may be used to comply with 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section:

(A) Steel Tank Institute Specification "sti-P3® Specification and Manual for External 

Corrosion Protection of Underground Steel Storage Tanks";

(B) Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1746, "Standard for External Corrosion 

Protection Systems for Steel Underground Storage Tanks";
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 243 of 398

(C) Underwriters Laboratories of Canada S603, "Standard for Steel Underground Tanks 

for Flammable and Combustible Liquids," and S603.1, "Standard for External Corrosion 

Protection Systems for Steel Underground Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids," and 

S631, "Standard for Isolating Bushings for Steel Underground Tanks Protected with External 

Corrosion Protection Systems";

(D) Steel Tank Institute Standard F841, "Standard for Dual Wall Underground Steel 

Storage Tanks"; or

(E) NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, "Corrosion Control of 

Underground Storage Systems by Cathodic Protection," and Underwriters Laboratories Standard 

58, "Standard for Steel Underground Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids".

(3) The tank is constructed of steel and clad or jacketed with a non-corrodible material; or

Note to paragraph (a)(3): The following codes of practice may be used to comply with 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section:

 

(A) Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1746, "Standard for External Corrosion Protection 

Systems for Steel Underground Storage Tanks";
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 244 of 398

(B) Steel Tank Institute Specification F894, “ACT-100® Specification for External 

Corrosion Protection of FRP Composite Steel USTs”;

(C) Steel Tank Institute Specification F961, “ACT-100-U® Specification for External 

Corrosion Protection of Composite Steel Underground Storage Tanks”; or

(D) Steel Tank Institute Specification F922, “Steel Tank Institute Specification for 

Permatank®”.

(4) The tank is constructed of metal without additional corrosion protection measures 

provided that:

(i) The tank is installed at a site that is determined by a corrosion expert not to be 

corrosive enough to cause it to have a release due to corrosion during its operating life; and

(ii) Owners and operators maintain records that demonstrate compliance with the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section for the remaining life of the tank; or

(5) The tank construction and corrosion protection are determined by the implementing 

agency to be designed to prevent the release or threatened release of any stored regulated 

substance in a manner that is no less protective of human health and the environment than 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section; or
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 245 of 398

(6) The tank is secondarily contained. Secondary containment must be periodically

tested in accordance with § 280.36. Secondarily contained tanks must meet the following:

(i) Be able to contain regulated substances leaked from the primary containment until 

they are detected and removed; and

(ii) Be able to prevent the release of regulated substances to the environment at any time 

during the operational life of the UST system.

Note to paragraph (a)(6): The following codes of practice may be used to comply with 

paragraph (a)(6) of this section:

(A) Underwriters Laboratories Standard 58, "Standard for Steel Underground Tanks for 

Flammable and Combustible Liquids";

(B) Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1316, "Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Plastic 

Underground Storage Tanks for Petroleum Products, Alcohols, and Alcohol-Gasoline Mixtures";

(C) Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1746, "Standard for External Corrosion Protection 

Systems for Steel Underground Storage Tanks";

(D) Steel Tank Institute Standard F841, "Standard for Dual Wall Underground Steel 

Storage Tanks"; or
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 246 of 398

(E) Steel Tank Institute Specification F922, “Steel Tank Institute Specification for 

Permatank®”.

(b) Piping. The piping that routinely contains regulated substances and is in contact with 

the ground must be properly designed, constructed, and protected from corrosion in accordance 

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

laboratory as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section. In addition, except for 

suction piping that meets the requirements of 280.41(b)(1)(ii)(A) through (E) and piping 

associated with field-constructed tanks and airport hydrant fuel distribution systems, all new or 

replaced piping where installation began after [effective date of rule] must be secondarily

contained in accordance with paragraph (b)(5) of this section. The entire piping run must be 

replaced when 50 percent or more of a piping run is replaced.

(1) The piping is constructed of a non-corrodible material; or 

Note to paragraph (b)(1): The following codes of practice may be used to comply with 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section:

(A) Underwriters Laboratories Standard 971, "Standard for Non-Metallic Underground 

Piping for Flammable Liquids"; or
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 247 of 398

(B) Underwriters Laboratories of Canada Standard S660, " Standard for Non-Metallic 

Underground Piping for Flammable Liquids".

(2) The piping is constructed of steel and cathodically protected in the following manner:

(i) The piping is coated with a suitable dielectric material;

(ii) Field-installed cathodic protection systems are designed by a corrosion expert;

(iii) Impressed current systems are designed to allow determination of current operating 

status as required in § 280.31(c); and

(iv) Cathodic protection systems are operated and maintained in accordance with § 280.31 

or guidelines established by the implementing agency; or

Note to paragraph (b)(2): The following codes of practice may be used to comply with 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section:

(A) American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1632, "Cathodic Protection of 

Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks and Piping Systems";

(B) Underwriters Laboratories Subject 971A, "Outline of Investigation for Metallic 

Underground Fuel Pipe";
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 248 of 398

(C) Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R892, “Recommended Practice for 

Corrosion Protection of Underground Piping Networks Associated with Liquid Petroleum 

Storage and Dispensing Systems”; 

(D) NACE International Standard Practice SP 0169, "Control of External Corrosion on 

Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems"; or

(E) NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, "Corrosion Control of 

Underground Storage Systems by Cathodic Protection".

(3) The piping is constructed of metal without additional corrosion protection measures 

provided that:

(i) The piping is installed at a site that is determined by a corrosion expert to not be 

corrosive enough to cause it to have a release due to corrosion during its operating life; and

(ii) Owners and operators maintain records that demonstrate compliance with the 

requirements of paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section for the remaining life of the piping; or

(4) The piping construction and corrosion protection are determined by the implementing 

agency to be designed to prevent the release or threatened release of any stored regulated 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 249 of 398

substance in a manner that is no less protective of human health and the environment than the 

requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section; or

(5) The piping is secondarily contained. Secondary containment must be periodically 

tested in accordance with § 280.36. Secondarily contained piping must meet the following:

(i) Be able to contain regulated substances leaked from the primary containment until 

they are detected and removed; and

(ii) Be able to prevent the release of regulated substances to the environment at any time 

during the operational life of the UST system.

Note to paragraph (b)(5): The following codes of practice may be used to comply with 

paragraph (b)(5) of this section: 

(A) Underwriters Laboratories Standard 971, "Standard for Non-Metallic Underground 

Piping for Flammable Liquids"; or

(B) Underwriters Laboratories Subject 971A, "Outline of Investigation for Metallic 

Underground Fuel Pipe”.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 250 of 398

(c) Spill and overfill prevention equipment. 

(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section, to prevent spilling 

and overfilling associated with product transfer to the UST system, owners and operators must 

use the following spill and overfill prevention equipment:

(i) Spill prevention equipment that will prevent release of product to the environment 

when the transfer hose is detached from the fill pipe (for example, a spill catchment basin); and

(ii) Overfill prevention equipment that will:

(A) Automatically shut off flow into the tank when the tank is no more than 95 percent 

full; or

(B) Alert the transfer operator when the tank is no more than 90 percent full by restricting 

the flow into the tank or triggering a high-level alarm; or

(C) Restrict flow 30 minutes prior to overfilling, alert the transfer operator with a high 

level alarm one minute before overfilling, or automatically shut off flow into the tank so that 

none of the fittings located on top of the tank are exposed to product due to overfilling.

(2) Owners and operators are not required to use the spill and overfill prevention 

equipment specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section if:
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 251 of 398

(i) Alternative equipment is used that is determined by the implementing agency to be no 

less protective of human health and the environment than the equipment specified in paragraph 

(c)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section; or

(ii) The UST system is filled by transfers of no more than 25 gallons at one time.

(3) Flow restrictors used in vent lines may not be used to comply with paragraph (c)(1)(ii) 

of this section when overfill prevention is installed or replaced after [effective date of rule].

(4) Spill and overfill prevention equipment must be periodically tested in accordance with 

§ 280.35. 

(d) Installation. All tanks and piping must be properly installed in accordance with a code 

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

and in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. 

Note to paragraph (d): Tank and piping system installation practices and procedures 

described in the following codes of practice may be used to comply with the requirements of 

paragraph (d) of this section:

(A) American Petroleum Institute Publication 1615, "Installation of Underground 

Petroleum Storage System";
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 252 of 398

(B) Petroleum Equipment Institute Publication RP100, "Recommended Practices for 

Installation of Underground Liquid Storage Systems"; or

(C) National Fire Protection Association Standard 30, "Flammable and Combustible 

Liquids Code" and Standard 30A, “Code for Motor Fuel Dispensing Facilities and Repair 

Garages”.

(e) Certification of installation. All owners and operators must ensure that one or more of 

the following methods of certification, testing, or inspection is used to demonstrate compliance 

with paragraph (d) of this section by providing a certification of compliance on the UST 

notification form in accordance with § 280.22.

(1) The installer has been certified by the tank and piping manufacturers; or

(2) The installer has been certified or licensed by the implementing agency; or

(3) The installation has been inspected and certified by a registered professional engineer 

with education and experience in UST system installation; or

(4) The installation has been inspected and approved by the implementing agency; or

(5) All work listed in the manufacturer's installation checklists has been completed; or
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 253 of 398

(6) The owner and operator have complied with another method for ensuring compliance 

with paragraph (d) of this section that is determined by the implementing agency to be no less 

protective of human health and the environment.

(f) Dispenser Systems. Each UST system must be equipped with under-dispenser 

containment for any new dispenser system installed. 

(1) A dispenser system is considered new when both the dispenser and the equipment 

needed to connect the dispenser to the underground storage tank system are installed at an UST 

facility. The equipment necessary to connect the dispenser to the underground storage tank 

system includes check valves, shear valves, unburied risers or flexible connectors, or other 

transitional components that are beneath the dispenser and connect the dispenser to the 

underground piping.

(2) Under-dispenser containment must be liquid-tight on its sides, bottom, and at any 

penetrations. Under-dispenser containment must allow for visual inspection and access to the 

components in the containment system or be continuously monitored for leaks from the 

dispenser system. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 254 of 398

§ 280.21 Upgrading of existing UST systems.

In accordance with subpart G of this part, owners and operators must permanently close any UST 

system that does not meet the new UST system performance standards in § 280.20 or has not 

been upgraded in accordance with paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section. This does not apply

to previously deferred UST systems described in paragraph (e) of this section and where an 

upgrade is determined to be appropriate by the implementing agency. 

(a) Alternatives allowed. All existing UST systems must comply with one of the 

following requirements:

(1) New UST system performance standards under § 280.20;

(2) The upgrading requirements in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section; or

(3) Closure requirements under subpart G of this part, including applicable requirements 

for corrective action under subpart F. 

(b) Tank upgrading requirements. Steel tanks must be upgraded to meet one of the 

following requirements in accordance with a code of practice developed by a nationally

recognized association or independent testing laboratory:

(1) Interior lining. Tanks upgraded by internal lining must meet the following:
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 255 of 398

(i) The lining was installed in accordance with the requirements of § 280.33, and

(ii) Within 10 years after lining, and every 5 years thereafter, the lined tank is internally

inspected and found to be structurally sound with the lining still performing in accordance with 

original design specifications. If the internal lining is no longer performing in accordance with 

original design specifications and cannot be repaired in accordance with a code of practice 

developed by a nationally recognized association or independent testing laboratory, then the 

lined tank must be permanently closed in accordance with subpart G of this part.

(2) Cathodic protection. Tanks upgraded by cathodic protection must meet the 

requirements of § 280.20(a)(2)(ii), (iii), and (iv) and the integrity of the tank must have been 

ensured using one of the following methods:

(i) The tank was internally inspected and assessed to ensure that the tank was structurally 

sound and free of corrosion holes prior to installing the cathodic protection system; or

(ii) The tank had been installed for less than 10 years and is monitored monthly for 

releases in accordance with § 280.43(d) through (i); or

(iii) The tank had been installed for less than 10 years and was assessed for corrosion 

holes by conducting two tightness tests that meet the requirements of § 280.43(c). The first 

tightness test must have been conducted prior to installing the cathodic protection system. The 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 256 of 398

second tightness test must have been conducted between three and six months following the first 

operation of the cathodic protection system; or

(iv) The tank was assessed for corrosion holes by a method that is determined by the 

implementing agency to prevent releases in a manner that is no less protective of human health 

and the environment than paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.

(3) Internal lining combined with cathodic protection. Tanks upgraded by both internal 

lining and cathodic protection must meet the following:

(i) The lining was installed in accordance with the requirements of § 280.33; and

(ii) The cathodic protection system meets the requirements of § 280.20(a)(2)(ii), (iii), and 

(iv).

Note to paragraph (b): The following historical codes of practice were listed as options for 

complying with paragraph (b) of this section:

(A) American Petroleum Institute Publication 1631, "Recommended Practice for the 

Interior Lining of Existing Steel Underground Storage Tanks";
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 257 of 398

(B) National Leak Prevention Association Standard 631, "Spill Prevention, Minimum 10 

Year Life Extension of Existing Steel Underground Tanks by Lining Without the Addition of 

Cathodic Protection";

(C) National Association of Corrosion Engineers Standard RP-02-85, "Control of External 

Corrosion on Metallic Buried, Partially Buried, or Submerged Liquid Storage Systems"; and

(D) American Petroleum Institute Publication 1632, "Cathodic Protection of Underground 

Petroleum Storage Tanks and Piping Systems".

Note to paragraph (b)(1)(ii): The following codes of practice may be used to comply with 

the periodic lining inspection requirement of this section:

(A) American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1631, "Interior Lining and 

Periodic Inspection of Underground Storage Tanks";

(B) National Leak Prevention Association Standard 631, "Entry, Cleaning, Interior 

Inspection, Repair, and Lining of Underground Storage Tanks"; or

(C) Ken Wilcox Associates Recommended Practice, “Recommended Practice for 

Inspecting Buried Lined Steel Tanks Using a Video Camera”.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 258 of 398

(c) Piping upgrading requirements. Metal piping that routinely contains regulated 

substances and is in contact with the ground must be cathodically protected in accordance with a 

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

laboratory and must meet the requirements of § 280.20(b)(2)(ii), (iii), and (iv).

Note to paragraph (c): The codes of practice listed in the note following § 280.20(b)(2) 

may be used to comply with this requirement.

(d) Spill and overfill prevention equipment. To prevent spilling and overfilling associated 

with product transfer to the UST system, all existing UST systems must comply with new UST 

system spill and overfill prevention equipment requirements specified in § 280.20(c).

(e) Upgrade requirements for previously deferred UST systems. Previously deferred 

wastewater treatment tank systems, airport hydrant fuel distribution systems, and UST systems 

with field-constructed tanks where installation commenced on or before [effective date of rule]

must meet the following requirements according to the time table in subpart A or be permanently 

closed pursuant to subpart G of this part.

(1) Corrosion protection. UST system components in contact with the ground that 

routinely contain regulated substances must meet one of the following:

(i) The new UST system performance standards for tanks at § 280.20(a) and for piping at § 

280.20(b); or
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 259 of 398

(ii) Be constructed of metal and cathodically protected according to a code of practice 

developed by a nationally recognized association or independent testing laboratory and meets the 

following:

(A) Cathodic protection must meet the requirements of § 280.20(a)(2)(ii), (iii) and (iv) for 

tanks, and § 280.20(b)(2)(ii), (iii), and (iv) for piping.

(B) Tanks greater than 10 years old without cathodic protection must be assessed to 

ensure the tank is structurally sound and free of corrosion holes prior to adding cathodic 

protection. The assessment must be by internal inspection or another method determined by the 

implementing agency to adequately assess the tank for structural soundness and corrosion holes.

Note to paragraph (e): The following codes of practice may be used to comply with this 

paragraph:

(A) NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, "Control of Underground 

Storage Tank Systems by Cathodic Protection";

(B) NACE International Standard Practice SP 0169, “Control of External Corrosion on 

Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems”; 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 260 of 398

(C) National Leak Prevention Association Standard 631, "Entry, Cleaning, Interior 

Inspection, Repair, and Lining of Underground Storage Tanks"; or

(D) American Society for Testing and Materials Standard G158, “Standard Guide for 

Three Methods of Assessing Buried Steel Tanks”.

(2) Spill and overfill prevention equipment. To prevent spilling and overfilling associated 

with product transfer to the UST system, all previously deferred UST systems must comply with 

new UST system spill and overfill prevention equipment requirements specified in § 280.20(c).

§ 280.22 Notification requirements. 

(a) After May 8, 1986, an owner must submit notice of a tank system’s existence to the 

implementing agency within 30 days of bringing the underground storage tank system into use. 

Owners must use the form in Appendix I of this part. 

Note to paragraph (a): Owners and operators of UST systems that were in the ground on 

or after May 8, 1986, unless taken out of operation on or before January 1, 1974, were required 

to notify the designated state or local agency in accordance with the Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984, Public Law 98-616, on a form published by EPA on November 8, 1985 

(50 FR 46602) unless notice was given pursuant to section 103(c) of CERCLA. Owners and 

operators who have not complied with the notification requirements may use portions I through 

VI of the notification form contained in Appendix I of this part.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 261 of 398

(b) Within 30 days of acquisition, any person who assumes ownership of a regulated 

underground storage tank system, except as described in paragraph (a) of this section, must 

submit a notice of the ownership change to the implementing agency, using the form in 

Appendix II of this part. 

(c) In states where state law, regulations, or procedures require owners to use forms that 

differ from those set forth in Appendix I and Appendix II of this part to fulfill the requirements 

of this section, the state forms may be submitted in lieu of the forms set forth in Appendix I and 

Appendix II of this part. If a state requires that its form be used in lieu of the form presented in 

Appendix I and Appendix II of this part, such form must, at a minimum, collect the information 

prescribed in Appendix I and Appendix II of this part.

(d) Owners required to submit notices under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section must 

provide notices to the appropriate implementing agency for each tank they own. Owners may

provide notice for several tanks using one notification form, but owners who own tanks located 

at more than one place of operation must file a separate notification form for each separate place 

of operation.

(e) All owners and operators of new UST systems must certify in the notification form 

compliance with the following requirements:

(1) Installation of tanks and piping under § 280.20(e);
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 262 of 398

(2) Cathodic protection of steel tanks and piping under § 280.20(a) and (b);

(3) Financial responsibility under subpart H of this part; and

(4) Release detection under §§ 280.41 and 280.42.

(f) All owners and operators of new UST systems must ensure that the installer certifies in 

the notification form that the methods used to install the tanks and piping complies with the 

requirements in § 280.20(d).

(g) Beginning October 24, 1988, any person who sells a tank intended to be used as an 

underground storage tank must notify the purchaser of such tank of the owner's notification 

obligations under paragraph (a) of this section. The statement provided in Appendix III of this 

part, when used on shipping tickets and invoices, may be used to comply with this requirement.

(h) Within 30 days of [Effective date of rule], all owners of previously deferred UST 

systems must submit a notice of tank system existence to the implementing agency, using the 

form in Appendix I of this part.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 263 of 398

6. In § 280.30 revise the Note to read as follows:

§ 280.30 Spill and overfill control.

* * * * * 

Note: The transfer procedures described in National Fire Protection Association Standard 

385, “Standard for Tank Vehicles for Flammable and Combustible Liquids” or American 

Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1007, “Loading and Unloading of MC 306/DOT 406 

Cargo Tank Motor Vehicles” may be used to comply with paragraph (a) of this section. Further 

guidance on spill and overfill prevention appears in American Petroleum Institute Recommended 

Practice 1621, "Bulk Liquid Stock Control at Retail Outlets".

* * * * * 

7. In § 280.31 revise the introductory text and the Note to read as follows:

§ 280.31 Operation and maintenance of corrosion protection.

All owners and operators of metal UST systems with corrosion protection must comply

with the following requirements to ensure that releases due to corrosion are prevented until the 

UST system is permanently closed or undergoes a change-in-service pursuant to § 280.71:

* * * * *
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 264 of 398

Note to paragraph (b): The following codes of practice may be used to comply with 

paragraph (b) of this section:

(A) NACE International Test Method TM 0101, “Measurement Techniques Related to 

Criteria for Cathodic Protection on Underground or Submerged Metallic Tank Systems”;

(B) NACE International Test Method TM0497, “Measurement Techniques Related to 

Criteria for Cathodic Protection on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems”;

(C) Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R051, “Cathodic Protection Testing 

Procedures for sti-P3 USTs”;

(D) NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, "Control of Underground 

Storage Tank Systems by Cathodic Protection"; or

(E) NACE International Standard Practice SP 0169, “Control of External Corrosion on 

Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems”.

* * * * * 

8. Amend § 280.32 to revise paragraph (a) and to add paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:

§ 280.32 Compatibility.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 265 of 398

* * * * * 

(a) Owners and operators must use an UST system made of or lined with materials that are 

compatible with the substance stored in the UST system.

(b) Owners and operators storing any regulated substance containing greater than 10 

percent ethanol or greater than 20 percent biodiesel, or any other regulated substance identified 

by the implementing agency, must use one or more of the following methods to demonstrate

UST system compatibility with these regulated substances:

(1) Certification or listing of UST system components by a nationally recognized,

independent testing laboratory for use with the regulated substance stored;

(2) Equipment or component manufacturer approval. The manufacturer’s approval 

must be in writing, indicate an affirmative statement of compatibility, specify the range of 

biofuel blends the component is compatible with, and be from the equipment or component 

manufacturer; or

(3) Another method determined by the implementing agency to be no less protective 

of human health and the environment than the methods listed in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of 

this section.

(c) Owners and operators must maintain the following records (in accordance with § 

280.34) for the life of the equipment or component:

(1) Documentation of compliance with paragraph (b) of this section, as applicable; 

and
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 266 of 398

(2) Records of all equipment or components installed or replaced after [effective 

date of rule]. At a minimum, each record must include the date of installation or replacement, 

manufacturer, and model.

9. Revise § 280.33 to read as follows:

§ 280.33 Repairs allowed.

Owners and operators of UST systems must ensure that repairs will prevent releases due to 

structural failure or corrosion as long as the UST system is used to store regulated substances. 

The repairs must meet the following requirements:

(a) Repairs to UST systems must be properly conducted in accordance with a code of 

practice developed by a nationally recognized association or an independent testing laboratory.

Note to paragraph (a): The following codes of practice may be used to comply with 

paragraph (a) of this section: 

(A) National Fire Protection Association Standard 30, "Flammable and Combustible 

Liquids Code";

(B) American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice RP 2200, "Repairing Crude Oil, 

Liquified Petroleum Gas, and Product Pipelines";
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 267 of 398

(C) American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice RP 1631, "Interior Lining and 

Periodic Inspection of Underground Storage Tanks";

(D) National Fire Protection Association Standard 326, “Safeguarding of Tanks and 

Containers for Entry, Cleaning, or Repair”;

(E) National Leak Prevention Association Standard 631, "Entry, Cleaning, Interior 

Inspection, Repair, and Lining of Underground Storage Tanks"; 

(F) Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R972, “Recommended Practice for the 

Addition of Supplemental Anodes to sti-P3® Tanks”; 

(G) NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, "Control of Underground 

Storage Tank Systems by Cathodic Protection"; or

(H) Fiberglass Tank and Pipe Institute Recommended Practice T-95-02, “Remanufacturing 

of Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Underground Storage Tanks”.

(b) Repairs to fiberglass-reinforced plastic tanks may be made by the manufacturer's 

authorized representatives or in accordance with a code of practice developed by a nationally 

recognized association or an independent testing laboratory.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 268 of 398

(c) Metal pipe sections and fittings that have released product as a result of corrosion or 

other damage must be replaced. Non-corrodible pipes and fittings may be repaired in accordance 

with the manufacturer's specifications.

(d) Repaired tanks and piping must be tightness tested in accordance with § 280.43(c) and 

§ 280.44(b) within 30 days following the date of the completion of the repair except as provided 

in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4), of this section:

(1) The repaired tank is internally inspected in accordance with a code of practice 

developed by a nationally recognized association or an independent testing laboratory; or

(2) The repaired portion of the UST system is monitored monthly for releases in 

accordance with a method specified in § 280.43(d) through (i); 

(3) UST systems with secondary containment must be tested as specified in § 280.36 

within 30 days following the completion of any repair. Tanks using interstitial sensors must be 

tested using a vacuum, pressure, or liquid method in accordance with one of the criteria listed in 

§ 280.36(a)(1)(ii) following any repair; or

(4) Another test method is used that is determined by the implementing agency to be no 

less protective of human health and the environment than those listed above.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 269 of 398

(e) Within 6 months following the repair of any cathodically protected UST system, the 

cathodic protection system must be tested in accordance with § 280.31(b) and (c) to ensure that it 

is operating properly.

(f) Within 30 days following any repair to spill or overfill prevention equipment, the 

repaired spill or overfill prevention equipment must be tested in accordance with § 280.35 to 

ensure it is operating properly. 

(g) UST system owners and operators must maintain records (in accordance with § 

280.34) of each repair until the UST system is permanently closed or undergoes a change-inservice pursuant to § 280.71.

10. Revise § 280.34 to read as follows:

§ 280.34 Reporting and recordkeeping.

Owners and operators of UST systems must cooperate fully with inspections, monitoring 

and testing conducted by the implementing agency, as well as requests for document submission, 

testing, and monitoring by the owner or operator pursuant to section 9005 of Subtitle I of the 

Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended.

(a) Reporting. Owners and operators must submit the following information to the 

implementing agency:
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 270 of 398

(1) Notification for all UST systems (§ 280.22), which includes certification of 

installation for new UST systems (§ 280.20(e)) and notification when any person assumes 

ownership of an UST system (§ 280.22(b));

(2) Reports of all releases including suspected releases (§ 280.50), spills and overfills (§ 

280.53), and confirmed releases (§ 280.61);

(3) Corrective actions planned or taken including initial abatement measures (§ 280.62), 

initial site characterization (§ 280.63), free product removal (§ 280.64), investigation of soil and 

ground-water cleanup (§ 280.65), and corrective action plan (§ 280.66); and

(4) A notification before permanent closure or change-in-service (§ 280.71).

(b) Recordkeeping. Owners and operators must maintain the following information:

(1) A corrosion expert's analysis of site corrosion potential if corrosion protection 

equipment is not used (§ 280.20(a)(4); § 280.20(b)(3)).

(2) Documentation of operation of corrosion protection equipment (§ 280.31(d));

(3) Documentation of compatibility for UST systems (§ 280.32(c));
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 271 of 398

(4) Records for all UST system equipment installed or replaced after [effective date of 

rule] (§ 280.32(c));

(5) Documentation of UST system repairs (§ 280.33(g));

(6) Documentation of compliance for spill and overfill prevention equipment 

(§ 280.35(c));

(7) Documentation of compliance for tanks, piping, and containment sumps using 

interstitial monitoring (§ 280.36(c));

(8) Documentation of periodic walkthrough inspections (§ 280.37(b));

(9) Recent compliance with release detection requirements (§ 280.45);

(10) Results of the site investigation conducted at permanent closure (§ 280.74); and

(11) Documentation of operator training (§ 280.245).

(c) Availability and Maintenance of Records. Owners and operators must keep the 

records required either:
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 272 of 398

(1) At the UST site and immediately available for inspection by the implementing agency; 

or 

(2) At a readily available alternative site and be provided for inspection to the 

implementing agency upon request.

(3) In the case of permanent closure records required under § 280.74, owners and 

operators are also provided with the additional alternative of mailing closure records to the 

implementing agency if they cannot be kept at the site or an alternative site as indicated above.

11. Add § 280.35 to Subpart C to read as follows:

§ 280.35 Periodic testing of spill and overfill prevention equipment.

(a) Owners and operators of UST systems with spill and overfill prevention equipment 

must meet the following requirements to ensure the equipment is operating properly and will 

prevent releases to the environment:

(1) Spill prevention equipment (such as a catchment basin, spill bucket, or other spill 

containment device) must prevent releases to the environment by meeting one of the following:

(i) The spill prevention equipment has two walls and the space between the walls is 

monitored continuously to ensure the integrity of the inner and outer walls is maintained; or
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 273 of 398

(ii) The spill prevention equipment is tested at installation and at least once every 12 

months to ensure the spill prevention equipment is liquid tight by using vacuum, pressure, or 

liquid testing in accordance with one of the following criteria:

(A) Requirements developed by the manufacturer (Note: Owners and operators may use 

this option only if the manufacturer has developed testing requirements);

(B) Code of practice developed by a nationally recognized association or independent 

testing laboratory; or

(C) Requirements determined by the implementing agency to be no less protective of 

human health and the environment than the requirements listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(A) and 

(B) of this section; and

(2) Overfill prevention equipment must be tested at installation and at least once every

three years. At a minimum, testing must ensure that overfill prevention equipment is set to 

activate at the correct level specified in § 280.20(c) and will activate when regulated substance 

reaches that level. Testing must be conducted in accordance with one of the criteria in paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) of this section.

(b) Owners and operators must begin meeting these requirements as follows:

(1) For UST systems in use on or before [Effective date of rule]:
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 274 of 398

(i) Not later than [One year after effective date of rule] for spill prevention equipment; 

and

(ii) For overfill prevention equipment, not later than the phase-in schedule in the 

following table:

Phase-In Schedule For Overfill Prevention Equipment Testing

Criteria Date By Which First Test Must Be Conducted

One or more USTs at the facility

were installed on or before 

12/22/1988

[1 year after effective date of rule]

No USTs at the facility were installed 

on or before 12/22/1988 and at least 

one UST at the facility was installed 

on or before 12/22/1998

[2 years after effective date of rule]

All USTs at the facility were installed 

after 12/22/1998

[3 years after effective date of rule]

(2) For UST systems brought into use after [Effective date of rule], these requirements 

apply at installation.

(c) Owners and operators must maintain the following records (in accordance with § 

280.34) for spill and overfill prevention equipment:

(1) All records of spill prevention equipment testing and overfill prevention equipment 

testing must be maintained for three years; and

(2) For spill prevention equipment not tested every 12 months, documentation showing 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 275 of 398

that the spill prevention equipment has two walls and is monitored continuously. Owners and 

operators must maintain this documentation for as long as the spill prevention equipment is 

monitored continuously, and for three additional years after continuous monitoring ends.

12. Add § 280.36 to Subpart C to read as follows:

§ 280.36 Periodic testing of secondary containment.

(a) Owners and operators of UST systems with secondary containment using interstitial 

monitoring must ensure the integrity of all interstitial areas (including all containment sumps 

used for interstitial monitoring).

(1) Tanks must meet one of the following:

(i) The interstitial space is continuously monitored; or

(ii) The interstitial space is not continuously monitored and the integrity of the interstitial 

space is ensured at least once every three years by using vacuum, pressure, or liquid testing in 

accordance with one of the following criteria:

(A) Requirements developed by the manufacturer (Note: Owners and operators may use 

this option only if the manufacturer has developed integrity testing requirements); 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 276 of 398

(B) Code of practice developed by a nationally recognized association or independent 

testing laboratory; or 

(C) Requirements determined by the implementing agency to be no less protective of 

human health and the environment than the requirements listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(A) 

and(B) of this section;

(2) Piping must meet one of the following:

(i) The interstitial space is continuously monitored using vacuum, pressure, or a liquidfilled interstitial space; or

(ii) The interstitial space is monitored using an interstitial monitoring method not listed in 

paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section and the integrity of the interstitial space is ensured at least once 

every three years by using vacuum, pressure, or liquid testing in accordance with one of the 

criteria listed in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section; and

(3) Containment sumps must meet one of the following:

(i) The containment sump has two walls and the space between the walls is continuously

monitored; or

(ii) The containment sump is tested at least every three years to ensure the containment 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 277 of 398

sump is liquid tight by using vacuum, pressure, or liquid testing in accordance with one of the 

criteria listed in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.

(b) Owners and operators of UST systems using interstitial monitoring must begin 

meeting this requirement as follows:

(1) For UST systems in use on or before [Effective date of rule], not later than the phasein schedule in the following table:

Phase-In Schedule For Interstitial Area Testing

Criteria Date By Which First Test Must Be Conducted

One or more USTs at the facility were 

installed on or before 12/22/1988

[1 year after effective date of rule]

No USTs at the facility were installed on 

or before 12/22/1988 and at least one 

UST at the facility was installed on or 

before 12/22/1998

[2 years after effective date of rule]

All USTs at the facility were installed 

after 12/22/1998

[3 years after effective date of rule]

(2) For UST systems brought into use after [Effective date of rule], these requirements 

apply at installation.

(c) Owners and operators must maintain the following records (in accordance with § 

280.34) for the time frames indicated for each tank, piping, and containment sump that uses 

interstitial monitoring:

(1) Records of interstitial space testing must be maintained for three years; or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 278 of 398

(2) As appropriate, records demonstrating: the tank is using continuous interstitial 

monitoring; the piping is using continuous interstitial monitoring with vacuum, pressure, liquidfilled interstitial space; and the containment sump has two walls and uses continuous interstitial 

monitoring. Owners and operators must maintain these records for as long as the tank, piping, or 

containment sump uses one of these continuous methods of interstitial monitoring, and for three 

additional years after continuous monitoring ends. 

Note to paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), (a)(2)(ii), and (a)(3)(ii): The following codes of practice may

be used to comply with paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), (a)(2)(ii), and (a)(3)(ii) of this section: 

(A) Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R012, “Recommended Practice for 

Interstitial Tightness Testing of Existing Underground Double Wall Steel Tanks”; or

(B) Fiberglass Tank and Pipe Institute Protocol, “Field Test Protocol for Testing the 

Annular Space of Installed Underground Fiberglass Double and Triple-Wall Tanks with Dry

Annular Space”.

13. Add § 280.37 to Subpart C to read as follows:

§ 280.37 Periodic operation and maintenance walkthrough inspections.

(a) To properly operate and maintain UST systems, owners and operators must meet one 

of the following:
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 279 of 398

(1) Conduct a walkthrough inspection at least once every 30 days that, at a minimum and 

as appropriate to the facility, checks the following equipment as specified:

(i) Spill prevention equipment - open and visually check for any damage; remove any 

liquid or debris; check each fill cap to make sure it is securely on the fill pipe; and for spill 

prevention equipment with continuous interstitial monitoring, check for a leak in the interstitial 

area,

(ii) Sumps - open and visually check for any damage, leaks to the containment area, or 

releases to the environment; remove any liquid (in contained sumps) or debris; and for sumps 

with continuous interstitial monitoring, check for a leak in the interstitial area,

(iii) Dispenser cabinets - open and visually check for any damage, leaks to the containment 

area, or releases to the environment; remove any liquid (in dispensers with under-dispenser 

containment) or debris; and for under-dispenser containment with continuous interstitial 

monitoring, check for a leak in the interstitial area,

(iv) Monitoring/observation wells - check covers to make sure they are secured,

(v) Cathodic protection - check to make sure impressed current cathodic protection 

rectifiers are on and operating; and ensure records of three year cathodic protection testing and 

60 day impressed current system inspections are reviewed and current, and
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 280 of 398

(vi) Release detection systems - check to make sure the release detection system is on and 

operating with no alarms or other unusual operating conditions present; check any devices such 

as tank gauge sticks, groundwater bailers, and hand-held vapor monitoring devices for 

operability and serviceability; and ensure records of release detection testing are reviewed 

monthly and current; or

(2) Conduct operation and maintenance walkthrough inspections at least once every 30 

days according to a standard code of practice developed by a nationally recognized association or 

independent testing laboratory that are comparable to (a)(1) of this section; or

(3) Conduct operation and maintenance walkthrough inspections developed by the 

implementing agency that are comparable to paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

(b) Owners and operators must maintain records (in accordance with § 280.34) of 

operation and maintenance walkthrough inspections for one year. The record must include a 

listing of each area checked, whether each area checked was acceptable or needed to have any

action taken, and a description of any actions taken to correct an issue.

Note to paragraph (a)(2): the following code of practice may be used to comply with 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 281 of 398

(A) Petroleum Equipment Institute Recommended Practice RP 900, “Recommended 

Practices for the Inspection and Maintenance of UST Systems”.

14. Revise Subpart D to read as follows:

Subpart D -- Release Detection

280.40 General requirements for all UST systems.

280.41 Requirements for petroleum UST systems. 

280.42 Requirements for hazardous substance UST systems.

280.43 Methods of release detection for tanks.

280.44 Methods of release detection for piping.

280.45 Release detection recordkeeping.

280.46 Alternative methods of release detection for field-constructed tanks.

280.47 Alternative methods of release detection for bulk piping.

Subpart D -- Release Detection
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 282 of 398

§ 280.40 General requirements for all UST systems.

(a) Owners and operators of UST systems must provide a method, or combination of 

methods, of release detection that:

(1) Can detect a release from any portion of the tank and the connected underground 

piping that routinely contains product;

(2) Is installed and calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions;

(3) Beginning on [One year after effective date of rule], is operated and maintained, and 

electronic and mechanical components are tested for proper operation, in accordance with one of 

the following: manufacturer’s instructions; a code of practice developed by a nationally

recognized association or independent testing laboratory; or requirements developed by the 

implementing agency. A test of the proper operation must be performed at least annually and, at 

a minimum and as applicable to the facility, cover the following components and criteria:

(i) Automatic tank gauge and other controllers: test alarm; verify system configuration; 

test battery backup; 

(ii) Probes and sensors: inspect for residual buildup, ensure floats move freely; ensure 

shaft is not damaged; ensure cables are free of kinks, bends, and breaks; test alarm operability

and communication with controller;
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 283 of 398

(iii) Line leak detector: test operation to meet criteria in § 280.44(a) by simulating a leak; 

inspect leak sensing o-ring; and 

(iv) Vacuum pumps and pressure gauges: ensure proper communication with sensors and 

controller.

(4) Meets the performance requirements in § 280.43, § 280.44, § 280.46, or § 280.47, as 

applicable, with any performance claims and their manner of determination described in writing 

by the equipment manufacturer or installer. In addition, the methods listed in § 280.43(b); § 

280.43(c); § 280.43(d); § 280.43(h); § 280.43(i);§ 280.44(a); § 280.44(b); §280.46; and § 

280.47, must be capable of detecting the leak rate or quantity specified for that method in the 

corresponding section of the rule with a probability of detection of 0.95 and a probability of 

false alarm of 0.05.

(b) When a release detection method operated in accordance with the performance 

standards in § 280.43, § 280.44, § 280.46, or § 280.47 indicates a release may have occurred, 

owners and operators must notify the implementing agency in accordance with subpart E.

(c) Owners and operators of Airport hydrant fuel distribution systems, UST systems with 

field-constructed tanks, and wastewater treatment tank systems must comply with the release 

detection requirements of this Subpart according to the following table:
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 284 of 398

Schedule for Phase-in of Release Detection for Airport Hydrant Fuel Distribution Systems, UST 

Systems with Field-Constructed Tanks, and Wastewater Treatment Tank Systems

Type of UST System Time Frame (after 

[effective date of rule ])

Description of Requirement

Bulk piping associated with 

airport hydrant fuel 

distribution systems and

field-constructed tanks 

using § 280.47(a) for piping 

release detection

Within three years

Conduct one bulk piping tightness 

test according to § 280.47(a) using 

the maximum detectable leak rates 

for semiannual testing. For bulk 

piping segments not capable of 

meeting the up to 3.0 gallon per 

hour leak rate, owners and operators 

may use a leak rate of up to 6.0 

gallons per hour. 

Between years three and 

six

Between years six and 

seven

Conduct one bulk piping tightness 

test according to § 280.47(a) using 

the maximum detectable leak rates

for semiannual testing.

After year seven

Conduct bulk piping tightness 

testing according to § 280.47(a).

Bulk piping associated with 

airport hydrant fuel 

distribution systems and 

field-constructed tanks not 

using § 280.47(a) for piping 

release detection

Within three years

Perform release detection according 

to this subpart.

Underground tanks

associated with hydrant fuel 

distribution systems and

field-constructed tanks

Within three years

Perform release detection according 

to this subpart.

Wastewater treatment tank 

systems Within three years

Perform release detection according 

to this subpart.

(d) Any UST system that cannot apply a method of release detection that complies with 

the requirements of this subpart must complete the closure procedures in subpart G. For 

previously deferred UST systems described in subpart A, this requirement applies after the 

effective date for subpart D described in § 280.10(a)(1).
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 285 of 398

§ 280.41 Requirements for petroleum UST systems.

Owners and operators of petroleum UST systems must provide release detection for tanks 

and piping as follows:

(a) Tanks. Tanks must be monitored for releases as follows:

(1) Tanks installed on or before [effective date of rule] must be monitored for releases at 

least every 30 days using one of the methods listed in § 280.43(d) through (i) except that:

(i) UST systems that meet the performance standards in § 280.20 or § 280.21, and the 

monthly inventory control requirements in § 280.43(a) or (b), may use tank tightness testing 

(conducted in accordance with § 280.43(c)) at least every 5 years until 10 years after the tank 

was installed or upgraded under § 280.21(b), whichever is later;

(ii) Tanks with capacity of 550 gallons or less and tanks with a capacity of 551 to 1,000 

gallons that meet the tank diameter criteria in § 280.43(b) may use manual tank gauging 

(conducted in accordance with § 280.43(b));

(iii) Field-constructed tanks greater than 50,000 gallons may use the alternative release 

detection requirements in § 280.46; and
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 286 of 398

(iv) Tanks using § 280.43(e) or § 280.43(f) to monitor for releases, must begin using one 

of the methods listed in § 280.43(d), (g), (h) or (i) not later than [Five years after effective date of 

rule].

(2) Tanks installed after [effective date of rule] must be monitored for releases at least 

every 30 days in accordance with § 280.43(g).

 

(b) Piping. Underground piping that routinely contains regulated substances must be 

monitored for releases in a manner that meets one of the following requirements:

(1) Piping installed on or before [effective date of rule] must meet one of the following:

(i) Pressurized piping. Underground piping that conveys regulated substances under 

pressure must:

(A) Be equipped with an automatic line leak detector conducted in accordance with 

§ 280.44(a); and

(B) Have an annual line tightness test conducted in accordance with § 280.44(b) or have 

monthly monitoring conducted in accordance with § 280.44(c).

(ii) Suction piping. Underground piping that conveys regulated substances under suction 

must either have a line tightness test conducted at least every 3 years and in accordance with 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 287 of 398

§ 280.44(b), or use a monthly monitoring method conducted in accordance with § 280.44(c). No 

release detection is required for suction piping that is designed and constructed to meet the 

following standards:

(A) The below-grade piping operates at less than atmospheric pressure;

(B) The below-grade piping is sloped so that the contents of the pipe will drain back into 

the storage tank if the suction is released;

(C) Only one check valve is included in each suction line;

(D) The check valve is located directly below and as close as practical to the suction 

pump; and

(E) A method is provided that allows compliance with paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)-(iv) of this 

section to be readily determined.

(iii) Bulk piping. Underground piping associated with airport hydrant fuel distribution 

systems and field-constructed tanks must meet one of the following release detection 

requirements:

(A) The requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section; or
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 288 of 398

(B) The alternative release detection requirements in § 280.47.

(2) Piping installed or replaced after [effective date of rule] must meet one of the 

following: 

(i) Pressurized piping must be monitored for releases at least every 30 days in accordance 

with § 280.43(g) and be equipped with an automatic line leak detector in accordance with § 

280.44(a) 

(ii) Suction piping must be monitored for releases at least every 30 days in accordance 

with § 280.43(g). No release detection is required for suction piping that meets paragraphs 

(b)(1)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section.

(iii) Underground bulk piping associated with airport hydrant fuel distribution systems and 

field-constructed tanks must meet the requirements in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

§ 280.42 Requirements for hazardous substance UST systems.

Owners and operators of hazardous substance UST systems must provide containment that 

meets the following requirements and monitor these systems using § 280.43(g) at least every 30 

days:

(a) Secondary containment systems must be designed, constructed and installed to:
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 289 of 398

(1) Contain regulated substances leaked from the primary containment until they are 

detected and removed; 

(2) Prevent the release of regulated substances to the environment at any time during the 

operational life of the UST system; and

(3) Be checked for evidence of a release at least every 30 days. 

Note to paragraph (a): The provisions of 40 CFR 265.193, Containment and Detection of 

Releases, may be used to comply with these requirements for tanks installed on or before 

[effective date of rule].

(b) Double-walled tanks must be designed, constructed, and installed to:

(1) Contain a release from any portion of the inner tank within the outer wall; and

(2) Detect the failure of the inner wall.

(c) External liners (including vaults) must be designed, constructed, and installed to: 

(1) Contain 100 percent of the capacity of the largest tank within its boundary;
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 290 of 398

(2) Prevent the interference of precipitation or ground-water intrusion with the ability to 

contain or detect a release of regulated substances; and

(3) Surround the tank completely (i.e., it is capable of preventing lateral as well as vertical 

migration of regulated substances).

(d) Underground piping must be equipped with secondary containment that satisfies the 

requirements of this section (e.g., trench liners, double-walled pipe). In addition, underground 

piping that conveys regulated substances under pressure must be equipped with an automatic line 

leak detector in accordance with § 280.44(a).

(e) For hazardous substance UST systems installed on or before [Effective date of rule]

other methods of release detection may be used if owners and operators:

(1) Demonstrate to the implementing agency that an alternate method can detect a release 

of the stored substance as effectively as any of the methods allowed in §§ 280.43(b) through (i) 

can detect a release of petroleum;

(2) Provide information to the implementing agency on effective corrective action 

technologies, health risks, and chemical and physical properties of the stored substance, and the 

characteristics of the UST site; and,
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 291 of 398

(3) Obtain approval from the implementing agency to use the alternate release detection 

method before the installation and operation of the new UST system.

§ 280.43 Methods of release detection for tanks.

Each method of release detection for tanks used to meet the requirements of § 280.41, 

except field-constructed tanks installed on or before [Effective date of rule] with capacities 

greater than 50,000 gallons that meet § 280.46, must be conducted in accordance with the 

following:

(a) Inventory control. Product inventory control (or another test of equivalent 

performance) must be conducted monthly to detect a release of at least 1.0 percent of flowthrough plus 130 gallons on a monthly basis in the following manner:

(1) Inventory volume measurements for regulated substance inputs, withdrawals, and the 

amount still remaining in the tank are recorded each operating day;

(2) The equipment used is capable of measuring the level of product over the full range of 

the tank's height to the nearest one-eighth of an inch;

(3) The regulated substance inputs are reconciled with delivery receipts by measurement 

of the tank inventory volume before and after delivery;
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 292 of 398

(4) Deliveries are made through a drop tube that extends to within one foot of the tank 

bottom;

(5) Product dispensing is metered and recorded within the local standards for meter 

calibration or an accuracy of 6 cubic inches for every 5 gallons of product withdrawn; and

(6) The measurement of any water level in the bottom of the tank is made to the nearest 

one-eighth of an inch at least once a month. 

Note to paragraph (a): Practices described in the American Petroleum Institute 

Recommended Practice RP 1621, "Bulk Liquid Stock Control at Retail Outlets" may be used, 

where applicable, as guidance in meeting the requirements of this paragraph.

(b) Manual tank gauging. Manual tank gauging must meet the following requirements:

(1) Tank liquid level measurements are taken at the beginning and ending of a period of at 

least 36 hours during which no liquid is added to or removed from the tank;

(2) Level measurements are based on an average of two consecutive stick readings at both 

the beginning and ending of the period;

(3) The equipment used is capable of measuring the level of product over the full range of 

the tank's height to the nearest one-eighth of an inch;
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 293 of 398

(4) A release is suspected and subject to the requirements of subpart E if the variation 

between beginning and ending measurements exceeds the weekly or monthly standards in the 

following table:

Nominal Tank Capacity Minimum 

Duration Of Test

Weekly Standard 

(One Test)

Monthly Standard 

(Four Test Average)

550 gallons or less 36 hours 10 gallons 5 gallons

551-1,000 gallons

(when tank diameter is 64”) 44 hours 9 gallons 4 gallons

551-1,000 gallons

(when tank diameter is 48”) 58 hours 12 gallons 6 gallons

551-1,000 gallons

(also requires periodic 

tank tightness testing)

36 hours 13 gallons 7 gallons

1,001-2,000 gallons 

(also requires periodic 

tank tightness testing)

36 hours 26 gallons 13 gallons

(5) Tanks of 550 gallons or less nominal capacity and tanks with a nominal capacity of 

551 to 1,000 gallons that meet the tank diameter criteria in the table in paragraph (b)(4) of this 

section may use this as the sole method of release detection. All other tanks with a nominal 

capacity of 551 to 2,000 gallons may use the method in place of inventory control in § 280.43(a). 

Tanks of greater than 2,000 gallons nominal capacity may not use this method to meet the 

requirements of this Subpart.

(c) Tank tightness testing. Tank tightness testing (or another test of equivalent 

performance) must be capable of detecting a 0.1 gallon per hour leak rate from any portion of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 294 of 398

tank that routinely contains product while accounting for the effects of thermal expansion or 

contraction of the product, vapor pockets, tank deformation, evaporation or condensation, and 

the location of the water table.

(d) Automatic tank gauging. Equipment for automatic tank gauging that tests for the loss 

of product and conducts inventory control must meet the following requirements:

(1) The automatic product level monitor test can detect a 0.2 gallon per hour leak rate 

from any portion of the tank that routinely contains product; and

(2) The test must be performed with the system operating in one of the following modes:

(i) In-tank static testing conducted on a periodic basis; or

(ii) Continuous in-tank leak detection operating on an uninterrupted basis or operating 

within a process that allows the system to gather incremental measurements to determine the leak 

status of the tank at least once every 30 days. 

(e) Vapor monitoring. Testing or monitoring for vapors within the soil gas of the 

excavation zone must meet the following requirements:

(1) The materials used as backfill are sufficiently porous (e.g., gravel, sand, crushed rock) 

to readily allow diffusion of vapors from releases into the excavation area;
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 295 of 398

(2) The stored regulated substance, or a tracer compound placed in the tank system, is 

sufficiently volatile (e.g., gasoline) to result in a vapor level that is detectable by the monitoring 

devices located in the excavation zone in the event of a release from the tank;

(3) The measurement of vapors by the monitoring device is not rendered inoperative by 

the ground water, rainfall, or soil moisture or other known interferences so that a release could 

go undetected for more than 30 days;

(4) The level of background contamination in the excavation zone will not interfere with 

the method used to detect releases from the tank;

(5) The vapor monitors are designed and operated to detect any significant increase in 

concentration above background of the regulated substance stored in the tank system, a 

component or components of that substance, or a tracer compound placed in the tank system; 

(6) In the UST excavation zone, the site is assessed to ensure compliance with the 

requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section and to establish the number and 

positioning of monitoring wells that will detect releases within the excavation zone from any

portion of the tank that routinely contains product; and

(7) Monitoring wells are clearly marked and secured to avoid unauthorized access and 

tampering.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 296 of 398

(f) Ground-water monitoring. Testing or monitoring for liquids on the ground water must 

meet the following requirements:

(1) The regulated substance stored is immiscible in water and has a specific gravity of less 

than one;

(2) Ground water is never more than 20 feet from the ground surface and the hydraulic 

conductivity of the soil(s) between the UST system and the monitoring wells or devices is not 

less than 0.01 cm/sec (e.g., the soil should consist of gravels, coarse to medium sands, coarse 

silts or other permeable materials);

(3) The slotted portion of the monitoring well casing must be designed to prevent 

migration of natural soils or filter pack into the well and to allow entry of regulated substance on 

the water table into the well under both high and low ground-water conditions;

(4) Monitoring wells shall be sealed from the ground surface to the top of the filter pack;

(5) Monitoring wells or devices intercept the excavation zone or are as close to it as is 

technically feasible; 

(6) The continuous monitoring devices or manual methods used can detect the presence of 

at least one-eighth of an inch of free product on top of the ground water in the monitoring wells;
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 297 of 398

(7) Within and immediately below the UST system excavation zone, the site is assessed to 

ensure compliance with the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this section and to 

establish the number and positioning of monitoring wells or devices that will detect releases from 

any portion of the tank that routinely contains product; and

(8) Monitoring wells are clearly marked and secured to avoid unauthorized access and 

tampering.

(g) Interstitial monitoring. Interstitial monitoring between the UST system and a 

secondary barrier immediately around or beneath it may be used, but only if the system is 

designed, constructed and installed to detect a leak from any portion of the tank that routinely 

contains product and also meets one of the following requirements:

(1) For double-walled UST systems, the sampling or testing method can detect a release 

through the inner wall in any portion of the tank that routinely contains product;

(2) For UST systems with a secondary barrier within the excavation zone, the sampling or 

testing method used can detect a release between the UST system and the secondary barrier;

(i) The secondary barrier around or beneath the UST system consists of artificially

constructed material that is sufficiently thick and impermeable (at least 10-6cm/sec for the 

regulated substance stored) to direct a release to the monitoring point and permit its detection;
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 298 of 398

(ii) The barrier is compatible with the regulated substance stored so that a release from the 

UST system will not cause a deterioration of the barrier allowing a release to pass through 

undetected;

(iii) For cathodically protected tanks, the secondary barrier must be installed so that it 

does not interfere with the proper operation of the cathodic protection system;

(iv) The ground water, soil moisture, or rainfall will not render the testing or sampling 

method used inoperative so that a release could go undetected for more than 30 days;

(v) The site is assessed to ensure that the secondary barrier is always above the ground 

water and not in a 25-year flood plain, unless the barrier and monitoring designs are for use 

under such conditions; and,

(vi) Monitoring wells are clearly marked and secured to avoid unauthorized access and 

tampering.

(3) For tanks with an internally fitted liner, an automated device can detect a release 

between the inner wall of the tank and the liner, and the liner is compatible with the substance 

stored.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 299 of 398

(4) For UST systems using continuous vacuum, pressure, or liquid-filled methods of 

interstitial monitoring, the method must be capable of detecting a breach in both the inner and 

outer walls of the tank and/or piping.

(h) Statistical inventory reconciliation. Statistically based testing or monitoring methods 

must meet the following requirements:

(1) Report a quantitative result with a calculated leak rate; 

(2) Be capable of detecting a leak rate of 0.2 gallon per hour; and

(3) Use a threshold that does not exceed one-half the minimum detectible leak rate.

(i) Other methods. Any other type of release detection method, or combination of 

methods, can be used if: 

(1) It can detect a 0.2 gallon per hour leak rate or a release of 150 gallons within a month 

with a probability of detection of 0.95 and a probability of false alarm of 0.05; or 

(2) The implementing agency may approve another method if the owner and operator can 

demonstrate that the method can detect a release as effectively as any of the methods allowed in 

paragraphs (c) through (h) of this section. In comparing methods, the implementing agency shall 

consider the size of release that the method can detect and the frequency and reliability with 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 300 of 398

which it can be detected. If the method is approved, the owner and operator must comply with 

any conditions imposed by the implementing agency on its use to ensure the protection of human 

health and the environment.

§ 280.44 Methods of release detection for piping.

Each method of release detection for piping used to meet the requirements of § 280.41, 

except bulk piping that meets § 280.47, must be conducted in accordance with the following:

(a) Automatic line leak detectors. Methods which alert the operator to the presence of a 

leak by restricting or shutting off the flow of regulated substances through piping or triggering an 

audible or visual alarm may be used only if they detect leaks of 3 gallons per hour at 10 pounds 

per square inch line pressure within 1 hour. An annual test of the operation of the leak detector 

must be conducted in accordance with § 280.40(a)(3).

(b) Line tightness testing. A periodic test of piping may be conducted only if it can detect 

a 0.1 gallon per hour leak rate at one and one-half times the operating pressure.

(c) Applicable tank methods. Except as described in § 280.41(a), any of the methods in § 

280.43(e) through (i) may be used if they are designed to detect a release from any portion of the 

underground piping that routinely contains regulated substances.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 301 of 398

§ 280.45 Release detection recordkeeping.

All UST system owners and operators must maintain records in accordance with § 280.34 

demonstrating compliance with all applicable requirements of this subpart. These records must 

include the following:

(a) All written performance claims pertaining to any release detection system used, and 

the manner in which these claims have been justified or tested by the equipment manufacturer or 

installer, must be maintained for 5 years, or for another reasonable period of time determined by 

the implementing agency, from the date of installation;

(b) The results of any sampling, testing, or monitoring must be maintained for at least 1 

year, or for another reasonable period of time determined by the implementing agency, except as 

follows:

(1) The results of annual operation tests conducted in accordance with § 280.40(a)(3) 

must be maintained for three years. At a minimum, the results must list each component tested, 

indicate whether each component tested meets criteria in § 280.40(a)(3) or needs to have action 

taken, and describe any action taken to correct an issue; and

(2) The results of tank tightness testing or bulk tank tightness testing conducted in

accordance with § 280.43(c) or § 280.46 must be retained until the next test is conducted; and
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 302 of 398

(c) Written documentation of all calibration, maintenance, and repair of release detection 

equipment permanently located on-site must be maintained for at least one year after the 

servicing work is completed, or for another reasonable time period determined by the 

implementing agency. Any schedules of required calibration and maintenance provided by the 

release detection equipment manufacturer must be retained for 5 years from the date of 

installation.

§ 280.46 Alternative methods of release detection for field-constructed tanks. 

Owners and operators of field-constructed tanks with a capacity greater than 50,000 

gallons may use one or a combination of the following alternative methods of release detection:

(a) Conduct an annual bulk tank tightness test that can detect a 0.5 gallon per hour leak 

rate;

(b) Use an automatic tank gauging system to perform release detection at least every 30 

days that can detect a leak rate less than or equal to one gallon per hour. This method must be 

combined with a bulk tank tightness test that can detect a 0.2 gallon per hour leak rate performed 

at least every three years; 

(c) Use an automatic tank gauging system to perform release detection at least every 30 

days that can detect a leak rate less than or equal to two gallons per hour. This method must be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 303 of 398

combined with a bulk tank tightness test that can detect a 0.2 gallon per hour leak rate performed 

at least every two years; or

(d) Another method approved by the implementing agency if the owner and operator can 

demonstrate that the method can detect a release as effectively as any of the methods allowed in 

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. In comparing methods, the implementing agency shall 

consider the size of release that the method can detect and the frequency and reliability of 

detection. If the method is approved, the owner and operator must comply with any conditions 

imposed by the implementing agency on its use.

§ 280.47 Alternative methods of release detection for bulk piping. 

Owners and operators of underground piping associated with airport hydrant fuel 

distribution systems and field-constructed tanks may use one or a combination of the following 

alternative methods of release detection:

(a) Perform a semiannual or annual bulk line tightness test at or above operating pressure 

in accordance with the table below. Bulk piping segments ≥ 100,000 gallons not capable of 

meeting the maximum 3.0 gallon per hour leak rate for the semiannual test may be tested at a 

leak rate up to 6.0 gallons per hour according to the schedule in §280.40(c): 

Maximum Detectable Leak Rate Per Test Section Volume

Test Section Volume

(Gallons)

Semiannual Test

Maximum 

Detectable Leak 

Annual Test

Maximum 

Detectable Leak 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 304 of 398

Rate (Gallons Per 

Hour)

Rate (Gallons Per 

Hour)

< 50,000 1.0 0.5

≥ 50,000 to < 75,000 1.5 0.75

≥ 75,000 to < 100,000 2.0 1.0

≥ 100,000 3.0 1.5

(b) Perform continuous interstitial monitoring designed to detect a release from any 

portion of the underground piping that routinely contains product in accordance with §280.43(g);

(c) Use an automatic line leak detector that alerts the operator to the presence of a leak by 

restricting or shutting off flow of regulated substances through piping or triggering an audible or 

visual alarm. This method may be used only if it can detect a leak of three gallons per hour at 10 

pounds per square inch line pressure within one hour or equivalent. When using this method, the 

following must also be met:

(1) Perform interstitial monitoring, designed to detect a release from any portion of the 

underground piping that routinely contains product, in accordance with § 280.43(g) at least every

three months; and

(2) Conduct an annual test of the operation of the leak detector in accordance with § 

280.40(a)(3); or 

(d) Another method approved by the implementing agency if the owner and operator can 

demonstrate that the method can detect a release as effectively as any of the methods allowed in 

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. In comparing methods, the implementing agency shall 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 305 of 398

consider the size of release that the method can detect and the frequency and reliability of 

detection. If the method is approved, the owner and operator must comply with any conditions 

imposed by the implementing agency on its use.

15. In § 280.50 revise paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 280.50 Reporting of suspected releases.

* * * * * 

(b) Unusual operating conditions observed by owners and operators (such as the erratic 

behavior of product dispensing equipment, the sudden loss of product from the UST system, an 

unexplained presence of water in the tank, or water or product in the interstitial space of 

secondarily contained systems), unless system equipment is found to be defective but not 

leaking, and is immediately repaired or replaced.

(c) Monitoring results, including alarms, from a release detection method required 

under § 280.41 and § 280.42 that indicate a release may have occurred unless:

(1) The monitoring device is found to be defective, and is immediately repaired, 

recalibrated or replaced, and additional monitoring does not confirm the initial result; or

(2) In the case of inventory control, a second month of data does not confirm the initial 

result.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 306 of 398

16. In § 280.52 revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 280.52 Release investigation and confirmation steps.

* * * * * 

(a) System test. Owners and operators must conduct tests (according to the requirements 

for tightness testing in § 280.43(c) and § 280.44(b) or, for UST systems with secondary

containment and interstitial monitoring, the integrity testing specified in § 280.36) that determine 

whether a leak exists in that portion of the tank that routinely contains product, the attached 

delivery piping, or a breach of the interstitial space. 

(1) If the system test confirms a leak, owners and operators must repair, replace, upgrade, 

or close the UST system. In addition, owners and operators must begin corrective action in 

accordance with subpart F if the test results for the system, tank, or delivery piping indicate that 

a release exists.

(2) Further investigation is not required if the test results for the system, tank, and delivery

piping do not indicate that a release exists and if environmental contamination is not the basis for 

suspecting a release.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 307 of 398

(3) Owners and operators must conduct a site check as described in paragraph (b) of this 

section if the test results for the system, tank, and delivery piping do not indicate that a release 

exists but environmental contamination is the basis for suspecting a release.

* * * * * 

* * * * *

* * * * * 

17. In § 280.71 revise the Note at the end of the section read as follows:

§ 280.71 Permanent closure and changes-in-service.

* * * * * 

[Note: The following cleaning and closure procedures may be used to comply with this 

section:

(A) American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice RP 1604, "Closure of 

Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks";

(B) American Petroleum Institute Standard 2015, "Requirements for Safe Entry and 

Cleaning of Petroleum Storage Tanks";
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 308 of 398

(C) American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 2016, "Guidelines and 

Procedures for Entering and Cleaning Petroleum Storage Tanks";

(D) American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice RP 1631, "Interior Lining and 

Periodic Inspection of Underground Storage Tanks," may be used as guidance for compliance 

with this section; 

(E) National Fire Protection Association Standard 326, “Safeguarding of Tanks and 

Containers for Entry, Cleaning, or Repair”; and

(F) The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Publication 80-106, 

"Criteria for a Recommended Standard...Working in Confined Space" may be used as guidance 

for conducting safe closure procedures at some hazardous substance tanks.]

* * * * * 

18. Revise § 280.90 to read as follows:

§ 280.90 Applicability.

(a) This subpart applies to owners and operators of all petroleum underground storage 

tank (UST) systems except as otherwise provided in this section.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 309 of 398

(b) Owners and operators of petroleum UST systems are subject to these requirements in 

accordance with § 280.91.

(c) State and Federal government entities whose debts and liabilities are the debts and 

liabilities of a state or the United States are exempt from the requirements of this subpart.

(d) The requirements of this subpart do not apply to owners and operators of any UST 

system described in § 280.10 (b), (c)(2) or (c)(3).

(e) If the owner and operator of a petroleum underground storage tank are separate 

persons, only one person is required to demonstrate financial responsibility; however, both 

parties are liable in event of noncompliance. 

19. Revise § 280.91 to read as follows:

§ 280.91 Compliance dates.

Owners of petroleum underground storage tanks must comply with the requirements of 

this subpart. Previously deferred UST systems must comply with the requirements of this 

subpart according to the schedule in § 280.10.

20. In § 280.92 revise the definitions “Accidental release,” “Financial reporting year,” and 

“Provider of financial assurance” to read as follows:

§ 280.92 Definition of terms.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 310 of 398

* * * * * 

Accidental release means any sudden or nonsudden release of petroleum arising from 

operating an underground storage tank that results in a need for corrective action and/or 

compensation for bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended by the tank 

owner or operator.

* * * * * 

Financial reporting year means the latest consecutive twelve-month period for which any 

of the following reports used to support a financial test is prepared:

(1) a 10-K report submitted to the SEC;

(2) an annual report of tangible net worth submitted to Dun and Bradstreet; or

(3) annual reports submitted to the Energy Information Administration or the Rural 

Utilities Service.

“Financial reporting year” may thus comprise a fiscal or a calendar year period.

* * * * * 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 311 of 398

Provider of financial assurance means an entity that provides financial assurance to an 

owner or operator of an underground storage tank through one of the mechanisms listed in §§ 

280.95-280.107, including a guarantor, insurer, risk retention group, surety, issuer of a letter of 

credit, issuer of a state-required mechanism, or a state.

* * * * * 

21. Revise § 280.94 paragraph (a) (1) to read as follows:

§ 280.94 Allowable mechanisms and combinations of mechanisms.

(a) * * * 

(1) An owner or operator, including a local government owner or operator, may use any 

one or combination of the mechanisms listed in §§ 280.95 through 280.107 to demonstrate 

financial responsibility under this subpart for one or more underground storage tanks; and

* * * * * 

22. In § 280.95 revise paragraph s(b)(1)(ii), (b)(4)(i), (c)(5) introductory text, (c)(5)(i) and (d) to 

read as follows:

§ 280.95 Financial test of self-insurance.

* * * * *
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 312 of 398

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) The sum of the corrective action cost estimates, the current closure and post-closure 

care cost estimates, and amount of liability coverage for which a financial test is used to 

demonstrate financial responsibility to EPA under 40 CFR 264.101, 264.143, 264.145, 265.143, 

265.145, 264.147, and 265.147 or to a state implementing agency under a state program 

authorized by EPA under 40 CFR part 271; and

(4) * * * 

(i) File financial statements annually with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 

the Energy Information Administration, or the Rural Utilities Service; or

* * * * * 

(c) * * *

 

(5) If the financial statements of the owner or operator, and/or guarantor, are not 

submitted annually to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Energy Information 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 313 of 398

Administration or the Rural Utilities Service, the owner or operator, and/or guarantor, must 

obtain a special report by an independent certified public accountant stating that:

 

(i) He has compared the data that the letter from the chief financial officer specifies as 

having been derived from the latest year-end financial statements of the owner or operator, 

and/or guarantor, with the amounts in such financial statements; and

 

* * * * * 

(d) To demonstrate that it meets the financial test under paragraph (b) or (c) of this 

section, the chief financial officer of the owner or operator, or guarantor, must sign, within 120 

days of the close of each financial reporting year, as defined by the twelve-month period for 

which financial statements used to support the financial test are prepared, a letter worded exactly

as follows, except that the instructions in brackets are to be replaced by the relevant information 

and the brackets deleted:

 Letter from Chief Financial Officer

 I am the chief financial officer of [insert: name and address of the owner or operator, or 

guarantor]. This letter is in support of the use of [insert: “the financial test of self-insurance,” 

and/or “guarantee”] to demonstrate financial responsibility for [insert: “taking corrective action” 

and/or “compensating third parties for bodily injury and property damage”] caused by [insert: 

“sudden accidental releases” or “nonsudden accidental releases” or “accidental releases”] in the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 314 of 398

amount of at least [insert: dollar amount] per occurrence and [insert: dollar amount] annual 

aggregate arising from operating (an) underground storage tank(s).

 Underground storage tanks at the following facilities are assured by this financial test or a 

financial test under an authorized State program by this [insert: “owner or operator,” and/or 

“guarantor”]: [List for each facility: the name and address of the facility where tanks assured by 

this financial test are located, and whether tanks are assured by this financial test or a financial 

test under a State program approved under 40 CFR part 281. If separate mechanisms or 

combinations of mechanisms are being used to assure any of the tanks at this facility, list each 

tank assured by this financial test or a financial test under a State program authorized under 40 

CFR part 281 by the tank identification number provided in the notification submitted pursuant 

to 40 CFR 280.22 or the corresponding State requirements.]

 A [insert: “financial test,” and/or “guarantee”] is also used by this [insert: “owner or operator,” 

or “guarantor”] to demonstrate evidence of financial responsibility in the following amounts 

under other EPA regulations or state programs authorized by EPA under 40 CFR parts 271 and 

145:

 EPA Regulations Amount

Closure (§§ 264.143 and 265.143).............................. $______

Post-Closure Care (§§ 264.145 and 265.145).............. $______

Liability Coverage (§§ 264.147 and 265.147)........... $______

Corrective Action (§§ 264.101(b)).............................. $______

Plugging and Abandonment (§ 144.63)....................... $______

Closure......................................................................... $______

Post-Closure Care........................................................ $______

Liability Coverage...................................................... $______

Corrective Action........................................................ $______

Plugging and Abandonment........................................ $______

 Total........................................................................ $______
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 315 of 398

 This [insert: “owner or operator,” or “guarantor”] has not received an adverse opinion, a 

disclaimer of opinion, or a “going concern” qualification from an independent auditor on his 

financial statements for the latest completed fiscal year.

 [Fill in the information for Alternative I if the criteria of paragraph (b) of § 280.95 are being 

used to demonstrate compliance with the financial test requirements. Fill in the information for 

Alternative II if the criteria of paragraph (c) of § 280.95 are being used to demonstrate 

compliance with the financial test requirements.]

 Alternative I

 1. Amount of annual UST aggregate coverage being $______

 assured by a financial test, and/or guarantee

 2. Amount of corrective action, closure and post- $______

 closure care costs, liability coverage, and

 plugging and abandonment costs covered by a

 financial test, and/or guarantee

 3. Sum of lines 1 and 2 $______

 4. Total tangible assets $______

 5. Total liabilities [if any of the amount reported $______

 on line 3 is included in total liabilities, you 

 may deduct that amount from this line and add that

 amount to line 6]

 6. Tangible net worth [subtract line 5 from line 4] $______

 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 316 of 398

 Yes No

 7. Is line 6 at least $10 million? ___ __

 8. Is line 6 at least 10 times line 3? ___ __

 9. Have financial statements for the latest fiscal ___ __

 year been filed with the Securities and

 Exchange Commission?

10. Have financial statements for the latest fiscal ___ __

 year been filed with the Energy Information

 Administration?

11. Have financial statements for the latest ___ __

 fiscal year been filed with the Rural

 Utilities Service?

12. Has financial information been provided to Dun ___ __

 and Bradstreet, and has Dun and Bradstreet

 provided a financial strength rating of 4A or

 5A? [Answer “Yes” only if both criteria have

 been met.]

 Alternative II

 1. Amount of annual UST aggregate coverage being $______

 assured by a test, and/or guarantee

 2. Amount of corrective action, closure and post- $______

 closure care costs, liability coverage, and
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 317 of 398

 plugging and abandonment costs covered by a

 financial test, and/or guarantee

 3. Sum of lines 1 and 2 $______

 4. Total tangible assets $______

 5. Total liabilities [if any of the amount $______

 reported on line 3 is included in total

 liabilities, you may deduct that amount from

 this line and add that amount to line 6]

 6. Tangible net worth [subtract line 5 from line 4] $______

 

 7. Total assets in the U.S. [required only if less $______

 than 90 percent of assets are located in the U.S.]

 

 Yes No

 8. Is line 6 at least $10 million? ___ __

 9. Is line 6 at least 6 times line 3? ___ __

10. Are at least 90 percent of assets located in ___ __

 the U.S.? [If “No,” complete line 11.]

11. Is line 7 at least 6 times line 3? ___ __

 [Fill in either lines 12-15 or lines 16-18:]

12. Current assets $______

13. Current liabilities $______

14. Net working capital [subtract line 13 from line 12] $______
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 318 of 398

 

 Yes No

15. Is line 14 at least 6 times line 3? ___ __

16. Current bond rating of most recent bond issue ___ __

17. Name of rating service ___ __

18. Date of maturity of bond ___ __

19. Have financial statements for the latest fiscal ___ __

 year been filed with the SEC, the Energy

 Information Administration, or the Rural

 Utilities Service?

 [If “No,” please attach a report from an independent certified public accountant certifying that 

there are no material differences between the data as reported in lines 4-18 above and the 

financial statements for the latest fiscal year.]

 [For both Alternative I and Alternative II complete the certification with this statement.]

 I hereby certify that the wording of this letter is identical to the wording specified in 40 CFR 

part 280.95(d) as such regulations were constituted on the date shown immediately below.

 [Signature]

 [Name]

 [Title]

 [Date]
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 319 of 398

* * * * *

23. In § 280.96 revise paragraphs (b), (c)(3), and (d) to read as follows:

§ 280.96 Guarantee.

* * * * *

 

(b) Within 120 days of the close of each financial reporting year the guarantor must 

demonstrate that it meets the financial test criteria of § 280.95 based on year-end financial 

statements for the latest completed financial reporting year by completing the letter from the 

chief financial officer described in § 280.95(d) and must deliver the letter to the owner or 

operator. If the guarantor fails to meet the requirements of the financial test at the end of any 

financial reporting year, within 120 days of the end of that financial reporting year the guarantor 

shall send by certified mail, before cancellation or nonrenewal of the guarantee, notice to the 

owner or operator. If the Director of the implementing agency notifies the guarantor that he no 

longer meets the requirements of the financial test of § 280.95 (b) or (c) and (d), the guarantor 

must notify the owner or operator within 10 days of receiving such notification from the 

Director. In both cases, the guarantee will terminate no less than 120 days after the date the 

owner or operator receives the notification, as evidenced by the return receipt. The owner or 

operator must obtain alternative coverage as specified in § 280.114(e).

 

(c) * * *
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 320 of 398

 (3) [Insert appropriate phrase: “On behalf of our subsidiary” (if guarantor is corporate parent 

of the owner or operator); “On behalf of our affiliate” (if guarantor is a related firm of the owner 

or operator); or “Incident to our business relationship with” (if guarantor is providing the 

guarantee as an incident to a substantial business relationship with owner or operator)] [owner or 

operator], guarantor guarantees to [implementing agency] and to any and all third parties that:

 In the event that [owner or operator] fails to provide alternative coverage within 60 days after 

receipt of a notice of cancellation of this guarantee and the [Director of the implementing 

agency] has determined or suspects that a release has occurred at an underground storage tank 

covered by this guarantee, the guarantor, upon instructions from the [Director], shall fund a 

standby trust fund in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 280.112, in an amount not to 

exceed the coverage limits specified above.

 In the event that the [Director] determines that [owner or operator] has failed to perform 

corrective action for releases arising out of the operation of the above-identified tank(s) in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 280, subpart F, the guarantor upon written instructions from the 

[Director] shall fund a standby trust in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 280.112, in an 

amount not to exceed the coverage limits specified above.

 If [owner or operator] fails to satisfy a judgment or award based on a determination of liability

for bodily injury or property damage to third parties caused by [“sudden” and/or “nonsudden”] 

accidental releases arising from the operation of the above-identified tank(s), or fails to pay an 

amount agreed to in settlement of a claim arising from or alleged to arise from such injury or 

damage, the guarantor, upon written instructions from the [Director], shall fund a standby trust in 

accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 280.112 to satisfy such judgment(s), award(s), or 

settlement agreement(s) up to the limits of coverage specified above.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 321 of 398

 

* * * * *

(d) An owner or operator who uses a guarantee to satisfy the requirements of § 280.93 

must establish a standby trust fund when the guarantee is obtained. Under the terms of the 

guarantee, all amounts paid by the guarantor under the guarantee will be deposited directly into 

the standby trust fund in accordance with instructions from the Director of the implementing 

agency under § 280.112. This standby trust fund must meet the requirements specified in § 

280.103.

24. In § 280.97 revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 280.97 Insurance and risk retention group coverage.

(a) An owner or operator may satisfy the requirements of § 280.93 by obtaining liability

insurance that conforms to the requirements of this section from a qualified insurer or risk 

retention group. Such insurance may be in the form of a separate insurance policy or an 

endorsement to an existing insurance policy.

* * * * *

25. In § 280.98 revise paragraphs (b) and (d) to read as follows:

§ 280.98 Surety bond.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 322 of 398

* * * * *

(b) The surety bond must be worded as follows, except that instructions in brackets must 

be replaced with the relevant information and the brackets deleted:

 Performance Bond

Date bond executed:________________________________________________________

Period of coverage:_________________________________________________________

Principal: [legal name and business address of owner or operator]

________________________________________________________________________

Type of organization: [insert “individual,” “joint venture,” “partnership,” or “corporation”]

________________________________________________________________________

State of incorporation (if applicable):

________________________________________________________________________

Surety(ies): [name(s) and business address(es)]

________________________________________________________________________

Scope of Coverage: [List the number of tanks at each facility and the name(s) and address(es) of 

the facility(ies) where the tanks are located. If more than one instrument is used to assure 

different tanks at any one facility, for each tank covered by this instrument, list the tank 

identification number provided in the notification submitted pursuant to 40 CFR 280.22, or the 

corresponding state requirement, and the name and address of the facility. List the coverage 

guaranteed by the bond: “taking corrective action” and/or “compensating third parties for bodily 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 323 of 398

injury and property damage caused by” either “sudden accidental releases” or “nonsudden 

accidental releases” or “accidental releases” “arising from operating the underground storage 

Tank”].

Penal sums of bond:

Per occurrence $________________________________________________________

Annual aggregate $______________________________________________________

Surety's bond number:____________________________________________________

 Know All Persons by These Presents, that we, the Principal and Surety(ies), hereto are firmly 

bound to [the implementing agency], in the above penal sums for the payment of which we bind 

ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns jointly and severally; 

provided that, where the Surety(ies) are corporations acting as co-sureties, we, the Sureties, bind 

ourselves in such sums jointly and severally only for the purpose of allowing a joint action or 

actions against any or all of us, and for all other purposes each Surety binds itself, jointly and 

severally with the Principal, for the payment of such sums only as is set forth opposite the name 

of such Surety, but if no limit of liability is indicated, the limit of liability shall be the full 

amount of the penal sums.

 Whereas said Principal is required under Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as 

amended, to provide financial assurance for [insert: “taking corrective action” and/or 

“compensating third parties for bodily injury and property damage caused by” either “sudden 

accidental releases” or “nonsudden accidental releases” or “accidental releases”; if coverage is 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 324 of 398

different for different tanks or locations, indicate the type of coverage applicable to each tank or 

location] arising from operating the underground storage tanks identified above, and

 Whereas said Principal shall establish a standby trust fund as is required when a surety bond is 

used to provide such financial assurance;

 Now, therefore, the conditions of the obligation are such that if the Principal shall faithfully

[“take corrective action, in accordance with 40 CFR part 280, subpart F and the Director of the 

state implementing agency's instructions for,” and/or “compensate injured third parties for bodily 

injury and property damage caused by” either “sudden accidental releases” or “nonsudden 

accidental releases” or “accidental releases”] arising from operating the tank(s) indentified 

above, or if the Principal shall provide alternate financial assurance, as specified in 40 CFR part 

280, subpart H, within 120 days after the date the notice of cancellation is received by the 

Principal from the Surety(ies), then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise it is to 

remain in full force and effect.

 Such obligation does not apply to any of the following:

 (a) Any obligation of [insert owner or operator] under a workers' compensation, disability

benefits, or unemployment compensation law or other similar law;

 (b) Bodily injury to an employee of [insert owner or operator] arising from, and in the course 

of, employment by [insert owner or operator];

 (c) Bodily injury or property damage arising from the ownership, maintenance, use, or 

entrustment to others of any aircraft, motor vehicle, or watercraft;

 (d) Property damage to any property owned, rented, loaned to, in the care, custody, or control 

of, or occupied by [insert owner or operator] that is not the direct result of a release from a 

petroleum underground storage tank;
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 325 of 398

 (e) Bodily injury or property damage for which [insert owner or operator] is obligated to pay

damages by reason of the assumption of liability in a contract or agreement other than a contract 

or agreement entered into to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 280.93.

 The Surety(ies) shall become liable on this bond obligation only when the Principal has failed 

to fulfill the conditions described above.

 Upon notification by [the Director of the implementing agency] that the Principal has failed to 

[“take corrective action, in accordance with 40 CFR part 280, subpart F and the Director's 

instructions,” and/or “compensate injured third parties”] as guaranteed by this bond, the 

Surety(ies) shall either perform [“corrective action in accordance with 40 CFR part 280 and the 

Director's instructions,” and/or “third-party liability compensation”] or place funds in an amount 

up to the annual aggregate penal sum into the standby trust fund as directed by [the Regional 

Administrator or the Director] under 40 CFR 280.112.

 Upon notification by [the Director] that the Principal has failed to provide alternate financial 

assurance within 60 days after the date the notice of cancellation is received by the Principal 

from the Surety(ies) and that [the Director] has determined or suspects that a release has 

occurred, the Surety(ies) shall place funds in an amount not exceeding the annual aggregate 

penal sum into the standby trust fund as directed by [the Director] under 40 CFR 280.112.

 The Surety(ies) hereby waive(s) notification of amendments to applicable laws, statutes, rules, 

and regulations and agrees that no such amendment shall in any way alleviate its (their) 

obligation on this bond.

 The liability of the Surety(ies) shall not be discharged by any payment or succession of 

payments hereunder, unless and until such payment or payments shall amount in the annual 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 326 of 398

aggregate to the penal sum shown on the face of the bond, but in no event shall the obligation of 

the Surety(ies) hereunder exceed the amount of said annual aggregate penal sum.

 The Surety(ies) may cancel the bond by sending notice of cancellation by certified mail to the 

Principal, provided, however, that cancellation shall not occur during the 120 days beginning on 

the date of receipt of the notice of cancellation by the Principal, as evidenced by the return 

receipt.

 The Principal may terminate this bond by sending written notice to the Surety(ies).

 In Witness Thereof, the Principal and Surety(ies) have executed this Bond and have affixed 

their seals on the date set forth above.

 The persons whose signatures appear below hereby certify that they are authorized to execute 

this surety bond on behalf of the Principal and Surety(ies) and that the wording of this surety 

bond is identical to the wording specified in 40 CFR 280.98(b) as such regulations were 

constituted on the date this bond was executed.

 Principal

[Signature(s)]

[Names(s)]

[Title(s)]

[Corporate seal]

 Corporate Surety(ies)
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 327 of 398

[Name and address]

[State of Incorporation: ________]

[Liability limit: $________]

[Signature(s)]

[Names(s) and title(s)]

[Corporate seal]

 [For every co-surety, provide signature(s), corporate seal, and other information in the same 

manner as for Surety above.]

Bond premium: $________

* * * * * 

(d) The owner or operator who uses a surety bond to satisfy the requirements of § 280.93 

must establish a standby trust fund when the surety bond is acquired. Under the terms of the 

bond, all amounts paid by the surety under the bond will be deposited directly into the standby 

trust fund in accordance with instructions from the Director under § 280.112. This standby trust 

fund must meet the requirements specified in § 280.103.

26. In § 280.99 revise paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:

§ 280.99 Letter of credit.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 328 of 398

* * * * *

(b) The letter of credit must be worded as follows, except that instructions in brackets are 

to be replaced with the relevant information and the brackets deleted:

 Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit

[Name and address of issuing institution]

[Name and address of Director(s) of state implementing agency(ies)]

 Dear Sir or Madam: We hereby establish our Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit No. _____ 

in your favor, at the request and for the account of [owner or operator name] of [address] up to 

the aggregate amount of [in words] U.S. dollars ($[insert dollar amount]), available upon 

presentation [insert, if more than one Director of a state implementing agency is a beneficiary, 

“by any one of you”] of

 (1) your sight draft, bearing reference to this letter of credit, No. _____, and

 (2) your signed statement reading as follows: “I certify that the amount of the draft is payable 

pursuant to regulations issued under authority of Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as 

amended.”

 This letter of credit may be drawn on to cover [insert: “taking corrective action” and/or 

“compensating third parties for bodily injury and property damage caused by” either “sudden 

accidental releases” or “nonsudden accidental releases” or “accidental releases”] arising from 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 329 of 398

operating the underground storage tank(s) identified below in the amount of [in words] $[insert 

dollar amount] per occurrence and [in words] $[insert dollar amount] annual aggregate:

 [List the number of tanks at each facility and the name(s) and address(es) of the facility(ies) 

where the tanks are located. If more than one instrument is used to assure different tanks at any

one facility, for each tank covered by this instrument, list the tank identification number provided 

in the notification submitted pursuant to 40 CFR 280.22, or the corresponding state requirement, 

and the name and address of the facility.]

 The letter of credit may not be drawn on to cover any of the following:

 (a) Any obligation of [insert owner or operator] under a workers' compensation, disability

benefits, or unemployment compensation law or other similar law;

 (b) Bodily injury to an employee of [insert owner or operator] arising from, and in the course 

of, employment by [insert owner or operator];

 (c) Bodily injury or property damage arising from the ownership, maintenance, use, or 

entrustment to others of any aircraft, motor vehicle, or watercraft;

 (d) Property damage to any property owned, rented, loaned to, in the care, custody, or control 

of, or occupied by [insert owner or operator] that is not the direct result of a release from a 

petroleum underground storage tank;

 (e) Bodily injury or property damage for which [insert owner or operator] is obligated to pay

damages by reason of the assumption of liability in a contract or agreement other than a contract 

or agreement entered into to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 280.93.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 330 of 398

 This letter of credit is effective as of [date] and shall expire on [date], but such expiration date 

shall be automatically extended for a period of [at least the length of the original term] on 

[expiration date] and on each successive expiration date, unless, at least 120 days before the 

current expiration date, we notify [owner or operator] by certified mail that we have decided not 

to extend this letter of credit beyond the current expiration date. In the event that [owner or 

operator] is so notified, any unused portion of the credit shall be available upon presentation of 

your sight draft for 120 days after the date of receipt by [owner or operator], as shown on the 

signed return receipt.

 Whenever this letter of credit is drawn on under and in compliance with the terms of this 

credit, we shall duly honor such draft upon presentation to us, and we shall deposit the amount of 

the draft directly into the standby trust fund of [owner or operator] in accordance with your 

instructions.

 We certify that the wording of this letter of credit is identical to the wording specified in 40 

CFR 280.99(b) as such regulations were constituted on the date shown immediately below.

[Signature(s) and title(s) of official(s) of issuing institution]

[Date]

 This credit is subject to [insert “the most recent edition of the Uniform Customs and Practice 

for Documentary Credits, published and copyrighted by the International Chamber of 

Commerce,” or “the Uniform Commercial Code”].
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 331 of 398

(c) An owner or operator who uses a letter of credit to satisfy the requirements of § 

280.93 must also establish a standby trust fund when the letter of credit is acquired. Under the 

terms of the letter of credit, all amounts paid pursuant to a draft by the Director of the 

implementing agency will be deposited by the issuing institution directly into the standby trust 

fund in accordance with instructions from the Director under § 280.112. This standby trust fund 

must meet the requirements specified in § 280.103.

 

* * * * * 

27. In § 280.101 revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 280.101 State fund or other state assurance.

* * * * *

 

(d) The Regional Administrator will notify the state of his determination regarding the 

acceptability of the state's fund or other assurance in lieu of financial mechanisms specified in 

this subpart. Within 60 days after the Regional Administrator notifies a state that a state fund or 

other state assurance is acceptable, the state must provide to each owner or operator for which it 

is assuming financial responsibility a letter or certificate describing the nature of the state's 

assumption of responsibility. The letter or certificate from the state must include, or have 

attached to it, the following information: the facility's name and address and the amount of funds 

for corrective action and/or for compensating third parties that is assured by the state. The owner 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 332 of 398

or operator must maintain this letter or certificate on file as proof of financial responsibility in 

accordance with § 280.111(b)(8).

28. In § 280.103 revise paragraph (b)(1) and the Trust Agreement introductory text and section 4 

to read as follows:

§ 280.103 Standby trust fund.

* * * * * 

 

(b)(1) The standby trust agreement, or trust agreement, must be worded as follows, 

except that instructions in brackets are to be replaced with the relevant information and the 

brackets deleted:

 Trust Agreement

 Trust agreement, the “Agreement,” entered into as of [date] by and between [name of the 

owner or operator], a [name of state] [insert “corporation,” “partnership,” “association,” or 

“proprietorship”], the “Grantor,” and [name of corporate trustee], [insert “Incorporated in the 

state of _____“ or “a national bank”], the “Trustee.”

 Whereas, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA,” an agency of the 

United States Government, has established certain regulations applicable to the Grantor,

requiring that an owner or operator of an underground storage tank shall provide assurance that 

funds will be available when needed for corrective action and third-party compensation for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 333 of 398

bodily injury and property damage caused by sudden and nonsudden accidental releases arising 

from the operation of the underground storage tank. The attached Schedule A lists the number of 

tanks at each facility and the name(s) and address(es) of the facility(ies) where the tanks are 

located that are covered by the [insert “standby” where trust agreement is standby trust 

agreement] trust agreement.

 [Whereas, the Grantor has elected to establish [insert either “a guarantee,” “surety bond,” or 

“letter of credit”] to provide all or part of such financial assurance for the underground storage 

tanks identified herein and is required to establish a standby trust fund able to accept payments 

from the instrument (This paragraph is only applicable to the standby trust agreement.)];

 Whereas, the Grantor, acting through its duly authorized officers, has selected the Trustee to 

be the trustee under this agreement, and the Trustee is willing to act as trustee;

 Now, therefore, the Grantor and the Trustee agree as follows:

* * * * *

Section 4. Payment for [“Corrective Action” and/or “Third-Party Liability Claims”]

 The Trustee shall make payments from the Fund as [the Director of the implementing agency] 

shall direct, in writing, to provide for the payment of the costs of [insert: “taking corrective 

action” and/or “compensating third parties for bodily injury and property damage caused by” 

either “sudden accidental releases” or “nonsudden accidental Releases” or “accidental releases”] 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 334 of 398

arising from operating the tanks covered by the financial assurance mechanism identified in this 

Agreement.

 The Fund may not be drawn upon to cover any of the following:

 (a) Any obligation of [insert owner or operator] under a workers' compensation, disability

benefits, or unemployment compensation law or other similar law;

 (b) Bodily injury to an employee of [insert owner or operator] arising from, and in the course 

of employment by [insert owner or operator];

 (c) Bodily injury or property damage arising from the ownership, maintenance, use, or 

entrustment to others of any aircraft, motor vehicle, or watercraft;

 (d) Property damage to any property owned, rented, loaned to, in the care, custody, or control 

of, or occupied by [insert owner or operator] that is not the direct result of a release from a 

petroleum underground storage tank;

 (e) Bodily injury or property damage for which [insert owner or operator] is obligated to pay

damages by reason of the assumption of liability in a contract or agreement other than a contract 

or agreement entered into to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 280.93.

 The Trustee shall reimburse the Grantor, or other persons as specified by [the Director], from 

the Fund for corrective action expenditures and/or third-party liability claims in such amounts as 

[the Director] shall direct in writing. In addition, the Trustee shall refund to the Grantor such 

amounts as [the Director] specifies in writing. Upon refund, such funds shall no longer constitute 

part of the Fund as defined herein.

* * * 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 335 of 398

29. Amend § 280.104 as follows:

a. By revising paragraph (b) 

b. By revising paragraph (d) 

c. By revising paragraph (e) 

d. By adding paragraph (h) 

§ 280.104 Local government bond rating test.

* * * * * 

 

(b) A local government owner or operator or local government serving as a guarantor that 

is not a general-purpose local government and does not have the legal authority to issue general 

obligation bonds may satisfy the requirements of § 280.93 by having a currently outstanding 

issue or issues of revenue bonds of $1 million or more, excluding refunded issues, and by also 

having a Moody's rating of Aaa, Aa, A, or Baa, or a Standard & Poor's rating of AAA, AA, A, or 

BBB as the lowest rating for any rated revenue bond issued by the local government. Where 

bonds are rated by both Moody's and Standard & Poor's, the lower rating for each bond must be 

used to determine eligibility. Bonds that are backed by credit enhancement may not be

considered in determining the amount of applicable bonds outstanding.

 

* * * * * 

 

(d) To demonstrate that it meets the local government bond rating test, the chief financial 

officer of a general purpose local government owner or operator and/or guarantor must sign a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 336 of 398

letter worded exactly as follows, except that the instructions in brackets are to be replaced by the 

relevant information and the brackets deleted:

 Letter from Chief Financial Officer

 I am the chief financial officer of [insert: name and address of local government owner or 

operator, or guarantor]. This letter is in support of the use of the bond rating test to demonstrate 

financial responsibility for [insert: “taking corrective action” and/or “compensating third parties 

for bodily injury and property damage”] caused by [insert: “sudden accidental releases” or 

“nonsudden accidental releases” or “accidental releases”] in the amount of at least [insert: dollar 

amount] per occurrence and [insert: dollar amount] annual aggregate arising from operating (an) 

underground storage tank(s).

 Underground storage tanks at the following facilities are assured by this bond rating test: [List 

for each facility: the name and address of the facility where tanks are assured by the bond rating 

test].

 The details of the issue date, maturity, outstanding amount, bond rating, and bond rating 

agency of all outstanding bond issues that are being used by [name of local government owner or 

operator, or guarantor] to demonstrate financial responsibility are as follows: [complete table]

___________________________________________________________________________

Issue date Maturity date Outstanding amount Bond rating Rating agency

___________________________________________________________________________

 [Moody's or Standard & Poor's]
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 337 of 398

___________________________________________________________________________

 The total outstanding obligation of [insert amount], excluding refunded bond issues, exceeds 

the minimum amount of $1 million. All outstanding general obligation bonds issued by this 

government that have been rated by Moody's or Standard & Poor's are rated as at least 

investment grade (Moody's Baa or Standard & Poor's BBB) based on the most recent ratings 

published within the last 12 months. Neither rating service has provided notification within the 

last 12 months of downgrading of bond ratings below investment grade or of withdrawal of bond 

rating other than for repayment of outstanding bond issues.

 I hereby certify that the wording of this letter is identical to the wording specified in 40 CFR 

part 280.104(d) as such regulations were constituted on the date shown immediately below.

[Date]__________________________________________________________________

[Signature]______________________________________________________________

[Name]_________________________________________________________________

[Title]__________________________________________________________________

(e) To demonstrate that it meets the local government bond rating test, the chief financial 

officer of local government owner or operator and/or guarantor other than a general purpose 

government must sign a letter worded exactly as follows, except that the instructions in brackets 

are to be replaced by the relevant information and the brackets deleted:

 Letter from Chief Financial Officer
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 338 of 398

 I am the chief financial officer of [insert: name and address of local government owner or 

operator, or guarantor]. This letter is in support of the use of the bond rating test to demonstrate 

financial responsibility for [insert: “taking corrective action” and/or “compensating third parties 

for bodily injury and property damage”] caused by [insert: “sudden accidental releases” or 

“nonsudden accidental releases” or “accidental releases”] in the amount of at least [insert: dollar 

amount] per occurrence and [insert: dollar amount] annual aggregate arising from operating (an) 

underground storage tank(s). This local government is not organized to provide general 

governmental services and does not have the legal authority under state law or constitutional 

provisions to issue general obligation debt.

 Underground storage tanks at the following facilities are assured by this bond rating test: [List 

for each facility: the name and address of the facility where tanks are assured by the bond rating 

test].

 The details of the issue date, maturity, outstanding amount, bond rating, and bond rating 

agency of all outstanding revenue bond issues that are being used by [name of local government 

owner or operator, or guarantor] to demonstrate financial responsibility are as follows: [complete

table]

___________________________________________________________________________

Issue date Maturity date Outstanding amount Bond rating Rating agency

___________________________________________________________________________

 [Moody's or Standard & Poor's]

___________________________________________________________________________
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 339 of 398

 The total outstanding obligation of [insert amount], excluding refunded bond issues, exceeds 

the minimum amount of $1 million. All outstanding revenue bonds issued by this government 

that have been rated by Moody's or Standard & Poor's are rated as at least investment grade 

(Moody's Baa or Standard & Poor's BBB) based on the most recent ratings published within the 

last 12 months. The revenue bonds listed are not backed by third-party credit enhancement or 

insured by a municipal bond insurance company. Neither rating service has provided notification 

within the last 12 months of downgrading of bond ratings below investment grade or of 

withdrawal of bond rating other than for repayment of outstanding bond issues.

 I hereby certify that the wording of this letter is identical to the wording specified in 40 CFR 

part 280.104(e) as such regulations were constituted on the date shown immediately below.

[Date]__________________________________________________________________

[Signature]______________________________________________________________

[Name]_________________________________________________________________

[Title]__________________________________________________________________

* * * * * 

(h) If the local government owner or operator fails to obtain alternate assurance within 

150 days of finding that it no longer meets the requirements of the bond rating test or within 30 

days of notification by the Director of the implementing agency that it no longer meets the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 340 of 398

requirements of the bond rating test, the owner or operator must notify the Director of such 

failure within 10 days.

30. In § 280.105 revise paragraph (c) and the Letter From Chief Financial Officer to read as 

follows:

§ 280.105 Local government financial test.

* * * * * 

 

(c) To demonstrate that it meets the financial test under paragraph (b) of this section, the 

chief financial officer of the local government owner or operator, must sign, within 120 days of 

the close of each financial reporting year, as defined by the twelve-month period for which 

financial statements used to support the financial test are prepared, a letter worded exactly as 

follows, except that the instructions in brackets are to be replaced by the relevant information 

and the brackets deleted:

 Letter From Chief Financial Officer

 I am the chief financial officer of [insert: name and address of the owner or operator]. This 

letter is in support of the use of the local government financial test to demonstrate financial 

responsibility for [insert: “taking corrective action” and/or “compensating third parties for bodily 

injury and property damage”] caused by [insert: “sudden accidental releases” or “nonsudden 

accidental releases” or “accidental releases”] in the amount of at least [insert: dollar amount] per 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 341 of 398

occurrence and [insert: dollar amount] annual aggregate arising from operating [an] underground 

storage tank[s].

 Underground storage tanks at the following facilities are assured by this financial test [List for 

each facility: the name and address of the facility where tanks assured by this financial test are 

located. If separate mechanisms or combinations of mechanisms are being used to assure any of 

the tanks at this facility, list each tank assured by this financial test by the tank identification 

number provided in the notification submitted pursuant to 40 CFR Part 280.22 or the 

corresponding state requirements.]

 This owner or operator has not received an adverse opinion, or a disclaimer of opinion from an 

independent auditor on its financial statements for the latest completed fiscal year. Any 

outstanding issues of general obligation or revenue bonds, if rated, have a Moody's rating of Aaa, 

Aa, A, or Baa or a Standard and Poor's rating of AAA, AA, A, or BBB; if rated by both firms, 

the bonds have a Moody's rating of Aaa, Aa, A, or Baa and a Standard and Poor's rating of AAA, 

AA, A, or BBB.

 Worksheet for Municipal Financial Test

 Part I: Basic Information

 1. Total Revenues

a. Revenues (dollars) ________
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 342 of 398

 Value of revenues excludes liquidation of investments and issuance of debt. Value includes all 

general fund operating and non-operating revenues, as well as all revenues from all other 

governmental funds including enterprise, debt service, capital projects, and special revenues, but 

excluding revenues to funds held in a trust or agency capacity.

b. Subtract interfund transfers (dollars) ________

c. Total Revenues (dollars) ________

 2. Total Expenditures

a. Expenditures (dollars) ________

 Value consists of the sum of general fund operating and non-operating expenditures including 

interest payments on debt, payments for retirement of debt principal, and total expenditures from 

all other governmental funds including enterprise, debt service, capital projects, and special 

revenues.

b. Subtract interfund transfers (dollars) ________

c. Total Expenditures (dollars) ________

 3. Local Revenues

a. Total Revenues (from 1c) (dollars) ________

b. Subtract total intergovernmental transfers (dollars) ________

c. Local Revenues (dollars) ________
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 343 of 398

 4. Debt Service

a. Interest and fiscal charges (dollars) ________

b. Add debt retirement (dollars) ________

c. Total Debt Service (dollars) ________

 5. Total Funds (Dollars) ________

(Sum of amounts held as cash and investment securities from all funds, excluding amounts held 

for employee retirement funds, agency funds, and trust funds)

 6. Population (Persons) ________

 Part II: Application of Test

 7. Total Revenues to Population

a. Total Revenues (from 1c) ________

b. Population (from 6) ________

c. Divide 7a by 7b ________

d. Subtract 417________

e. Divide by 5,212 ________

f. Multiply by 4.095 ________
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 344 of 398

 8. Total Expenses to Population

a. Total Expenses (from 2c) ________

b. Population (from 6) ________

c. Divide 8a by 8b ________

d. Subtract 524 ________

e. Divide by 5,401________

f. Multiply by 4.095 ________

 9. Local Revenues to Total Revenues

a. Local Revenues (from 3c) ________

b. Total Revenues (from 1c) ________

c. Divide 9a by 9b ________

d. Subtract .695 ________

e. Divide by .205 ________

f. Multiply by 2.840 ________

 10. Debt Service to Population

a. Debt Service (from 4c) ________

b. Population (from 6) ________
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 345 of 398

c. Divide 10a by 10b ________

d. Subtract 51 ________

e. Divide by 1,038 ________

f. Multiply by -1.866 ________

 11. Debt Service to Total Revenues

a. Debt Service (from 4c) ________

b. Total Revenues (from 1c) ________

c. Divide 11a by 11b ________

d. Subtract .068 ________

e. Divide by .259 ________

f. Multiply by -3.533 ________

 12. Total Revenues to Total Expenses

a. Total Revenues (from 1c) ________

b. Total Expenses (from 2c) ________

c. Divide 12a by 12b ________

d. Subtract .910 ________

e. Divide by .899 ________

f. Multiply by 3.458 ________
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 346 of 398

 13. Funds Balance to Total Revenues

a. Total Funds (from 5) ________

b. Total Revenues (from 1c) ________

c. Divide 13a by 13b ________

d. Subtract .891 ________

e. Divide by 9.156 ________

f. Multiply by 3.270 ________

 14. Funds Balance to Total Expenses

a. Total Funds (from 5) ________

b. Total Expenses (from 2c) ________

c. Divide 14a by 14b ________

d. Subtract .866 ________

e. Divide by 6.409 ________

f. Multiply by 3.270 ________

 15. Total Funds to Population ________

a. Total Funds (from 5) ________

b. Population (from 6) ________

c. Divide 15a by 15b ________
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 347 of 398

d. Subtract 270 ________

e. Divide by 4,548 ________

f. Multiply by 1.866 ________

16. Add 7f + 8f + 9f + 10f + 11f + 12f + 13f + 14f + 15f + 4.937 ________

 I hereby certify that the financial index shown on line 16 of the worksheet is greater than zero 

and that the wording of this letter is identical to the wording specified in 40 CFR part 280.105(c) 

as such regulations were constituted on the date shown immediately below.

[Date]

[Signature]

[Name]

[Title]

* * * * * 

31. Amend § 280.106 as follows:

a. By revising paragraph (a)(1) 

b. By revising paragraph (b) 

c. By revising paragraph (d)(7)(d)

d. By revising paragraph (e)(7)(d)

e. By revising paragraph (e)(8)(d)
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 348 of 398

§ 280.106 Local government guarantee.

(a) * * * 

 

(1) demonstrate that it meets the bond rating test requirement of § 280.104 and deliver a 

copy of the chief financial officer's letter as contained in § 280.104(d) and § 280.104(e) to the 

local government owner or operator; or

 

* * * * *

 

(b) If the local government guarantor is unable to demonstrate financial assurance under 

any of § § 280.104, 280.105, 280.107(a), 280.107(b), or 280.107(c), at the end of the financial 

reporting year, the guarantor shall send by certified mail, before cancellation or non-renewal of 

the guarantee, notice to the owner or operator. The guarantee will terminate no less than 120 

days after the date the owner or operator receives the notification, as evidenced by the return 

receipt. The owner or operator must obtain alternative coverage as specified in § 280.114(e).

 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(7) * * * 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 349 of 398

 (d) Property damage to any property owned, rented, loaned to, in the care, custody, or control 

of, or occupied by [insert: local government owner or operator] that is not the direct result of a 

release from a petroleum underground storage tank;

* * * * *

(e) * * * 

(7) * * *

 (d) Property damage to any property owned, rented, loaned to, in the care, custody, or control 

of, or occupied by [insert: local government owner or operator] that is not the direct result of a 

release from a petroleum underground storage tank;

* * * * *

(8) * * * 

 (d) Property damage to any property owned, rented, loaned to, in the care, custody, or control 

of, or occupied by [insert: local government owner or operator] that is not the direct result of a 

release from a petroleum underground storage tank;

* * *

 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 350 of 398

32. In § 280.107 revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 280.107 Local government fund.

* * * * * 

 

(d) To demonstrate that it meets the requirements of the local government fund, the chief 

financial officer of the local government owner or operator and/or guarantor must sign a letter 

worded exactly as follows, except that the instructions in brackets are to be replaced by the 

relevant information and the brackets deleted:

 Letter from Chief Financial Officer

 I am the chief financial officer of [insert: name and address of local government owner or 

operator, or guarantor]. This letter is in support of the use of the local government fund 

mechanism to demonstrate financial responsibility for [insert: “taking corrective action” and/or 

“compensating third parties for bodily injury and property damage”] caused by [insert: “sudden 

accidental releases” or “nonsudden accidental releases” or “accidental releases”] in the amount 

of at least [insert: dollar amount] per occurrence and [insert: dollar amount] annual aggregate 

arising from operating (an) underground storage tank(s).

 Underground storage tanks at the following facilities are assured by this local government 

fund mechanism: [List for each facility: the name and address of the facility where tanks are 

assured by the local government fund].
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 351 of 398

 [Insert: “The local government fund is funded for the full amount of coverage required under § 

280.93, or funded for part of the required amount of coverage and used in combination with 

other mechanism(s) that provide the remaining coverage.” or “The local government fund is 

funded for five times the full amount of coverage required under § 280.93, or funded for part of 

the required amount of coverage and used in combination with other mechanisms(s) that provide 

the remaining coverage,” or “A payment is made to the fund once every year for seven years 

until the fund is fully-funded and [name of local government owner or operator] has available 

bonding authority, approved through voter referendum, of an amount equal to the difference 

between the required amount of coverage and the amount held in the dedicated fund” or “A 

payment is made to the fund once every year for seven years until the fund is fully-funded and I 

have attached a letter signed by the State Attorney General stating that (1) the use of the bonding 

authority will not increase the local government's debt beyond the legal debt ceilings established 

by the relevant state laws and (2) that prior voter approval is not necessary before use of the 

bonding authority”].

 The details of the local government fund are as follows:

Amount in Fund (market value of fund at close of last fiscal year):_____

 [If fund balance is incrementally funded as specified in § 

280.107(c), insert:

Amount added to fund in the most recently completed fiscal year:_____

Number of years remaining in the pay-in period: _____]

 A copy of the state constitutional provision, or local government statute, charter, ordinance or 

order dedicating the fund is attached.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 352 of 398

 I hereby certify that the wording of this letter is identical to the wording specified in 40 CFR 

280.107(d) as such regulations were constituted on the date shown immediately below.

[Date]

[Signature]

[Name]

[Title]

* * * * * 

33. In § 280.109 revise paragraph (b) (3) to read as follows:

§ 280.109 Cancellation or nonrenewal by a provider of financial assurance.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

 

(3) The evidence of the financial assistance mechanism subject to the termination 

maintained in accordance with § 280.111(b).

34. In § 280.111 revise paragraphs (b)(9)(ii) and (iii) to read as follows:

§ 280.111 Recordkeeping.

* * * * * 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 353 of 398

(b) * * * 

(9) * * * 

(ii) Year-end financial statements for the most recent completed financial reporting year 

showing the amount in the fund. If the fund is established under § 280.107(c) using incremental 

funding backed by bonding authority, the financial statements must show the previous year's 

balance, the amount of funding during the year, and the closing balance in the fund.

 

(iii) If the fund is established under § 280.107(c) using incremental funding backed by 

bonding authority, the owner or operator must also maintain documentation of the required 

bonding authority, including either the results of a voter referendum (under § 280.107(c)(1)), or 

attestation by the State Attorney General as specified under § 280.107(c)(2).

 

* * * * * 

35. Revise § 280.113 to read as follows:

§ 280.113 Release from the requirements.

An owner or operator is no longer required to maintain financial responsibility under this 

subpart for an underground storage tank after the tank has been permanently closed or, if 

corrective action is required, after corrective action has been completed and the tank has been 

permanently closed as required by 40 CFR part 280, subpart G.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 354 of 398

36. Add Subpart J to read as follows:

Subpart J – Operator Training

280.240 General requirement for all UST systems.

280.241 Designation of operators. 

280.242 Requirements for operator training.

280.243 Timing of operator training.

280.244 Retraining.

280.245 Documentation.

Subpart J – Operator Training

§ 280.240 General requirement for all UST systems.

Not later than [Three years after effective date of rule], all owners and operators of UST 

systems must ensure they have designated Class A, Class B, and Class C operators who meet the 

requirements of this subpart. 

§ 280.241 Designation of operators.

UST system owners and operators must designate: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 355 of 398

(a) At least one Class A and one Class B operator for each UST or group of USTs at a 

facility; and

(b) Each individual who meets the definition of Class C operator at the UST facility as a 

Class C operator. Class C operators must be employees of the UST system owner and operator. 

§ 280.242 Requirements for operator training.

UST system owners and operators must ensure Class A, Class B, and Class C operators 

meet the requirements of this section. Any individual designated for more than one operator 

class must successfully complete the required training program or comparable examination 

according to the operator class in which the individual is designated.

(a) Class A operators. Each designated Class A operator must either be trained in 

accordance with paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section or pass a comparable examination in 

accordance with paragraph (e) of this section. Class A operators must receive training from an 

independent trainer.

(1) At a minimum, the training program for the Class A operator must provide general 

knowledge of the requirements in this paragraph. At a minimum, the training must teach the 

Class A operators, as applicable, on the purpose, methods, and function of:

(i) Spill and overfill prevention;
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 356 of 398

(ii) Release detection; 

(iii) Corrosion protection; 

(iv) Emergency response; 

(v) Product and equipment compatibility; 

(vi) Financial responsibility; 

(vii) Notification and storage tank registration;

(viii) Temporary and permanent closure; 

(ix) Related reporting and recordkeeping; 

(x) Environmental and regulatory consequences of releases; and

(xi) Training requirements for Class B and Class C operators.

(2) At a minimum, the training program must evaluate Class A operators to determine 

these individuals have the knowledge and skills to make informed decisions regarding 

compliance and determine whether appropriate individuals are fulfilling the operation, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 357 of 398

maintenance, and recordkeeping requirements for UST systems in accordance with paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section.

(b) Class B operators. Each designated Class B operator must either receive training in 

accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section or pass a comparable examination, 

in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section. Class B operators must receive training from an 

independent trainer.

(1) At a minimum, the training program for the Class B operator must cover either: 

general requirements that encompass all regulatory requirements and typical equipment used at 

UST facilities; or site-specific requirements which address only the regulatory requirements and 

equipment specific to the facility. At a minimum, the training program for Class B operators 

must teach the Class B operator, as applicable, on the purpose, methods, and function of: 

(i) Operation and maintenance;

(ii) Spill and overfill prevention; 

(iii) Release detection and related reporting; 

(iv) Corrosion protection and related testing; 

(v) Emergency response; 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 358 of 398

(vi) Product and equipment compatibility; 

(vii) Reporting and recordkeeping;

(viii) Environmental and regulatory consequences of releases; and

(ix) Training requirements for Class C operator.

(2) At a minimum, the training program must evaluate Class B operators to determine 

these individuals have the knowledge and skills to implement applicable UST regulatory

requirements in the field on the components of typical UST systems or, as applicable, sitespecific equipment used at an UST facility in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(c) Class C operators. Each designated Class C operator must either: be trained by a Class 

A or Class B operator in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section; complete a 

training program in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section; or pass a 

comparable examination, in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section. 

(1) At a minimum, the training program for the Class C operator must teach the Class C 

operators to take appropriate actions in response to:

(i) Emergencies; and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 359 of 398

(ii) Alarms caused by spills or releases from the UST system.

(2) At a minimum, the training program must evaluate Class C operators to determine 

these individuals have the knowledge and skills to take appropriate action in response to 

emergencies (including situations posing an immediate danger or threat to the public or to the 

environment and that require immediate action) or alarms caused by spills or releases from an 

underground storage tank system.

(d) Training program. Any training program must meet the minimum requirements of 

this section and include an evaluation through testing, a practical demonstration, or another 

approach acceptable to the implementing agency. The evaluation component of the training 

program must be developed and administered by an independent organization or the 

implementing agency or delegated authority.

(e) Comparable Examination. A comparable examination must, at a minimum, test the 

knowledge of the Class A, Class B, or Class C operators in accordance with the requirements of 

paragraphs (a), (b), (c) of this section, as applicable. The examination must be developed and 

administered by an independent organization or the implementing agency or delegated authority.

§ 280.243 Timing of operator training. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 360 of 398

(a) An owner and operator must ensure that designated Class A, Class B, and Class C 

operators meet requirements in § 280.242 according to the following schedule:

Phase-In Schedule For Operator Training

Criteria Date When Operator Training Or 

Comparable Examination Is Required

One or more USTs at the facility were 

installed on or before 12/22/1988

[1 year after effective date of rule]

No USTs at the facility were installed on or 

before 12/22/1988 and at least one UST at 

the facility was installed on or before 

12/22/1998

[2 years after effective date of rule]

All USTs at the facility were installed after 

12/22/1998

[3 years after effective date of rule]

(b) Class A and Class B operators designated after the applicable effective date indicated 

in the schedule above must meet requirements in § 280.242 within 30 days of assuming duties.

(c) Class C operators designated after the applicable effective date indicated in the 

schedule above must be trained before assuming duties of a Class C operator.

§ 280.244 Retraining.

 

Class A and Class B operators of UST systems determined by the implementing agency to 

be out of compliance must complete a training program or comparable examination in 

accordance with requirements in § 280.242. At a minimum, the training must cover the area(s) 

determined to be out of compliance. UST system owners and operators must ensure Class A and 

Class B operators are retrained pursuant to this section no later than 30 days from the date the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 361 of 398

implementing agency determines the facility is out of compliance except in one of the following 

situations: 

(a) Class A and Class B operators take annual refresher training. Refresher training for 

Class A and Class B operators must cover all applicable requirements in § 280.242, or

(b) The implementing agency, at its discretion, grants a waiver of this retraining 

requirement to either the Class A or Class B operator or both. 

§ 280.245 Documentation. 

Owners and operators of underground storage tank systems must maintain a list of 

designated Class A, Class B, and Class C operators and maintain records verifying that training 

and retraining, as applicable, have been completed, in accordance with § 280.34 as follows:

(a) The list must:

(1) Identify all Class A, Class B, and Class C operators at the facility over the last three 

years; and

(2) Include names, class of operator trained, date assumed duties, date each completed 

initial training, and any retraining. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 362 of 398

(b) Records verifying completion of training or retraining must be a paper or electronic 

record for Class A, Class B, and Class C operators. The records, at a minimum, must identify

name of trainee, date trained, and operator training class completed. Owners and operators must 

maintain these records for as long as Class A, Class B, and Class C operators are designated. 

The following requirements also apply to the following types of training:

(1) Records from classroom or field training programs or a comparable examination must, 

at a minimum, be signed by the trainer or examiner and list the printed name of the trainer or 

examiner and the company name, address, and phone number; 

(2) Records from computer-based training must, at a minimum, indicate the name of the 

training program and web address, if Internet-based; and

(3) Records of retraining must include those areas on which the Class A or Class B 

operator has been retrained.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 363 of 398

Appendix I to Part 280 – Attached Notification of UST Form

Appendix II to Part 280 – Attached Notification of Ownership Change Form

Appendix III TO Part 280—

STATEMENT FOR SHIPPING TICKETS AND INVOICES

Note. A federal law (the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended), requires owners of certain underground storage tanks 

to notify implementing agencies of the existence of their tanks. Notifications must be made within 30 days of bringing 

the tank into use. Consult EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 280.22 to determine if you are affected by this law.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

EPA Form 7530-1 (Rev. 9-2008) Electronic and paper versions acceptable. Page 364 of 398

Previous editions may be used while supplies last.

United States

Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460

Form Approved.

OMB No.2050-0068

Notification for Underground Storage Tanks

Implementing Agency Name and Address: IMPLEMENTING AGENCY USE ONLY

ID NUMBER:

DATE RECEIVED:

TYPE OF NOTIFICATION DATE ENTERED INTO COMPUTER:

A. NEW FACILITY B. AMENDED C. CLOSURE

DATA ENTRY CLERK INITIALS:

_____ Number of tanks 

 at facility

_____ Number of continuation sheets attached OWNER WAS CONTACTED TO CLARIFY RESPONSES, COMMENTS:

INSTRUCTIONS AND GENERAL INFORMATION

Please type or print in ink. Also, be sure you have signatures in ink for 

sections VIII and XI. Complete a notification form for each location 

containing underground storage tanks. If more than 5 tanks are owned at 

this location, you may photocopy pages 3 through 5 and use them for 

additional tanks. 

The primary purpose of this notification form is to locate and evaluate 

underground storage tank systems (USTs) that store or have stored 

petroleum or hazardous substances. The information you provide will be 

based on reasonably available records, or in the absence of such records, 

your knowledge or recollection.

Federal law requires UST owners to use this notification form for all 

USTs storing regulated substances that are brought into use after May

8, 1986, or USTs in the ground as of May 8, 1986 that have stored 

regulated substances at any time since January 1, 1974. The 

information requested is required by Section 9002 of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act (SWDA), as amended.

Who Must Notify? Section 9002 of SWDA, as amended, requires owners of 

USTs that store regulated substances (unless exempted) to notify 

designated state or local agencies of the existence of their USTs. “Owner” is 

defined as:

· In the case of an UST in use on November 8, 1984, or brought into use 

after that date, any person who owns an UST used for storage, use, or 

dispensing of regulated substances; or

· In the case of an UST in use before November 8, 1984, but no longer in 

use on that date, any person who owned the UST immediately before its 

discontinuation.

Also, if the state so requires, any facility that has made any changes to 

facility information or UST system status, must submit a notification form 

(only amended information needs to be included).

What USTs Are Included? An UST system is defined as any one or 

combination of tanks that is used to contain an accumulation of regulated 

substances, and whose volume (including connected underground piping) is 

10 percent or more beneath the ground. Regulated USTs store petroleum or 

hazardous substances (see the “What Substances Are Covered”).

What Tanks Are Excluded From Notification (see § 280.10 and § 280.12)?

 Tanks removed from the ground before May 8, 1986;

 Farm or residential tanks of 1,100 gallons or less capacity storing motor 

fuel for noncommercial purposes;

 Tanks storing heating oil for use on the premises where stored;

 Septic tanks;

 Certain pipeline facilities regulated under chapter 601 of Title 49;

 Surface impoundments, pits, ponds, or lagoons;

 Storm water or wastewater collection systems;

 Flow-through process tanks;

 Liquid traps or associated gathering lines directly related to oil or gas 

production and gathering operations;

 Tanks on or above the floor of underground areas, such as basements or 

tunnels;

 Tanks with a capacity of 110 gallons or less. 

What Substances Are Covered? The notification requirements apply to USTs 

containing petroleum or certain hazardous substances. Petroleum includes 

gasoline, used oil, diesel fuel, crude oil or any fraction thereof which is liquid at 

standard conditions of temperature and pressure (60 degrees Fahrenheit and 

14.7 pounds per square inch absolute). Hazardous substances are those found 

in Section 101 (14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), with the exception of those 

substances regulated as hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA.

Where To Notify? Send completed forms to:

When To Notify? Owners who bring USTs into use after May 8, 1986, must 

notify within 30 days of bringing the UST into use. Owners of previously 

deferred USTs must notify by [ENTER DATE 30 days after REG]. If the state 

requires notification of any amendments to facility, send information to state 

agency immediately.

Penalties: Any owner who knowingly fails to notify or submits false information 

shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $16,000 for each tank for which 

notification is not given or for which false information is given.

I. OWNERSHIP OF UST(s) II. LOCATION OF UST(s)

Owner Name (Corporation, Individual, Public Agency, or Other Entity) If required by implementing agency, give the geographic location of USTs by degrees, 

minutes, and seconds. Example: Latitude 42 36' 12" N, Longitude 85 24' 17" W

Latitude ________________ Longitude ________________

Street Address Facility Name or Company Site Identifier, as applicable

County

 If address is the same as in Section I, check the box and proceed to section III.

 If address is different, enter address below:

Street Address

City State Zip Code

County

Phone Number (Include Area Code) City State Zip Code
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

EPA Form 7530-1 (Rev. 9-2008) Electronic and paper versions acceptable. Page 365 of 398

Previous editions may be used while supplies last.





United States

Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460

Form Approved.

OMB No.2050-0068

Notification for Underground Storage Tanks

III. TYPE OF OWNER IV. INDIAN COUNTRY

 Federal Government

 State Government Commercial

 Local Government Private

USTs are located on land within an Indian 

Reservation or on trust lands outside 

reservation boundaries.

USTs are owned by a Native American 

nation or tribe.

Tribe or Nation where USTs are located:

V. TYPE OF FACILITY

 Gas Station

 Petroleum Distributor

 Air Taxi (Airline)

 Aircraft Owner

 Auto Dealership

 Railroad

 Federal - Non-Military

 Federal - Military

 Industrial

 Contractor

 Trucking/Transport

 Utilities

 Residential

 Farm

 Other (Explain) _____________________________

VI. CONTACT PERSON IN CHARGE OF TANKS

Name: Job Title: Address: Phone Number (Include Area Code):

VII. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

I have met the financial responsibility requirements (in accordance with 40 CFR Part 280 Subpart H) by using the following mechanisms:

Check All that Apply

 Self Insurance

 Commercial Insurance

 Risk Retention Group

 Local Government Financial Test

 Guarantee

 Surety Bond

 Letter of Credit

 Bond Rating Test

 State Funds

 Trust Fund

 Other Method (describe here)

______________________________________

VIII. CERTIFICATION (Read and sign after completing ALL SECTIONS of this notification form)

I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in Sections I through XI of this notification form and 

all attached documents, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the submitted 

information is true, accurate, and complete.

Name and official title of owner or owner’s

authorized representative (Print)

Signature Date Signed

Paperwork Reduction Act Notice

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 30 minutes per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this 

information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection 

techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB 

control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

EPA Form 7530-1 (Rev. 9-2008) Electronic and paper versions acceptable. Page 366 of 398

Previous editions may be used while supplies last.

United States

Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460

Form Approved.

OMB No.2050-0068

Notification for Underground Storage Tanks

IX. DESCRIPTION OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (Complete for all tanks and piping at this location.)

Tank Identification Number Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. 

1. Status of Tank (check only one) Currently In Use

Temporarily Closed

Permanently Closed































2. Date of Installation (month/year)

3. Estimated Total Capacity (gallons)

4. Material Of Construction Asphalt Coated 

or Bare Steel

Cathodically Protected Steel

Coated and Cathodically Protected Steel

Composite (steel clad with noncorrodible material)

Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic

Lined Interior

Excavation Liner

Double Walled

Noncorrodible Tank Jacket

Concrete

Unknown

If other, please specify here

Check box if tank has ever been repaired























_______

_______

























_______

_______

























_______

_______

























_______

_______

























_______

_______



5. Piping Material Bare Steel

 (check all that apply) Galvanized Steel

Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic

Flexible Plastic

Copper

Cathodically Protected

Double Walled

Secondary Containment

Unknown

If other, please specify here



















_______

_______



















_______

_______



















_______

_______



















_______

_______



















_______

_______

6. Piping Type Safe Suction (no valve at tank)

 (check all that apply) U.S. Suction (valve at tank)

Pressure

Gravity Feed









































(check all that apply)
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

EPA Form 7530-1 (Rev. 9-2008) Electronic and paper versions acceptable. Page 367 of 398

Previous editions may be used while supplies last.

United States

Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460

Form Approved.

OMB No.2050-0068

Notification for Underground Storage Tanks

Tank Identification Number Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. 

7. Substance Currently Gasoline

Stored (or last stored in (containing ≤10% ethanol) 

the case of closed tanks) 

 Diesel

(check all that apply) 

Biodiesel

 Kerosene

Heating Oil

Used Oil

Gasoline Containing

 >10% Ethanol (specify amount)

 If other, please specify here













_______

_______













_______

_______













_______

_______













_______

_______













_______

_______

Hazardous Substance

CERCLA Name and/or 

CAS Number



_______

_______



_______

_______



_______

_______



_______

_______



_______

_______

Mixture of Substances

Please specify here 

_



_______

_______



_______

_______



_______

_______



_______

_______



_______

_______

8. Release Detection

 (check all that apply) Manual Tank Gauging

Tank Tightness Testing

Inventory Control

Automatic Tank Gauging

Vapor Monitoring

Groundwater Monitoring

Interstitial Monitoring

 (required for new or replaced tanks/piping)

 Statistical Inventory Reconciliation

Automatic Line Leak Detectors

Line Tightness Testing

 (applicable suction piping)

 Bulk Tightness Test

 (field-constructed tank)

 Bulk Line Tightness Test

 (airport hydrant distribution system)

No Release Detection Dequired 

 (such as some types of suction piping)

Other method allowed by implementing agency 

TANK























PIPE





























TANK























PIPE





























TANK























PIPE





























TANK























PIPE





























TANK























PIPE





























If other, please specify here

9. Spill and Overfill Overfill Device Installed

 Protection

Spill Device Installed




















*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

EPA Form 7530-1 (Rev. 9-2008) Electronic and paper versions acceptable. Page 368 of 398

Previous editions may be used while supplies last.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

EPA Form 7530-1 (Rev. 9-2008) Electronic and paper versions acceptable. Page 369 of 398

Previous editions may be used while supplies last.

United States

Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460

Form Approved.

OMB No.2050-0068

Notification for Underground Storage Tanks

Tank Identification Number Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. 

X. CLOSURE OR CHANGE IN SERVICE

Closure or Change in Service

Estimated date the UST was last used for storing regulated 

substances (month/day/year)

Check box if this is a change in service

________



________



________



________



________



2. Tank Closure

Estimated date tank closed (month/day/year)

(check all that apply below)

Tank was removed from ground

Tank was closed in ground

Tank filled with inert material

Describe the inert fill material here

________







________

________







________

________







________

________







________

________







________

3. Site Assessment

Check box if the site assessment was completed

Check box if evidence of a leak was detected





















XI. CERTIFICATION OF INSTALLATION (COMPLETE FOR UST SYSTEMS INSTALLED AFTER DECEMBER 22, 1988)

Installer Of Tank And Piping Must Check All That Apply:

Installer certified by tank and piping manufacturers

Installer certified or licensed by the implementing agency

Installation inspected by a registered engineer

Installation inspected and approved by implementing agency

Manufacturer’s installation checklists have been completed

Another method allowed by State agency

If so, please specify here













________

________













________

________













________

________













________

________













________

________

Signature of UST Installer Certifying Proper Installation of UST System

 __________________________ __________________________ ___________ 

 Name Signature Date

 __________________________ __________________________ 

 Position Company
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

EPA Form XXXX Electronic and paper versions acceptable. Page 370 of 398

Previous editions may be used while supplies last.

United States

Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460

Form Approved.

OMB No.XXXXXX

Notification of Ownership Change for Underground Storage Tanks

Implementing Agency Name and Address: IMPLEMENTING AGENCY USE ONLY

ID NUMBER:

DATE RECEIVED:

DATE ENTERED INTO COMPUTER:

DATA ENTRY CLERK INITIALS:

OWNER WAS CONTACTED TO CLARIFY RESPONSES, COMMENTS:

INSTRUCTIONS AND GENERAL INFORMATION

Please type or print in ink. Also, be sure you have signatures in ink. 

The primary purpose of this notification form is to inform implementing 

agencies of ownership changes for underground storage tank (UST) systems 

that store or have stored petroleum or hazardous substances.

Federal regulation requires UST owners to notify the implementing 

agency of any ownership change for USTs storing regulated substances 

after [ENTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF RULE].

Who Must Notify? 40 CFR part 280, as amended, requires owners of USTs 

that store regulated substances (unless exempted) to notify implementing 

agencies of any ownership changes. Owner is defined as:

· In the case of an UST in use on November 8, 1984, or brought into use 

after that date, any person who owns an UST used for storage, use, or 

dispensing of regulated substances; or

· In the case of an UST in use before November 8, 1984, but no longer in use 

on that date, any person who owned the UST immediately before its 

discontinuation.

What USTs Are Included? An UST system is defined as any one or 

combination of tanks that is used to contain an accumulation of regulated 

substances, and whose volume (including connected underground piping) is 

10 percent or more beneath the ground. Regulated USTs store petroleum or 

hazardous substances (see “What Substances Are Covered”).

When To Notify? Any owner or operator who assumes ownership of a 

regulated UST system must notify the implementing agency within 30 days of 

assuming such ownership.

What Tanks Are Excluded From Notification (see § 280.10 and § 280.12)?

 Tanks removed from the ground before May 8, 1986;

 Farm or residential tanks of 1,100 gallons or less capacity storing motor fuel 

for noncommercial purposes;

 Tanks storing heating oil for use on the premises where stored;

 Septic tanks;

 Certain pipeline facilities regulated under chapter 601 of Title 49;

 Surface impoundments, pits, ponds, or lagoons;

 Storm water or wastewater collection systems;

 Flow-through process tanks;

 Liquid traps or associated gathering lines directly related to oil or gas 

production and gathering operations;

 Tanks on or above the floor of underground areas, such as basements or 

tunnels;

 Tanks with a capacity of 110 gallons or less. 

What Substances Are Covered? The notification requirements apply to 

USTs containing petroleum or certain hazardous substances. Petroleum 

includes gasoline, used oil, diesel fuel, crude oil or any fraction thereof which 

is liquid at standard conditions of temperature and pressure (60 degrees 

Fahrenheit and 14.7 pounds per square inch absolute). Hazardous 

substances are those found in Section 101 (14) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 

with the exception of those substances regulated as hazardous waste under 

Subtitle C of RCRA.

Where To Notify? Send completed forms to:

Penalties: Any owner who knowingly fails to notify or submits false 

information shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $16,000 for each 

tank for which notification is not given or for which false information is given.

OWNERSHIP OF UST(s) Corporation, Individual, Public Agency, or Other Entity FACILITY NAME AND LOCATION OF UST(s)

Current Owner Name Previous Owner Name Facility Name  Check here if name changed after ownership 

Change

Address Address  Check this box if the physical address of the UST(s) is the same as the 

current owner address. If address is different, enter address below:

If required by implementing agency, give the geographic location of UST(s) by 

degrees, minutes, and seconds. 

Latitude __________________ Longitude ___________________

Phone Phone Date of Ownership Change

Signature of Current Owner: _______________________________________ Date: ____________________

Paperwork Reduction Act Notice

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 minutes per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this 

information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection 

techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB 

control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 371 of 398

For the reasons stated in the preamble, Title 40 Chapter I of Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows.

PART 281 – APPROVAL OF STATE UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAMS

1. The authority citation for part 281 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 2002, 9004, 9005, 9006 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991(c), (d), 

(e)).

2. Revise Part 281 to read as follows:

Part 281 - APPROVAL OF STATE UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAMS

Subpart A - Purpose, General Requirements and Scope 

Sec.

281.10 Purpose.

281.11 General requirements.

281.12 Scope and definitions.

Subpart B - Components of a Program Application

281.20 Program application.

281.21 Description of state program.

281.22 Procedures for adequate enforcement.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 372 of 398

281.23 Schedule for interim approval.

281.24 Memorandum of agreement.

281.25 Attorney General's statement.

Subpart C - Criteria for No Less Stringent

281.30 New UST system design, construction, installation, and notification.

281.31 Upgrading existing UST systems.

281.32 General operating requirements.

281.33 Release detection.

281.34 Release reporting, investigation, and confirmation.

281.35 Release response and corrective action.

281.36 Out-of-service UST systems and closure.

281.37 Financial responsibility for UST systems containing petroleum.

281.38 Lender liability.

281.39 Operator training.

Subpart D - Adequate Enforcement of Compliance

281.40 Requirements for compliance program and authority.

281.41 Requirements for enforcement authority.

281.42 Requirements for public participation.

281.43 Sharing of information.

Subpart E - Approval Procedures
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 373 of 398

281.50 Approval procedures for state programs.

281.51 Revision of approved state programs.

Subpart F - Withdrawal of Approval of State Programs

281.60 Criteria for withdrawal of approval of state programs.

281.61 Procedures for withdrawal of approval of state programs.

SUBPART A - PURPOSE, GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SCOPE

§ 281.10 - Purpose

(a) This part specifies the requirements that state programs must meet for approval by the 

Administrator under § 9004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and the procedures EPA will 

follow in approving, revising and withdrawing approval of state programs.

(b) State submissions for program approval must be in accordance with the procedures set out 

in this part.

(c) A state may apply for approval under this part at any time after the promulgation of 

release detection, prevention, and corrective action regulations under § 9003 of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act.

(d) Any state program approved by the Administrator under this part shall at all times be 

conducted in accordance with the requirements of this part.

§ 281.11 - General Requirements
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 374 of 398

(a) State Program Elements. The following substantive elements of a state program must be 

addressed in a state application for approval:

(1) Requirements for all existing and new underground storage tanks:

(i) New UST systems (design, construction, installation, and notification);

(ii) Upgrading of existing UST systems;

(iii) General operating requirements;

(iv) Release detection;

(v) Release reporting, investigation, and confirmation;

(vi) Out-of-service USTs and closure;

(vii) Release response and corrective action; 

(viii) Financial responsibility for UST systems containing petroleum; and

(ix) Operator training.

(2) Provisions for adequate enforcement of compliance with the above program elements.

(b) Final Approval. The state must demonstrate that its requirements under each state 

program element for existing and new UST systems are no less stringent than the corresponding 

federal requirements as set forth in subpart C of this part. The state must also demonstrate that it 

has a program that provides adequate enforcement of compliance with these requirements.

(c) States with programs approved under this part are authorized to administer the state 

program in lieu of the federal program and will have primary enforcement responsibility with 

respect to the requirements of the approved program. EPA retains authority to take enforcement 

action in approved states as necessary and will notify the designated lead state agency of any 

such intended action.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 375 of 398

§ 281.12 - Scope and Definitions

(a) Scope

(1) The Administrator may approve either partial or complete state programs. A "partial" 

state program regulates either solely UST systems containing petroleum or solely UST systems 

containing hazardous substances. If a "partial" state program is approved, EPA will administer 

the remaining part of the program. A "complete" state program regulates both petroleum and 

hazardous substance tanks.

(2) EPA will administer the UST program in Indian country, except where Congress has 

clearly expressed an intention to grant a state authority to regulate petroleum and hazardous 

substance USTs in Indian country. In either case, this decision will not impair a state's ability to 

obtain program approval for petroleum and/or hazardous substances in non-Indian country in 

accordance with this part.

(3) Nothing in this subpart precludes a state from:

(i) Adopting or enforcing requirements that are more stringent or more extensive than those 

required under this part; or

(ii) Operating a program with a greater scope of coverage than that required under this part. 

Where an approved state program has a greater scope of coverage than required by federal law, 

the additional coverage is not part of the federally-approved program.

(b) Definitions

(1) The definitions in part 280 apply to this entire part.

(2) For the purposes of this part the term "final approval" means the approval received by a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 376 of 398

state program that meets the requirements in § 281.11(b).

SUBPART B - COMPONENTS OF A PROGRAM APPLICATION

§ 281.20 - Program Application

Any state that seeks to administer a program under this part must submit an application 

containing the following parts:

(a) A transmittal letter from the Governor of the state requesting program approval;

(b) A description in accordance with § 281.21 of the state program and operating procedures;

(c) A demonstration of the state's procedures to ensure adequate enforcement;

(d) A schedule for obtaining needed authorities under interim approval, where applicable;

(e) A Memorandum of Agreement outlining roles and responsibilities of EPA and the

implementing agency;

(f) An Attorney General's statement in accordance with § 281.25 certifying to 

applicable state authorities; and

(g) Copies of all applicable state statutes and regulations.

Note to § 281.20: EPA has designed an optional application form that is available for use by 

state applicants.

§ 281.21 - Description of State Program

A state seeking to administer a program under this part must submit a description of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 377 of 398

program it proposes to administer under state law in lieu of the federal program. The description 

of a state's existing or planned program must include:

(a) The scope of the state program: 

(1) whether the state program regulates UST systems containing petroleum or hazardous 

substances, or both; 

(2) whether the state is applying for interim or final approval; 

(3) whether the state program is more stringent or broader in scope than the federal program, 

and in what ways; and 

(4) whether the state has any existing authority over Indian lands or has existing agreements 

with Indian tribes relevant to the regulation of underground storage tanks.

(b) The organization and structure of the state and local agencies with responsibility for 

administering the program. The jurisdiction and responsibilities of all state and local 

implementing agencies must be delineated, appropriate procedures for coordination set forth, and 

one state agency designated as a "lead agency" to facilitate communications between EPA and 

the state.

(c) Staff resources to carry out and enforce the required state program elements, both existing 

and planned, including the number of employees, agency where employees are located, general 

duties of the employees, and current limits or restrictions on hiring or utilization of staff.

(d) An existing state funding mechanism to meet the estimated costs of administering and 

enforcing the required state program elements, and any restrictions or limitations upon this 

funding.

§ 281.22 - Procedures for Adequate Enforcement
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 378 of 398

A state must submit a description of its compliance monitoring and enforcement procedures, 

including related state administrative or judicial review procedures.

§ 281.23 - Memorandum of Agreement

EPA and the approved state will negotiate a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) containing 

proposed areas of coordination and shared responsibilities between the state and EPA and 

separate EPA and state roles and responsibilities in areas including, but not limited to: 

implementation of partial state programs; enforcement; compliance monitoring; EPA oversight; 

and sharing and reporting of information. At the time of approval, the MOA must be signed by

the Regional Administrator and the appropriate official of the state lead agency.

§ 281.24 - Attorney General's Statement

(a) A state must submit a written demonstration from the Attorney General that the laws and 

regulations of the state provide adequate authority to carry out the program described under § 

281.21 and to meet other requirements of this part. This statement may be signed by

independent legal counsel for the state rather than the Attorney General, provided that such 

counsel has full authority to independently represent the state Agency in court on all matters 

pertaining to the state program. This statement must include citations to the specific statutes,

administrative regulations, and where appropriate, judicial decisions that demonstrate adequate 

authority to regulate and enforce requirements for UST systems. State statutes and regulations 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 379 of 398

cited by the state Attorney General must be fully effective when the program is approved.

(b) If a state currently has authority over underground storage tank activities on Indian 

country, the statement must contain an appropriate analysis of the state's authority.

SUBPART C – CRITERIA FOR NO LESS STRINGENT

§ 281.30 - New UST System Design, Construction, Installation, and Notification

In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal requirements for 

new UST system design, construction, installation, and notification, the state must have 

requirements that ensure all new underground storage tanks, and the attached piping in contact 

with the ground and used to convey the regulated substance stored in the tank, conform to the 

following:

(a) Be designed, constructed, and installed in a manner that will prevent releases for 

their operating life due to manufacturing defects, structural failure, or corrosion. Unless 

the state requires manufacturer and installer financial responsibility and installer 

certification in accordance with § 9003(i)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, then the 

state must meet the following:

(1) Tanks and piping replaced or installed after the state’s submission of its state 

program approval or revision application must use interstitial monitoring within 

secondary containment in accordance with § 9003(i)(1) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

(2) Motor fuel dispenser systems installed and connected to an UST system after the 

state’s submission of its state program approval or revisions application must be equipped 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 380 of 398

with under-dispenser containment in accordance with § 9003(i)(1) of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act.

Note to paragraph (a): Codes of practice developed by nationally-recognized 

organizations and national independent testing laboratories may be used to demonstrate

that the state program requirements are no less stringent in this area.;

(b) Be provided with equipment to prevent spills and tank overfills when new tanks are 

installed or existing tanks are upgraded, unless the tank does not receive more than 25 gallons at 

one time. Flow restrictors used in vent lines are not allowable forms of overfill prevention when 

overfill prevention is installed or replaced after the state applies for state program approval or 

revision.

(c) All UST system owners and operators must notify the implementing state agency of the 

existence of any new UST system and adequately notify the implementing state agency within a 

reasonable timeframe when assuming ownership of an UST system using a form designated by

the state agency.

§ 281.31 - Upgrading UST Systems

In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal upgrading 

requirements, the state must have requirements that ensure UST systems installed prior to the 

state applying for state program approval or revision meet the requirements of § 281.30; are 

upgraded to prevent releases for their operating life due to corrosion, and spills, and overfills; or 

are permanently closed with the following exceptions:

(a) Upgrade Requirements for Previously Deferred UST Systems. Previously deferred
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 381 of 398

wastewater treatment tank systems, airport hydrant fuel distribution systems, and UST systems 

with field-constructed tanks where installation commenced before the state’s submission of its 

state program approval or revision application must, within three years of the effective date of 

this section, as amended, or prior to the state’s submission of its state program approval or 

revision application, whichever date is later, meet the requirements of § 281.30 or be 

permanently closed.

(b) Upgrade Requirements for Other UST Systems. States may allow UST systems to be 

upgraded if the state determines that the upgrade is appropriate to prevent releases for the 

operating life of the UST system due to corrosion and spill or overfills.

§ 281.32 - General Operating Requirements

In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal general operating 

requirements, the state must have requirements that ensure all new and existing UST systems 

conform to the following:

(a) Prevent spills and overfills by ensuring that the space in the tank is sufficient to 

receive the volume to be transferred and that the transfer operation is monitored 

constantly;

(b) Where equipped with cathodic protection, be operated and maintained by a person with 

sufficient training and experience in preventing corrosion, and in a manner that ensures that no 

releases occur during the operating life of the UST system;

Note to paragraph (b): Codes of practice developed by nationally-recognized organizations 

and national independent testing laboratories may be used to demonstrate the state program 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 382 of 398

requirements are no less stringent.

(c) Be made of or lined with materials that are compatible with the substance stored;

(d) At the time of upgrade or repair, be structurally sound and upgraded or 

repaired in a manner that will prevent releases due to structural failure or corrosion 

during their operating lives;

(e) Have spill and overfill prevention equipment periodically tested in a manner 

and frequency that ensures its functionality for the operating life of the equipment 

and have the integrity of secondary containment periodically tested in a manner and 

frequency that prevents releases during the operating life of the UST system, except 

on equipment not required to be tested by 40 CFR part 280. 

(f) Have operation and maintenance walkthrough inspections periodically 

conducted in a manner and frequency that ensures proper operation and maintenance 

for the operating life of the UST system.

(g) Have records of monitoring, testing, repairs, and operation and maintenance 

walkthrough inspections. These records must be made readily available when 

requested by the implementing agency.

§ 281.33 - Release Detection 

In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal requirements for 

release detection, the state must have requirements that at a minimum ensure all UST systems are 

provided with release detection that conforms to the following:

(a) General Methods. Release detection requirements for owners and operators must consist 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 383 of 398

of a method, or combination of methods, that is: 

(1) Capable of detecting a release of the regulated substance from any portion of the UST 

system that routinely contains regulated substances -- as effectively as any of the methods 

allowed under the federal technical standards -- for as long as the UST system is in operation. In 

comparing methods, the implementing agency shall consider the size of release that the method 

can detect and the speed and reliability with which the release can be detected.

(2) Designed, installed, calibrated, operated and maintained so that releases will 

be detected in accordance with the capabilities of the method;

(3) Operated and maintained, and electronic and mechanical components are 

tested periodically, in a manner and frequency that ensures proper operation to detect 

releases for the operating life of the release detection equipment.

(b) Phase-in of requirements. Release detection requirements must, at a minimum, be applied 

at all UST systems, except for UST systems previously deferred under § 280.10(a)(1), prior to 

the state’s submission of its state program approval or revision application. Release detection 

requirements must, at a minimum, be scheduled to be applied to previously deferred UST 

systems as follows:

(1) Immediately when a new previously deferred UST system is installed, and

(2) For any wastewater treatment tank system, airport hydrant fuel distribution system, or 

UST system with field constructed tanks installed prior to the state’s submission of its state 

program approval or revision application, within three years of the effective date of this section, 

as amended, or prior to the state’s submission of its state program approval or revision 

application, whichever date is later.

(3) For any UST system that stores fuel solely for the use of emergency power generators that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 384 of 398

was installed prior to the state’s submission of its state program approval or revision application, 

within one year of the effective date of this section, as amended, or prior to the state’s 

submission of its state program approval or revision application, whichever date is later.

(c) Requirements for Petroleum Tanks. All petroleum tanks must meet the following 

requirements:

(1) All petroleum tanks must be sampled, tested, or checked for releases at least monthly, 

except that tanks (that is, tanks and piping protected from releases due to corrosion and equipped 

with both spill and overfill prevention devices) installed prior to the state’s submission of its 

State Program Approval or revision application may temporarily use monthly inventory control 

(or its equivalent) in combination with tightness testing (or its equivalent) conducted every five 

years for the first 10 years after the tank is installed; and

(2) New or replaced petroleum tanks must use interstitial monitoring within secondary

containment in accordance with § 9003(i)(1) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act except when the 

state requires manufacturer and installer financial responsibility and installer certification in 

accordance with § 9003(i)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

(d) Requirements for Petroleum Piping. All underground piping attached to the tank that 

routinely conveys petroleum must conform to the following:

(1) If the petroleum is conveyed under greater than atmospheric pressure:

(i) The piping must be equipped with release detection that detects a release within an hour by

restricting or shutting off flow or sounding an alarm; and

(ii) The piping must have monthly monitoring applied or annual tightness tests conducted.

(2) If suction lines are used: (i) tightness tests must be conducted at least once every 3 years, 

unless a monthly method of detection is applied to this piping; or (ii) the piping is designed to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 385 of 398

allow the contents of the pipe to drain back into the storage tank if the suction is released and is 

also designed to allow an inspector to immediately determine the integrity of the piping system.

(3) New or replaced petroleum piping must use interstitial monitoring within secondary

containment in accordance with § 9003(i)(1) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act except when the 

state requires evidence of financial responsibility and certification in accordance with § 

9003(i)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

(e) Requirements for Hazardous Substance UST Systems. All hazardous substance UST 

systems must use interstitial monitoring within secondary containment of the tanks and the 

attached underground piping that conveys the regulated substance stored in the tank. For 

hazardous substance UST systems installed prior to the state’s submission of its state program 

approval or revision application, owners and operators can use another form of release detection 

if the owner and operator can demonstrate to the state (or the state otherwise determines) that 

another method will detect a release of the regulated substance as effectively as other methods 

allowed under the state program for petroleum UST systems and that effective corrective action 

technology is available for the hazardous substance being stored that can be used to protect 

human health and the environment.

§ 281.34 - Release Reporting, Investigation and Confirmation

In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal requirements for 

release reporting, investigation, and confirmation, the state must have requirements that ensure 

all owners and operators conform with the following: 

(a) Promptly investigate all suspected releases, including:
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 386 of 398

(1) when unusual operating conditions, release detection signals and environmental 

conditions at the site suggest a release of regulated substances may have occurred or the 

interstitial space may have been compromised; and

(2) when required by the implementing agency to determine the source of a release having an 

impact in the surrounding area; and

(b) promptly report all confirmed underground releases and any spills and overfills that are 

not contained and cleaned up.

(c) ensure that all owners and operators contain and clean up unreported spills and overfills 

in a manner that will protect human health and the environment.

§ 281.35 - Release Response and Corrective Action

In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal requirements for 

release response and corrective action, the state must have requirements that ensure:

(a) All releases from UST systems are promptly assessed and further releases are stopped;

(b) Actions are taken to identify, contain and mitigate any immediate health and safety threats 

that are posed by a release (such activities include investigation and initiation of free product 

removal, if present);

(c) All releases from UST systems are investigated to determine if there are impacts on soil 

and ground water, and any nearby surface waters. The extent of soil and ground-water 

contamination must be delineated when a potential threat to human health and the environment 

exists.

(d) All releases from UST systems are cleaned up through soil and ground water remediation 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 387 of 398

and any other steps, as necessary to protect human health and the environment;

(e) Adequate information is made available to the state to demonstrate that corrective actions 

are taken in accordance with the requirements of (a) - (d) above. This information must be 

submitted in a timely manner that demonstrates its technical adequacy to protect human health 

and the environment; and

(f) In accordance with § 280.67, the state must notify the affected public of all 

confirmed releases requiring a plan for soil and ground water remediation, and upon 

request provide or make available information to inform the interested public of the 

nature of the release and the corrective measures planned or taken.

§ 281.36 - Out-of-Service UST Systems and Closure

In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal requirements for 

temporarily closed UST systems and permanent closure, the state must have requirements that 

ensure UST systems conform with the following:

(a) Removal from Service. All new and existing UST systems temporarily closed must:

(1) continue to comply with general operating requirements, release reporting and 

investigation, and release response and corrective action;

(2) continue to comply with release detection requirements if regulated substances are stored 

in the tank; 

(3) be closed off to outside access; and

(4) be permanently closed if the UST system has not been protected from corrosion and has 

not been used in one year, unless the state approves an extension after the owner and operator 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 388 of 398

conducts a site assessment.

(b) Permanent Closure of UST Systems. All tanks and piping must be cleaned and 

permanently closed in a manner that eliminates the potential for safety hazards and any future 

releases. The owner or operator must notify the state of permanent UST system closures. The 

site must also be assessed to determine if there are any present or were past releases, and if so, 

release response and corrective action requirements must be complied with.

(c) All UST systems taken out of service before the effective date of the federal regulations 

must permanently close in accordance with (b) when directed by the implementing agency.

§ 281.37 Financial Responsibility for UST Systems Containing Petroleum

(a) In order to be considered no less stringent than the federal requirements for financial 

responsibility for UST systems containing petroleum, the state requirements for financial 

responsibility for petroleum UST systems must ensure that: (1) owners and operators have $1 

million per occurrence for corrective action and third-party claims in a timely manner to protect 

human health and the environment; (2) owners and operators not engaged in petroleum 

production, refining, and marketing and who handle a throughput of 10,000 gallons of petroleum 

per month or less have $500,000 per occurrence for corrective action and third-party claims in a 

timely manner to protect human health and the environment; (3) owners and operators of 1 to 

100 petroleum USTs must have an annual aggregate of $1 million; and (4) owners and operators 

of 101 or more petroleum USTs must have an annual aggregate of $2 million. 

(b) States may allow the use of a wide variety of financial assurance mechanisms to meet this 

requirement. Each financial mechanism must meet the following criteria in order to be no less 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 389 of 398

stringent than the federal requirements. The mechanism must: be valid and enforceable; be 

issued by a provider that is qualified or licensed in the state; not permit cancellation without 

allowing the state to draw funds; ensure that funds will only and directly be used for corrective 

action and third party liability costs; and require that the provider notify the owner or operator of 

any circumstances that would impair or suspend coverage.

(c) States must require owners and operators to maintain records that demonstrate 

compliance with the state financial responsibility requirements, and these records must be made 

readily available when requested by the implementing agency.

§ 281.38 – Lender Liability

(a) A state program that contains a security interest exemption will be considered to be no 

less stringent than, and as broad in scope as, the federal program provided that the state’s 

exemption:

(1) Mirrors the security interest exemption provided for in 40 CFR part 280, subpart I; or

(2) Achieves the same effect as provided by the following key criteria:

(i) A holder, meaning a person who maintains indicia of ownership primarily to protect a 

security interest in a petroleum UST or UST system or facility or property on which a petroleum 

UST or UST system is located, who does not participate in the management of the UST or UST 

system as defined under § 280.10 of this chapter, and who does not engage in petroleum 

production, refining, and marketing as defined under § 280.200(b) of this chapter is not:

(A) An “owner” of a petroleum UST or UST system or facility or property on which a 

petroleum UST or UST system is located for purposes of compliance with the requirements of 40 

CFR part 280; or
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 390 of 398

(B) An “operator” of a petroleum UST or UST system for purposes of compliance with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 280, provided the holder is not in control of or does not have 

responsibility for the daily operation of the UST or UST system.

(ii) [Reserved]

(b) [Reserved]

§ 281.39 – Operator Training

In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal requirements for 

operator training, the state must have an operator training program that meets the minimum

requirements of § 9010 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

SUBPART D – ADEQUATE ENFORCEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

§ 281.40 - Requirements for Enforcement Authority

(a) Any state agency administering a program must have the authority to implement the 

following remedies for violations of state program requirements: 

(1) To restrain immediately and effectively any person by order or by suit in state court from 

engaging in any unauthorized activity that is endangering or causing damage to public health or 

the environment;

(2) To sue in courts of competent jurisdiction to enjoin any threatened or continuing violation 

of any program requirement;
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 391 of 398

(3) To assess or sue to recover in court civil penalties as follows:

(i) Civil penalties for failure to notify or for submitting false information pursuant to tank 

notification requirements must be capable of being assessed up to $5,000 or more per violation.

(ii) Civil penalties for failure to comply with any state requirements or standards for existing 

or new tank systems must be capable of being assessed for each instance of violation, up to 

$5,000 or more for each tank for each day of violation. If the violation is continuous, civil 

penalties shall capable of being assessed up to $5,000 or more for each day of violation.

(4) To prohibit the delivery, deposit, or acceptance of a regulated substance into an 

underground storage tank identified by the state to be ineligible for such delivery, deposit, or 

acceptance in accordance with § 9012 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

(b) The burden of proof and degree of knowledge or intent required under state law for 

establishing violations under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, must be no greater than the burden 

of proof or degree of knowledge or intent that EPA must provide when it brings an action under 

Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

(c) A civil penalty assessed, sought, or agreed upon by the state enforcement agency(ies) 

under paragraph (a)(3) of this section must be appropriate to the violation.

§ 281.41 - Requirements for Enforcement Authority

(a) Any state agency administering a program must have the authority to implement the 

following remedies for violations of state program requirements: 

(1) To restrain immediately and effectively any person by order or by suit in state court from 

engaging in any unauthorized activity that is endangering or causing damage to public health or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 392 of 398

the environment;

(2) To sue in courts of competent jurisdiction to enjoin any threatened or continuing violation 

of any program requirement;

(3) To assess or sue to recover in court civil penalties as follows:

(i) Civil penalties for failure to notify or for submitting false information pursuant to tank 

notification requirements must be capable of being assessed up to $5,000 or more per violation.

(ii) Civil penalties for failure to comply with any state requirements or standards for existing 

or new tank systems must be capable of being assessed for each instance of violation, up to 

$5,000 or more for each tank for each day of violation. If the violation is continuous, civil 

penalties shall capable of being assessed up to $5,000 or more for each day of violation.

(b) The burden of proof and degree of knowledge or intent required under state law for 

establishing violations under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, must be no greater than the burden 

of proof or degree of knowledge or intent that EPA must provide when it brings an action under 

Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

(c) A civil penalty assessed, sought, or agreed upon by the state enforcement agency(ies) 

under paragraph (a)(3) of this section must be appropriate to the violation.

§ 281.42 - Requirements for Public Participation

Any state administering a program must provide for public participation in the state 

enforcement process by providing any one of the following three options: 

(a) Authority that allows intervention analogous to Federal Rule 24(a)(2), and assurance by 

the appropriate state enforcement agency that it will not oppose intervention under the state 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 393 of 398

analogue to Rule 24(a)(2) on the ground that the applicant's interest is adequately represented by

the State.

(b) Authority that allows intervention as of right in any civil action to obtain the remedies 

specified in 281.41 by any citizen having an interest that is or may be adversely affected; or

(c) Assurance by the appropriate state agency that:

(1) It will provide notice and opportunity for public comment on all proposed settlements of 

civil enforcement actions (except where immediate action is necessary to adequately protect 

human health and the environment);

(2) It will investigate and provide responses to citizen complaints about violations; and 

(3) It will not oppose citizen intervention when permissive intervention is allowed by statute, 

rule, or regulation.

§ 281.43 - Sharing of Information

(a) States with approved programs must furnish EPA, upon request, any 

information in state files obtained or used in the administration of the state program. 

This information includes:

(1) Any information submitted to the state under a claim of confidentiality. The 

state must submit that claim to EPA when providing such information. Any

information obtained from a state and subject to a claim of confidentiality will be 

treated in accordance with federal regulations in 40 CFR part 2; and

(2) Any information that is submitted to the state without a claim of 

confidentiality. EPA may make this information available to the public without 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 394 of 398

further notice.

(b) EPA must furnish to states with approved programs, upon request, any 

information in EPA files that the state needs to administer its approved state 

program. Such information includes:

(1)Any information that is submitted to EPA without a claim of confidentiality; 

and

(2) Any information submitted to EPA under a claim of confidentiality, subject to 

the conditions in 40 CFR part 2.

SUBPART E - APPROVAL PROCEDURES

§ 281.50 - Approval Procedures for State Programs

(a) The following procedures are required for all applications, regardless of whether the 

application is for a partial or complete program, as defined in § 281.12, or final approval in 

accordance with § 281.11.

(b) Before submitting an application to EPA for approval of a state program, the state must 

provide an opportunity for public notice and comment in the development of its underground 

storage tank program.

(c) When EPA receives a state program application, EPA will examine the application and 

notify the state whether its application is complete, in accordance with the application 

components required in § 281.20. The 180-day statutory review period begins only after EPA 

has determined that a complete application has been received.
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 395 of 398

(d) The state and EPA may by mutual agreement extend the review period.

(e) After receipt of a complete program application, the Administrator will tentatively

determine approval or disapproval of the state program. EPA shall issue public notice of the 

tentative determination in the Federal Register; in enough of the largest newspapers in the state 

to attract statewide attention; and to persons on the state agency mailing list and any other 

persons who the agency has reason to believe are interested. Notice of the tentative 

determination must also:

(1) Afford the public 30 days after the notice to comment on the state's application and the 

Administrator's tentative determination; and

(2) Include a general statement of the areas of concern, if the Administrator indicates the state 

program may not be approved; and

(3) Note the availability for inspection by the public of the state program application; and

(4) Indicate that a public hearing will be held by EPA no earlier than 30 days after notice of 

the tentative determination unless insufficient public interest is expressed, at which time the 

Regional Administrator may cancel the public hearing.

(f) Within 180 days of receipt of a complete state program application, the Administrator 

must make a final determination whether to approve the state program after review of all public 

comments. EPA will give notice of its determination in the Federal Register and codify the 

approved state program. The notice must include a statement of the reasons for this 

determination and a response to significant comments received.

§ 281.51 - Revision of Approved State Programs
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 396 of 398

(a) Either EPA or the approved state may initiate program revision. Program revision may be 

necessary when the controlling federal or state statutory or regulatory authority is changed or 

when responsibility for the state program is shifted to a new agency or agencies. The state must 

inform EPA of any proposed modifications to its basic statutory or regulatory authority or 

change in division of responsibility among state agencies. EPA will determine in each case 

whether a revision of the approved program is required. Approved state programs must submit a 

revised application within three years of any changes to this part that requires a program 

revision.

(b) Whenever the Administrator has reason to believe that circumstances have changed with 

respect to an approved state program or the federal program, the Administrator may request, and 

the state must provide, a revised application as prescribed by EPA.

(c) The Administrator will approve or disapprove program revisions based on the 

requirements of this part and of Subtitle I pursuant to the procedures under this section, or under 

§ 281.50 if EPA has reason to believe the proposed revision will receive significant negative 

comment from the public.

(1) The Administrator must issue public notice of planned approval or disapproval of a state 

program revision in the Federal Register; in enough of the largest newspapers in the state to 

attract statewide attention; and by mailing to persons on the state agency mailing list and to any

other persons who the agency has reason to believe are interested. The public notice must 

summarize the state program revision, indicate whether EPA intends to approve or disapprove 

the revision, and provide for an opportunity to comment for a period of 30 days.

(2) The Administrator's decision on the proposed revision becomes effective 60 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal Register in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 397 of 398

unless significant negative comment opposing the proposed revision is received during the 

comment period. If significant negative comment is received, EPA must notify the state and 

within 60 days after the date of publication, publish in the Federal Register either:

 (i) A withdrawal of the immediate final decision, which will then be treated as a tentative 

decision in accordance with the applicable procedures of § 281.50(e) and (f); or

(ii) A notice that contains a response to significant negative comments and affirms either that 

the immediate final decision takes effect or reverses the decision.

(d) Revised state programs that receive approval must be codified in the Federal Register.

SUBPART F - WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL OF STATE PROGRAMS

§ 281.60 - Criteria for Withdrawal of Approval of State Programs

The Administrator may withdraw program approval when the Agency determines that a state 

no longer has adequate regulatory or statutory authority or is not administering and enforcing an 

approved program in accordance with this part. The state must have adequate capability to 

administer and enforce the state program. In evaluating whether such capability exists, the 

Agency will consider whether the state is implementing an adequate enforcement program by

evaluating the quality of compliance monitoring and enforcement actions.

§ 281.61 - Procedures for Withdrawal of Approval of State Programs

(a) The following procedures apply when a state with an approved program voluntarily 
*** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 398 of 398

transfers to EPA those program responsibilities required by federal law. 

(1) The state must give EPA notice of the proposed transfer, and submit, at least 90 days 

before the transfer, a plan for the orderly transfer of all relevant program information necessary 

for EPA to administer the program.

(2) Within 30 days of receiving the state's transfer plan, EPA must evaluate the plan and 

identify any additional information needed by the federal government for program 

administration.

(3) At least 30 days before the transfer is to occur, EPA must publish notice of the transfer in 

the Federal Register; in enough of the largest newspapers in the state to attract statewide 

attention; and to persons on appropriate state mailing lists.

(b) The following procedures apply when the Administrator considers withdrawing approval.

(1) When EPA begins proceedings to determine whether to withdraw approval of a state 

program (either on its own initiative or in response to a petition from an interested person), 

withdrawal proceedings will be conducted in accordance with procedures set out in 40 CFR 

271.23(b) and (c), except for § 271.23(b)(8)(iii) to the extent that it deviates from requirements 

under § 281.60.

(2) If the state fails to take appropriate action within a reasonable time, not to exceed 120 

days after notice from the Administrator that the state is not administering and enforcing its 

program in accordance with the requirements of this part, EPA will withdraw approval of the 

state’s program.