Prentiss E. Searles, CAE

Marketing Issues Manager, Downstream

1220 L Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005-4070

USA

Telephone 202-682-8227

Fax 202-682-8051

Email searlesp@api.org

www.api.org

May 31, 2012

Ms. Carolyn Hoskinson

Director

EPA OUST

Mail Code 5401P

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20460

Re: Meeting with OUST concerning API’s Comments on EPA’s Proposed Revisions to the 

Underground Storage Tank Regulations

Dear Ms. Hoskinson:

Thank you for making yourself and your staff available to meet with American Petroleum Institute (API)

staff and representatives from API member companies on May 23, 2012. We appreciate the 

opportunity to discuss with you and your staff API’s comments on the proposed revisions to the abovereferenced proposed rule. As we conveyed during the meeting, API’s priority concerns are OUST’s 

proposed changes to the compatibility requirements for UST systems, secondary containment testing 

for underground piping, and the elimination of the deferral for wastewater treatment tanks. 

Regarding OUST’s proposed compatibility requirements, API believes that our proposal does not 

augment the stringency of OUST’s existing requirements, but instead maintains the protections for 

human health and environmental safety that the existing requirements provide. Authorities having 

jurisdiction have historically enforced the current 40 CFR 280 regulations by requiring listings by a 

nationally-recognized testing laboratory or third-party certification to verify compatibility with the fuels 

stored. As API stated during the meeting, OUST’s proposal significantly weakens this historical 

precedent by equating a manufacturer’s certification of compatibility with that of a listing or third-party. 

Never before has first-party certification been an acceptable substitute for a listing or third-party 

certification because of the inherent conflicts of interest. OUST’s proposal ignores this historical 

precedent, and thus relaxes the compatibility standards and sends the message to other federal and 

state regulators that listings or third-party certifications are no longer necessary. API strongly opposes 

this message and urges OUST to require that manufacturers provide empirical information that is 

substantially similar to the data used by a nationally-recognized testing laboratory to approve the use of 

UST systems.

In addition, API disagrees with EPA’s proposed requirement to test the secondary containment systems 

of currently installed piping. Each of the three options EPA offers to satisfy the testing requirement are 

insufficient and will result in unnecessary and costly large scale replacement of underground piping 

systems at retail stations across the country. Finally, API believes that EPA’s proposals to eliminate the 

wastewater treatment tank deferral should not be adopted. Because EPA acknowledges that, “[it] is 

uncertain about how many wastewater treatment tank systems exist,” API suggests that EPA adequately 
inventory these systems that they believe would be subject to these UST requirements as a result of this 

rulemaking prior to imposing costly and onerous requirements on them.

API appreciates your consideration of our comments and will be happy to answer any further questions 

you may have on our proposals. 

Sincerely,

Prentiss E. Searles

cc: Mark Barolo, Deputy Director