Standards ·
D.C. Proposes Tightness Tests for Fuel Tanks Over 30
The proposal would allow tanks more than 30 years old to remain in service with recurring tightness tests, while requiring permanent closure after a failed result.
The District of Columbia is reconsidering a rule that required aging underground storage tanks to be removed, proposing instead to let owners keep them in service under a recurring testing requirement. The change would affect tanks more than 30 years old, whose continued operation would depend on documented tightness tests.
DOEE, the District’s Department of Energy and Environment, published its second proposal on June 26, 2026, after first seeking the change in September 2025. A July 16 alert from Holland & Knight described the renewed proposal as retaining the earlier framework. The comment deadline was July 26. Holland & Knight’s alert
Under that framework, owners would have to test aging tanks every three years and submit the results to DOEE. The first test would be due within 90 days after a tank reached 30 years of age, or within 90 days of the rule taking effect for a tank already beyond that age. A failed test would require permanent closure within one year. DOEE’s first proposed rulemaking
The agency’s stated rationale is that compulsory replacement can impose substantial costs on owners and interrupt fuel sales even when a tank remains serviceable. In its first proposal, DOEE said increased monitoring offered a more economical way to manage the risks of older equipment. The proposed tightness tests would supplement existing annual piping and leak detection equipment testing and monthly leak detection requirements.
The change also raises questions about the transition from the previous removal deadline, February 21, 2025. Holland & Knight’s authors, Amy L. Edwards, Aaron Aber and Maggie P. Pahl, identified issues including the treatment of inactive or abandoned tanks and equipment already subject to that deadline. They also noted that testing and closure responsibilities could affect property transactions.
For an owner considering whether to replace an older tank, the proposal would make its testing history more consequential. Continued service would carry recurring obligations, while a failed result would trigger a defined closure deadline. Those consequences depend on the terms of a final rule; the proposal itself does not establish a new permission to operate.