Why Release Detection Keeps Failing — and What You Can Do About It
The National Compliance Challenge
Underground Storage Tank (UST) operators nationwide continue to struggle with meeting leak detection requirements. According to the EPA’s mid-year FY2025 performance report, only about 61% of UST facilities are in full technical compliance with federal standards . Among the major compliance categories (spill prevention, overfill prevention, corrosion protection, and release detection), release detection is the weakest link – only 71.4% of facilities nationwide are meeting release detection requirements . This is markedly lower than the compliance rates for spill, overfill, or corrosion protection (each averaging in the mid-80% or higher). In short, nearly 4 out of 10 UST operators are failing to adequately monitor for leaks, a critical lapse that can allow undetected releases of fuel into the environment.
Why does this matter? Leak detection is crucial because discovering a leak early can prevent a minor seep from becoming a major contamination problem. Yet despite strict rules on paper, the reality is that leak detection compliance remains stubbornly low. Midway through FY2025, the data shows that release detection continues to trail other compliance measures by a wide margin, underscoring a persistent nationwide challenge . In this article, we’ll explore how this problem plays out across different states, why leak detection compliance keeps lagging, common failure modes that trip up operators, and – most importantly – what practical steps you can take to improve release detection at your UST facility.
A Patchwork of State Performance
Compliance rates vary widely from state to state, revealing a patchwork of strong and weak performers. Some states have achieved impressively high leak detection compliance, while others are falling behind:
Vermont – a High Performer: Vermont leads by example with about 89% of its UST facilities in compliance with release detection requirements . This is well above the national average, indicating that Vermont’s operators and regulators have prioritized leak detection diligence. (Vermont’s overall technical compliance rate is around 83% , also significantly higher than the 61% national average.)
Massachusetts – Struggling with Detection: In stark contrast, Massachusetts reports only 38% of facilities in compliance with release detection – one of the lowest rates in the nation . In other words, nearly two-thirds of inspected UST sites in Massachusetts are not meeting leak detection requirements. Massachusetts’s overall compliance (TCR) is similarly low (around 34% ), suggesting systemic issues in meeting UST standards.
Nevada – Lagging Behind: Nevada is another low performer, with only 44% of facilities complying with leak detection rules . Nevada’s overall compliance rate is a dismal 25% – indicating that three out of four UST facilities inspected were out of compliance in one way or another. Such low rates point to serious gaps in either operator attention, state enforcement, or both.
These examples are not outliers – other states show similar disparities. For instance, Rhode Island (another state with stringent state regulations) has only about 51% of facilities passing leak detection checks , while Iowa recently reported an overall compliance rate of roughly 20%, one of the worst in the country . On the flip side, a few states demonstrate that high compliance is achievable: Wyoming and Colorado have been top performers, with technical compliance rates in recent reports in the 90–96% range . States like Delaware, New Jersey, and Texas also stand out with TCRs around 86–92% – meaning the vast majority of their UST facilities are meeting all requirements. These stark differences often reflect how aggressively state programs implement and enforce UST rules.
What drives these gaps? States with stronger performance tend to have robust UST programs: they adopted the 2015 federal UST regulations early, often added their own more stringent requirements, and actively help or compel operators to comply. In Vermont and Connecticut, for example, state rules have long exceeded federal leak detection minimums (e.g. requiring double-walled tanks with continuous interstitial monitoring years before it was federally mandated) . These states also conduct regular training and outreach, so operators know what is expected. By contrast, states that were late to adopt the 2015 updates or that have less oversight have seen lower compliance. In Iowa, officials noted that the poor compliance rate was largely due to many operators “starting later or misunderstanding the new (2015 EPA) UST requirements,” leading to missed leak detection upgrades and procedures . The lesson is clear: when regulations change, swift implementation and operator education are key to avoiding a dip in compliance.
Why Release Detection Lags Behind Other Categories
Operators often ask why leak detection compliance is so much worse than, say, spill containment or corrosion protection. The answer lies in the nature of release detection: it requires constant vigilance and ongoing effort, whereas many other compliance items are more “install-and-forget” or infrequent maintenance tasks. Here are a few reasons release detection continues to be a weak point:
Frequent and Active Requirements: Leak detection isn’t a one-time fix; it entails monthly monitoring and annual testing routines. Every 30 days, operators must check their tanks (and sometimes piping) for leaks using an approved method, and they must keep monthly records. Each year, leak detection equipment like automatic tank gauges and line leak detectors must be tested for proper function. In comparison, spill buckets or overfill valves might only need a check or test once a year or once every three years. It’s no surprise, then, that “the category that creates the biggest problem for operators in every state is release detection,” as one industry compliance review noted . The sheer frequency of required tasks means more opportunities to fall out of compliance. If an owner neglects even one monthly check, or forgets to schedule an annual sensor test, the site will be cited for non-compliance.
Multiple Components to Manage: Release detection often involves several pieces of equipment and methods working together, which increases complexity. There are at least seven different leak detection methods in use (from automatic tank gauging to interstitial monitoring, vapor sensors, groundwater wells, inventory control, statistical reconciliation, etc.), and each has specific operational requirements . Many UST systems use a combination of methods (for tanks and piping). With more technology in play – electronic sensors, probes, monitors, alarms – there’s simply more that can go wrong. A spill bucket, by contrast, is a simple piece of hardware; it can crack or fill with water, but it’s relatively easy to inspect. Leak detection gear requires power, calibration, and maintenance. Without vigilant upkeep, technological failure modes creep in: probes can break or get stuck, automatic tank gauge (ATG) systems can be mis-programmed or left offline, and sensors can be installed incorrectly or not tested. A poorly functioning ATG will provide inaccurate data that is useless in detecting leaks – yet an operator might not realize the ATG has an issue until an inspection. In short, leak detection equipment can give a false sense of security if not properly cared for.
Human Factors and Training: The best leak detection system is only effective if people use it correctly. Many compliance failures trace back to procedural and operational errors rather than the hardware itself. For example, the most common UST violation nationwide is not equipment at all, but operator training . An untrained or inattentive operator may ignore leak alarms, skip monthly logs, or misread test results. In fact, a recent analysis of UST violations found that for tanks, 97% of release detection violations stemmed from failure to perform the required monthly monitoring (i.e. the operator simply didn’t do it or didn’t document it) . Similarly for piping, 98% of release detection violations were due to not conducting the annual line leak tests or leak detector functionality tests . These are clearly procedural lapses. It often comes down to time and knowledge: UST operators juggle many duties, and leak detection tasks can slip through the cracks if someone isn’t actively managing compliance. Without a strong compliance culture and routine, even good equipment will not prevent violations or, worse, actual leaks going undetected.
Recordkeeping and Organization: Release detection produces a steady stream of records – monthly test printouts, sensor status reports, annual test certifications, etc. Keeping all this documentation organized and readily available is part of compliance. Failing to maintain records can earn a violation even if the tests were done. Unfortunately, lack of proper recordkeeping is a common problem. EPA inspectors frequently find that operators cannot produce all their leak detection logs or test reports during an inspection. For example, a review of issues at UST sites noted frequent “failure to keep all records of release detection for tanks and piping” on site . In other cases, records exist but are disorganized or incomplete (e.g. missing several months of inventory reconciliation data) . This paperwork burden contributes to the perception that leak detection compliance is complicated – and it can be, if an operator is not methodical about it. By contrast, categories like corrosion protection might have only one piece of paper (a test once every 3 years) to file away. The volume and frequency of leak detection records make them harder to manage without a good system.
Consequences of Poor Maintenance: Because leak detection must actually work in order to alert you to a problem, any lapse in maintaining the detection system undermines its purpose. If a spill bucket is dirty, it’s still a bucket – but if a leak sensor is dirty or non-functional, it will not detect a leak at all. Many operators have found themselves out of compliance (and facing dangerous leaks) due to seemingly minor upkeep issues. Common examples include: broken or inoperable interstitial sensors in double-walled tanks/pipes ; console alarms that have been silenced or ignored; manual monitoring devices not working (e.g. a groundwater monitoring well that can’t actually detect product because the water table dropped, or a dipstick that is warped and unreadable) ; or missing calibration of an ATG. The EPA emphasizes that “it takes more than equipment to be in compliance” – you must operate and maintain leak detection properly over time, using it every month as intended . Failure to do so can even lead to new releases: for instance, if an automatic line leak detector on pressurized piping is not tested and is left nonfunctional, a pressurized line could leak large volumes undetected until a catastrophic failure occurs. Many documented UST release incidents have been linked to neglect of leak detection systems (for example, sump sensors that were installed too high or had been removed, allowing a significant piping leak to go unnoticed) . In sum, poor maintenance turns a leak detection system into a mere decoration – with potentially costly consequences.
In combination, these factors explain why release detection compliance consistently lags other areas. It’s a more demanding, active, and technical aspect of UST management. The margin for error is thin: miss a monthly step, or let a piece of equipment slide, and you’re out of compliance. By contrast, spill prevention mainly involves keeping spill buckets intact and clean – a simpler task that many more operators manage to get right. Corrosion protection, once properly installed, only needs periodic checks. Leak detection is continuous and therefore more challenging to keep up with. The data bears this out year after year. As UST experts bluntly summarize: release detection is the number-one headache for UST operators and regulators alike .
Common Failure Modes in Leak Detection
It’s worth categorizing the typical failure modes into three groups – technological, procedural, and human/operational – to better understand where things go wrong:
Technological Failures: These are problems with the leak detection equipment or system itself. Examples include malfunctioning sensors, clogged or frozen probes, broken tank gauge sticks, or ATG consoles that aren’t programmed correctly. A classic case is an automatic tank gauge that hasn’t been calibrated or maintained – it might blink an error or simply never run a proper test. As EPA notes, a “poorly functioning ATG system will provide inaccurate data” and effectively leave the operator blind to leaks . Other technological issues include interstitial monitoring systems that are installed incorrectly (e.g. sensors placed too high in a sump, so they never trigger until fuel has already overflowed) , or old groundwater/vapor monitoring wells that no longer meet conditions (such as a dry well that can’t detect fuel because the water table fell) . Failure of automatic line leak detectors (LLDs) is also common – if not tested annually, an LLD can get stuck or sluggish, meaning it might not trip when a pressurized line leaks. In many states, inspectors find owners didn’t test their LLDs or lines as required, so they have no assurance the hardware actually works . The remedy here is regular maintenance and testing of all components. Technological issues are largely preventable with good maintenance practices (more on that in the next section).
Procedural Lapses: These are failures to follow the required procedures and schedules. By far the most prevalent issue is simply not performing leak detection tasks at the required frequency. For instance, not measuring tanks every 30 days (or not running the monthly ATG leak test) is a procedural failure that accounts for the vast majority (97%!) of tank leak detection violations . Similarly, not conducting your annual line tightness test or sensor function test is a procedural miss – 98% of piping-related leak detection violations were exactly this . Other procedural failures include not investigating alarms (if your console had a leak alarm last month and you just cleared it without investigation, that’s a compliance failure) and not reporting suspected releases. Even things like not sticking the tank daily (if using manual inventory) or not doing proper inventory reconciliation fall in this category . In short, the rules only work if you actually do the work on time. Many operators get cited not because their equipment was broken, but because they failed to conduct or document the routine leak detection as required. The cure for this is better compliance management – setting up reminders, checklists, and internal accountability to ensure every monthly check and annual test is completed. Later we’ll outline specific steps to stay on track.
Operational/Human Factors: These failure modes stem from people – whether it’s lack of knowledge, lack of attention, or poor organizational support. As mentioned, insufficient training is a top culprit. If the designated Class A/B operator at a facility isn’t well-versed in leak detection methods, they may not realize everything that needs to be done. Perhaps they know they have an ATG, but not that they must pull a leak test report from it every month and keep it on file. Or a busy store manager might not prioritize UST duties, leading to lapses. Turnover in personnel can also hurt compliance; if a knowledgeable manager leaves and the replacement isn’t properly trained, leak detection can quickly fall through the cracks. Another human factor is misunderstanding new regulations – for example, after the 2015 EPA UST rule changes (which became effective 2018), many operators were confused about new requirements like 30-day walkthroughs and annual equipment tests. As noted earlier, states like Iowa saw compliance plummet partly due to operators not grasping these new duties . There’s also the issue of complacency: some operators may assume that because their tank has never leaked, these checks are just red tape, and they become lax – a dangerous mindset. Finally, management decisions (or lack thereof) play a role: if ownership doesn’t allocate funds to replace a faulty sensor or doesn’t support an employee spending time on recordkeeping, compliance will suffer. Addressing the human side means ensuring proper training, fostering a culture of compliance, and making leak detection a clear responsibility for someone on staff. It also means utilizing available help – many states offer UST compliance assistance and operator training programs, and taking advantage of these can significantly improve an operator’s ability to comply. Remember, leak detection isn’t “set and forget”; it requires actively engaged operators.
By recognizing these common failure modes in leak detection, you can start to pinpoint where your own operation might be vulnerable. Next, we’ll shift from problems to solutions – what concrete steps can you take to avoid these pitfalls and improve your release detection performance.
How to Improve Release Detection Performance: Practical Steps for Operators
The good news is that improving leak detection compliance is entirely achievable with the right practices. At the facility level, operators can implement a few straightforward routines and safeguards to drastically reduce the chance of a violation (or worse, an undetected leak). Here are some specific, practical recommendations to bolster your release detection performance:
Perform Monthly Leak Checks and Keep Logs: Every month, without fail, verify your leak detection system is working and document the results. For automatic systems like ATGs or interstitial monitors, this means checking the console for any alarms or errors and ensuring the last automatic test passed. Make sure no leak alarms are active; if there is an alarm or sensor fault, address it immediately – investigate the cause or call a technician . For manual methods, measure and record your tank inventory levels and calculate gains/losses. Keep a log of each monthly check. Many operators find it helpful to integrate this with the required 30-day walkthrough inspection (mandated since 2018): during your walkthrough, take a moment to review the leak detection status and log it . Regulatory inspectors will ask for evidence that you’ve checked for leaks every month, so maintain a binder or digital file with a record of at least the last 12 months of leak detection results (printouts, log sheets, etc.) . This not only keeps you compliant on paper, but the regular routine ensures you catch problems promptly.
Maintain and Calibrate Your Equipment: Your leak detection is only as good as the equipment being used. Schedule annual maintenance or calibration for critical components like automatic tank gauge probes, sensors, and line leak detectors . Starting in 2018, EPA requires that all electronic and mechanical leak detection equipment be tested for proper operation annually (examples: ATG consoles, probe floats, sump sensors, and mechanical line leak detectors) . Make it a point each year to have a qualified technician inspect and certify these devices. This might be done in conjunction with other annual tests (such as line tightness testing). Replacing batteries, cleaning sensors, verifying alarm communication – these small maintenance tasks can be done proactively to prevent failures. Also, if you use any hand-held equipment (e.g. gauge sticks for manual tank gauging, or bailers for groundwater wells), check their condition periodically – a warped or oil-slicked gauge stick should be replaced, for instance . Keeping equipment in shape will ensure that when there is a leak, your system will catch it – and it will keep you from getting cited for an inoperative leak detection device.
Pull Together Your Leak Detection Records: During inspections, one of the first things officials will ask for is your leak detection records – so organize them now. You should have readily available: the past 12 months of monitoring results (e.g. monthly ATG reports or sensor logs), the most recent tightness test results (if applicable), annual equipment test certificates, and documentation of any maintenance or repairs on the leak detection system . If your leak detection method has performance certification (e.g. third-party evaluation results for an ATG or SIR method), keep those on file too. A best practice is to keep a dedicated binder (or electronic folder) for UST compliance, divided by category, with a section for leak detection. Each month, after you do your checks, drop the new printout or log sheet in the binder. That way, you will always be prepared for an inspector, and you’ll avoid violations for “records not available” . Good recordkeeping not only proves compliance, but it helps you self-audit – if you notice a month’s record is missing, you know something was skipped and can address it before it becomes a violation.
Never Ignore Alarms or Unusual Conditions: Modern leak detection systems are designed to alert you to potential problems – but they only help if you take action. If your monitoring system triggers an alarm (be it a leak alarm, sensor fault, or failed test), do not ignore or override it. Investigate immediately. Determine if it’s a real leak (in which case, report it and take action) or an equipment issue that needs fixing. Many release detection failures have occurred because an alarm was acknowledged and silenced without follow-up. Similarly, pay attention to unusual operating conditions that might indicate a leak – for example, a sudden unexplained loss of product in inventory, or water in a sump that shouldn’t be there . Regulations typically require that suspected releases be reported within 24 hours , so train your staff to recognize and escalate any such warning signs. Quick response can prevent a minor issue from becoming a costly incident, and it keeps you on the right side of compliance (since failure to respond to a leak detection alarm is itself a violation).
Ensure All Staff Are Trained and Aware: Given the importance of human factors, invest in training for yourself and your UST personnel. Make sure your designated Class A and B operators go through an approved training course (most states require this) and that Class C on-site staff know the basics of the leak detection system alarms and emergency procedures. Training isn’t a one-and-done either – periodically review procedures with your team. Many violations (and actual leaks) occur because staff on the ground didn’t know what to do or were unaware of requirements. For instance, if a shift worker sees an ATG alarm and clears it without telling management, that’s a problem. Emphasize a culture of compliance: assign responsibility for daily/weekly UST checks to specific people and have managers verify that tasks are completed. If you feel unsure about any aspect of leak detection, seek professional help – hire a UST compliance consultant for a check-up, or reach out to your state UST program for guidance. As one expert advises, “If you are not certain you are conducting release detection properly, then you should be consulting a professional or attending an approved UST operator training course.” Knowledgeable operators are far less likely to commit the common errors that lead to non-compliance.
Plan for Upgrades if Needed: Finally, consider the age and capability of your leak detection system. If you are relying on an old method that is hard to maintain or prone to false alarms (like manual inventory control or periodic tightness tests), it may be time to upgrade to a modern, automated system. Installing an electronic interstitial monitoring system or a new ATG with better accuracy can pay off in the long run by making compliance easier and more foolproof. Many states and the federal government have grant or loan programs to help UST owners replace or upgrade outdated equipment (more on this below). Upgrading to double-walled tanks and lines with continuous monitoring, for example, not only enhances environmental safety but also simplifies compliance (since interstitial monitoring can be less labor-intensive than older methods once properly set up). While an upgrade is a bigger investment, it could save you from the constant headaches of trying to keep an unreliable system in compliance. At minimum, ensure your current system meets the 2015 federal requirements – for instance, if you still have single-walled tanks in states where secondary containment is now mandatory, you need to plan for replacement or closure of those tanks before you end up on the wrong side of the law.
By implementing these best practices, UST operators can greatly improve their leak detection compliance. Remember that regulators can inspect at any time, without warning , so your goal is to always be in compliance, not just right before an inspection. The reward for diligence isn’t just avoiding penalties – it’s the peace of mind that comes with knowing your tanks are not silently leaking underground. As experts often remind us, preventing leaks (and catching any that do occur early) will save you from potentially tens of thousands of dollars in cleanup costs and liability down the road . In short, investing time and effort in leak detection now is far preferable to dealing with a contamination incident later.
Policy and Enforcement: Why Some States Excel at Leak Detection
The struggle to improve release detection isn’t just on the shoulders of individual operators – it’s also shaped by state and federal policies, enforcement strategies, and infrastructure support. The experiences of high-performing states show that a strong regulatory framework and proactive enforcement go hand-in-hand with better compliance outcomes. Here are a few policy insights from states that have made strides in leak detection:
More Stringent State Rules Can Drive Compliance: Many states have chosen to implement UST regulations that go beyond the federal minimums, effectively raising the bar for leak detection. The rationale is that stricter standards and more frequent testing can prevent problems before they start. California is a prime example: it requires UST owners to perform compliance inspections annually (more frequent than the federal three-year cycle) , and it has a host of additional leak detection rules. In California, all pressurized fuel piping must have automatic line leak detectors that shut off or restrict flow when a leak is detected (federal rules allow some that just alarm) . California also mandated that all hazardous substance UST systems and virtually all petroleum USTs be double-walled and continuously monitored years ago . By July 1, 2004, any new UST setups in California had to include secondary containment with continuous vacuum/pressure monitoring between the walls . These stringent requirements, combined with thorough enforcement, have yielded a high compliance rate in categories like corrosion and spill, and are gradually improving leak detection performance. California’s release detection compliance (around 71% in the latest report ) is at the national average – but keep in mind, that 71% is measured against California’s tougher standards, which means those 71% of facilities are meeting a very high bar (e.g. continuous monitoring uptime, etc.). The state’s aggressive stance likely prevents many leaks and catches issues that would be missed elsewhere.
Filling Regulatory Gaps: Some states realized that certain federally allowed leak detection methods were not very effective or were prone to non-compliance. Florida, for instance, decided to disallow groundwater monitoring and vapor monitoring as primary leak detection methods unless specifically approved by the state . Why? These methods depend on site-specific conditions and frequent checks that weren’t always done. By pushing operators toward more reliable methods (like interstitial monitoring or ATGs) and not letting them default to passive wells, Florida aimed to improve compliance and leak catch rates. Connecticut similarly tightened its rules long before the federal update – since 2003, CT has required all new UST systems to be double-walled with interstitial sensors, plus under-dispenser containment sumps with sensors on new installations since 2012 . Connecticut even requires weekly reconciliation for tanks unless they have advanced interstitial monitoring . The result is Connecticut boasts one of the highest leak detection compliance rates (96% in the recent data) and a 95% overall compliance rate . The takeaway is that states with forward-thinking regulations often achieve better compliance because they remove ambiguity – operators know exactly what enhanced systems to install – and they eliminate weaker practices that tend to fail. However, stricter rules only help if operators are supported in meeting them, which brings us to enforcement and assistance.
Active Enforcement and Inspections: High compliance states tend to back up their rules with active enforcement and frequent inspections. More “touches” by inspectors mean problems are identified and corrected sooner. Many states that improved their compliance did so by increasing inspection frequency or by conducting announced compliance assistance visits before enforcement. There’s evidence that greater inspection frequency directly correlates with better UST compliance (essentially, if you know someone will be checking annually, you’re more likely to keep things in order) . States like California, New Jersey, and others require every facility to be inspected every year or two, versus the federal 3-year requirement. Additionally, enforcement penalties – when fairly applied – create a deterrent for negligence. For example, states have authority to “red-tag” tanks (shut them down from fuel deliveries) if significant non-compliance is found. The threat of a red-tag or fines can motivate operators to fix issues like faulty leak detection quickly. On the flip side, some states also use positive reinforcement: publicly recognizing companies with good compliance records, or offering expedited services for those in compliance. In short, consistent enforcement ensures that leak detection stays on the operator’s radar year-round, not just right after equipment is installed or after training class.
Infrastructure Investment and Support: Achieving high compliance sometimes requires money – not just from operators, but from programs that help upgrade infrastructure. Recognizing this, many states have created grant or loan programs to assist UST owners in making costly but necessary upgrades (especially small business gas station owners who may struggle with the expense). For instance, California’s RUST program (Replacing, Removing, or Upgrading USTs) offers grants and low-interest loans to help owners replace single-walled tanks with double-walled systems and install modern leak detection equipment . This program is tied to a state mandate that all single-wall USTs must be permanently closed by the end of 2025 – effectively phasing out the riskiest tanks. By subsidizing the upgrades, California helps operators comply with the law and improve leak prevention. Other states like Louisiana have recently launched grant initiatives to fund UST upgrades (e.g. adding secondary containment and new monitoring technology) for older tanks . On a national level, the federal Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund provides money to states for prevention programs, which can include compliance outreach and technical support . The policy insight here is that when states invest in modernizing UST infrastructure, compliance rates improve. Newer systems are simply easier to keep in compliance (think of the difference between a 30-year-old tank that relies on manual checks versus a new one with digital sensors – the latter is far more foolproof). So, states that funnel resources into upgrading tanks and leak detection (whether through mandates or funding incentives) are essentially raising the baseline of compliance. Operators in those states have a better chance of success because they’re working with better tools.
In summary, robust policies and enforcement efforts are key enablers of leak detection compliance. States that set stringent requirements, enforce them consistently, and help operators meet them (through training and financial assistance) see the payoff in their compliance statistics. For UST facility operators, being aware of your state’s rules and taking advantage of any support programs is critical. If your state offers free operator training, take it. If there’s grant money for new equipment, apply for it. The combination of diligent operators and strong regulatory frameworks is what will ultimately raise that 71.4% leak detection compliance closer to 100% – which is where it needs to be to truly safeguard our soil and groundwater from UST leaks.
Release detection has been a thorn in the side of UST operators for decades, but it doesn’t have to remain so. By understanding the common pitfalls and learning from those who do it right, operators can significantly improve their compliance and protect their businesses and communities from the dangers of unnoticed leaks. The data tells a cautionary tale, but also an encouraging one: we know what the problems are, and we have the tools and knowledge to fix them. It comes down to execution – at both the individual and policy level. As an operator, focus on the fundamentals (monitor, maintain, record, repeat) and make use of available resources. As regulators and industry groups, continue pushing for smarter policies and support that make compliance the norm rather than the exception. With a concerted effort, the goal is that “release detection” will no longer be synonymous with frustration and failure, but rather with prevention and success – keeping your UST system tight, your environment safe, and your facility on the right side of the law.
If you’re struggling to stay compliant with release detection requirements, PASS Connect can be a game-changer. PASS Connect automates the collection of tank monitoring data directly from your Automatic Tank Gauge (ATG), ensuring that leak detection reports are captured consistently and accurately—without relying on manual steps or store staff. The system stores and organizes reports in one secure online portal, making documentation instantly accessible for inspections or audits. With automatic alerts for failed tests or alarms, PASS Connect helps you catch issues before they become violations. In short, it simplifies compliance, reduces human error, and keeps you inspection-ready every day. Contact us today!
Sources:
U.S. EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks – FY2025 Mid-Year UST Performance Measures Report (Oct 2024–Mar 2025) – National and state compliance statistics .
PPM Consultants (ASTSWMO/EPA data) – Top Five UST Compliance Violations – Breakdown of common violations (operator training, release detection for piping and tanks, etc.) .
PMMIC Insurance – UST Best Management Practices (Jan 2023) – Discussion of national compliance rates and tips for leak detection compliance .
U.S. EPA Region 4 – Common Problems Found at UST Sites – Examples of release detection failures (broken sensors, missing records, improper monitoring) .
U.S. EPA – Release Detection for USTs: Introduction – Official guidelines on why leak detection is important and the need for proper operation, maintenance, and records .
California State Water Board – RUST Program – Example of a state program providing grants/loans for UST upgrades (secondary containment and monitoring improvements) to meet stricter compliance requirements .
