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 M s

. Hoskinson :

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

referenced proposed rule. As we conveyed during the meeting, API’s priority conc erns 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 requirem ents 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

- part y certification been an acceptabl e 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 send s the message to other federal and state regulat ors 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
sub stantially similar to the data used by a nationally

- recognized testing labor atory 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 adequatelyinventory 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