12630 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 281

[FRL–5166–9]

Iowa; Final Approval of State

Underground Storage Tank Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of final determination on

Iowa’s application for final approval.

SUMMARY: The State of Iowa has applied

for final approval of its underground

storage tank (UST) program under

Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA). The

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

has reviewed Iowa’s application and has

reached a final determination that

Iowa’s underground storage tank

program satisfies all of the requirements

necessary to qualify for final approval.

Thus, EPA is granting final approval to

the State of Iowa to operate its program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Final approval for Iowa

shall be effective at 1:00 pm eastern

time on May 8, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee

Daniels, Coordinator, Underground

Storage Tank Section, EPA Region 7,

726 Minnesota Ave., Kansas City,

Kansas, 66101. Phone: (913) 551–7651.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Section 9004 of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

enables EPA to approve state UST

programs to operate in the state in lieu

of the Federal UST program. To qualify

for final authorization, a state’s program

must be: (1) ‘‘No less stringent’’ than the

Federal program in leak detection,

maintaining records, release reporting,

corrective action, tank closure, financial

responsibility, new tank standards and

the notification requirements of Section

9004(a)(8) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.

6991c(a)(8); and (2) provide for adequate

enforcement (Section 9004(a) of RCRA,

42 U.S.C. 6991c(a)).

B. State of Iowa

On March 17, 1994, Iowa submitted

an application for ‘‘complete’’ program

approval. On April 25, 1994, Iowa

submitted H.F. 2118 which amended

Iowa Code § 455B.471(6) for inclusion

in the application. This bill amended

the definition of an ‘‘owner’’ of an

underground storage tank and provided

the conditions under which a ‘‘lender’’

might be exempted from that definition.

Also, on June 7, 1994 Iowa modified its

application so that it is not seeking

authorization over Indian lands.

Together, these comprise the Iowa

application. The Iowa program provides

for regulation of both petroleum and

hazardous substance tanks. Iowa also

regulates farm/residential tanks of 1,100

gallons or less capacity. However, this

part of the Iowa program is broader in

scope than the Federal program and is

not included in this final approval. On

August 9, 1994, EPA published a

tentative decision announcing its intent

to grant Iowa final approval. Further

background on the tentative decision to

grant approval appears at 59 FR 40507,

August 9, 1994.

Along with the tentative

determination, EPA announced the

availability of the application for public

comment. Also, EPA provided notice

that a public hearing would be provided

only if significant public interest on

substantive issues was shown. EPA did

receive significant comments on the

application and a public hearing was

held on December 1, 1994 in Des

Moines, Iowa.

C. Public Comments and Hearing

The following summarizes the

comments and responds to the

significant issues raised by those

comments.

Twenty-three written comments were

received during the public comment

period, which ran from August 9, 1994,

when the tentative program approval

notice was published, until December 9,

1994. Nine commenters spoke at the

public hearing. Commenters included

owners of USTs, an association of

petroleum marketers, an association of

trucking companies and service

providers to trucking companies, local

government officials and the Iowa

Department of Natural Resources

(IDNR). The Iowa Comprehensive

Petroleum Underground Storage Tank

Fund provided a written comment

following the public hearing.

The majority of comments concerned

four major issues: (1) Whether the IDNR

adequately enforces the financial

responsibility requirements applicable

to UST owners, (2) whether the IDNR

adequately enforces the leak detection

requirements applicable to UST owners,

(3) whether the IDNR wastes resources

for site assessments instead of actual

cleanups, and (4) whether the IDNR

should use risk-based cleanup

standards.

Other commenters stated that owners

who timely comply with the UST

requirements are competitively

disadvantaged when the IDNR does not

enforce the rules for everyone, or when

compliance deadlines are moved.

Others criticized the IDNR for specific

cleanup requirements imposed on sites

which they owned. The IDNR was

criticized for the high costs of site

assessments and the costs of complying

with the IDNR requirements for longterm monitoring after contaminated

soils were removed. One commenter

cited an example of contamination that

recurred after a cleanup due to

fluctuating water tables. Others cited

diminished property values and lost

economic development due to

contamination.

While some of the commenters

requested that the EPA deny program

approval, the petroleum marketers

association echoed the four major

comments above but specifically

requested approval of the Iowa program.

However, the marketers association did

request that the EPA continue providing

the IDNR technical and administrative

assistance to improve enforcement of

UST regulations and the adoption of

risk-based cleanup standards. The

trucking association criticized the IDNR

for wasting resources without doing

enough cleanups and for not using riskbased cleanup standards, but did not

request denial of program approval.

At the public hearing and in a written

comment, the IDNR specifically

addressed the four major issues

identified above. However, not all of

those four issues are within the scope of

the EPA’s review for state program

approval. For the EPA the sole concerns

are whether the state has the legal

authorities, the program capability to

meet the objectives of the federal UST

requirements and provides adequate

enforcement of compliance. Thus, even

though the EPA encourages the effective

use of state cleanup funds, such funds

are not required elements for state

program approval and Iowa’s

administration of its state cleanup fund

was not reviewed by the EPA for

program approval. Similarly, while the

EPA encourages states to use risk-based

decision-making in the corrective action

process, there is no federal requirement

for state program approval for any

particular methodology. Nonetheless, in

order to fully address the public’s

concerns the EPA has included in this

responsiveness summary the IDNR’s

response to each of the major issues.

With respect to enforcement of the

leak detection and financial

responsibility requirements, the IDNR

noted that the state’s UST requirements

follow the federal requirements. The

federal UST regulation does not require

compliance reporting by the owner to

the regulating agency, but only that leak

detection and financial responsibility

records be kept on-site or reasonably

accessible. Therefore, for the IDNR the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 12631

only clear mechanism to enforce those

requirements is on-site inspections of

each facility. The IDNR has established

an abbreviated enforcement procedure

to deal with those specific violations, so

that a large number of enforcement

actions can be undertaken in a relatively

short period of time. With its available

resources, the IDNR performs over 400

on-site inspections each year.

In response to the comments alleging

waste of cleanup resources, the IDNR

attributed many of the public concerns

to difficulties the agency has had in

identifying the soil and groundwater

contamination, and the resulting failure

of nearly every remediation system that

was installed. As a result, the IDNR is

now requiring more detailed

assessments of contaminated sites to

determine the risks and necessary

actions, and to provide assurance that

the remediation will be successful.

Concerning risk assessment, the IDNR

commented that since 1992 it has been

applying a risk-based assessment to set

the appropriate standards to protect

human health and the environment, and

was one of the first states in the nation

to do so. Since then, 43 percent of

assessed sites have been required to

perform some form of remediation, and

57 percent have been allowed to either

do nothing or to monitor only. There

has been a continuous effort to improve

on and reduce the amount of

remediation required.

In response to the above comments,

the EPA notes that none of the

comments identified any problems with

the scope of the Iowa UST program or

whether the Iowa regulations are less

stringent than the federal requirements.

Although some commenters identified

problems with the adequacy of

enforcement of the leak detection and

financial responsibility requirements,

the EPA is satisfied that the IDNR is

using its available resources to

adequately enforce these requirements

and will continue taking steps to

achieve universal compliance at UST

facilities in Iowa.

Additionally, the EPA considers the

IDNR’s efforts to achieve required

cleanups to be adequate for program

approval, but acknowledges the

technical and financial difficulties in

achieving cleanups. The IDNR is making

progress in improving remediation

efficiency through more detailed site

assessments and the use of risk based

cleanup standards.

Also, the EPA acknowledges that

owners of USTs face sometimes

enormous financial challenges in

complying with the technical operating

requirements and in performing

required cleanups of contaminated sites.

However, those requirements would be

the same whether or not EPA approves

the Iowa UST program. Further, upon

approval the Iowa UST program would

operate in lieu of the federal program

and owners and operators would look

only to the Iowa set of requirements to

determine their compliance.

Finally, in response to the suggestion

that the EPA should provide technical

and administrative assistance to the

IDNR, the EPA notes that after program

approval the EPA will continue to

provide the IDNR such assistance. Also,

the EPA/State Memorandum of

Agreement that is part of the program

approval application provides for

continued information exchanges

between the EPA and the IDNR to

monitor and improve site cleanups and

enforcement activities.

D. Decision

I conclude that the State of Iowa’s

application for final approval meets all

the statutory and regulatory

requirements established by Subtitle I of

RCRA. Accordingly, Iowa is granted

final approval to operate its UST

program. The State of Iowa now has the

responsibility for managing all regulated

UST facilities within its borders and

carrying out all aspects of the UST

program except with regard to Indian

lands, where EPA will retain and

otherwise exercise regulatory authority.

Iowa also has primary enforcement

responsibility, although EPA retains the

right to conduct inspections under

Section 9005 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991d,

and to take enforcement actions under

Section 9006 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991e.

Compliance With Executive Order

12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of Section 6 of Executive

Order 12866.

Certification Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.

605(b), I hereby certify that this

approval will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. This approval

effectively suspends the applicability of

certain Federal regulations in favor of

Iowa’s program, thereby eliminating

duplicative requirements for owners

and operators of underground storage

tanks in the state. It does not impose

any new burdens on small entities. This

rule, therefore, does not require a

regulatory flexibility analysis.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 281

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Hazardous materials, State program

approval, Underground storage tanks.

Authority: This action is issued under the

authority of Sections 2002(a), 7004(b), and

9004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6974(b), and

6991c.

Dated: February 7, 1995.

Delores Platt,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–5526 Filed 3–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 282

[FRL–5164–5]

Underground Storage Tank Program:

Approved State Program for Iowa

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Immediate final rule.

SUMMARY: The Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended

(RCRA), authorizes the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

to grant approval to states to operate

their underground storage tank

programs in lieu of the federal program.

40 CFR part 282 codifies EPA’s decision

to approve state programs and

incorporates by reference those

provisions of the state statutes and

regulations that will be subject to EPA’s

inspection and enforcement authorities

under sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA

subtitle I and other applicable statutory

and regulatory provisions. This rule

codifies in part 282 the prior approval

of Iowa’s underground storage tank

program and incorporates by reference

appropriate provisions of state statutes

and regulations.

DATES: This regulation is effective May

8, 1995, unless EPA publishes a prior

Federal Register document withdrawing

this immediate final rule. All comments

on the codification of Iowa’s

underground storage tank program must

be received by the close of business

April 6, 1995. The incorporation by

reference of certain publications listed

in the regulations is approved by the

Director of the Federal Register, as of

May 8, 1995, in accordance with 5

U.S.C. 552(a).

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

WSTM/RCRA/STPG, Underground

Storage Tank Program, U.S. EPA Region