Source: http://www.epa.gov/OUST/fedlaws/pre2804f.htm
Timestamp: 2013-05-22 13:51:37
Document Index: 310732811

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§\n280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§\n280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§\n280', '§ 280', '§\n280', '§\n280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§\n280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§\n280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§\n280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§\n280', '§ 280', '§\n280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 280']

directed by the implementing agency (§ 280.62 and
280.63), and the additional site-characterization and
cleanup steps that may be required of UST owners and
operators if certain site conditions exist or that may be
required by the implementing agency (§ 280.64 through
280.66). EPA notes, however, that section 9008 of RCRA
enables state and local regulation to be more stringent than
the federal UST program. Thus, even if EPA removed
discretion from the federal rules, EPA would not have the
authority to prevent implementing agencies from imposing
more extensive requirements than EPA under state or local
Commenters expressed concerns that cleanup of soil and
ground water may be delayed due to lengthy reviews of the
corrective action plans by the implementing agencies or by
uncooperative owners and operators. In response, EPA has
made two changes in the final rule. First, EPA has added the
phrase "as appropriate" preceding the list of factors that
the implementing agency must consider when reviewing a
corrective action plan in § 280.66(b). This change
makes it clear that the implementing agency need not
formally consider all these factors if the agency determines
analysis of these factors is not necessary to ensure
protection of human health, safety, and the environment.
Second, EPA has provided that owners and operators may begin
cleanup of soil and ground water before their corrective
action plan is approved by the implementing agency subject
to conditions described in § 280.66(d).
In addition, under existing law, EPA or authorized UST
implementing agencies can intervene to respond to clean up
releases from UST systems. Under section 9003(h)(2) of RCRA,
EPA and states under cooperative agreement are authorized to
step in and take corrective actions for releases of
petroleum from USTs in situations including the following:
(1) the owner or operator fails to comply with the
established cleanup schedule; (2) there is a need to take
emergency action; (3) the cost of a corrective action
exceeds the resources supplied by the financial
responsibility mechanism provided by the owner or operator;
or (4) the owner or operator is insolvent. For a release
from a hazardous substance UST, EPA has the authority under
CERCLA to respond. States are not provided such authority
under CERCLA, but may have their own authorities under state
c. Clarification of Owner and Operator Responsibilities.
Many commenters expressed the opinion that the proposed rule
was difficult to interpret with respect to what had to be
done and by whom to comply with the federal requirements.
EPA agrees with these commenters that the language of the
proposed rule was sometimes unclear regarding the specific
responsibilities of UST owners and operators. The Agency,
therefore, has revised the final rule to make clearer which
elements of the corrective action rule are mandatory and
which are discretionary.
EPA has concluded that the following basic steps are
required to ensure an effective response to every release:
rapid notification that a release has occurred;
investigation to mitigate fire, explosion, and vapor
hazards; preventing further release of the regulated
substance from the leaking UST system; and removing free
product from the environment. These steps are required of
every owner and operator in response to an UST release;
implementing agencies may not change these requirements.
Similarly, EPA believes that the following initial site
investigation and abatement steps are usually necessary to
protect human health and the environment: estimating the
nature and quantity of the release; removing as much of the
regulated substance from the UST system as necessary to
prevent further release to the environment; and gathering
information about the locations of wells, subsurface sewer
lines, and populations surrounding the release site. Thus,
the final rule holds UST owners and operators responsible
for these actions unless the implementing agency directs
them to do otherwise in response to site-specific
The baseline requirements for initial release response
and corrective action are covered in § 280.61 through
280.63 of the final rule. As noted above, the requirements
of § 280.61 in the final rule describe mandatory
initial response measures to be taken by UST owners and
operators without exception. All UST owners and operators
are responsible for meeting the requirements of §
280.62 and 280.63, unless the implementing agency directs
them to do otherwise. Sections 280.64 and 280.65 address
those requirements for which owners and operators are
responsible if certain site conditions exist. Section 280.66
describes soil and ground-water cleanup steps that may be
initiated by the owner and operator or required at the
direction of the implementing agency.
d. Consolidation of Corrective Action Requirements for
Petroleum and Hazardous Substances. In the preamble of the
proposed rule, EPA requested comments on whether the
corrective action requirements for petroleum USTs (Subpart
F) and hazardous substance USTs (Subpart G) should be
integrated into one subpart or should remain separate (52 FR
12678). All commenters responding to this request favored
the integration of Subparts F and G; they differed only in
their suggestions to EPA on how to combine the two rules.
Today's final rule has consolidated into Subpart F all
the corrective action requirements for releases from
underground storage tank systems storing substances
regulated by Subtitle I. The title of this subpart has been
revised to make clear that it addresses both release
response and corrective action activities. As can be
inferred from the new title, an appropriate response to a
release, particularly those small in size that were caught
quickly and remedied, may not need to include long-term
corrective action, if the initial response measures
adequately protect human health and the environment.
The general applicability sections of the proposed
petroleum and hazardous substance requirements (proposed
§ 280.60 and § 280.70, respectively) have been
replaced with a single new section. This revised section
states that where RCRA Subtitle C corrective action
requirements apply to UST releases at permitted RCRA
facilities, Subtitle I corrective action requirements will
not apply. EPA has added this provision to avoid possible
duplication of requirements.
The initial abatement requirements have been retained in
the final rule. In response to commenters who preferred the
more detailed language used in proposed Subpart G, the
Agency has carried forward the language emphasizing
immediate action to prevent further releases and the
containment of visible releases to the environment. The
principal change in the initial abatement requirements
provides owners and operators and implementing agencies
greater discretion for determining the need for and timing
of contaminated soil removal and the authority to decide
appropriate soil management alternatives on a site-by-site
The proposed rule for hazardous substance USTs had no
separate section comparable to the proposed petroleum rule's
requirements for free product removal. By merging Subparts F
and G, EPA extends the free product removal requirements to
all regulated substance releases, including removal
requirements detailing precautions and other measures to
follow during recovery operations. EPA recognizes that
detection and removal of some hazardous substances can be
far more difficult than removal of petroleum free product,
especially in areas of complex hydrogeology. The Agency
believes, however, that the free product removal
requirements allow implementing agencies sufficient
flexibility to consider factors that complicate the
detection and removal of free product and to adjust the pace
of actions to remove free product accordingly.
Both proposed rules had requirements governing additional
investigations and the cleanup of contaminated soils and
ground water at UST release sites. The final rule also
contains these requirements in § 280.65 and 280.66,
which are discussed in more detail later in the next
subsection of this preamble.
Both proposed rules contained reporting requirements. The
hazardous substance rule, however, required additional
specific reporting items, such as likely migration routes
and proximity to population centers. These additional
reporting items have not been retained in the initial site
investigation requirements of Subpart F because they are
largely duplicative of the reporting requirements contained
within final § 280.63, which governs initial site
characterization. Moreover, implementing agencies continue
to have the authority to require the reporting of additional
specific information should the need arise.
The public participation requirements of both rules have
been combined into a single section of the final rule.
In writing the final rule, EPA revised proposed §
280.60 through 280.66 to clarify the release response and
corrective action steps. Most of the changes are editorial,
prompted by concerns or confusion expressed on the part of
commenters. Some substantive changes, however, were also
made in response to public comments. The following sections
discuss in detail the changes made to the proposal as
reflected in today's final rules. Issues raised by
commenters on the proposed requirements and the Agency's
consideration of these issues are also briefly discussed.
a. General (§ 280.60). Proposed § 280.60
applied the corrective action requirements of Subpart F to
all UST systems except those exempted by statute or
regulation. Owners and operators of tank systems for which
other subparts of the proposed technical standard are
deferred were nonetheless required to comply with the
Subpart F requirements in response to confirmed releases.
In the final rule, EPA has added language to clarify the
applicability of Subtitle C or Subtitle I requirements to
USTs at RCRA-permitted facilities and to avoid potential
overlap in regulatory authority. Section 280.60 of the final
rule reflects the fact that the Subtitle C corrective action
requirements under the authority of RCRA 3004(u) will apply
to many releases from UST systems located at RCRA-permitted
facilities, regardless of the regulated substance stored.
For USTs not covered by 3004(u), including facilities
without a final RCRA permit, Subtitle I corrective action
standards will apply to releases from all petroleum and
hazardous substance tanks covered under Subtitle I. UST
corrective actions underway at facilities having interim
status under RCRA may be subject to review under the RCRA
corrective action program during the development of a final
permit, and these ongoing corrective action activities may
be incorporated into the facility's RCRA permit.
b. Initial Response and Reporting Requirements (§
280.61). Proposed § 280.61 (initial abatement
requirements and procedures) has been separated into three
new sections in the final rule: initial response (§
280.61), initial abatement measures and site check (§
280.62), and initial site characterization (§ 280.63).
These sections, plus free product removal (§ 280.64),
encompass the first phase of the UST corrective action
process. As with the proposal, EPA intends these final
requirements to achieve three goals: (1) to bring UST
release sites under control with respect to immediate health
and safety hazards; (2) to stabilize the site so that
contamination will not worsen as investigations and
potentially applicable long-term cleanup plans are
considered; and (3) to be self-implementing, in that these
measures emphasize the responsibility of the owner and
operator to take quick action without awaiting direction
from the implementing agency. Thus, §§ 280.62
through 280.64 in the final rule represent the baseline
release response and corrective action requirements that are
mandatory for all UST owners and operators and all releases,
unless the implementing agency directs otherwise. The rule
has been reformatted to make this clearer. The initial
response requirements of § 280.61 are mandatory for all
owners and operators and all releases without exception. In
addition, §§ 280.60 through 280.64 have newly
added reporting sections. The new placement of these
reporting requirements clarifies the owner's and operator's
responsibilities with respect to the timing and content of
The final requirements of § 280.61 for initial
response and reporting are essentially identical to those
proposed. The primary difference is that the wording has
been changed to make unambiguous the response required
within 24 hours. These initial actions include: reporting
the confirmed release to the implementing agency; taking
immediate steps to prevent further release to the
environment; and mitigating fire, explosion, and vapor
hazards. EPA recognizes that, in some cases, it may not be
possible to complete these steps within 24 hours. For
example, it is sometimes easier to confirm that a release
has occurred than to identify the precise location of the
release from the UST system. Similarly, it may take longer
than 24 hours to adequately vent hazardous vapors from
building. In revising this section, however, EPA emphasizes
the potential urgency of a release and the responsibility of
the owner and operator to quickly respond.
c. Initial Abatement Measures and Site Check (§
280.62). In order to clarify the on-site management steps
that EPA believes are necessary to abate hazards and
stabilize the site, the Agency has grouped initial abatement
requirements into § 280.62. Two of the requirements in
this section are carried forward from those in proposed
Subpart G. First, § 280.62(a)(1) requires removal of
the regulated substance from the tank as "necessary to
prevent further release to the environment." EPA has added
this phrase to acknowledge--as some commenters pointed
out--that some situations may not require complete removal
of product from the tank (e.g., if the release is clearly
demonstrated to be from one tank that is part of a multiple
tank system). Second, § 280.62(a)(2) carries forward
the requirement to visually inspect aboveground releases or
exposed belowground releases and to prevent further
migration of the released substance into surrounding soils
and ground water (e.g., by using sorbents and berms to
control the flow of product).
Section 280.62(a)(3) has been added to clarify EPA's
proposed requirement to "mitigate fire and safety hazards."
EPA agrees with commenters who noted that these hazards may
persist or reappear beyond the initial response phase and,
thus, must be monitored and remedied throughout the cleanup
process. The new requirement also emphasizes that, if
present, these hazards may require mitigation both within
and beyond the boundaries of the UST site (e.g., in
subsurface sewer lines or nearby buildings).
The requirement in proposed § 280.62(a)(4) to remove
"visibly contaminated soil from the UST excavation zone" has
been deleted. EPA received many comments on this proposed
requirement. Most commenters expressed confusion regarding
the definition of visible soil contamination and other
concerns related to the appropriate timing and extent of
soil removal. Commenters identified cases where a strict
interpretation of the requirement (e.g., removal of slightly
discolored soils) would translate into aggressive soil
removal that would be unnecessary, technically infeasible,
and very costly. Some commenters noted that extensive soil
removal at UST sites could exacerbate problems of the
nation's limited landfill capacity, if these soils were
taken off-site for disposal. Other commenters suggested that
soil removal or treatment (beyond that which is needed to
address immediate health and safety hazards) should be
considered as part of the long-term plan for corrective
action. Many commenters suggested that EPA consider various
in situ or on-site treatment methods as alternatives to
immediate removal and disposal of contaminated soils.
EPA agrees with these commenters. In particular, EPA is
concerned that requiring immediate and extensive excavation
of contaminated soil may transfer contamination to other
media (e.g., air), may transfer risk from one site to
another, or may spread contamination at the release site
beyond its existing extent. These outcomes are inconsistent
with EPA's objective to protect human health and the
environment. Further, EPA did not intend to preclude
consideration of alternative on-site or in situ treatment
As a result, EPA has created a new § 280.62(a)(4) to
clarify the objectives of soil management that must be
undertaken during the initial phases of corrective action.
The new requirement states that UST owners and operators
must remedy hazards posed by contaminated soils that are
excavated or exposed as a result of release confirmation,
site investigation, abatement, or corrective action
measures. These hazards include vapor threats and potential
leaching of contaminants. EPA believes this new requirement
addresses concerns raised by commenters by more clearly
stating the scope and the objectives of initial soil
In contrast to the proposed requirement for soil removal,
EPA has not prescribed a specific management method. The
final rule does, however, require that any exposed soils be
managed as necessary to remedy hazards such as those
mentioned above. EPA expects there will be UST release
situations where prompt soil removal and disposal may be the
most effective option (e.g., where there are relatively
small quantities of contaminated soil in urban areas having
high potential for human exposure to vapors, and where
excavation equipment is already on-site for use in
investigating the tank system). In such situations, soil
removal may be necessary to bring the site under control
with respect to immediate threats and might also be adequate
to complete cleanup at the site. In response to commenter's
concerns that soil management not simply transfer risk, EPA
has, however, added a new requirement to the rule. If the
owner and operator choose to treat or dispose of
contaminated soils, they must comply with applicable state
and local requirements. (See also section VI.B. of today's
preamble: Relationship to Other Agency Programs.)
EPA received comments regarding the explicitness of the
proposed site investigation requirements for corrective
action, as well as for release confirmation and tank closure
activities. Some commenters requested more specificity;
others pointed out the difficulty of prescribing uniform
requirements for all sites. In response, EPA has revised the
rule (adding new §§ 280.52(b), 280.62(b) and
280.72(a)) to make consistent the site investigation
requirements for release confirmation, corrective action,
and tank closure and to avoid potential duplication of these
requirements within the rule. (See section IV.E.2.c. of this
preamble for an explanation of these site investigation
requirements.) EPA believes this revised statement of site
check responsibilities, in conjunction with the new initial
soil management requirements, addresses commenters' request
for greater clarity concerning their investigation
responsibilities without unduly restricting alternative
EPA recognizes, however, that the primary hazard posed by
contaminated soil at some sites will be as a continuing
source of ground-water contamination. EPA addresses this
concern through the final requirements for site
characterization and for delineating the extent and location
of contaminated soils (§§ 280.63 and 280.65). As
discussed later in this preamble, these investigation
results must be considered by the owners and operators and
by the implementing agency with respect to site-specific
exposure potential and effects on ground-water resources.
EPA believes that, in some cases, it may be preferable to
treat contaminated soil on-site or in situ. The Agency is
preparing technical information that will help owners and
operators and implementing agencies assess the potential
hazards posed by contaminated soils and alternative methods
to treat or dispose of them.
Section 280.62(b) in the final rule states that owners
and operators are required to report their initial abatement
steps to the implementing agency within 20 days of release
confirmation. Some commenters noted that this time frame,
which was proposed in § 280.61(a)(5), could be
interpreted to mean that EPA expected all the abatement
measures in proposed § 280.61(a) to be completed within
20 days. EPA expects that many of the initial abatement
requirements can and should be completed within 20 days, but
that some aspects of soil management and free product
investigations and removal may require more time to
complete. EPA has thus amended the wording to clarify that
the objective of this provision is to require owners and
operators to report their progress to the implementing
d. Initial Site Characterization (§ 280.63).
Proposed as § 280.61(b), this requirement has been
amended (and renumbered as § 280.63) to clarify the
responsibility of owners and operators to collect and submit
site information to the implementing agency. Several
commenters noted that the same techniques can be used to
confirm a release and to investigate contamination at a
site. They expressed concern that important information
gained while confirming a release or abating immediate
hazards should also be included in the information submitted
to the implementing agency. Section 280.63 in the final rule
emphasizes this point and requires that owners and operators
submit all pertinent information about the site and nature
In addition, §§ 280.63(a)(1) through (4) in the
final rule describe the minimum site investigation
requirements that the owner and operator must follow in the
absence of other direction provided by the implementing
agency. Section 280.63(a)(1) is unchanged from proposal, and
it requires information on the nature and estimated quantity
Section 280.61(a)(2) continues to require owners and
operators to submit information from readily available
sources or site investigations regarding surrounding
populations, subsurface soil conditions, climate, and land
use (e.g., from sources such as U.S. Geological Survey maps,
Soil conservation Saving maps, and local agencies). UST
owners and operators are not automatically required to
conduct surveys to collect this information if it is not
In addition, two new requirements have been added to this
section. First, information about water quality at all wells
potentially affected by the release partially supplants the
more general proposed requirement for ground-water and
surface water sampling formerly in § 280.61(b)(3). As
discussed in more detail in section IV.C.f. of this
preamble--investigation for soil and ground-water
cleanup--the proposed requirement to delineate the extent
and location of dissolved ground-water contamination has
been amended. The final rule requires full characterization
of dissolved ground-water contamination if certain site
conditions are met, or at the direction of the implementing
agency. If nearby existing wells are potentially affected,
however, EPA requires the owner and operator to immediately
characterize their quality and use because they are
potential human exposure points and because pumping at these
wells can affect contaminant migration. Second, several
commenters noted that subsurface sewer lines are often
conduits for rapid migration of vapors or liquid product.
Thus, EPA now requires owners and operators to submit
information on the location of subsurface sewer lines (if
any) at the site.
Section 280.63(a)(3) cross-references the site
investigation requirements described earlier and requires
the owner and operator to submit the results of this
investigation as part of the site characterization report.
This new section replaces proposed § 280.61(b)(2),
which required sampling of surface and subsurface soils. As
described earlier, this change clarifies the investigation
requirements and eliminates their possible duplication
within the rule. The timing and reporting of this
investigation is unchanged.
Section 280.63(a)(4) replaces proposed §
280.61(b)(3), which required sampling of surface and ground
water at the site. This new section, in conjunction with
§ 280.65 (described in subsection f., below), reduces
the ambiguity noted by some commenters regarding the scope
of site investigations. In the final rule, EPA requires
characterization of dissolved ground-water contamination
when the following conditions exist: there is evidence that
drinking water wells have been affected, free product is
detected on the water table or within the aquifer; there is
evidence that contaminated soil is in contact with ground
water; or as directed by the implementing agency. Thus, the
presence or absence of free product at an UST release site
is one of the factors used to decide whether further
investigations of soil and ground-water contamination are
necessary. The requirement to investigate for free product
is unchanged from the proposed § 280.61(a)(6). The
final rule simply requires owners and operators to submit,
as part of the initial site report, their findings that
establish the presence or absence of free product. EPA
believes this action is warranted for several reasons:
o The requirement reinforces for owners and
operators the importance of the free product investigation;
o The free product investigation requirement now also
applies to releases from hazardous substance USTs, which may
contain products that are denser than water and, therefore,
may be harder to detect and locate; and
o The conclusion that no free product is found provides
another important consideration for the implementing agency
as it decides if a corrective action plan will need to be
submitted by the owner and operator.
EPA believes this synthesis of information from the
initial site investigation is essential for owners and
operators to begin to fully assess their cleanup
responsibilities, and it provides the implementing agency
with information to decide if a corrective action plan is
necessary. Section 280.63(b) replaces the proposed
requirement for reporting site investigation results. The
new section clarifies that the information must be submitted
in a manner that is clear and sufficiently detailed to
demonstrate its applicability and technical adequacy, or in
a format developed by the implementing agency to achieve
e. Free Product Removal (§ 280.64). In response to
commenters, EPA has made minor revisions to the free product
removal requirements. Commenters raised four issues:
applicability, the definition of free product, the extent of
removal, and the timing of removal. These issues are
First, EPA agrees with those commenters who suggested
that free product removal requirements similar to those
proposed for petroleum releases should also apply to
hazardous substance releases. The final rule's Subpart F
merges the proposed rule's Subparts F and G to make free
product removal requirements applicable to all releases.
Second, EPA has revised the definition of free product to
clarify the scope of free product removal. Several
commenters noted that, as proposed, the broad definition of
free product could be interpreted to mean that removal
requirements apply to product bound to soil particles or
present as vapors. EPA notes that these forms of product are
addressed, as appropriate, in other sections of today's
final rule and has revised the definition of free product to
more narrowly refer to a regulated substance that is present
as a non-aqueous phase liquid (e.g., not dissolved in
water). EPA has also deleted the reference to "floating"
free product (from proposed § 280.62) to clarify that
product more dense than water is also subject to the free
product removal requirements.
Third, other commenters requested clarification on how
much free product was required to be removed. In the final
rule, the Agency has retained the phrase "maximum extent
practicable" as the criterion for free product removal
operations at UST release sites. EPA has not specifically
defined maximum practicable removal because the extent of
removal is largely determined by available technologies and
site-specific conditions. Consequently, EPA believes that
implementing agencies should have the discretion to develop
operational criteria for determining the presence of free
product and the extent of its removal (e.g., product that
flows in response to gravity or a minimum product thickness
observed in wells). EPA has, however, added to the final
rule a minimum objective for free product removal
operations. This new requirement states that, at a minimum,
free product removal systems should be designed to abate
further migration of free product (i.e., beyond small
seasonal or recovery-related fluctuations).
Fourth, several commenters offered their views about the
appropriate timing of product removal. Most commenters
agreed with EPA's proposal that free product removal
operations should begin as quickly as possible, but
cautioned that hasty and improperly conducted removal could
spread contamination vertically at the site. In the final
rule, EPA continues to require that removal begin as quickly
as practicable (§ 280.62(a)(6)). Revised §
280.64(a) emphasizes, however, that free product removal
must be conducted in a manner that minimizes the spread of
contamination and that is appropriate to the hydrogeologic
conditions at the site. EPA is aware, for example, of site
conditions where trenching or vapor extraction to recover
free product would be preferable to drawing down the water
table--and the free product plume--in order to collect and
remove free product. EPA is preparing technical resource
documents to assist implementing agencies in advising owners
and operators about potential complications when removing
free product. Similarly, in response to commenters concerns,
EPA has extended the time period for owners and operators to
report to implementing agencies concerning their free
product removal from 30 to 45 days. This change will allow
owners and operators more time to properly plan for free
product removal, especially for removal operations involving
dense product or at hydrogeologically complex sites.
In addition, some commenters requested EPA clarify
permitting requirements for discharges from the product
recovery system. Others suggested that EPA exempt UST
cleanups from NPDES requirements or establish numerical
limits for emergency permits. In response, EPA has revised
§ 280.64(a) to clarify that all discharges are to be
properly treated, in compliance with applicable federal,
state and local regulations. In addition, EPA is
investigating methods to expedite, where applicable, the
NPDES permitting process for discharges necessitated by UST
f. Investigations for Soil and Ground-Water Cleanup
(§ 280.65). Proposed § 280.63 has been renumbered
§ 280.65 in the final rule. As proposed, this section
required the owner and operator to investigate the extent of
soil and ground-water contamination at an UST release site
when the initial site investigation showed that contaminated
soil remained at the site, or when the required soil removal
showed that the released product or product from
contaminated soil may have reached ground water. In
addition, the implementing agency could direct the owner and
operator to conduct such an investigation.
Several commenters requested that EPA clarify the minimum
sampling requirements for these investigations. Other
commenters suggested that these more extensive
investigations be better coordinated with the soil and
ground-water sampling required earlier in the corrective
action process. One commenter noted that the phrase "product
from contaminated soil" would be difficult to define and
might be interpreted to require extensive investigation at
virtually all sites. In addition, EPA recognizes that some
amount of contaminated soil will be present at most UST
release sites, but that the threat posed by this
contamination will depend on several factors.
In response to these comments, EPA has revised this
section to clarify the situations that trigger more
extensive site investigations. EPA notes that the objective
of these investigations is to support decisions concerning
whether soil and ground-water cleanup or other corrective
action measures are necessary at the site. Consequently, EPA
has revised the rule to better relate these requirements to
site-specific threats to ground-water contamination.
Final § 280.65 describes three specific site
circumstances requiring full for characterization of soil
and ground-water contamination: (1) When release
confirmation or previous corrective action measures indicate
that ground-water wells may have been affected by the
release, (2) when free product is found on the water table
or within the aquifer, and (3) when any other site
investigations show that contaminated soil may be in contact
with ground water.
EPA recognizes that characterization of soil and
ground-water contamination may also be necessary at sites
where there are no "automatic triggers." Thus, the final
rule retains the authority of the implementing agency to
request an investigation. Final § 280.65(a)(4)
clarifies that the implementing agency should consider the
potential effects of contamination at the site in relation
to nearby surface and ground-water resources when deciding
whether further investigations are warranted. In particular,
EPA expects that information required under § 280.63
will provide implementing agencies with important
information for determining if more extensive investigations
In revising the rule, EPA sought to better tailor the
investigation requirements to site conditions that pose a
potential threat to ground-water resources. EPA believes the
final rule clarifies those situations that trigger more
extensive site investigations and better coordinates the
objectives of the revised corrective action requirements
within a site-specific framework.
g. Corrective Action Plan (§ 280.66). In the final
rule, proposed § 280.64 has been renumbered as §
280.66 and retitled as "Corrective Action Plan." This
revised section responds to commenters' requests for
clarification of the owners' and operators' responsibilities
for submitting corrective action plans (CAPs) and of the
implementing agencies responsibility to request, review, and
approve a CAP. Subtitle I of RCRA directs the Agency to
promulgate corrective action regulations applicable to
owners and operators of UST systems. The corrective action
plan approval process, however, integrates the
responsibility of owners and operators to ameliorate the
adverse effects of UST releases with the responsibility of
implementing agencies to determine how they will carry out
their established public health policies. EPA's role is to:
(1) establish the responsibility of owners and operators to
achieve adequate protection of human health, and (2)
establish a baseline framework for evaluating and approving
Several commenters requested clarification of the owners'
and operators' responsibilities for corrective action beyond
immediate abatement steps and removal of free product. In
response, § 280.66(a) of the final rule has been
revised to clarify that owners and operators are responsible
for submitting, when requested by the implementing agency, a
corrective action plan that provides for adequate protection
of human health and the environment. Section 280.66(b) of
the final rule sets forth the factors that implementing
agencies must consider when approving a corrective action
plan. Consequently, this section also serves to inform
owners and operators of the minimum elements required in the
plans they submit.
Some commenters suggested the Agency establish explicit
criteria that implementing agencies could use to determine
whether a CAP is needed and to evaluate CAPs after they are
submitted. As described in the preceding sections, EPA has
revised several parts of the proposed rule to clarify the
objectives of each step of the corrective action process.
Owners and operators are responsible for carrying out and
reporting these actions, thus providing the implementing
agency with a good basis for determining the necessity for
EPA believes it would be difficult and unproductive to
incorporate more explicit evaluation criteria in today's
rule. As described earlier in this preamble, EPA received
wide support for the proposed site-specific corrective
action goals and has retained this approach in the final
rule. Implementing agencies, however, may choose to develop
their own site-specific corrective action goals, or they may
base cleanup goals on statewide numerical standards or
aquifer characteristics. Rather than develop criteria that
may conflict with a state or local agency's preferred
method, EPA has chosen to identify in the rule those factors
that are generally necessary for carrying out corrective
actions regardless of the chosen method for setting precise
cleanup goals. For example, these factors include the
persistence of the released substance and the hydrogeologic
conditions at the site. EPA sees its role primarily as
providing technical support for interpreting these factors
in the context of site-specific application of corrective
action technologies. In particular, EPA is developing
technical information and supporting materials to assist
implementing agencies in relating site assessment results to
the feasibility of alternative technologies, and for
evaluating how well these technologies are achieving cleanup
at a site. In addition, EPA is beginning to develop methods
to expedite exposure assessments. Other programs within EPA,
such as the Office of Ground-water Protection, may also be
called upon to provide support for evaluating ground-water
The overall objective of longer term UST corrective
actions is to adequately protect human health, safety, and
the environment from contaminants remaining in soils or
ground water after initial abatement measures and free
product removal. The Agency prefers that this objective be
achieved, where practicable, through reducing contaminant
concentrations in soil or ground water to levels protective
of health and the environment. In some situations, however,
the Agency would require--under the standard in §
280.66(a)-- that human health be protected from exposure to
contaminants through other appropriate measures, such as
providing an alternative water supply.
EPA cannot project the outcome of its site-specific
approach to all UST releases because the consideration
accorded to some factors, such as aquifer resource value and
its current and potential use, is largely left to state and
local policy. If an UST release affects a public or private
drinking water source, however, the owner and operator must
expect that the state's health-based drinking water
standards would apply to the cleanup. If the owner and
operator cannot meet these standards through cleanup
technologies, then they should expect that they will be
required to provide an alternate source of drinking water or
to provide treatment of the water to the people affected.
Similarly, the owner and operator should expect that UST
releases that threaten current or potential water supplies
will come under close scrutiny by the implementing agency.
In these cases, the corrective action requirements will
likely be influenced by the mobility of the contaminants at
the site and the estimated time and spatial extent over
which the remaining contamination may pose a threat. At a
minimum, approved CAPs would likely include requirements for
long-term monitoring, continued control of ground-water flow
at the site, and notice of continuing hazard in the property
The final rule retains the implementing agency's
authority to require submission of a CAP based on
information received from early corrective action measures.
(EPA expects, for example, that implementing agencies might
choose this option for UST releases that are of great
magnitude or in close proximity to drinking water
resources.) Final § 280.66(a), however, has been
revised to make clear that the implementing agency must
first review the submitted material before requesting the
submission of a CAP or additional information. This section
also has been revised to enable owners and operators to
submit a CAP for soil and ground-water cleanup based on
their own initiative and assessment of the severity of the
release. They need not wait for the implementing agency to
request a CAP.
Several commenters expressed concern that lengthy reviews
by the implementing agency might slow the pace of UST
cleanups, creating delays that could make implementing the
final CAP more difficult, because of the spread of
contamination while delays persist. Some commenters also
suggested that owners and operators should be allowed--after
a specified length of time--to interpret inaction on the
part of the implementing agency as approval of the CAP.
Given the number of releases that are expected to be
detected in the near future, EPA acknowledges that there is
potential for delayed cleanups under the proposed approach
if implementing agencies are unable to review all the CAPs
in a timely manner. The Agency concluded, however, that the
alternatives suggested by commenters were inappropriate. To
respond to this issue, however, § 280.66(d) has been
added to allow owners and operators to begin cleanup of soil
and dissolved contaminants in ground water without CAP
approval provided they: (1) first notify the implementing
agency of their intention to begin cleanup, (2) comply with
modifications imposed by the implementing agency, including
halting cleanup activities, and (3) incorporate these
initial measures in the CAP to be reviewed and approved by
the implementing agency.
EPA has added this provision with the goal of encouraging
effective and expedited cleanup of soil and ground water.
EPA emphasizes, however, that the implementing agencies
remain the final arbiter for approving CAPs. Implementing
agencies, therefore, can require the owner and operator to
revise their CAPs and to modify the cleanup techniques in
use at a site, including mitigating adverse consequences of
cleanup activities. Since the implementing agency retains
this authority, EPA expects that owners and operators who
choose to initiate cleanup prior to approval of this CAP
will select cleanup technologies that are widely used and
recognized to be effective. EPA believes some cleanup
techniques, such as extraction and treatment of petroleum
vapors from soils, can be initiated with little risk of
worsening contamination at the site. EPA also notes that
states need not adopt the policy of owner- and
operator-initiated cleanup for state program approval.
Moreover, if states choose this option they can tailor its
use to best meet their needs. For example, the implementing
agency can identify specific cleanup technologies that are
widely applicable without prior review or approval and those
that always require explicit plan approval. Similarly,
implementing agencies can decide to limit this option for
use only at releases from certain USTs, such as petroleum
h. Reporting (Proposed § 280.65). The reporting
requirements in this section of the proposed rule have been
consolidated with the requirements in § 280.51 of the
final rule because they are part of the release confirmation
i. Public Participation (§ 280.67). The proposed
public participation rule required implementing agencies to
provide opportunity for public review and comment on all
CAPs and to consider these comments before approving CAPs.
Although commenters agreed that public participation is
desirable, many commenters expressed concern that protracted
public participation during the development of all CAPs
could unnecessarily delay some UST cleanups. For example,
cleanup efforts could be delayed while the development of a
CAP was submitted to lengthy public review and deliberation.
Also, mandating public participation for all CAPs could
divert implementing agency resources from other cleanup
activities such as oversight of ongoing cleanup operations.
EPA agrees with commenters who urged that implementing
agencies strike a balance between the involvement of the
public in corrective action decisions and the sometimes
competing need to protect human health and the environment
through quick and effective responses to an UST release. To
acknowledge these sometimes conflicting objectives, the
final rule for public participation establishes a flexible
approach that ensures public access to available information
on UST cleanups, although the public need not be involved,
as a matter of routine, in all CAPs.
Implementing agencies continue, however, to have the
responsibility and authority to notify the public about
CAPs, to provide public access to the site and cleanup
files, and to involve the public in meetings if sufficient
interest is demonstrated. The final rule's public
participation requirements for UST corrective action stress
the need for adequate public notice, particularly to those
parties who could be directly affected by the release and
the planned corrective action. EPA expects that the public
will be provided adequate opportunity to participate in and
aid the UST cleanup process.
EPA does not agree with those commenters who opposed
including any public participation requirements in the UST
corrective action rule. In particular, EPA does not agree
with the concerns raised that RCRA does not explicitly
require public participation under Subtitle I. EPA believes
that section 7004 of RCRA specifically mandates that all of
the Agency's RCRA programs provide for the opportunity for
public participation, including the RCRA Subtitle I program.
This statutory mandate, combined with long-standing EPA
policies to involve the public in the cleanup of
contaminated sites, has prompted EPA's decision to keep the
public participation requirements in Subpart F. In meeting
this need, however, EPA has intended to require public
notice and participation in UST corrective actions in a form
that does not unnecessarily disrupt what state UST programs
already require and provide.
The final rule requires public notification and public
availability of information on CAPs. The implementing agency
must notify the public about each confirmed release
requiring a CAP. This notification requirement remains as
proposed, although the rule no longer mandates implementing
agencies to formally consider and respond to public comment
before approving a CAP. The implementing agency must also
provide public notice if implementation of the CAP does not
achieve the established cleanup levels and the implementing
agency is considering terminating the CAP. In most states,
those affected by the release are often kept well informed
through personal contacts with the state response staff.
Today's requirements are not intended to change this
practice of personal contact as one of the first points of
public notice in the existing state UST programs. This
method of notice has been added to the rule to make this
clear. The list of public notice vehicles contained in the
rule, however, is not intended to be exhaustive.
In addition to this notification requirement, the final
rule requires the implementing agency to provide public
access to site release information and decisions concerning
the CAP. By providing public notification and access to
information, implementing agencies ensure the opportunity
for public participation in specific CAPs of interest to the
affected sectors of the public. Because the Agency considers
public notification and public access to information to be
the key components of public participation for all CAPs, the
final rule emphasizes the importance of these two
The implementing agency may hold a public meeting to
consider public comments on a CAP if sufficient public
interest is shown concerning a proposed CAP. EPA uses the
phrase "public meeting" in the rule to emphasize that a
formal public hearing is not required. EPA intends that a
public forum be provided, in keeping with the state's
administrative procedures, to inform the public and allow
public comment on a CAP. The implementing agency will decide
when public meetings are warranted on a case-by-case basis.
EPA expects that large releases involving extensive
corrective action will include correspondingly more
extensive public participation because public understanding
and acceptance is critical to the success of these CAPs.
In summary, the final rule emphasizes the implementing
agency's responsibility to involve the public in a manner
that best serves the environmental goals of the CAP.
[ Back to Section IV.E. ][ Ahead to Section IV.G. ]