Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
EPA Should Take Steps to Better Ensure the Effective Use of Public Funding for Cleanups Gao ID: GAO-07-152 February 8, 2007Underground storage tanks that leak hazardous substances can contaminate nearby groundwater and soil. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), tank owners and operators are primarily responsible for paying to clean up releases from their tanks. They can demonstrate their financial responsibility by using, among other options, publicly funded state financial assurance funds. Such funds function like insurance and are intended to ensure timely cleanup. These funds also pay to clean up releases from tanks without a viable owner, as does the federal Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund. GAO was asked to report on (1) states' estimates of the public costs to clean up known releases, (2) states' primary sources of cleanups funding and their viability, and (3) federal sources to address these releases. GAO surveyed all states and discussed key issues with EPA and selected state officials.
States estimated that fully cleaning up about 54,000 of the approximately 117,000 releases (leaks) known to them as of September 30, 2005, will cost about $12 billion in public funds. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that it costs an average of about $125,000 to fully clean up a release. State officials said that tank owners or operators will pay to clean up most of the remaining 63,000 releases. However, an unknown number of releases lack a viable owner, and the full extent of the cost to clean them up is unknown. A tank owner may not be viable because the owner fails to maintain adequate financial responsibility coverage, which is intended to provide some assurance that the owner has access to funds to pay for cleanups. While 16 states require annual proof of coverage, 25 states check owners' coverage less often or not at all. Furthermore, 43 states expect to confirm about 16,700 new releases in the next 5 years that will require at least some public funds for cleanup. States reported that they primarily use financial assurance funds to pay the costs of cleaning up leaks. States reported that they spent an estimated $1.032 billion from financial assurance funds to clean up tank releases in 2005. Overall, fund revenues totaled about $1.4 billion in 2005, of which about $1.3 billion came from state gasoline taxes. The assurance funds in the 39 states for which GAO has information held an estimated $1.3 billion as of September 30, 2005, according to state officials. However, many states also use these funds to clean up releases from sources other than underground tanks. Several state assurance funds may lack sufficient resources to ensure timely cleanups. While EPA monitors the status of state funds, its method of monitoring the soundness of these funds has limitations. Furthermore, there are concerns that, by paying the bulk of the cleanup costs, state financial assurance funds may provide disincentives for tank owners--who pay only a relatively small deductible--to prevent releases. In addition to their own funds, states employ resources from the LUST Trust Fund, the primary federal source of funds for cleaning up releases from underground storage tanks. As of September 30, 2005, the fund balance was about $2.5 billion. For fiscal year 2005, the Congress appropriated about $70 million from the fund to help EPA and the states clean up releases and to oversee cleanup activities. EPA distributed about $58 million of this amount to the states to investigate and clean up releases and conduct enforcement efforts, among other actions. To distribute LUST Trust Fund money among the states, EPA uses a formula that includes a base amount for each state and factors to recognize states' needs and past cleanup performance. However, although the LUST Trust Fund provides funds to states to assist in addressing releases from tanks without a viable owner, EPA has not incorporated this factor into its formula. Furthermore, EPA's information on states' performance comes from state reports; however, GAO found that some of the information in these reports is inaccurate and inconsistent.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-07-152, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: EPA Should Take Steps to Better Ensure the Effective Use of Public Funding for Cleanups
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-152
entitled 'Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: EPA Should Take Steps to
Better Ensure the Effective Use of Public Funding for Cleanups' which
was released on February 22, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
February 2007:
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks:
EPA Should Take Steps to Better Ensure the Effective Use of Public
Funding for Cleanups:
GAO-07-152:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-152, a report to congressional requestors
Why GAO Did This Study:
Underground storage tanks that leak hazardous substances can
contaminate nearby groundwater and soil. Under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), tank owners and operators are
primarily responsible for paying to clean up releases from their tanks.
They can demonstrate their financial responsibility by using, among
other options, publicly funded state financial assurance funds. Such
funds function like insurance and are intended to ensure timely
cleanup. These funds also pay to clean up releases from tanks without a
viable owner, as does the federal Leaking Underground Storage Tank
(LUST) Trust Fund.
GAO was asked to report on (1) states‘ estimates of the public costs to
clean up known releases, (2) states‘ primary sources of cleanups
funding and their viability, and (3) federal sources to address these
releases. GAO surveyed all states and discussed key issues with EPA and
selected state officials.
What GAO Found:
States estimated that fully cleaning up about 54,000 of the
approximately 117,000 releases (leaks) known to them as of September
30, 2005, will cost about $12 billion in public funds. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that it costs an
average of about $125,000 to fully clean up a release. State officials
said that tank owners or operators will pay to clean up most of the
remaining 63,000 releases. However, an unknown number of releases lack
a viable owner, and the full extent of the cost to clean them up is
unknown. A tank owner may not be viable because the owner fails to
maintain adequate financial responsibility coverage, which is intended
to provide some assurance that the owner has access to funds to pay for
cleanups. While 16 states require annual proof of coverage, 25 states
check owners‘ coverage less often or not at all. Furthermore, 43 states
expect to confirm about 16,700 new releases in the next 5 years that
will require at least some public funds for cleanup.
States reported that they primarily use financial assurance funds to
pay the costs of cleaning up leaks. States reported that they spent an
estimated $1.032 billion from financial assurance funds to clean up
tank releases in 2005. Overall, fund revenues totaled about $1.4
billion in 2005, of which about $1.3 billion came from state gasoline
taxes. The assurance funds in the 39 states for which GAO has
information held an estimated $1.3 billion as of September 30, 2005,
according to state officials. However, many states also use these funds
to clean up releases from sources other than underground tanks. Several
state assurance funds may lack sufficient resources to ensure timely
cleanups. While EPA monitors the status of state funds, its method of
monitoring the soundness of these funds has limitations. Furthermore,
there are concerns that, by paying the bulk of the cleanup costs, state
financial assurance funds may provide disincentives for tank owners”who
pay only a relatively small deductible”to prevent releases.
In addition to their own funds, states employ resources from the LUST
Trust Fund, the primary federal source of funds for cleaning up
releases from underground storage tanks. As of September 30, 2005, the
fund balance was about $2.5 billion. For fiscal year 2005, the Congress
appropriated about $70 million from the fund to help EPA and the states
clean up releases and to oversee cleanup activities. EPA distributed
about $58 million of this amount to the states to investigate and clean
up releases and conduct enforcement efforts, among other actions. To
distribute LUST Trust Fund money among the states, EPA uses a formula
that includes a base amount for each state and factors to recognize
states‘ needs and past cleanup performance. However, although the LUST
Trust Fund provides funds to states to assist in addressing releases
from tanks without a viable owner, EPA has not incorporated this factor
into its formula. Furthermore, EPA‘s information on states‘ performance
comes from state reports;
however, GAO found that some of the information in these reports is
inaccurate and inconsistent.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends actions for EPA to ensure that (1) tank owners maintain
adequate financial responsibility coverage and (2) state assurance
funds provide reliable coverage, among other things. In commenting on a
draft of this report, EPA agreed with GAO‘s recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-152].
Tot view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click
on the link above. For more information, contact John B. Stephenson at
(202)512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Future Public Costs for Cleaning Up Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
May Be Substantial:
States Primarily Rely on Financial Assurance Funds to Clean Up Releases
and Limit Cleanup Based on Funding Availability:
Federal Funding Provided to Clean Up Releases from Underground Storage
Tanks Is Limited:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Selected Data Relating to Underground Storage Tanks
Reported by States:
Appendix III: GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District of Columbia:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Key Data on Underground Storage Tanks in the 50 States and the
District of Columbia, as of September 30, 2005:
Table 2: Summary of Reported State Approaches to Ensuring That Tank
Cleanups Are Completed, by Status of State Financial Assurance Fund:
Table 3: LUST Trust Fund Revenue, Fiscal Years 1987-2005:
Table 4: Selected State-Reported Underground Storage Tank Performance
Measures, as of September 30, 2005:
Table 5: State-Reported Estimates of the Number of Releases in the
State's Cleanup Backlog That Will Be Cleaned Up Using Funding from
Responsible Parties and from Public Sources, as of September 30, 2005:
Table 6: State-Reported Numbers of Releases in the State's Cleanup
Backlog from Tanks without a Viable Owner, as of September 30, 2005:
Table 7: State-Reported Frequency of Checking Financial Responsibility
Coverage:
Table 8: State-Reported Expenditures of Public Funding to Clean Up
Underground Storage Tank Sites by Source, 2005:
Table 9: State-Reported Balance of State Financial Assurance Funds, as
of September 30, 2005:
Table 10: State-Reported Revenues to State Financial Assurance Funds,
2005:
Table 11: State-Reported Diversions from State Financial Assurance
Funds for Purposes Other Than Those Related to the Underground Storage
Tank Program, 2001-2005:
Figures:
Figure 1: States' Estimates of Expected Future Public Costs to Fully
Clean Up Known Releases:
Figure 2: States' Estimates of the Percentage of Known Releases That
Would Be Cleaned Up Using Public Funds:
Figure 3: Number of States That Use Each Source of Funding to Clean Up
Releases from Tanks without a Viable Owner:
Figure 4: State-Reported Frequency of Checking Whether Financial
Responsibility Coverage Is Current:
Figure 5: States' Estimates of the Percentage of Releases in Their
Current Backlogs and To Be Identified in the Next 5 Years That Will Be
Cleaned Up Using Public Funds:
Figure 6: State-Reported Expenditures from State Sources, 2005:
Figure 7: Status of Financial Responsibility Coverage of State
Financial Assurance Funds, as of September 30, 2005:
Figure 8: Top Ten States by Size of Reported Balance of Financial
Assurance Fund, as of September 30, 2005:
Figure 9: Number of States Reporting Diversions from State Financial
Assurance Funds, 2001-2005:
Figure 10: Appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund, Fiscal Years 1987-
2005:
Figure 11: LUST Trust Fund Balance, Fiscal Years, 1987-2005:
Figure 12: States' Use of LUST Trust Fund Money by Spending Category,
Fiscal Year 2005:
Abbreviations:
DCI: data collection instrument:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tank:
MTBE: methyl tertiary-butyl ether:
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act:
UST: Underground Storage Tank:
February 8, 2007:
The Honorable John D. Dingell:
Chairman:
Committee on Energy and Commerce:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Hilda L. Solis:
House of Representatives:
Underground storage tanks that leak petroleum or other hazardous
substances can contaminate nearby soil and groundwater, which serves as
the source of drinking water for nearly half of all Americans.
Individuals coming into contact with this contamination, which can
contain known carcinogens, could experience health problems ranging
from nausea to kidney or liver damage. According to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), about 450,000 releases from underground
storage tanks had been confirmed in the 50 states and the District of
Columbia between 1985 and September 30, 2005--the most recent year for
which comprehensive data were available.[Footnote 1] In the past 20
years, EPA and states have spent over $10 billion in public funds to
clean up these releases. Despite these efforts, as of September 30,
2005, over 100,000 releases had not yet been fully cleaned up.
In 1984, the Congress amended the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) to require EPA to develop release detection, prevention, and
cleanup regulations that apply to owners and operators of underground
storage tanks. In response, EPA began developing the Underground
Storage Tank (UST) program in 1985 to prevent releases of petroleum and
hazardous substances into the environment, detect releases when they
occur, and clean up any contamination from a release. Under RCRA, tank
owners and operators must register with a designated state or local
agency underground tanks that store petroleum or hazardous substances.
EPA and the states then track and regulate these tanks. EPA's UST
Program is primarily implemented by the states; EPA maintains
responsibility for program implementation on lands owned by Indian
tribes and in Idaho because that state does not have the necessary laws
in place. EPA also maintains responsibility for taking enforcement
actions in New York because the state lacks the necessary laws. EPA's
primary role has been to provide national guidance, assistance, and
leadership to aid the states in implementing their programs.
Under RCRA, owners and operators of tank systems are primarily
responsible for funding the cleanup of releases from underground
storage tanks. However, under some circumstances, such as where an
emergency exists, EPA or a state may pay for the cleanup and then seek
reimbursement from the responsible private party. In order to operate,
owners and operators must demonstrate that they have access to
resources to meet their financial responsibility to cover cleanup
costs. Owners and operators may use a variety of assets to meet this
financial responsibility, including letters of credit, commercial
insurance, and other options.
Some states have established EPA-approved state assurance funds that,
like commercial insurance, are another means by which owners and
operators can demonstrate their financial responsibility coverage.
While the circumstances vary under which states use these funds to
clean up releases, state financial assurance funds--like commercial
insurance--typically pay cleanup costs either directly to cleanup
contractors or by reimbursing tank owners and operators for some or all
of the expenses of cleaning up leaking tank sites in return for the
payment of a deductible amount. In addition to assisting known, solvent
owners and operators with cleanup costs in this manner, some state
financial assurance funds also pay the costs to clean up releases from
tanks for which the owners or operators are not "viable"--that is, they
are unknown, unwilling, or unable to perform the cleanup. States
typically raise money for the funds through gasoline taxes paid by the
public and tank registration fees paid by tank owners or operators.
Finally, the federal government--through the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund, which was established in 1986
amendments to RCRA--also provides public funding to ensure that
releases from tanks are cleaned up. The LUST Trust Fund provides money
to states for (1) overseeing and enforcing cleanup actions taken by a
tank owner or operator and (2) cleaning up leaks at tank sites,
including those without a viable owner, or at sites that require
emergency action. The fund is capitalized through a $0.001/gallon
excise tax on gasoline and other motor fuels and the interest that
accrues to the fund balance annually. The Congress annually
appropriates amounts from the LUST Trust Fund to EPA, which in turn
distributes the majority of the funds to help states that have entered
into cooperative agreements with the agency to implement their cleanup
programs.
In this context, you asked us to determine (1) states' estimates of the
cost in public funding from state and federal sources to clean up known
releases from underground storage tanks, (2) states' primary sources of
funding for addressing these releases and the sources' future
viability, and (3) the funding available from federal sources to
address these releases. For the purposes of this report we defined
public funding as including any funding controlled and/or provided by
state and federal agencies, such as funds from the federal LUST Trust
Fund, state financial assurance funds, and other funds appropriated by
states to pay for cleanup that would not otherwise occur.
To obtain estimates of the cost to the public to clean up known
releases, we surveyed state officials responsible for underground
storage tank programs or, where applicable, managers of state cleanup
funds, in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Only one state,
South Dakota, did not respond to our survey. Through the survey, we
gathered state officials' estimates as of September 30, 2005, of the
current number of known releases that have not yet been cleaned up, the
number of releases that will require public funding to clean up, and
the amount of public funding these cleanups will require. We also
relied on our survey to gather information about state sources of
funding used to address releases, the status of these sources, and
their future viability. Because of differences in the time frames used
by states to answer certain survey questions, we refer to data from
such questions as 2005 data in this report. We asked a series of
questions in the survey to allow us to assess the reliability of the
information provided by states. We determined that the survey data are
sufficiently reliable as they are used in the body of the report (i.e.,
to be presented in aggregate, as testimonial evidence). The survey data
presented in appendix II are not reliable for state level comparisons
but are presented to illustrate the range of state responses and
associated reliability issues. We also interviewed officials from eight
states--Florida, Iowa, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, and Utah--to gather additional information regarding their
sources of cleanup money, among other issues. To obtain information
about the funding available from federal sources, we interviewed
Department of the Treasury officials responsible for managing the LUST
Trust Fund and gathered documentation regarding the balance of the
fund, annual revenues and expenditures, and appropriations of money to
EPA. We also interviewed EPA officials to learn how money from this
fund flows from EPA to individual states. To gather additional
information about state and federal funding available to address
releases, we conducted interviews with regional program officials from
EPA's UST program in six EPA regions--those regions based in Boston,
Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, and Denver. We selected these
regions primarily because survey responses from one or more states in
these regions raised questions about similar data they had reported to
EPA. A more detailed description of our scope and methodology is
presented in appendix I; selected data on underground storage tanks
reported by states are summarized in appendix II; and a copy of our
survey instrument is included as appendix III. We conducted our work
from June 2005 to December 2006 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
The cleanup of known releases from leaking underground storage tanks
could take years to complete, and states reported that it would cost
around $12 billion in public funds from state and federal sources. This
amount reflects states' estimates of public cleanup costs for about
54,000 of the approximately 117,000 known releases that states reported
had not yet been fully cleaned up as of September 30, 2005. Tank owners
or operators will pay to clean up the majority of the remaining 63,000
known releases, according to state officials. However, an unknown
number of releases lack a viable owner to pay cleanup costs. Some of
these releases may lack a viable owner because the tank owner or
operator failed to maintain adequate financial responsibility coverage.
While 16 states require annual proof that tank owners or operators are
maintaining the required coverage, the remaining states generally
reported that they check this coverage less often or not at all, even
though coverage may change on an annual basis. Without regular
monitoring that tank owners or operators are maintaining their required
coverage, this coverage may lapse, potentially making the owner or
operator nonviable and, in the event of a release, may result in the
need to use public funds to ensure timely cleanup. For example,
according to Florida officials, the state has cleaned up about 350
sites annually in past years using public funding. Of this number,
approximately three or four sites per year involve responsible parties
that did not maintain adequate financial responsibility coverage.
Finally, in addition to the costs associated with currently known
releases, states expect to spend public funds in the future to clean up
substantial numbers of releases that are not yet known but which states
project they will identify within the next 5 years. State officials
from 43 states reported--primarily based on historical trends--that
they expected to identify an estimated 16,700 new releases in the next
5 years requiring at least some public funds for cleanup. However,
states expect that, overall, the proportion of releases cleaned up
using public funds will decline in the future, indicating that they
expect a higher proportion of owners or operators to use private
sources of financial responsibility coverage to pay for cleanups.
States reported that they primarily use state financial assurance funds
to pay the costs of cleaning up leaks from underground storage tanks,
but they said that several of these funds may not have sufficient
resources to ensure timely cleanups. State officials reported that
$1.032 billion--or 96 percent of the estimated $1.076 billion from all
state sources used to clean up tank releases in 2005--came from state
financial assurance funds. Overall, states reported that revenues for
these funds totaled about $1.4 billion in 2005, of which approximately
$1.3 billion came from some form of state gasoline taxes paid by
consumers. State financial assurance funds in the 39 states for which
we have information collectively held an estimated $1.3 billion as of
federal fiscal year-end 2005, according to state officials. Because
many state assurance funds also pay to clean up releases from other
types of tanks--such as aboveground storage tanks--the entire $1.3
billion balance may not be available for cleaning up releases from
underground storage tanks. While state financial assurance funds can
provide large amounts of money for cleaning up these releases, several
states reported that their financial assurance funds do not have
sufficient resources to ensure that these cleanups are performed in a
timely manner. This is a concern because the longer pollution from
releases is left in place, the greater the potential for it to spread,
further putting human health and the environment at risk. While EPA
monitors whether state financial assurance funds can continue to pay
for cleanups in a timely manner, its recently developed monitoring tool
has had limited usefulness to date, according to agency officials. A
more effective system for monitoring the soundness of state funds could
give EPA greater assurances that these funds are able to pay for or
support timely cleanups of releases. Furthermore, by allowing owners
and operators to pay only a small portion of the cleanup costs as their
deductible, state financial assurance funds might provide a
disincentive for tank owners to prevent releases from their tanks,
thereby increasing the burden on already inadequate balances in some
states' funds.
The LUST Trust Fund is the primary federal source of funds for cleaning
up releases from underground storage tanks. From its inception in 1986
through September 30, 2005, the fund balance had grown to $2.5 billion.
For fiscal year 2005, the Congress appropriated about $70 million from
the fund. EPA distributes most of the annual appropriations to support
the states' cleanup programs and retains the balance to cover its own
management expenses. States use LUST Trust Fund money for a variety of
purposes, including investigating releases, conducting enforcement
actions directed at responsible parties, cleaning up the releases, and
paying administrative and planning expenses directly related to these
activities. In fiscal year 2005, EPA distributed about $58 million from
the LUST Trust Fund to the states, an average of $1.2 million each. The
annual trust fund distributions generally represent a relatively small
part of many states' cleanup program revenue. In fiscal year 2005, the
states spent about 42 percent of their LUST Trust Fund money on
administrative activities, 34 percent on site cleanups, and 24 percent
on enforcement, according to EPA. In distributing the annual
appropriation, EPA uses a formula that includes a base amount for each
state and factors designed to recognize states' needs and past
performance in cleaning up releases. Although one purpose of the LUST
Trust Fund is to help fund cleanups of releases from tanks without a
viable owner, the EPA formula for distributing the annual
appropriations does not include this factor. The states do not provide
EPA with separate data on tanks without a viable owner as an input to
this formula. Furthermore, EPA develops information on states' needs
and performance from states' semiannual activity reports on their tank
numbers and cleanup activities. However, we found that some of the
information in these reports is inaccurate: for example, reports of two
states included estimated rather than actual data; some states are
unsure of how EPA defines the categories of information to be reported,
and thus they are unsure they are reporting the correct information;
and at least one state reports release data covering both tanks
included in EPA's UST program as well as other types of tanks. Unless
EPA obtains accurate information from states on tank numbers and
cleanup activities--in particular, data on releases from tanks without
a viable owner--and uses this information in its formula for allocating
funds, it cannot ensure that LUST Trust funds are distributed to states
with the most pressing cleanup needs that require timely cleanups to
protect human health and the environment.
We are recommending that EPA take steps to (1) ensure that states
verify tank owners' financial responsibility coverage on a regular
basis, (2) improve the agency's oversight of the solvency of state
assurance funds, (3) assess the relative effectiveness of options for
financial responsibility coverage, and (4) better focus how EPA
distributes LUST Trust Fund money to the states. In commenting on a
draft of this report, EPA agreed with our recommendations and provided
information on the agency's plans and activities to address each of
them.
Background:
The 1986 amendments to RCRA established the LUST Trust Fund to, among
other things, finance the cleanup of petroleum releases from
underground storage tanks. Until recently, states could use these funds
only for cleanup and related administrative and enforcement activities.
Within this restriction, trust fund money could be used for the
following general categories of activities:
* testing tanks for leaks when one is suspected;
* investigating a site to evaluate the source and extent of petroleum
contamination;
* assessing the number of individuals that may have been exposed to
petroleum contaminants and the seriousness of exposure, and estimating
resulting health risks;
* cleaning up contaminated soil and water;
* providing safe drinking water to residents at the site of a tank
leak;
* providing for temporary or permanent relocation of residents; and:
* providing reasonable and necessary administrative and planning
expenses directly related to these activities.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (the 2005 Act), enacted in August 2005,
expanded the permitted uses of the LUST Trust Fund. It authorizes
states to use a portion of their LUST Trust Fund money for inspections
and other leak prevention purposes. Furthermore, the 2005 Act
authorizes appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund through fiscal year
2011 of $555 million per year for a variety of activities--including
release prevention and inspections--in addition to previously
authorized purposes. This annual amount includes $200 million for
cleanups of releases from leaking underground storage tanks; $200
million for the cleanup of releases of oxygenated fuel additives from
such tanks; $100 million for activities including onsite inspections,
groundwater protection, and enforcement; and $55 million for delivery
prohibition, operator training, and release prevention and compliance.
An additional $50 million per year is authorized from the general fund
to cover administrative expenses and other activities. Net revenue to
the LUST Trust Fund from taxes on petroleum products totaled
approximately $190 million in fiscal year 2005.
The 2005 Act also included several other provisions regarding
inspections, operator training, and financial responsibility, among
other things. Some of these provisions impose ongoing requirements on
states. For example, the inspection provision requires each state
receiving federal funding to inspect all of its regulated underground
storage tanks at least once every 3 years, beginning after the state
has inspected tanks that have not been inspected since December 1998.
Effective February 2007, the 2005 Act directs EPA to require that each
state receiving federal funds either (1) require additional, or
secondary, structures that would help contain a release (secondary
containment) for new and replaced underground storage tanks located
near sources of drinking water or (2) require evidence of financial
responsibility for tank manufacturers' and installers' certification.
This coverage would provide for the costs of cleanup directly related
to releases caused by improper tank manufacture or installation. The
2005 Act also extended until 2011 the tax on petroleum products that
capitalizes the federal LUST Trust Fund.
Under EPA policy, except in rare circumstances and in Indian Country,
states will address underground storage tank releases that are financed
by the LUST Trust Fund under an appropriate cooperative agreement with
EPA. EPA will undertake a cleanup only when (1) there is a major public
health or environmental emergency, (2) the state is unable to respond,
and (3) no responsible party is able or willing to provide an adequate
and timely response. In these circumstances, EPA's involvement is to be
limited to stabilizing the immediate situation, with the expectation
that further cleanup will be conducted by the state under its
cooperative agreement with the agency. States are responsible for
overseeing cleanup work performed by the party responsible for the
contamination and for performing the cleanup at sites where no
responsible party can be found.
In addition to the LUST Trust Fund, federal money from EPA's
Brownfields program can be used to clean up sites contaminated by
petroleum under certain circumstances. In general, Brownfields grants
are limited to sites whose "expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which
may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant." Only certain governmental
organizations, nonprofit organizations, and nonprofit educational
institutions are eligible for Brownfields cleanup grants. In fiscal
year 2005, EPA provided eligible entities with about $22.3 million in
Brownfields grants for cleaning up sites contaminated with petroleum.
About $4.0 million of these grants were awarded for direct cleanup
work, $13.3 million for site assessments, and $5.0 million for
revolving loan fund programs.
According to data collected from the states and reported by EPA, EPA
and states have made progress in cleaning up releases from underground
storage tanks. These data show that of the almost 450,000 releases
confirmed as of fiscal year-end 2005, cleanups had been initiated for
about 93 percent and completed for about 74 percent. Table 1 shows key
tank-related data elements reported by EPA as of September 30, 2005,
and provides definitions for those data elements.
Table 1: Key Data on Underground Storage Tanks in the 50 States and the
District of Columbia, as of September 30, 2005:
Tanks.
Tank-related data element: Active tanks;
Definition: Active, federally regulated underground storage tank
systems registered with the state;
Number: 645,990.
Tank-related data element: Closed tanks;
Definition: Federally regulated underground storage tanks that have
been reported to the state as being closed permanently;
Number: 1,607,462.
Releases.
Tank-related data element: Confirmed releases;
Definition: Incidents where a release has been identified and reported
to the state/local or other designated implementing agency, which has
in turn verified the release;
Number: 449,779.
Cleanups.
Tank-related data element: Cleanups initiated;
Definition: Confirmed releases at which the state or responsible party
has evaluated the site and initiated cleanup activity, or determined
that no cleanup action is necessary;
Number: 419,919.
Tank-related data element: Cleanups completed;
Definition: Confirmed releases where cleanup has been initiated and
where the state has determined that no further actions are currently
necessary to protect human health and the environment;
Number: 331,562.
Status of cleanup backlog.
Tank-related data element: Cleanups ongoing;
Definition: Confirmed releases where cleanup has been initiated but not
yet completed;
Number: 88,357.
Tank-related data element: Cleanups not yet started;
Definition: Confirmed releases where cleanup has not yet been
initiated;
Number: 29,860.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
[End of table]
As cleanups have progressed, methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE)--a
gasoline additive designed to reduce emissions and raise octane--has
continued to be detected in groundwater used for drinking water
supplies. In some cases, MTBE was added to gasoline to fulfill
requirements set in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments to reduce certain
types of emissions. However, because MTBE dissolves easily in water and
does not cling to soil very well, it migrates faster and farther
through the ground than other gasoline components, thus making it more
likely to contaminate public water systems and private drinking water
wells. MTBE's health effects have not been conclusively established,
but the federal government has determined it to be a potential human
carcinogen. The effects of exposure to MTBE include headaches;
eye, nose, and throat irritation; coughs; nausea; dizziness; and
disorientation. Low levels of MTBE can make drinking water supplies
undrinkable due to its offensive taste and odor. Because of
uncertainties about MTBE's health effects, EPA has not set a national
standard for MTBE in drinking water. Some states have set their own
limits on allowable levels of MTBE in drinking water, and some have
banned its use in gasoline sold in the state. The Congress also took
action through the 2005 Act to reduce the use of MTBE in gasoline by
eliminating the requirement from the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments that
led to the use of MTBE to reduce emissions.
Future Public Costs for Cleaning Up Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
May Be Substantial:
States reported that completing the cleanup of approximately 54,000
known releases from leaking underground storage tanks would likely
require substantial amounts of public funds from state and federal
resources. The public cost of cleaning up releases from tanks without a
viable owner, as well as the number of releases in states' cleanup
backlogs that lack a viable owner, is not fully known. In addition to
the costs associated with known releases, states expect that they will
use public funds to clean up a substantial number of releases that they
identify within the next 5 years.
States Reported That They Expect to Spend an Estimated $12 Billion in
Public Funds to Complete the Cleanup of about 54,000 Known Releases:
States reported that cleaning up known releases from leaking
underground storage tanks would cost an estimated $12 billion in public
funds from state and federal sources.[Footnote 2] This estimate
reflects the amount of public funds that states expected it would cost
to clean up approximately 54,000 known releases. States were unable to
estimate the cost of cleaning up more than another 8,000 releases whose
cleanup will require at least some public funds.[Footnote 3] We asked
states to exclude from their estimates any money spent prior to
September 30, 2005, to clean up these releases. As figure 1
illustrates, states reported that a substantial amount of the public
costs to clean up these releases had not yet been incurred.
Figure 1: States' Estimates of Expected Future Public Costs to Fully
Clean Up Known Releases:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: Responses to GAO's survey of tank program and/or state fund
managers.
Note: This figure includes only releases that states indicated would be
cleaned up using some public funds. New York officials did not respond
to this question. South Dakota officials did not respond to our survey.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
States reported that nearly half of these releases will require
$100,000 or more to fully clean up, with about 5 percent requiring
$500,000 or more. Just over half of the approximately 117,000 releases
that states reported in our survey had not yet been fully cleaned up
will be cleaned up using at least some public funds. Tank owners or
operators will pay the entire costs to clean up another 34 percent of
these 117,000 releases, according to state officials. States reported
that they did not know whether any public funds would be used to clean
up most of the remaining 13 percent of these releases or whether tank
owners or operators alone would pay for their cleanup.
The percentage of releases that states reported would be cleaned up
using at least some public funds varied widely by state, as illustrated
in figure 2. Some states expected all releases in their backlogs to be
cleaned up using at least some public funds, while other states did not
expect public funds to be used to clean up any releases in their
current backlog.
Figure 2: States' Estimates of the Percentage of Known Releases That
Would Be Cleaned Up Using Public Funds:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: Responses to GAO's survey of tank program and/or state fund
managers, Map resources (map).
Notes: New Hampshire officials did not provide a response to this
question. California officials were unable to determine the percentage
of known releases that would be cleaned up using public funds. South
Dakota officials did not respond to our survey.
[End of Figure] - graphic text:
The approach that different states use regarding who pays for the
cleanup of leaking underground storage tanks can affect the percentage
of releases in a state that are cleaned up using at least some public
funding. One such approach is whether a state has chosen to set up a
financial assurance fund that provides financial responsibility
coverage for tank owners. For example, in North Dakota, where nearly
all tanks are covered by the state's fund, the state expects that more
than 95 percent of releases in its current backlog will be cleaned up
using at least some public funding. Similarly, state laws addressing
when a specific owner or operator is considered to be responsible for a
release can affect who pays for cleanups. For example, Michigan program
officials previously told us that the state's causation standard
exacerbates the funding problem for tanks without a viable owner
because it requires that the state prove that the present owner/
operator is responsible for a site's contamination before it can be
held responsible for cleanup.[Footnote 4] Proving responsibility
becomes difficult in cases where releases have occurred in the past and
ownership of the property has changed. If responsibility cannot be
established, the state must then fund any cleanup of the site.
Although EPA estimates that a release costs about $125,000 on average
to clean up, the cost can vary based on several factors, including the
extent of contamination, the cleanup method selected, and the presence
of MTBE or groundwater contamination. In our survey, we asked states
about the average cost in public funds to clean up both releases with
MTBE contamination and releases that have contaminated groundwater. We
also asked for the average cost in public funds to clean up all
releases. With regard to releases involving MTBE, EPA has reported that
the additional cost for cleaning up these releases varies widely, from
no additional cost to a substantial increase, depending on the history
of the release. States' survey responses generally corresponded with
this reported variation. Twenty-nine states reported estimates of
average public costs for cleaning up releases with MTBE contamination
and for all releases. Most of these states reported that cleaning up
releases with MTBE contamination costs the same or more than cleaning
up an average release in the state. However, estimates of the cost
difference varied widely among states.
EPA has stated that releases that have contaminated groundwater are
generally more complicated and more expensive to clean up than releases
that have not. In our survey, 34 states provided us with estimates for
the average public cost to clean up all releases as well as the average
public cost to clean up releases that have contaminated groundwater.
States' estimates varied widely: about 60 percent of these states
reported that it was more expensive to clean up releases involving
groundwater contamination, while about 40 percent reported that it cost
the same.
The Number of Releases from Tanks without a Viable Owner and the Public
Cost of Such Releases Are Not Fully Known:
The full extent of releases from tanks without a viable owner is
unknown. While states reported that about 11 percent of the
approximately 117,000 releases that have not yet been fully cleaned up
came from such tanks, the actual number could be much higher for two
reasons. First, 11 states reported that they did not know how many of
the releases in their backlogs were from tanks without a viable owner.
Second, 17 states reported that there were approximately 4,000 releases
from tanks for which they had not yet determined whether a viable owner
exists.
The public cost of cleaning up releases from tanks without a viable
owner is also not fully known. While 26 states and the District of
Columbia estimated that it would cost a total of $2.7 billion to
complete the cleanups of known releases from tanks without a viable
owner, 21 states responded that they did not know the cost, and 2
states did not respond to the question.[Footnote 5] Because most states
reported that they clean up such releases using public funding, it is
likely that many of the known releases from tanks without a viable
owner will be cleaned up using at least some public money.
Nearly all states reported to us in our survey that they use public
funding to clean up releases from tanks without a viable owner. Six
states reported that they had a state fund dedicated to tanks without a
viable owner, and other states without such dedicated funds primarily
reported that they use resources from other types of state funds, such
as financial assurance funds, or from the federal LUST Trust Fund, as
illustrated in figure 3. However, four states reported that they may
wait until the property on which the leaking tank is located is
purchased and rely on the new owner to clean the site up.
Figure 3: Number of States That Use Each Source of Funding to Clean Up
Releases from Tanks without a Viable Owner:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: Responses to GAO's survey of tank program and/or state fund
managers.
Note: Some states provided more than one response. New York and New
Hampshire officials did not provide a response to the question. South
Dakota officials did not respond to our survey.
[A] Includes the District of Columbia.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
States may have releases from tanks without a viable owner in their
backlog because the owner or operator responsible for the tank failed
to maintain adequate financial responsibility coverage. Maintaining
adequate financial responsibility coverage ensures that money will be
available to clean up releases from underground storage tanks. This
money, in turn, contributes to timely completion of cleanup and thus
reduces the risk to human health and the environment posed by releases
that are not cleaned up in a timely manner. We asked states about the
number of cases they had encountered in the past 5 years in which tank
owners did not have adequate financial responsibility coverage. In
responding, states used somewhat different definitions of what
constituted inadequate financial responsibility coverage. In general,
states that we talked with more in-depth about financial responsibility
said they counted cases as having inadequate coverage when an owner or
operator either (1) had not maintained financial responsibility
coverage or (2) had maintained coverage but did not have proof of
coverage at the time the state requested it. Twenty-three states
reported cases of inadequate coverage in the past 5 years, while only 7
states and the District of Columbia reported no cases;
19 other states reported that they did not know the number of cases
involving inadequate coverage.
The number of cases involving inadequate financial responsibility
coverage may indicate that at least some public funds will be used to
clean up a release that otherwise would have been paid for by a
responsible party. For example, according to Florida officials, the
state has cleaned up about 350 sites annually in past years using
public funding. Of these sites, approximately three to four sites per
year involved responsible parties that did not maintain adequate
financial responsibility coverage. In our survey, Florida estimated an
average cost of $380,000 in public funds to fully address each release
requiring public funds. Consequently, Florida may have spent more than
$1 million per year on such sites in the past. Florida officials noted
that the state attempts to recover these funds from the tank owners but
indicated that such efforts have not always been successful in the
past. Officials in three additional states--New Jersey, Texas, and
Utah--also told us that public funds could be used in cases involving
inadequate financial responsibility coverage, although they did not
know the number of times public funds had been used in these types of
situations in the past.
Checking financial responsibility coverage--for example, verifying
during a site inspection that an owner or operator has the required
paperwork to demonstrate coverage--helps to ensure that owners or
operators maintain adequate coverage as required by federal law. Some
options that owners or operators can choose for coverage either require
annual updates or are often renewed annually. For instance, owners or
operators that self-insure, or choose to demonstrate that they have
sufficient assets to cover costs resulting from a release, must prepare
an annual letter with financial information supporting their ability to
pay. Similarly, owners or operators that choose private insurance for
financial responsibility coverage must pay annual premiums to maintain
coverage. However, EPA does not provide states specific guidance on
whether or how frequently states should engage in routine verification
of financial responsibility coverage.[Footnote 6]
Most states reported to us that they attempted to check financial
responsibility coverage on a regular basis, but only about one-third of
the states reported that they required annual proof that tank owners or
operators were maintaining coverage. The remaining states generally
reported that they checked this coverage less often or not at all (see
fig. 4).
Figure 4: State-Reported Frequency of Checking Whether Financial
Responsibility Coverage Is Current:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: Responses to GAO's survey of tank program and/or state fund
managers.
Notes: The "other" category includes responses such as "as events
warrant," and "annual permit applications contain financial
responsibility information that may be checked," among other responses.
Among the seven states that do not check whether financial
responsibility coverage is current, four states reported that their
financial assurance funds provide such coverage for all tanks in the
state. South Dakota officials did not respond to our survey.
[A] Includes the District of Columbia.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
States that do not check financial responsibility coverage on an annual
basis may not know if owners or operators are maintaining required
coverage. For example, nearly half of the states that do not annually
check financial responsibility coverage did not know the number of
cases of inadequate coverage that had occurred in their state in the
past 5 years.
States Anticipate Spending Additional Public Funds on Newly Identified
Releases:
Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia reported that they
anticipate identifying about 37,000 releases over the next 5 years. Of
these 48 respondents, 43 reported that they expect to spend public
funds to clean up a total of about 16,700 of these releases, 2 reported
no expected use of public funds, and 3 were uncertain. Thirty-nine of
the 43 respondents that expected to spend public funds to clean up
future releases also provided estimates of the average public cost to
clean up releases in their state. Using these estimates, we determined
that the total cost to clean up releases projected to be identified in
the next five years in these states could be around $2.5 billion.
States also reported that, overall, the proportion of releases cleaned
up using public funds is likely to decline in the future. That is,
together they anticipate using public funds to clean up a higher
percentage of releases in their current backlog than of releases they
expect to identify in the next 5 years (see fig. 5). Some states that
do not use their financial assurance funds to provide financial
responsibility coverage for newly identified releases, such as Florida
and Arizona, expect particularly sizable declines.[Footnote 7] These
states expect that owners or operators will use private sources of
financial responsibility coverage to pay for the cleanup of most
releases identified in the next 5 years.
Figure 5: States' Estimates of the Percentage of Releases in Their
Current Backlogs and To Be Identified in the Next 5 Years That Will Be
Cleaned Up Using Public Funds:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: Responses to GAO's survey of tank program and/or state fund
managers.
Notes: Only 43 states and the District of Columbia, whose officials
responded to both questions, were included in this analysis.
California, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Oregon are
not included. South Dakota officials did not respond to our survey.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
States' responses also indicate that, together, they expect to identify
somewhat fewer releases per year in the next 5 years, on average, than
in 2005. Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia provided
responses in our survey to questions about releases they identified in
2005 and about new releases they project they will identify in the next
5 years. In 2005, these states confirmed a combined 8,000 releases,
compared with their projections of an average of about 7,400 releases
per year for the next 5 years. In general, state officials told us that
they based their projections on recent trends, although officials in a
few states specifically noted that they expected to identify fewer
releases in the future in part because of tank and equipment upgrade
requirements or other prevention measures.
States Primarily Rely on Financial Assurance Funds to Clean Up Releases
and Limit Cleanup Based on Funding Availability:
Most states use financial assurance funds to pay for cleaning up
releases from underground storage tanks, with most of the revenues
coming from state gasoline taxes.[Footnote 8] In several of these
states, financial assurance funds limit the number of cleanups they
perform based on funding availability. Under EPA guidance, EPA
officials are responsible for determining whether a financial assurance
fund is financially sound, that is, if it provides reasonable assurance
that funds are available to pay for cleanup costs. The agency recently
began collecting information from states to determine the soundness of
their financial assurance funds, but this effort has had limited
usefulness. Lack of timely cleanup is a concern because the longer
pollution from releases is left in place, the greater the potential for
it to spread, further placing human health and the environment at risk.
States Clean Up Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Primarily Using Financial Assurance Funds:
States reported that they primarily use financial assurance funds to
pay the costs of cleaning up leaks from underground storage tanks.
These funds accounted for $1.032 billion, or 96 percent, of the
estimated $1.076 billion from all state sources to clean up tank
releases in 2005, according to our survey results. State financial
assurance funds generally pay for cleaning up releases from tanks whose
owners participate in the assurance funds to satisfy federal financial
responsibility requirements. Figure 6 shows the state sources of
expenditures for cleanup costs in 2005.
Figure 6: State-Reported Expenditures from State Sources, 2005:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: Responses to GAO's survey of tank program and/or state fund
managers.
Note: Other state sources include funds dedicated to tanks without a
viable owner and other state funds.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
As shown in figure 6, financial assurance funds can be divided into two
types: those that currently provide financial responsibility coverage,
and those that used to but no longer do so. Most states have, or have
had, financial assurance funds. As of September 30, 2005, 37 states had
funds that met federal requirements for financial responsibility,
according to EPA; an additional 6 states had such funds in the past but
these funds no longer provided coverage for new releases; and 7 states
and the District of Columbia have never had financial assurance funds
that were approved by EPA to provide financial responsibility coverage
(see fig.7).
Figure 7: Status of Financial Responsibility Coverage of State
Financial Assurance Funds, as of September 30, 2005:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: Responses to GAO's survey of tank program and/or state fund
managers.
Note: Arizona's fund stopped providing financial responsibility
coverage after June 30, 2006.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
The funds in each of the six states that stopped providing financial
responsibility coverage for new releases did so after a certain
deadline. Tank owners and operators in these states now demonstrate
financial responsibility coverage primarily through private insurance,
according to state officials. However, as recently as fiscal year 2005,
some of these state funds were still paying out large amounts to clean
up releases. In fact, over one-fifth of states' public spending to
clean up releases from underground storage tanks in 2005 came from
these financial assurance funds. For example, although Florida's fund
last provided financial responsibility coverage for new releases on
December 31, 1998, it is still responsible for cleaning up
approximately 12,000 sites, and it spent almost $150 million on
cleanups in 2005. Michigan's fund, however, no longer provided
financial responsibility coverage after June 1995 because it had
insufficient funds to pay existing and future claims. Michigan state
officials reported that several other funds provided cleanup money for
underground storage tanks in 2005, including the Clean Michigan
Initiative Bond Fund. This fund can be used to pay for many activities,
such as waterfront improvements and cleanup of contaminated lake and
river sediments.
Seven states and the District of Columbia have never had funds that
provided financial responsibility coverage. In these states, tank
owners and operators use other ways of demonstrating financial
responsibility coverage, primarily private insurance and self-
insurance, according to our survey. While they never had financial
assurance funds, some of these states have provided cleanup funds to
address releases from underground storage tanks. In fact, four of these
states reported paying for such cleanups from state sources in 2005.
Delaware, for example, reported spending $1 million in 2005 from a
reimbursement fund for 240 sites. Other states assist or have assisted
owners and operators with cleanup by operating insurance-type
mechanisms. In the state of Washington, for example, the state's
reinsurance program helps owners and operators of underground storage
tanks obtain affordable pollution liability insurance by assuming part
of the risk for each loss and insulating the primary insurer from
losses greater than a certain amount. In the case of a $1,000,000
policy, for example, Washington's reinsurance program is responsible
for settlements over $75,000. Table 2 summarizes some of the key
distinctions among state approaches to ensuring that tanks are cleaned
up.
Table 2: Summary of Reported State Approaches to Ensuring That Tank
Cleanups Are Completed, by Status of State Financial Assurance Fund:
Status of state financial assurance fund as of September 30, 2005:
State has a financial assurance fund that provides financial
responsibility coverage (37 states);
Number of states that spent public funds from state sources on cleanup
in 2005: 35;
Number of states with owner/operators that use each method to
demonstrate financial responsibility coverage: Financial assurance
fund: 29;
Number of states with owner/operators that use each method to
demonstrate financial responsibility coverage: Private insurance: 13;
Number of states with owner/operators that use each method to
demonstrate financial responsibility coverage: Other private form of
coverage: 19;
Number of states whose financial assurance fund received funding from
each source: State gasoline taxes: 31;
Number of states whose financial assurance fund received funding from
each source: Tank fees: 18.
Status of state financial assurance fund as of September 30, 2005:
State financial assurance fund no longer provides financial
responsibility coverage (six states);
Number of states that spent public funds from state sources on cleanup
in 2005: 6;
Number of states with owner/operators that use each method to
demonstrate financial responsibility coverage: Financial assurance
fund: N/A;
Number of states with owner/operators that use each method to
demonstrate financial responsibility coverage: Private insurance: 6;
Number of states with owner/operators that use each method to
demonstrate financial responsibility coverage: Other private form of
coverage: 6;
Number of states whose financial assurance fund received funding from
each source: State gasoline taxes: 3;
Number of states whose financial assurance fund received funding from
each source: Tank fees: 1.
Status of state financial assurance fund as of September 30, 2005:
State never had a financial assurance fund that provided financial
responsibility coverage (seven states and the District of Columbia);
Number of states that spent public funds from state sources on cleanup
in 2005: 4;
Number of states with owner/operators that use each method to
demonstrate financial responsibility coverage: Financial assurance
fund: N/A;
Number of states with owner/operators that use each method to
demonstrate financial responsibility coverage: Private insurance: 7[A];
Number of states with owner/operators that use each method to
demonstrate financial responsibility coverage: Other private form of
coverage: 7[A];
Number of states whose financial assurance fund received funding from
each source: State gasoline taxes: N/A;
Number of states whose financial assurance fund received funding from
each source: Tank fees: N/A.
Source: Responses to GAO's survey of tank program and/or state fund
managers.
Note: Certain states did not provide data for certain questions, so the
information in this table may be incomplete.
[A] Includes the District of Columbia.
[End of table]
At federal fiscal year-end 2005, state financial assurance funds in 39
states held unexpended balances of approximately $1.3 billion,
according to estimates reported by state officials. Four states did not
have or did not report a fund balance. As shown in figure 8, individual
states' fund balances ranged as high as about $207 million. The top
five states--Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, and California-
-accounted for more than half of the total balance in these funds.
Because many state assurance funds also pay to clean up releases from
other types of tanks--such as aboveground storage tanks--the entire
balance of any one state's financial assurance fund may not be
available for cleaning up underground storage tanks.
Figure 8: Top Ten States by Size of Reported Balance of Financial
Assurance Fund, as of September 30, 2005:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: Responses to GAO's survey of tank program and/or state fund
managers.
Notes: Given limitations in the reliability of the information reported
by some states, data presented in this table should not be used to
compare state programs. Financial assurance funds in Florida, Texas,
New Jersey, and Wisconsin no longer provided financial responsibility
coverage as of September 30, 2005.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Overall, states reported in our survey that financial assurance funds
accrued revenues of about $1.4 billion in 2005 from a variety of
sources. State taxes on gasoline and other fuels accounted for about
$1.3 billion (92 percent) of this income to state funds. Such taxes are
generally considered to be paid by the consumer. States reported that
financial assurance funds also received revenues totaling about $42
million (3 percent) from fees paid by tank owners and operators. Only
four states' financial assurance funds collected tank fees but not
gasoline taxes in 2005, and tank fees were the primary source of
revenues for only three of these funds, according to our survey. In
addition to gasoline taxes and fees on tanks, states also reported
small amounts of revenues from sources such as interest and cost
recovery.
Whether a state financial assurance fund collects revenue from various
sources in a given year can depend on its balance. Many states have
maximum limits on the overall balance of their funds. Generally, if a
state's maximum limit is reached, its fund ceases collecting revenues
from one or more of its revenue sources until the fund balance drops
below a minimum threshold. For example, Idaho has not collected certain
fees for its fund since 1998 when the balance of its fund exceeded $30
million, according to a state official. The fund will again begin
collecting revenue from these fees once its balance drops to $15
million.
Some State Funds Do Not Have Sufficient Resources to Ensure Timely
Cleanups:
While state financial assurance funds can provide substantial amounts
of funding for cleaning up releases, funds in some states may not have
sufficient resources to ensure that these cleanups are performed in a
timely manner. Specifically, officials in nine states reported in our
survey that their funds limit the amount of cleanup work they finance
based on funding availability. The situation of three such funds, as
described by state officials, follows:
* North Carolina. The revenues to the state's financial assurance fund
have not been sufficient in recent years to address all of the fund's
high-risk sites. As of February 2006, the state was only authorizing
cleanup work that the fund could pay for within 90 days.
* South Carolina. Officials generally preapprove cleanup work only at
the sites where contamination is most severe. After an initial
assessment of each site's contamination, the state categorizes releases
into one of four categories. The most urgent category includes releases
deemed emergencies, all of which were being actively cleaned up as of
August 2006. The remaining categories are ranked based on how soon the
release is likely to affect human health and the environment, as well
as its impact on groundwater. As of August 2006, less than 40 percent
of the releases in these categories were being actively cleaned up.
* Florida. Although the state's financial assurance fund stopped
providing financial responsibility coverage for new releases in 1998,
it is having difficulty paying for all of its cleanups. The state fund
is only able to actively conduct cleanup work at about one-third of the
12,000 remaining sites. The approximately 8,000 other sites in the
fund's backlog await cleanup. These cleanups will not occur until money
becomes available for them, or, potentially, the risk posed by the
sites increases so much that they require more urgent cleanup.
The timeliness of cleanups of releases from underground storage tanks
is especially important because the longer contamination from these
releases is left in place, the greater the potential becomes for the
contamination to spread. The farther these contaminants are allowed to
spread, the greater the chance becomes that they will contaminate
drinking water and other sensitive resources, potentially putting human
health and the environment at risk. In addition, when state financial
assurance funds do not pay cleanup claims on a timely basis, tank
owners and operators may delay cleanups. For example, tank owners may
be less likely to voluntarily report releases if they know that
reporting a release could lead to a mandatory cleanup and believe that
they will not be reimbursed by the state financial assurance fund for
performing that cleanup for an extended period, according to an EPA
regional official.
To ensure that funds are available to clean up releases in a timely and
appropriate manner, state financial assurance funds must be financially
sound. According to EPA guidance on the subject issued in 1993, a state
assurance fund is financially sound if it provides reasonable assurance
that money is available to pay for cleanup costs and other liabilities.
"Reasonable assurance," according to EPA, would be evident, for
instance, if the fund assets are greater than liabilities or there are
sufficient resources to meet current demands, that is, the normal
timing of payment of claims is not significantly delaying cleanups. If
funding levels or claim processing time has a negative impact on the
cleanup of releases from underground storage tanks (i.e., causing undue
delays in cleaning up releases that therefore harm human health and the
environment), then EPA would be concerned about the financial soundness
of the fund.
State financial assurance funds may face additional challenges to
remaining financially sound in coming years for the following reasons:
* Financial assurance funds may take on additional liability from tank
installers and manufacturers. Effective February 2007, the 2005 Act
directs EPA to require that each state receiving federal funds either
implement "secondary containment" for new and replaced underground
storage tanks located near sources of drinking water or to require
evidence of financial responsibility for tank manufacturers and
installers. In selecting the second option, states must require that
any manufacturer or installer of an underground storage tank maintain
evidence of financial responsibility coverage. In some cases, tank
installers and manufacturers may turn to state financial assurance
funds for financial responsibility coverage. While a few state funds
already provide such coverage to installers, this additional liability
could strain the resources of some states' funds, according to a senior
official in EPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks.
* Some states may discover more releases in the coming years than in
past years. The 2005 Act requires each state receiving federal funding
to inspect all of their underground storage tanks on a 3-year cycle,
beginning after the state inspects tanks that have not been inspected
since December 1998. For those states that currently inspect sites less
frequently, the additional inspections, while intended to prevent leaks
in the long term, could lead to a spike in the number of releases
discovered. For example, officials in Texas told us that underground
storage tank facilities in their state are inspected about every 10
years, on average. Releases in this state that may not have otherwise
been found for as long as 10 years may be discovered much sooner,
leading to an increase in confirmed releases over the next few years.
Finding these releases sooner may mean that the contamination would be
less extensive, however, and therefore any cleanup required would be
less costly.
* State financial assurance funds may also be affected by future
natural disasters, such as hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. As late
as June 2006, the impact of the flooding caused by these hurricanes on
Louisiana's financial assurance fund was not yet fully known, according
to a state official. If all underground storage tanks that could have
been affected by the flooding turn out to have had releases, the
workload of the state assurance fund would increase by 25 percent.
Payouts from the state assurance fund would increase by approximately
$4 million per year, according to this official.
Diversions from state financial assurance funds may also limit some
states' ability to pay for cleanups under certain circumstances. States
may sometimes decide to withdraw or withhold money from state financial
assurance funds. Of the 43 states that have had financial assurance
funds, 16 reported in our survey that they had diverted a total of
nearly $435 million from their funds between 2001 and 2005.[Footnote 9]
Officials in most of these states reported that the diverted amounts
went to the state's general fund or to offset state budget shortfalls.
A few states reported using diverted funds for specific programs, such
as Brownfields grants and loans, a lead-based paint removal program,
and cleanup of groundwater contamination caused by sources other than
leaking storage tanks. Officials we interviewed in two states where
diversions occurred--Florida and South Carolina--reported a negative
impact on the state program's ability to clean up sites. In Florida,
for example, $20 million was diverted in 2002. As a result, financial
assurance fund managers had to adjust the threshold for cleanup,
meaning that the cleanup of less urgent releases, which otherwise would
have been addressed, was delayed, according to state officials.
Officials we interviewed in two other states--Pennsylvania and New
Jersey--did not believe that diversions had caused a significant
negative impact, if any. In the largest case of a diversion reported to
us, for example, the Pennsylvania financial assurance fund loaned the
legislature $100 million in 2002 to balance the state's budget,
according to state officials. State officials reported that this
diversion did not impact the fund's operations, however, because the
fund still had more than enough money to meet its current expenses.
Figure 9 shows the number of states with financial assurance funds that
reported to us that they had experienced a diversion between 2001 and
2005.
Figure 9: Number of States Reporting Diversions from State Financial
Assurance Funds, 2001-2005:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: Responses to GAO's survey of tank program and/or state fund
managers.
Notes: Forty-three states have had financial assurance funds that
provided financial responsibility coverage. As of September 30, 2005,
two states' funds had been reimbursed for portions of the original
diversion.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
The 2005 Act included language providing that, if a state diverts
resources from its financial assurance fund, EPA may not distribute a
certain portion of LUST appropriations to that state for enforcement
purposes. This provision affects only the 37 states whose financial
assurance funds still provide financial responsibility coverage for new
releases. Officials we interviewed in Pennsylvania and South Carolina
regarding this issue were uncertain about the 2005 Act's impact on
future diversions in those states. A South Carolina official, for
example, believed that the provisions could discourage the state from
making relatively small diversions from the financial assurance fund
because the loss of federal funding would more than offset the gain
from the diversion. If the state needed to divert a large amount of
money, even relative to the $1.3 million overall distribution it
received from EPA in 2005, the disincentive would not be as
significant. Two states even commented in their responses to our survey
that they anticipated diversions in 2006. EPA had not developed
guidance to implement these provisions of the 2005 Act as of December
2006.
Concerns have been raised about whether tank owners have incentives to
prevent releases from their tanks when they can rely on state financial
assurance funds to pay the bulk of the cleanup costs. Although EPA
estimates that releases cost about $125,000 to clean up, on average,
most state financial assurance funds charge a deductible of $25,000 or
less, according to our survey. Twelve states described the
circumstances under which penalties could be imposed on tank owners for
multiple, or repeated, releases, in their survey responses. Officials
in several states indicated that penalties were not usually imposed
simply if multiple releases occurred. Rather, most states imposed
penalties on the basis of evidence that the tank owner did not comply
with applicable regulations or failed to report a release. For example,
New Hampshire officials indicated that, while the state has authority
for administrative fines and civil penalties in cases involving
multiple releases, such actions are not automatically imposed. Instead,
fines and penalties may be assessed if a second release results from a
tank owner's recalcitrance in achieving and maintaining compliance with
operational regulations. Of the 20 states that provided comments in
response to our survey question regarding multiple releases, none
indicated that increased penalties were imposed simply based on the
occurrence of a second release.
EPA's Method of Ensuring the Adequacy of Financial Assurance Funds Has
Limitations:
EPA approves state financial assurance funds to provide financial
responsibility coverage. According to EPA guidance, the agency can
withdraw this approval if a fund no longer provides coverage that
ensures timely and adequate cleanup of releases. As discussed earlier,
EPA would be concerned about the soundness of a state financial
assurance fund if the funding levels or claim processing time caused
undue delays in cleaning up releases, thereby potentially harming human
health and the environment. In Texas, for example, claims substantially
exceeded revenues during the early years of the state's financial
assurance fund. By 1992, the fund had a backlog of unpaid bills
totaling about $170 million. This amount exceeded the fund's annual
income by approximately 300 percent, and new claims arriving daily
added to the backlog. In order to catch up, the fund temporarily slowed
down some cleanup work. Even though the fund stopped accepting new
releases after December 22, 1998, state officials expect it to remain
in place at least until 2008.
EPA monitors the soundness of state financial assurance funds;
this task is carried out by EPA regions, according to the agency's 1993
guidance on the subject. This guidance suggested several steps that
regions could use to adequately monitor fund soundness, including (1)
collecting baseline data on relevant fund soundness measures from each
state, (2) evaluating the baseline soundness of each state fund, and
(3) monitoring these fund soundness measures over time to check for
developing problems. The guidance also specified that monitoring state
funds should be accomplished as part of regions' routine oversight of
state programs. Officials in four of the six EPA regions we interviewed
conducted fund soundness oversight primarily by discussing the
financial position of the state assurance fund with relevant state
officials.
In 2005, EPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks began collecting
information from states on various aspects of their financial assurance
funds. The goals of this effort included providing a better tool to
monitor state financial assurance funds' soundness and helping EPA work
with states to resolve any soundness issues. According to some EPA
officials, however, the data collected were of limited usefulness. One
region's program manager did not expect that the agency's effort would
provide any new information, except data to document what he already
knew. An EPA headquarters official, who is closely involved with the
effort, agreed that the agency's information collection, at most,
helped confirm what regions already saw as problem states. Moreover,
states provided data with gaps or further clarifications needed in key
areas, such as the number of release sites awaiting funding and the
estimated total liabilities for underground storage tanks. EPA regional
officials described this first effort as a collection of baseline
information, and the agency decided to collect data again in 2006
without changing its method. Results for 2006 were not available as of
December 2006.
The 2005 Act also included language providing that EPA may withdraw
approval of a state fund for financial responsibility coverage without
withdrawing approval of the overall state underground storage tank
program. In response, EPA has formed a workgroup to examine the issue
of how to assess the soundness of state financial assurance funds and
to develop criteria for guidance on the conditions under which it might
withdraw fund approval, including what would constitute a lack of
financial soundness. The guidance had not been made final as of
December 2006.
Federal Funding Provided to Clean Up Releases from Underground Storage
Tanks Is Limited:
Annual appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund have averaged about $71
million in recent years. Typically, about 80 percent of the money is
distributed to the states to support their cleanup programs. LUST Trust
Fund money provided to states generally represents a small portion of
the individual states' cleanup program budgets. In fiscal year 2005,
the states used about two-thirds of their distributions to fund program
administration and enforcement activities and one-third to fund the
cleanup of sites.
Appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund Have Been Relatively Stable:
Appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund have been relatively stable
since fiscal year 1998. Between fiscal years 1998 and 2005, annual
appropriations from the trust fund have ranged from about $65 million
to $76 million per year, averaging about $71 million per year. Over
this period, EPA distributed an average of about 80 percent of the
annual appropriations to states to support their cleanup programs. EPA
uses the balance of the annual appropriations to support cleanup
activities on Indian lands and its own cleanup-related activities.
Forty-eight states reported spending about $15 million in LUST Trust
Fund money on site cleanup activities in 2005, by far the largest
single source of federal money for this purpose reported in our survey.
Figure 10 shows the level of appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund
since it began operations. As the figure shows, annual appropriations
from the trust fund varied considerably in the first 10 years of the
program.
Figure 10: Appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund, Fiscal Years 1987-
2005:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Financed by a $0.001/gallon excise tax on gasoline and other motor
fuels and the interest that accrues to the fund balance annually, the
balance of the LUST Trust Fund had grown to about $2.5 billion by
fiscal year-end 2005. The tax has been in effect continuously since
1987, except for a short period in 1990 and the period between December
31, 1995, and October 1, 1997, when the tax had expired. Since 1987,
the fund balance has been growing at an average rate of about $129
million per year. By fiscal year-end 2005, the LUST Trust Fund had
collected about $3.7 billion in revenue while appropriations totaled
about $1.2 billion, leaving a fund balance of approximately $2.5
billion. Figure 11 shows the changes in the trust fund balance from
1987 through 2005.
Figure 11: LUST Trust Fund Balance, Fiscal Years, 1987-2005:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
From the inception of the fund through fiscal year 2005, net tax
revenue to the LUST Trust Fund has averaged about $144 million per
year, with interest from investments adding an average of $49 million.
Net revenues in fiscal years 2001 and 2005 also included relatively
small amounts expended from the fund by EPA and subsequently recovered
from the parties responsible for the contamination and redeposited to
the fund (see table 3).
Table 3: LUST Trust Fund Revenue, Fiscal Years 1987-2005:
Dollars in millions.
1987;
Net tax revenue[A]: $73;
Interest income: $1;
Total net revenue: $74.
1988;
Net tax revenue[A]: 125;
Interest income: 10;
Total net revenue: 135.
1989;
Net tax revenue[A]: 168;
Interest income: 23;
Total net revenue: 191.
1990;
Net tax revenue[A]: 122;
Interest income: 34;
Total net revenue: 156.
1991;
Net tax revenue[A]: 123;
Interest income: 35;
Total net revenue: 158.
1992;
Net tax revenue[A]: 157;
Interest income: 31;
Total net revenue: 188.
1993;
Net tax revenue[A]: 153;
Interest income: 24;
Total net revenue: 177.
1994;
Net tax revenue[A]: 152;
Interest income: 29;
Total net revenue: 180.
1995;
Net tax revenue[A]: 165;
Interest income: 52;
Total net revenue: 217.
1996;
Net tax revenue[A]: 48;
Interest income: 60;
Total net revenue: 108.
1997;
Net tax revenue[A]: (2);
Interest income: 58;
Total net revenue: 57.
1998;
Net tax revenue[A]: 136;
Interest income: 61;
Total net revenue: 197.
1999;
Net tax revenue[A]: 216;
Interest income: 58;
Total net revenue: 273.
2000;
Net tax revenue[A]: 181;
Interest income: 79;
Total net revenue: 260.
2001;
Net tax revenue[A]: 182;
Interest income: 95;
Total net revenue: 276[B].
2002;
Net tax revenue[A]: 181;
Interest income: 68;
Total net revenue: 249.
2003;
Net tax revenue[A]: 184;
Interest income: 64;
Total net revenue: 249.
2004;
Net tax revenue[A]: 189;
Interest income: 67;
Total net revenue: 256.
2005;
Net tax revenue[A]: 190;
Interest income: 78;
Total net revenue: 269[B].
Total;
Net tax revenue[A]: $2,743;
Interest income: $927;
Total net revenue: $3,671[B].
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
Note: Figures may not add to total due to rounding.
[A] Net tax revenue includes income from taxes, less refunds and
credits.
[B] The total also includes $40,000 in cost recoveries in fiscal year
2001 and $1,455,000 in cost recoveries in fiscal year 2005.
[End of table]
LUST Trust Fund Money Is a Relatively Small Part of Many States'
Programs:
States' revenues from the LUST Trust Fund's annual appropriations
represent a relatively small part of many states' cleanup program
revenue in any given year. In fiscal year 2005, EPA distributed about
$58 million of LUST Trust Fund money to the states, or about $1.2
million per state. State programs spent much more than this on the
cleanup portion of their programs alone. In fact, 45 states each
reported spending an average of $24 million in 2005 to clean up
contamination from leaking tanks. LUST Trust Fund money used for
cleanup work is generally intended to pay for cleaning up releases from
tanks without a viable owner. Even when examining only this aspect of
the cleanup effort, nine states reported spending amounts that far
exceeded their LUST Trust Fund distribution--more than $2 million each
in 2005 alone to clean up contamination from leaking tanks without a
viable owner. As discussed earlier in this report, the cleanup work
from such tanks that remains to be done is significant.
Distributing the annual LUST Trust Fund appropriation among the states
is a two-step process. First, EPA headquarters uses a formula to
determine the amount each state should receive and then divides the
money among the regions based on the total for the states within each
region. Second, EPA regional officials consider the components of the
state formulas, along with additional factors, to determine the actual
amount to be distributed to each of the states in their region.
Additional factors that may be considered, according to EPA regional
officials, include states' actual need for money in light of such
things as funding carryovers from prior years, states' work plans, or
any special projects. For the most part, the EPA regional officials
whom we interviewed stated that deviations from the formula
distributions, when they occur, are usually relatively minor.
The formula EPA headquarters uses to distribute LUST Trust Fund money
to the regions incorporates three components: (1) a minimum
distribution of $300,000 per state; (2) a need-based amount that
considers the numbers of underground storage tanks and releases in the
state, as well as the percentage of the population relying on
groundwater for potable water; and (3) a performance-based bonus to
states that meet or exceed the national averages for the numbers of
cleanups initiated and completed. The distribution formula does not
consider the number of releases from tanks without a viable owner in
various states, nor does it consider the risk that specific releases
may pose to human health and the environment. EPA develops information
on states' needs and performance from states' semiannual activity
reports on their tank numbers and cleanup activities. However, our
survey disclosed several concerns regarding the accuracy of these
reports, including the following:
* According to officials in two states, the information they report in
the semiannual activity reports is based on estimates rather than
actual performance. For example, a Maine official told us that the data
the state reports is generated by canvassing their regional staff, and
the state has found errors in the data reported in the past. A Wyoming
official told us that the state tracks contaminated sites rather than
releases. Because EPA reports call for data on releases rather than
sites, Wyoming provides its best estimate of release data.
* Some of the reporting problems disclosed in our survey are related to
the definitions of the reporting elements. An Arizona program official
told us, for example, that the program was uncertain of EPA's
definition of the cleanups initiated performance measure. The state
official expressed concern that the state's definition of cleanups
initiated may not agree with the EPA definition. The state reports a
site as "cleanup initiated" when the release has been confirmed and a
case number assigned. According to the EPA definition, however, cleanup
initiated requires that the state or responsible party has evaluated
the site and initiated physical activity (e.g., removal or treatment of
the contamination, removal of the contaminated soil, or monitoring of
the groundwater or soil being remediated). Cleanup initiated should
also be reported in situations where the state has evaluated the site
and determined that no physical activity is necessary to protect human
health and the environment.
* A Louisiana Underground Storage Tank Program official told us that a
review of its files disclosed that the program had been reporting
duplicate entries and releases that did not meet EPA's definition.
* An Oregon Underground Storage Tank Program Coordinator told us that,
in the process of cleaning up its database information, program
officials found many sites being reported that were duplicates or
involved releases that did not come from regulated tanks.
* A Maryland Department of the Environment official acknowledged that
it has been reporting semiannual performance data incorrectly, and as a
result, some of the state's performance activities have been double
counted.
* An Oklahoma Petroleum Storage Tank Division official told us that the
division had been reporting performance data on all tanks regulated by
the state, including the aboveground storage tanks, and also
undercounting the number of "active tanks" by excluding tanks that were
only temporarily out of service.
To help ensure the accuracy of the states' semiannual activities
reports, EPA recommends that the regions review each state's data
submission for reasonableness based on the state's prior reports and
the regional program manager's knowledge of the state's program. When
any of the states' data appear questionable, the regions are asked to
follow up with the states to obtain an explanation or corrected data.
Our interviews with EPA regional officials indicated that they were
generally following this headquarters guidance. Nevertheless, in some
cases regional officials were not aware of reporting problems with the
states in their regions that our survey disclosed. To ensure that
states properly understand EPA's definition of the data reporting
elements, at least one EPA region reminds its states of the EPA
definitions each time a semiannual activity report is due. Other
regions we interviewed were less proactive, essentially relying on
informal discussions, the experience of the state officials, or the
posting of the definitions on the EPA Web site.
EPA also aggregates elements of the states' semiannual activity reports
to measure program performance against the national goals it
establishes in accordance with the Government Performance and Results
Act. For fiscal year 2005, EPA's goals for the underground storage tank
program included (1) completing 14,500 cleanups, (2) completing 30
cleanups in Indian Country, and (3) decreasing newly reported confirmed
releases to fewer than 10,000. On the basis of the states' reports for
fiscal year 2005, EPA reported that all the goals were met.
Money from the LUST Trust Fund is meant, in part, to address releases
from tanks without a viable owner. In a November 2005 report, we
recommended that EPA collect available information from states, in
their reports to the agency, regarding the number and cleanup status of
all known abandoned underground storage tanks within their
boundaries.[Footnote 10] This information would improve EPA's ability
to determine how to most efficiently and effectively distribute LUST
Trust Fund dollars to the states. Although 37 states and the District
of Columbia reported numbers of releases that came from tanks without a
viable owner in our survey, as of December 2006, EPA Office of
Underground Storage Tanks officials stated that EPA had not yet
required states to report this information because of concerns
regarding the burden this might place on some states.
States Use LUST Trust Fund Money in a Variety of Ways to Support Their
Programs:
Under cooperative agreements with EPA, states receive distributions
from the LUST Trust Fund to help cover the cost of administering their
LUST cleanup programs. According to EPA regional officials, the states'
programs are all set up differently and, under EPA guidelines, the
states can decide how they will best use the LUST Trust Fund money to
fit their particular program. According to EPA, over the past 10 years,
on average, states have used roughly one-third of their LUST Trust Fund
money for each of the following categories: (1) administrative
activities, including LUST Trust Fund program management, general
management and administrative support, program guidance and
implementation, and training; (2) enforcement activities, including all
actions necessary to identify a leaking underground storage tank site's
potentially responsible party; issuance of letters, notices, and orders
to the responsible parties; oversight of the cleanups; and activities
associated with cost recovery actions; and (3) cleanup activities
consisting largely of emergency responses, site investigations,
exposure assessments, and corrective actions.
In fiscal year 2005, most of the states reported spending at least some
of their LUST Trust Fund money in all three categories. However, some
states focused their spending on just one or two categories. For
example, 10 states reported they did not spend any of their LUST Trust
Fund money on cleanup activities in fiscal year 2005. Figure 12 shows
the states' use of LUST Trust Fund money by spending category.
Figure 12: States' Use of LUST Trust Fund Money by Spending Category,
Fiscal Year 2005:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: EPA data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Regional officials told us that many states prefer to use their LUST
Trust Fund money to fund staff positions rather than cleanups. For
example, according to an EPA Region 5 official, although states in
their region initially used their LUST Trust Fund money to perform
cleanups, they soon decided that funding staff positions was more cost
effective than performing the cleanup and pursuing cost recovery, which
can be an expensive and time-consuming process. By funding additional
staff positions rather than cleanup activities, states were often able
to identify the responsible parties and force them to do the cleanups,
thereby avoiding the time and expense of pursuing cost-recovery
actions. A Region 6 official told us that some states view the cost
recovery process as a deterrent to using the federal money for cleanup
activities.[Footnote 11] Because they have state money available for
cleanup efforts, states can use the federal money for staff salaries.
Region 8 officials noted that some states actually require the use of
state money for cleanup, and thus the federal money is used for
administrative or enforcement activities, particularly salaries.
An EPA official in Region 4, however, took issue with states that do
not use LUST Trust Fund money for cleanups. The EPA official stated
that, in some cases, cleanups that could have been performed with the
LUST Trust Fund money are not being undertaken because the money is
being used for salaries. The official told us that Region 4 encourages
states to fund salaries with state money so that LUST Trust Fund money
can be used for cleanups; however, the official acknowledged that
ultimately it is up to the states to decide how to use these federal
funds, within the permitted parameters.
Conclusions:
EPA generally relies on states to ensure that tank owners and operators
comply with federal financial responsibility regulations, but it does
not provide specific guidance to the states as to whether or how
frequently they should verify financial responsibility coverage. As a
result, states verify coverage according to differing schedules or not
at all. Therefore, EPA lacks assurance that states are adequately
overseeing and enforcing financial responsibility provisions. We found
that only about one-third of states check coverage on an annual basis,
while the remaining states generally reported they check less
frequently or not at all. Additionally, many states could not provide
information on the extent of inadequate financial responsibility in
their states for the past 5 years. If states do not verify coverage on
a routine basis, it may be difficult for them to know whether owners or
operators will have the required coverage in the event of a release. If
the required coverage is not in place when a release occurs, funds may
not be available to pay for cleanup in a timely manner, thus increasing
the potential for contamination to spread and damage the environment
and human health. Additionally, a lack of available funds may result in
taxpayers paying more of the cleanup costs than they would have
otherwise paid.
In addition, EPA's method of monitoring whether state financial
assurance funds provide adequate financial responsibility coverage has
limitations. Unless EPA improves how it monitors the soundness of state
financial assurance funds, it will not be aware of deficiencies in
coverage before they occur or in sufficient time to take action to
avoid funding shortages, which could delay the cleanup of releases and
potentially threaten human health and the environment.
Under the principle of "the polluter pays," tank owners and operators
are primarily responsible for the costs of cleaning up contamination
from their leaking tanks. RCRA requires these owners and operators to
obtain some form of financial responsibility coverage to demonstrate
that they have access to resources to cover cleanup costs. In response,
many states developed financial assurance funds, at least in part to
ensure that releases are cleaned up in a timely manner. In the event of
a release, tank owners covered by these funds usually pay a relatively
small deductible, while the funds provide sometimes large sums of
public funding to complete the required cleanup. Because these
deductibles are often small, they may not provide an incentive for tank
owners to prevent releases from occurring. In addition, in many states,
tank owners are using financial responsibility mechanisms other than
state assurance funds. While some state funds are currently
encountering difficulties paying for cleanups in a timely manner, tank
owners in many states will increasingly rely on other means of
financial responsibility coverage, making it important to know whether
state funds or private forms of coverage are more effective in ensuring
timely cleanups. EPA is ideally situated, through its existing
relationship with state program officials throughout the country, to
shed light on this issue.
EPA's distribution of LUST Trust Fund money to states depends on data
that may not be accurate. In addition, states are not required to
report data to EPA on the number of releases from tanks without a
viable owner. Although one of the purposes of the fund is to help
states clean up releases from tanks without a viable owner, EPA
currently allocates resources to the states without taking into account
the number of such releases in each state. In our November 2005 report,
we recommended that EPA collect available data from the states
regarding the number of tanks in each state that had no viable
owners.[Footnote 12] In commenting on this recommendation, EPA
expressed concern about placing an undue burden on states. In our
response, we explained that we were not suggesting that states should
try to identify new sites that they were not currently aware of, but
merely report on sites without viable owners separately from the
aggregated data that they already provided to EPA. We continue to
believe that such reporting would be worthwhile and would not present
an undue burden to most states. In our survey, 37 states and the
District of Columbia reported data on the number of tanks without
viable owners that had known releases. Taking this information into
account in distributing LUST Trust Fund money could encourage the
remaining states to gather such information as well. In addition,
developing national data on the extent to which releases remaining to
be cleaned up are attributed to tanks without viable owners would be
useful to both EPA and the Congress in assessing the future public
funding needs for EPA's UST program.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Administrator, EPA, take the following four
actions:
* Ensure that states verify, on a regular basis, that tank owners and
operators are maintaining adequate financial responsibility coverage,
as required by RCRA;
* Improve the agency's oversight of the solvency of state assurance
funds to ensure that they continue to provide reliable financial
responsibility coverage for tank owners;
* Assess, in coordination with the states, the relative effectiveness
of public and private options for financial responsibility coverage to
ensure that they provide timely funding for the cleanup of releases;
and:
* Better focus how EPA distributes program resources to states,
including LUST Trust Fund money, by:
- ensuring that states are reporting information in their semiannual
activity reports that is consistent with EPA's definitions;
- encouraging states to review their databases to ensure that only data
on the appropriate universe of underground storage tanks are being
reported in their semiannual activity reports; and:
- gathering available information from states on releases attributed to
tanks without a viable owner and taking this information into account
in distributing LUST Trust Fund money to states.
Agency Comments:
We provided EPA with a draft of this report for its review and comment.
EPA agreed with our recommendations and provided information on the
agency's plans and activities to address each of them. Regarding our
recommendation that EPA ensure that states verify that tank owners and
operators maintain adequate financial responsibility coverage, the
agency indicated that it has issued draft guidelines that would require
inspections of underground storage tanks to assess compliance with
financial responsibility requirements. Regarding our recommendation
that EPA improve its oversight of the solvency of state assurance
funds, the agency indicated that it would strengthen its oversight by
improving a recently developed monitoring tool and by developing
guidance for its oversight process. Regarding our recommendation that
EPA assess the relative effectiveness of public and private options for
financial responsibility coverage, the agency indicated that it would
consider conducting such a study in conjunction with the states.
Finally, regarding our recommendation to better focus how EPA
distributes program resources to states, the agency stated that it
would work toward ensuring that state-reported data are consistent with
existing EPA definitions and are limited to federally regulated
underground storage tanks. Also, EPA stated that it would consider
changes to improve the distribution of future LUST Trust Fund money.
EPA's letter commenting on our report is included as appendix IV.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the EPA
Administrator and other interested parties. We will also make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
John B. Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
The objectives of this review were to provide information on (1)
states' estimates of the cost in public funding from state and federal
sources to clean up known releases from underground storage tanks, (2)
states' primary sources of funding for addressing these releases and
their future viability, and (3) the funding available from federal
sources to address these releases.
For the purposes of this review, we defined public funding as including
any money controlled and/or provided by state and federal agencies--for
example, money from the federal Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
Trust Fund, state financial assurance funds, other state funds that
have not been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
provide financial responsibility coverage, or money appropriated by the
state to pay for cleanup that would not otherwise occur. Our definition
excluded money spent by federal, state, and local government agencies
to clean up releases from tanks they either own or operate--this money
would be considered to be provided by the responsible party.
To address our objectives, we developed and administered a survey to
state officials responsible for underground storage tank programs or,
where applicable, for state cleanup funds, in the 50 states and the
District of Columbia.[Footnote 13] Specifically, we prepared and e-
mailed a Word Electronic Questionnaire to obtain data, whether
estimated or actual, from states on underground storage tanks,
including the number of tanks, releases, and cleanups, and financial
responsibility and funding sources for cleanups. The practical
difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce nonsampling error.
For example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted,
the sources of information available to respondents, or the types of
people who do not respond can introduce unwanted variability into the
survey results. We included steps in both the data collection and data
analysis stages to minimize such nonsampling errors. For example, in
the research design and data collection stages, we took the following
steps:
* We obtained from EPA its list of state contacts. We then attempted to
contact all listed state officials via e-mail and asked them to tell us
whether they or someone else in their state would be the most
appropriate contact. Upon receiving this e-mail, a few officials
identified more appropriate survey respondents. In states where we were
not able to contact the officials on EPA's list via e-mail, we sent the
e-mail regarding the most appropriate contact to officials named on
lists of state contacts from two other professional organizations that
also conduct surveys about underground storage tanks--the New England
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission and the Association of
State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials--and, in some
cases, to officials listed on states' underground storage tank-related
Web sites.[Footnote 14]
* We pretested the survey with officials from four states between
October 28, 2005, and December 21, 2005, and used their feedback to
refine the survey. States were selected for the pretests to ensure
variation in size of workload and status of the state financial
assurance fund. For these pretests, we sent agency officials a draft of
the survey. We then interviewed the officials to ensure that the (1)
questions were clear and unambiguous; (2) terms used were precise,
including our definition of public funding; and (3) data needed to
respond to the questions was available to the state officials. As a
result of our pretests, we made changes to some of the survey
questions.
* We sent an announcement on November 18, 2005, of the upcoming survey
to state contacts (including the District of Columbia) and then e-
mailed the survey as an attachment on January 19, 2006. We asked
respondents to return the survey by e-mail, fax, or mail by February 3,
2006. We accepted responses to the survey through mid-October 2006.
* We sent e-mail reminders and conducted follow-up telephone calls with
nonrespondents.
To minimize nonsampling error in the data analysis stage, we took the
following steps:
* For selected survey questions, where we were able to, we
independently corroborated survey data by comparing these data with EPA
data. We then followed up with states and EPA as needed about
discrepancies.
* We included a series of data reliability questions in the survey to
assess the accuracy of the information provided to us by the
respondents. Specifically, we collected information about (1) the
databases states used to provide survey data; (2) the internal controls
on those databases (e.g., whether it had been reviewed for quality, the
procedures to ensure accurate data entry, and known limitations); (3)
whether the data provided were actual or estimates; and (4) the
assumptions, data, and calculations used to provide the actual or
estimated data for selected questions. We also requested supporting
documentation if states noted their database(s) had been reviewed for
quality.
* We used a data collection instrument (DCI) to systematically and
consistently record all available data reliability information (from
survey responses, published reports, or interviews) in order to make
assessments of the reliability of the survey data provided by each
state. The DCI was then reviewed by an independent person who assessed
the accuracy of DCI data entries and the reasonableness of the
judgments on the reliability of states' survey data. As expected, there
was wide variability in the level of oversight of the databases states
use to track underground storage tank information. There was similar
variability in the ways state officials described how they arrived at
responses to certain questions--whether it was based on states'
"actual" data, derived estimates, or some other source. Specifically,
some states provided explanations for their responses that were precise
and grounded in reasonable mathematical or trend based assumptions,
while others noted that their responses were educated guesses. Given
the limitations in the information reported from some states, we
determined that the survey data are not comparable by state, nor should
they be reported using such terms as "actual" sums, budgets, or
outlays. Consequently, the data are presented in the body of the report
as aggregate information on what states estimate their underground
storage tank and leaking underground storage tank numbers and funding
to be. We report all states' responses to selected questions only in
appendix II, because of the known limitations in the reliability of
state level comparisons. Such data are included in appendix II because
of congressional request and in order to illustrate the range of
responses states provided to selected questions and the wide variance
in the reliability of those responses. With these provisos, the survey
data are sufficiently reliable as they are used in the body of the
report (i.e., to be presented in aggregate, as testimonial evidence).
The survey data presented in appendix II are not reliable for state
level comparisons.
* We conducted interviews regarding data reliability with a
nonprobability sample of seven states (see next page for a further
discussion of this sample of states).[Footnote 15] These interviews
included in-depth questions focusing on topics such as the states'
database reviews and database limitations identified in their survey
responses.
* We contacted state officials to clarify survey responses when
necessary and used a centralized tracking document to record all
changes. Changes made in the tracking document were verified against
the keypunched data to ensure all changes and updates were recorded.
When changes took place after a survey was keypunched, the updates were
made in the computer program used to generate survey results.
* We edit-checked all surveys before they were keypunched, verified all
keypunched survey data against hard copies of the surveys, and verified
the computer programs used to generate survey results.
From the population of 51 state contacts who were asked to participate
in our survey, we received 50 questionnaires for an overall response
rate of 98 percent. We did not receive a questionnaire from South
Dakota. We do not know if responses for South Dakota would have
differed materially from those of the states that completed the survey.
From the responses we received, we gathered information about (1) state
databases used to track underground storage tank information; (2)
states' data for underground storage tank management, including data
regarding active and closed tanks, confirmed releases, and cleanups
initiated and completed; (3) states' sources of money for cleanup,
including state financial assurance funds; (4) states' use of federal
money to clean up leaking underground storage tanks; and (5) financial
responsibility. We provided states with the definition of public
funding described previously in this section, and we asked them to
respond to all survey questions about such funding according to this
definition. The survey was focused specifically on federally regulated
underground storage tanks, as defined by EPA. A few states reported
they were not able to provide us with data specific to federally
regulated underground storage tanks for selected questions, and
instead, they generally provided us with either data including a
different universe of tanks or data prorated based on the number of
federally regulated underground storage tanks in the state for these
questions. Additionally, most survey questions that asked for data for
a specific year referred to the federal fiscal year. If states were
unable to provide data for the federal fiscal year, we asked them to
provide us with the starting date of their alternative reporting year.
As a result, we present such data in the report as 2005 data.
In addition to conducting a survey to address our three objectives, we
also interviewed agency officials in a nonprobability sample of eight
states--Florida, Iowa, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Texas, and Utah--to gather additional information regarding selected
survey topics. Specifically, we talked with this group of states about
topics such as their use of LUST Trust Fund money, restrictions within
their state financial assurance fund on accepting claims, diversions
from their state financial assurance funds, the process of phasing out
their state financial assurance funds, and cases of inadequate
financial responsibility coverage in their state.[Footnote 16] We
selected this sample of states in order to discuss as many of our
topics of interest as possible within a limited number of interviews.
To select the states, we first reviewed all states' responses to survey
questions related to the relevant topics to determine which states
would be able to discuss each topic of interest. We then calculated a
score for each state based on the number of relevant topics they could
discuss, as indicated by their survey responses. We interviewed all
states that had scores at or above a threshold score that we
determined, based on how many states we would need to discuss the
relevant topics with to obtain sufficient information for the purposes
of this report.
We also conducted interviews with regional program officials from EPA's
Underground Storage Tank Program in six EPA regions to gather
additional information about (1) states' primary sources of money for
addressing releases from leaking underground storage tanks, (2) these
sources' future viability, and (3) the federal funding available to
address these releases.[Footnote 17] We selected these regions
primarily because survey responses from one or more states in these
regions raised questions about similar data they had reported to EPA.
We spoke with regional officials about these apparent discrepancies, as
well as about the regions' processes for distributing money from the
LUST Trust Fund, states' use of LUST Trust Fund money, and the solvency
of states' financial assurance funds.
To obtain further information about the federal funding to address
these releases, we interviewed Department of the Treasury officials
responsible for managing the LUST Trust Fund, interviewed EPA
headquarters and regional officials to determine the process by which
EPA distributes LUST Trust Fund money, and gathered documentation
regarding appropriations of money from the fund to EPA, states'
expenditure of fund money, and the balance of the fund and its annual
revenues. The documentation we gathered included (1) annual
apportionment letters, which we used to track appropriations of LUST
Trust Fund money to EPA; (2) EPA Spending Reports, which we used to
track state expenditures of LUST Trust Fund money; and (3) Treasury's
LUST Trust Fund Financial Statements, which we used to track the fund
balance and revenues collected into the fund. We selected these sources
based on EPA officials' indications that they were the most appropriate
sources for the purposes of this report. For Treasury's LUST Trust Fund
Financial Statements, we obtained and reviewed relevant documentation
on their reliability, including copies of audits of Treasury's
financial statements and internal controls. These audits were conducted
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We
also discussed the reliability of Treasury's LUST Trust Fund data with
knowledgeable EPA and Treasury officials. We found the data elements
that we used in this report from Treasury's financial statements
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this review.
We conducted our work from June 2005 to December 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Selected Data Relating to Underground Storage Tanks
Reported by States:
As described in appendix I, our assessment of the reliability of the
data provided by states in their surveys found wide variability in the
level of oversight of the databases that states use to track
underground storage tank information, and similar variability in the
ways state officials described how they arrived at responses to certain
questions. For the purposes of this report, we have divided states into
three relative categories, according to our assessment of the
reliability of their survey responses: (1) 17 states generally reported
having fairly recent data quality reviews, several internal controls on
the data, no significant data quality problems, and provided fairly
precise and mathematically grounded explanations for their
calculations; (2) 26 states and the District of Columbia generally
reported having some internal controls on the data, and/or some data
quality problems, and/or provided a mix of "guesses" and fairly precise
explanations of their calculations; and (3) 6 states generally reported
having few, if any internal controls on the data, and/or significant
data quality problems, and/or didn't provide explanations for their
calculations or reported that they were guesses. In tables 5, 6, 8, 9,
and 10 in this appendix, we have identified the states that fall into
each category. Overall, given the limitations in the information
reported from some states, data reported by states and presented in
this appendix should not be used to compare state programs.
Table 4: Selected State-Reported Underground Storage Tank Performance
Measures, as of September 30, 2005:
State: Alabama;
Active tanks: 18,021;
Closed tanks: 28,631;
Confirmed releases: 10,884;
Cleanups initiated: 10,755;
Cleanups completed: 9,317;
Cleanup backlog: 1,567.
State: Alaska;
Active tanks: 1,065;
Closed tanks: 6,269;
Confirmed releases: 2,278;
Cleanups initiated: 2,206;
Cleanups completed: 1,545;
Cleanup backlog: 733.
State: Arizona;
Active tanks: 8,194;
Closed tanks: 20,064;
Confirmed releases: 8,191;
Cleanups initiated: 5,682;
Cleanups completed: 5,942;
Cleanup backlog: 2,249.
State: Arkansas;
Active tanks: 9,749;
Closed tanks: 19,909;
Confirmed releases: 1,294;
Cleanups initiated: 988;
Cleanups completed: 948;
Cleanup backlog: 346.
State: California;
Active tanks: 38,753;
Closed tanks: 121,352;
Confirmed releases: 44,190;
Cleanups initiated: 44,190;
Cleanups completed: 29,572;
Cleanup backlog: 14,618.
State: Colorado;
Active tanks: 8,165;
Closed tanks: 20,770;
Confirmed releases: 6,541;
Cleanups initiated: 6,373;
Cleanups completed: 5,602;
Cleanup backlog: 939.
State: Connecticut;
Active tanks: 11,871;
Closed tanks: 19,868;
Confirmed releases: 2,465;
Cleanups initiated: 2,415;
Cleanups completed: 1,596;
Cleanup backlog: 869.
State: Delaware;
Active tanks: 1,598;
Closed tanks: 6,423;
Confirmed releases: 2,284;
Cleanups initiated: 2,228;
Cleanups completed: 2,010;
Cleanup backlog: 274.
State: District of Columbia;
Active tanks: 732;
Closed tanks: 3,050;
Confirmed releases: 815;
Cleanups initiated: 815;
Cleanups completed: 572;
Cleanup backlog: 243.
State: Florida;
Active tanks: 31,109;
Closed tanks: 94,240;
Confirmed releases: 23,990;
Cleanups initiated: 14,618;
Cleanups completed: 8,761;
Cleanup backlog: 15,229.
State: Georgia;
Active tanks: 30,320;
Closed tanks: 44,369;
Confirmed releases: 11,023;
Cleanups initiated: 10,654;
Cleanups completed: 8,373;
Cleanup backlog: 2,650.
State: Hawaii;
Active tanks: 1,783;
Closed tanks: 5,013;
Confirmed releases: 1,840;
Cleanups initiated: 1,741;
Cleanups completed: 1,504;
Cleanup backlog: 336.
State: Idaho;
Active tanks: 3,498;
Closed tanks: 9,541;
Confirmed releases: 1,345;
Cleanups initiated: 1,314;
Cleanups completed: 1,184;
Cleanup backlog: 161.
State: Illinois;
Active tanks: 23,062;
Closed tanks: 62,074;
Confirmed releases: 22,410;
Cleanups initiated: 21,211;
Cleanups completed: 14,540;
Cleanup backlog: 7,870.
State: Indiana;
Active tanks: 14,049;
Closed tanks: 35,332;
Confirmed releases: 8,275;
Cleanups initiated: 7,457;
Cleanups completed: 4,994;
Cleanup backlog: 3,281.
State: Iowa;
Active tanks: 7,716;
Closed tanks: 22,092;
Confirmed releases: 5,791;
Cleanups initiated: 5,529;
Cleanups completed: 3,948;
Cleanup backlog: 1,843.
State: Kansas;
Active tanks: 7,236;
Closed tanks: 19,529;
Confirmed releases: 4,616;
Cleanups initiated: 4,379;
Cleanups completed: 2,632;
Cleanup backlog: 1,984.
State: Kentucky;
Active tanks: 13,098;
Closed tanks: 35,212;
Confirmed releases: 13,151;
Cleanups initiated: 13,100;
Cleanups completed: 10,696;
Cleanup backlog: 2,455.
State: Louisiana;
Active tanks: 13,953;
Closed tanks: 31,128;
Confirmed releases: 2,719;
Cleanups initiated: 2,719;
Cleanups completed: 1,674;
Cleanup backlog: 1,045.
State: Maine;
Active tanks: 3,359;
Closed tanks: 12,222;
Confirmed releases: 2,215;
Cleanups initiated: 2,156;
Cleanups completed: 2,075;
Cleanup backlog: 140.
State: Maryland;
Active tanks: 9,439;
Closed tanks: 27,647;
Confirmed releases: 10,201;
Cleanups initiated: 9,944;
Cleanups completed: 9,282;
Cleanup backlog: 919.
State: Massachusetts;
Active tanks: 11,368;
Closed tanks: 22,141;
Confirmed releases: 6,103;
Cleanups initiated: 5,890;
Cleanups completed: 5,026;
Cleanup backlog: 1,077.
State: Michigan;
Active tanks: 20,730;
Closed tanks: 65,137;
Confirmed releases: 20,822;
Cleanups initiated: 20,314;
Cleanups completed: 11,740;
Cleanup backlog: 9,082.
State: Minnesota;
Active tanks: 14,328;
Closed tanks: 28,051;
Confirmed releases: 9,555;
Cleanups initiated: 9,064;
Cleanups completed: 8,490;
Cleanup backlog: 1,065.
State: Mississippi;
Active tanks: 8,713;
Closed tanks: 21,758;
Confirmed releases: 6,540;
Cleanups initiated: 6,355;
Cleanups completed: 6,224;
Cleanup backlog: 316.
State: Missouri;
Active tanks: 10,305;
Closed tanks: 28,432;
Confirmed releases: 6,184;
Cleanups initiated: 5,803;
Cleanups completed: 4,798;
Cleanup backlog: 1,386.
State: Montana;
Active tanks: 3,311;
Closed tanks: 12,158;
Confirmed releases: 2,898;
Cleanups initiated: 2,123;
Cleanups completed: 1,785;
Cleanup backlog: 1,113.
State: Nebraska;
Active tanks: 6,999;
Closed tanks: 14,084;
Confirmed releases: 5,951;
Cleanups initiated: 4,089;
Cleanups completed: 3,776;
Cleanup backlog: 2,175.
State: Nevada;
Active tanks: 3,688;
Closed tanks: 6,715;
Confirmed releases: 2,416;
Cleanups initiated: 2,408;
Cleanups completed: 2,166;
Cleanup backlog: 250.
State: New Hampshire;
Active tanks: 2,935;
Closed tanks: 10,856;
Confirmed releases: 2,218;
Cleanups initiated: 2,218;
Cleanups completed: 1,389;
Cleanup backlog: 829.
State: New Jersey;
Active tanks: 17,931;
Closed tanks: 54,794;
Confirmed releases: 9,669;
Cleanups initiated: 8,812;
Cleanups completed: 5,734;
Cleanup backlog: 3,935.
State: New Mexico;
Active tanks: 4,098;
Closed tanks: 12,232;
Confirmed releases: 2,471;
Cleanups initiated: 1,786;
Cleanups completed: 1,633;
Cleanup backlog: 838.
State: New York;
Active tanks: 29,925;
Closed tanks: 81,216;
Confirmed releases: 20,442;
Cleanups initiated: 20,022;
Cleanups completed: 18,442;
Cleanup backlog: 2,000.
State: North Carolina;
Active tanks: 30,271;
Closed tanks: 63,104;
Confirmed releases: 23,520;
Cleanups initiated: 22,438;
Cleanups completed: 16,942;
Cleanup backlog: 6,578.
State: North Dakota;
Active tanks: 2,185;
Closed tanks: 6,941;
Confirmed releases: 812;
Cleanups initiated: 803;
Cleanups completed: 779;
Cleanup backlog: 33.
State: Ohio;
Active tanks: 24,025;
Closed tanks: 42,427;
Confirmed releases: 23,559;
Cleanups initiated: 23,028;
Cleanups completed: 20,300;
Cleanup backlog: 3,259.
State: Oklahoma;
Active tanks: 11,582;
Closed tanks: 24,265;
Confirmed releases: 4,036;
Cleanups initiated: 4,036;
Cleanups completed: 3,537;
Cleanup backlog: 499.
State: Oregon;
Active tanks: 6,375;
Closed tanks: 25,123;
Confirmed releases: 6,861;
Cleanups initiated: 6,613;
Cleanups completed: 5,472;
Cleanup backlog: 1,389.
State: Pennsylvania;
Active tanks: 25,545;
Closed tanks: 59,824;
Confirmed releases: 13,861;
Cleanups initiated: 13,440;
Cleanups completed: 9,798;
Cleanup backlog: 4,063.
State: Rhode Island;
Active tanks: 1,691;
Closed tanks: 7,111;
Confirmed releases: 1,238;
Cleanups initiated: 1,238;
Cleanups completed: 978;
Cleanup backlog: 260.
State: South Carolina;
Active tanks: 12,137;
Closed tanks: 31,521;
Confirmed releases: 8,698;
Cleanups initiated: 8,239;
Cleanups completed: 5,325;
Cleanup backlog: 3,373.
State: South Dakota;
Active tanks: 2,980;
Closed tanks: 6,761;
Confirmed releases: 2,347;
Cleanups initiated: 2,344;
Cleanups completed: 2,147;
Cleanup backlog: 200.
State: Tennessee;
Active tanks: 16,147;
Closed tanks: 32,429;
Confirmed releases: 12,842;
Cleanups initiated: 12,914;
Cleanups completed: 11,892;
Cleanup backlog: 950.
State: Texas;
Active tanks: 57,219;
Closed tanks: 109,535;
Confirmed releases: 24,301;
Cleanups initiated: 21,689;
Cleanups completed: 20,120;
Cleanup backlog: 4,181.
State: Utah;
Active tanks: 4,051;
Closed tanks: 12,635;
Confirmed releases: 4,120;
Cleanups initiated: 4,032;
Cleanups completed: 3,681;
Cleanup backlog: 439.
State: Vermont;
Active tanks: 3,011;
Closed tanks: 5,196;
Confirmed releases: 1,930;
Cleanups initiated: 1,918;
Cleanups completed: 1,136;
Cleanup backlog: 794.
State: Virginia;
Active tanks: 25,464;
Closed tanks: 52,174;
Confirmed releases: 10,474;
Cleanups initiated: 10,204;
Cleanups completed: 9,662;
Cleanup backlog: 812.
State: Washington;
Active tanks: 10,397;
Closed tanks: 34,959;
Confirmed releases: 6,142;
Cleanups initiated: 5,779;
Cleanups completed: 4,115;
Cleanup backlog: 2,027.
State: West Virginia;
Active tanks: 6,033;
Closed tanks: 18,618;
Confirmed releases: 2,909;
Cleanups initiated: 2,706;
Cleanups completed: 1,751;
Cleanup backlog: 1,158.
State: Wisconsin;
Active tanks: 13,721;
Closed tanks: 64,759;
Confirmed releases: 18,353;
Cleanups initiated: 17,650;
Cleanups completed: 15,033;
Cleanup backlog: 3,320.
State: Wyoming;
Active tanks: 2,055;
Closed tanks: 7,771;
Confirmed releases: 1,989;
Cleanups initiated: 1,490;
Cleanups completed: 924;
Cleanup backlog: 1,065.
State: Total;
Active tanks: 645,990;
Closed tanks: 1,607,462;
Confirmed releases: 449,779;
Cleanups initiated: 419,919;
Cleanups completed: 331,562;
Cleanup backlog: 118,217.
Source: EPA.
Note: For definitions of performance measures in this table see table 1
of this report.
[End of table]
Table 5: State-Reported Estimates of the Number of Releases in the
State's Cleanup Backlog That Will Be Cleaned Up Using Funding from
Responsible Parties and from Public Sources, as of September 30, 2005:
State.
The following states generally (1) reported having fairly recent data
quality reviews (2) reported having several internal controls on the,
data, (3) reported having no significant data quality problems, and (4)
provided fairly precise and mathematically grounded explanations for
their calculations.
Alabama;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 166;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 1,448.
Colorado;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 310;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 629.
Florida;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 2,604;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 12,625.
Georgia;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 877;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 1,778.
Illinois;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 1,968;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 5,903.
Indiana;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 1,642;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 1,642.
Kansas;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 6;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 1,978.
Missouri;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 364;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 1,022.
Montana;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 78;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 1,035.
Nevada;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: [A];
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 254[B].
New Jersey;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 3,517;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 420.
Pennsylvania;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 2,334;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 1,744.
South Carolina;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 120;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 3,258.
Texas;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 1,769;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 2,192.
Utah;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 175;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 314.
Virginia;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 609;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 203.
Wyoming;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 0;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 1,065.
The following states generally (1) reported having some internal
controls on the data, and/or (2) reported some data quality problems,
and/or (3) provided a mix of "guesses" and fairly precise explanations
of their calculations.
Arizona;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 268;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 1,500.
Arkansas;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 17;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 329.
Connecticut;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 10;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 859.
Delaware;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 192;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 73.
District of Columbia;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 245;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 0.
Hawaii;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 336;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 0.
Idaho;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 100;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 60.
Iowa;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 514;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 1,324.
Kentucky;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 246;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 2,209.
Louisiana;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 0;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 1,254.
Maine;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 17;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 80.
Maryland;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 0;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 927.
Massachusetts;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 476;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 601.
Minnesota;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 0;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 1,090.
Mississippi;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 68;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 250.
New Hampshire;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: [A];
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: [A].
New Mexico;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 48;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 790.
New York;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 1,625;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 375.
North Carolina;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 4,604;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 1,974.
North Dakota;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 1;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 32.
Ohio;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 2,362;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 1,282.
Oregon;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 1,370;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 21.
Rhode Island;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 67;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 200.
Tennessee;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 354;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 655.
Vermont;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 278;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 516.
Washington;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 1,630;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 0.
Wisconsin;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 1,097;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 2,300.
These states generally (1) reported having few, if any internal
controls on the data, and/or (2) reported having significant data
quality problems, and/or (3) didn't provide explanations for their
calculations or reported that they were guesses.
Alaska;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 708;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 25.
California;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: [C];
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: [C].
Michigan;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 4,800;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 4,200.
Nebraska;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 652;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 1,523.
Oklahoma;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 5;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 494.
West Virginia;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: Responsible party only: 1,042;
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each
source: At least some public funding: 116.
This state did not respond to the survey.
South Dakota.
Source: Responses to GAO's survey of tank program and/or state fund
managers.
[A] State officials did not respond.
[B] For this question, Nevada officials provided us with the combined
number of underground storage tanks, aboveground storage tanks, and
heating oil tanks that will be cleaned up using funding from the
state's financial assurance fund.
[C] Number of releases to be cleaned up with (1) funding from
responsible parties only and (2) at least some public funding is
unknown.
[End of table]
Table 6: State-Reported Numbers of Releases in the State's Cleanup
Backlog from Tanks without a Viable Owner, as of September 30, 2005:
The following states generally (1) reported having fairly recent data
quality reviews, (2) reported having several internal controls on the
data, (3) reported having no significant data quality problems, and (4)
provided fairly precise and mathematically grounded explanations for
their calculations.
State: Alabama;
Number of releases: 363.
State: Colorado;
Number of releases: 188[A].
State: Florida;
Number of releases: [B].
State: Georgia;
Number of releases: 448.
State: Illinois;
Number of releases: [B].
State: Indiana;
Number of releases: 500[A].
State: Kansas;
Number of releases: 100[A].
State: Missouri;
Number of releases: 212[A].
State: Montana;
Number of releases: 31[A].
State: Nevada;
Number of releases: [B].
State: New Jersey;
Number of releases: [B].
State: Pennsylvania;
Number of releases: 2,334[A].
State: South Carolina;
Number of releases: 33.
State: Texas;
Number of releases: 200[A].
State: Utah;
Number of releases: 57.
State: Virginia;
Number of releases: 86[A].
State: Wyoming;
Number of releases: [B].
State: The following states generally (1) reported having some internal
controls on the data, and/or (2) reported some data quality problems,
and/or (3) provided a mix of "guesses" and fairly precise explanations
of their calculations.
State: Arizona;
Number of releases: 100[A].
State: Arkansas;
Number of releases: 34[A].
State: Connecticut;
Number of releases: 100[A].
State: Delaware;
Number of releases: 32[A].
State: District of Columbia;
Number of releases: 0.
State: Hawaii;
Number of releases: 0.
State: Idaho;
Number of releases: 31[A].
State: Iowa;
Number of releases: [B].
State: Kentucky;
Number of releases: 0.
State: Louisiana;
Number of releases: 24[A].
State: Maine;
Number of releases: 0.
State: Maryland;
Number of releases: 30[A].
State: Massachusetts;
Number of releases: 50[A].
State: Minnesota;
Number of releases: 43[A].
State: Mississippi;
Number of releases: 36.
State: New Hampshire;
Number of releases: [C].
State: New Mexico;
Number of releases: 100[A].
State: New York;
Number of releases: 336[A].
State: North Carolina;
Number of releases: 994.
State: North Dakota;
Number of releases: 11.
State: Ohio;
Number of releases: 600[A].
State: Oregon;
Number of releases: 33[A].
State: Rhode Island;
Number of releases: [B].
State: Tennessee;
Number of releases: 93.
State: Vermont;
Number of releases: 90[A].
State: Washington;
Number of releases: [B].
State: Wisconsin;
Number of releases: [B].
State: These states generally (1) reported having few, if any internal
controls on the data, and/or (2) reported having significant data
quality problems, and/or (3) didn't provide explanations for their
calculations or reported that they were guesses.
State: Alaska;
Number of releases: [B].
State: California;
Number of releases: 50[A].
State: Michigan;
Number of releases: 4,200[A].
State: Nebraska;
Number of releases: 699[A].
State: Oklahoma;
Number of releases: 61.
State: West Virginia;
Number of releases: [B].
State: This state did not respond to the survey.
State: South Dakota.
Source: Responses to GAO's survey of tank program and/or state fund
managers:
[A] Estimated numbers of releases.
[B] Number of releases unknown.
[C] New Hampshire officials did not respond to this survey question.
[End of table]
Table 7: State-Reported Frequency of Checking Financial Responsibility
Coverage:
State: Alabama;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: X.
State: Alaska;
At least annually: X;
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Arizona;
At least annually: X;
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Arkansas;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: X;
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: California;
At least annually: X;
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Colorado;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: X.
State: Connecticut[A];
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: X;
Other: [Empty].
State: Delaware;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: X;
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: District of Columbia;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: X;
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Florida;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: X;
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Georgia;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: X;
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Hawaii;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: X;
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Idaho;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: X;
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Illinois;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: X.
State: Indiana;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: X;
Other: [Empty].
State: Iowa;
At least annually: X;
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Kansas;
At least annually: X;
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Kentucky;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: X;
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Louisiana;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: X;
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Maine[A];
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: X;
Other: [Empty].
State: Maryland;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: X;
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Massachusetts;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: X;
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Michigan;
At least annually: X;
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Minnesota[A];
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: X;
Other: [Empty].
State: Mississippi;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: X.
State: Missouri;
At least annually: X;
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Montana;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: X;
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Nebraska[A];
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: X;
Other: [Empty].
State: Nevada;
At least annually: X;
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: New Hampshire;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: X.
State: New Jersey;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: X;
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: New Mexico;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: X;
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: New York;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: X;
Other: [Empty].
State: North Carolina;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: X.
State: North Dakota;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: X.
State: Ohio;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: X;
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Oklahoma;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: X;
Other: [Empty].
State: Oregon;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: X;
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Pennsylvania;
At least annually: X;
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Rhode Island;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: X.
State: South Carolina;
At least annually: X;
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: South Dakota[B];
At least annually: [Empty].
State: Tennessee;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: X.
State: Texas;
At least annually: X;
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Utah;
At least annually: X;
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Vermont;
At least annually: X;
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Virginia;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: X;
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Washington;
At least annually: X;
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: West Virginia;
At least annually: [Empty];
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: X;
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Wisconsin;
At least annually: X;
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
State: Wyoming;
At least annually: X;
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty];
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty];
Do not check: [Empty];
Other: [Empty].
Source: Responses to GAO's survey of tank program and/or state fund
managers.
Note: The "other" category includes responses such as "as events
warrant," and "annual permit applications contain financial
responsibility information that may be checked," among other responses.
[A] Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, and Nebraska, which reported they do
not check whether financial responsibility coverage is current, also
reported that their financial assurance funds provide such coverage for
all tanks in the state.
[B] South Dakota officials did not respond to the survey.
[End of table]
Table 8: State-Reported Expenditures of Public Funding to Clean Up
Underground Storage Tank Sites by Source, 2005:
Dollars in thousands.
The following states generally (1) reported having fairly recent data
quality reviews, (2) reported having several internal controls on the
data, (3) reported having no significant data quality problems, and (4)
provided fairly precise and mathematically grounded explanations for
their calculations.
Alabama;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
$0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
$0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: $27,566;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
$0.
Colorado;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
226;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
81;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 23,979;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0.
Florida;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 148,110;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0.
Georgia;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
599;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 23,809;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0.
Illinois;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 52,193[C];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0.
Indiana;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
835;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 45,000[C];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
1,050[C].
Kansas;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
284;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 13,287;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0.
Missouri;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
837;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
[D];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 11,270;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
[E].
Montana[F];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
186[F];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0[F];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 3,820[C,F];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
[E,F].
Nevada;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
10[C];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 6,760[C];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0.
New Jersey;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
212[C];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 1,227;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
3,433.
Pennsylvania;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 71,725[C];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
0[C].
South Carolina;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
594;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
28;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 18,505;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 2.
Texas;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
1,100[C];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 54,039[C];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
5,530[C].
Utah;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
9;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 5,403;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
396.
Virginia;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
515;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 16,957[C];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0.
Wyoming;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
77;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 7,517;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0.
The following states generally (1) reported having some internal
controls on the data, and/or (2) reported some data quality problems,
and/or (3) provided a mix of "guesses" and fairly precise explanations
of their calculations.
Arizona;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
883;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 11,389;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
1,390[C].
Arkansas[F];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
220[F];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0[F];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 4,069[F];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
0[F].
Connecticut;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
400[C];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 6,969;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0.
Delaware;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
30[C];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
[D];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: [G];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
1,050[C,E].
District of Columbia;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: [G];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0.
Hawaii;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: [G];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0.
Idaho;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
[D];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 2,000[C];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0.
Iowa;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
15,036.
Kentucky;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
3;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 21,500;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
[E].
Louisiana;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 18,436;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0.
Maine[H];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 1,151;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0.
Maryland;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
445[C];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: [G];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
327[C].
Massachusetts;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
200[C];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
[D];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 30,989;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
250[C,E].
Minnesota[F];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
914[F];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0[F];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 15,000[C, F];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
0[E,F].
Mississippi;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
441[C];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 8,382[C];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0.
New Hampshire;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
451;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 13,345;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
302.
New Mexico;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 13,621;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0.
New York[I];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
[Empty];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
[Empty];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: [Empty];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
[Empty].
North Carolina;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
1,196;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 46,966;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
279.
North Dakota;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
91;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 498;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0.
Ohio;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
[D];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 8,818;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0.
Oregon;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
4;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
4;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: [G];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
418.
Rhode Island;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
548;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 2,251;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0.
Tennessee;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
690;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 31,045;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0.
Vermont;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 3,105;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0.
Washington;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
165;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: [G];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
0[C].
Wisconsin;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 28,000;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0.
These states generally (1) reported having few, if any internal
controls on the data, and/or (2) reported having significant data
quality problems, and/or (3) didn't provide explanations for their
calculations or reported that they were guesses.
Alaska;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
307[C];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: [G];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0.
California[F];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
0[F];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0[F];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 207,505[F];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
800[F].
Michigan;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
0[C];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
13,296[C].
Nebraska[F];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
811[C,F];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0[F];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 10,610[C,F];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
0[F].
Oklahoma;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
765;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: 15,047;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
100.
West Virginia;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund:
173[C];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]:
0;
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance
fund: [G];
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]:
130[C].
This state did not respond to the survey.
South Dakota.
Source: Responses to GAO's survey of tank program and/or state fund
managers.
Note: Our survey asked states to base their responses on federal fiscal
year 2005 (Oct. 1, 2004 to Sept. 30, 2005) if possible;
some states, however, reported responses as of other time frames, such
as July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005.
[A] The other federal sources category includes sources such as
Brownfields grants.
[B] The other state sources category includes sources such as funds
dedicated to tanks without a viable owner and other state funds.
[C] Estimated amount.
[D] Amount unknown.
[E] Officials indicated they did not know one or more aspects of the
"other state sources" category.
[F] Officials in Arkansas, California, Minnesota, Montana, and Nebraska
indicated that the amounts they reported included expenditures on sites
in addition to federally-regulated underground storage tanks.
[G] Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland,
Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia never had state financial
assurance funds.
[H] Maine officials based their response to this question on calendar
year 2004.
[I] New York officials did not respond to these survey questions.
[End of table]
Table 9: State-Reported Balance of State Financial Assurance Funds, as
of September 30, 2005:
Dollars in thousands.
The following states generally (1) reported having fairly recent data
quality reviews, (2) reported having several internal controls on the
data, (3) reported having no significant data quality problems, and (4)
provided fairly precise and mathematically grounded explanations for
their calculations.
Alabama;
Amount: $7,719.
Colorado;
Amount: 2,931.
Florida;
Amount: 186,380.
Georgia;
Amount: 63,939.
Illinois;
Amount: 5,200[A].
Indiana;
Amount: 9,714.
Kansas;
Amount: 2,226.
Missouri;
Amount: 71,623.
Montana;
Amount: 1,760.
Nevada;
Amount: 11,300.
New Jersey;
Amount: 95,142.
Pennsylvania;
Amount: 206,800.
South Carolina;
Amount: 21,712.
Texas;
Amount: 168,000[A].
Utah;
Amount: 8,818.
Virginia;
Amount: 943.
Wyoming;
Amount: 17,688.
The following states generally (1) reported having some internal
controls on the data, and/or (2) reported some data quality problems,
and/or (3) provided a mix of "guesses" and fairly precise explanations
of their calculations.
Arizona;
Amount: 40,000[A].
Arkansas;
Amount: 13,563.
Connecticut;
Amount: 5,200[A].
Delaware;
Amount: [B].
District of Columbia;
Amount: [B].
Hawaii;
Amount: [B].
Idaho;
Amount: 34,688.
Iowa;
Amount: [C].
Kentucky;
Amount: 54,700.
Louisiana;
Amount: 19,186.
Maine;
Amount: 5,573.
Maryland;
Amount: [B].
Massachusetts;
Amount: 13,651.
Minnesota;
Amount: 22,000[A].
Mississippi;
Amount: 4,458.
New Hampshire;
Amount: 4,035.
New Mexico;
Amount: 19,044.
New York;
Amount: [D].
North Carolina;
Amount: 2,834.
North Dakota;
Amount: 8,378.
Ohio;
Amount: 27,337.
Oregon;
Amount: [B].
Rhode Island;
Amount: 2,100[A].
Tennessee;
Amount: 10,085.
Vermont;
Amount: 5,828.
Washington;
Amount: [B].
Wisconsin;
Amount: 35,798.
These states generally (1) reported having few, if any internal
controls on the data;
and/or (2) reported having significant data quality problems;
and/or (3) didn't provide explanations for their calculations or
reported that they were guesses.
Alaska;
Amount: [B].
California;
Amount: 92,425.
Michigan;
Amount: [E].
Nebraska;
Amount: 16,169.
Oklahoma;
Amount: 13,556.
West Virginia;
Amount: [B].
This state did not respond to the survey.
South Dakota.
Source: Responses to GAO's survey of tank program and/or state fund
managers.
[A] Estimated amount.
[B] Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland,
Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia never had state financial
assurance funds.
[C] Iowa used to operate an insurance-type fund that provided financial
responsibility coverage, but the fund has been privatized.
[D] New York officials did not respond to this survey question.
[E] Michigan's state financial assurance fund is no longer active.
[End of table]
Table 10: State-Reported Revenues to State Financial Assurance Funds,
2005:
Dollars in thousands.
The following states generally (1) reported having fairly recent data
quality reviews, (2) reported having several internal controls on the
data, (3) reported having no significant data quality problems, and (4)
provided fairly precise and mathematically grounded explanations for
their calculations.
Alabama;
Tank fees: $0;
State gasoline taxes: $35,022;
Interest: $167;
Other[A]: $0.
Colorado;
Tank fees: 527;
State gasoline taxes: 26,451;
Interest: 121;
Other[A]: 15.
Florida;
Tank fees: 1,200;
State gasoline taxes: 211,900;
Interest: 4,900;
Other[A]: 3,284[B].
Georgia;
Tank fees: 0;
State gasoline taxes: 22,096;
Interest: 0;
Other[A]: 0.
Illinois;
Tank fees: 0;
State gasoline taxes: 72,284;
Interest: 0;
Other[A]: 0.
Indiana;
Tank fees: 616[C];
State gasoline taxes: 28,875[C];
Interest: 225;
Other[A]: 0.
Kansas;
Tank fees: 0;
State gasoline taxes: 10,920;
Interest: 125;
Other[A]: 0.
Missouri;
Tank fees: 1,297;
State gasoline taxes: 23,665;
Interest: 1,138;
Other[A]: 87.
Montana;
Tank fees: 0;
State gasoline taxes: 6,700[C];
Interest: 35[C];
Other[A]: 10[C].
Nevada;
Tank fees: 450;
State gasoline taxes: 0;
Interest: 130[C];
Other[A]: 0.
New Jersey;
Tank fees: 0;
State gasoline taxes: 0;
Interest: 2,284;
Other[A]: 24,787.
Pennsylvania;
Tank fees: 7,100;
State gasoline taxes: 53,800;
Interest: 192;
Other[A]: 13,136.
South Carolina;
Tank fees: 1,203;
State gasoline taxes: 17,500;
Interest: 799;
Other[A]: 111.
Texas;
Tank fees: 0;
State gasoline taxes: 72,000[C];
Interest: 0;
Other[A]: 0.
Utah;
Tank fees: 437;
State gasoline taxes: 5,682;
Interest: 184;
Other[A]: 0.
Virginia;
Tank fees: 0;
State gasoline taxes: 37,897;
Interest: 37;
Other[A]: 67.
Wyoming;
Tank fees: 490;
State gasoline taxes: 11,593;
Interest: 0;
Other[A]: 0.
The following states generally (1) reported having some internal
controls on the data, and/or (2) reported some data quality problems,
and/or (3) provided a mix of "guesses" and fairly precise explanations
of their calculations.
Arizona;
Tank fees: 0;
State gasoline taxes: 29,431[C];
Interest: 390[C];
Other[A]: 30[C].
Arkansas;
Tank fees: 0;
State gasoline taxes: 4,906;
Interest: 189;
Other[A]: 0.
Connecticut;
Tank fees: 0;
State gasoline taxes: 12,000;
Interest: 0;
Other[A]: 0.
Delaware;
Tank fees: [D];
State gasoline taxes: [D];
Interest: [D];
Other[A]: [D].
District of Columbia;
Tank fees: [D];
State gasoline taxes: [D];
Interest: [D];
Other[A]: [D].
Hawaii;
Tank fees: [D];
State gasoline taxes: [D];
Interest: [D];
Other[A]: [D].
Idaho;
Tank fees: 99[C];
State gasoline taxes: 0;
Interest: 1,541;
Other[A]: 1.
Iowa;
Tank fees: [E];
State gasoline taxes: [E];
Interest: [E];
Other[A]: [E].
Kentucky;
Tank fees: 0;
State gasoline taxes: 45,100;
Interest: 277;
Other[A]: 47.
Louisiana;
Tank fees: 25[C];
State gasoline taxes: 21,359;
Interest: 0;
Other[A]: 41.
Maine[F];
Tank fees: 126[C];
State gasoline taxes: 14,234[C];
Interest: 74[C];
Other[A]: 443[C].
Maryland;
Tank fees: [D];
State gasoline taxes: [D];
Interest: [D];
Other[A]: [D].
Massachusetts;
Tank fees: 2,382[C];
State gasoline taxes: 76,813;
Interest: [G];
Other[A]: [B].
Minnesota;
Tank fees: 0;
State gasoline taxes: 26,000[C];
Interest: 1,000[C];
Other[A]: 115[C].
Mississippi;
Tank fees: 0;
State gasoline taxes: 9,977[C];
Interest: 173[C];
Other[A]: 0.
New Hampshire;
Tank fees: 0;
State gasoline taxes: 11,366;
Interest: 90;
Other[A]: 0.
New Mexico;
Tank fees: 0;
State gasoline taxes: 18,191;
Interest: 0;
Other[A]: 0.
New York[H];
Tank fees: [Empty];
State gasoline taxes: [Empty];
Interest: [Empty];
Other[A]: [Empty].
North Carolina;
Tank fees: 7,987;
State gasoline taxes: 41,942;
Interest: 50;
Other[A]: 197.
North Dakota;
Tank fees: 290;
State gasoline taxes: 0;
Interest: 63[C];
Other[A]: 0.
Ohio;
Tank fees: 13,568;
State gasoline taxes: 0;
Interest: 380;
Other[A]: 0.
Oregon;
Tank fees: [D];
State gasoline taxes: [D];
Interest: [D];
Other[A]: [D].
Rhode Island;
Tank fees: 0;
State gasoline taxes: 4,200[C];
Interest: [G];
Other[A]: 0[C,I].
Tennessee;
Tank fees: 3,060;
State gasoline taxes: 17,785;
Interest: 258;
Other[A]: 5,475.
Vermont;
Tank fees: 365;
State gasoline taxes: 5,243;
Interest: 125;
Other[A]: 288.
Washington;
Tank fees: [D];
State gasoline taxes: [D];
Interest: [D];
Other[A]: [D].
Wisconsin;
Tank fees: 0;
State gasoline taxes: 68,000;
Interest: 0;
Other[A]: 0.
These states generally (1) reported having few, if any internal
controls on the data, and/or (2) reported having significant data
quality problems, and/or (3) didn't provide explanations for their
calculations or reported that they were guesses.
Alaska;
Tank fees: [D];
State gasoline taxes: [D];
Interest: [D];
Other[A]: [D].
California;
Tank fees: 0;
State gasoline taxes: 218,195;
Interest: 1,611;
Other[A]: 2,935.
Michigan[J];
Tank fees: [Empty];
State gasoline taxes: [Empty];
Interest: [Empty];
Other[A]: [Empty].
Nebraska;
Tank fees: 534;
State gasoline taxes: 10,413;
Interest: 696;
Other[A]: 70.
Oklahoma;
Tank fees: 0;
State gasoline taxes: 21,324;
Interest: 307;
Other[A]: 218.
West Virginia;
Tank fees: [D];
State gasoline taxes: [D];
Interest: [D];
Other[A]: [D].
This state did not respond to the survey.
South Dakota.
Source: Responses to GAO's survey of tank program and/or state fund
managers.
Note: Our survey asked states to base their responses on federal fiscal
year 2005 (Oct. 1, 2004 to Sept. 30, 2005) if possible;
some states, however, reported responses as of other time frames, such
as July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005.
[A] Other category includes: cost recovery, other state sources such as
fines, and other sources such as loan repayments. Revenues from federal
sources are not included.
[B] Officials indicated they did not know one or more aspects of the
"other" category.
[C] Estimated amounts.
[D] Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland,
Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia never had state financial
assurance funds.
[E] Iowa used to operate an insurance-type fund that provided financial
responsibility coverage, but the fund has been privatized.
[F] Maine officials based their response to this question on calendar
year 2004.
[G] Amount of interest revenues unknown.
[H] New York officials did not respond to this survey question.
[I] Rhode Island officials estimated their state fund collected $300
from other sources in 2005.
[J] Michigan's state financial assurance fund is no longer active.
[End of table]
Table 11: State-Reported Diversions from State Financial Assurance
Funds for Purposes Other Than Those Related to the Underground Storage
Tank Program, 2001-2005:
Dollars in thousands.
Alabama;
2001: $0;
2002: $0;
2003: $0;
2004: $0;
2005: $0.
Alaska[A];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty].
Arizona;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
Arkansas;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 46.
California;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
Colorado;
2001: 0;
2002: 4,000;
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
Delaware[A];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty].
District of Columbia[A];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty].
Florida;
2001: 12,000[B];
2002: 20,000[B];
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
Georgia;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
Hawaii[A];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty].
Idaho;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
Illinois;
2001: 0;
2002: 12,029[B];
2003: 12,100;
2004: 500;
2005: 0.
Indiana;
2001: 0;
2002: 5,000;
2003: 4,500;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
Iowa[C];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty].
Kansas;
2001: 0;
2002: 10,000;
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
Kentucky;
2001: 8,000;
2002: 58,400;
2003: 74,100;
2004: 27,100;
2005: 291.
Louisiana;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
Maine;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 142.
Maryland[A];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty].
Michigan[D];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty].
Mississippi;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 833;
2004: 1,529;
2005: 3,100.
Missouri;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
Montana;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
Nebraska;
2001: 0;
2002: 10,250;
2003: 300;
2004: 3,000;
2005: 1,800.
Nevada;
2001: 900[B];
2002: 900[B];
2003: 900[B];
2004: 900[B];
2005: 1,100.
New Hampshire;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
New Jersey;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
2004: 45,812;
2005: 0.
New Mexico;
2001: 1,900[B];
2002: 1,500[B];
2003: 900[B];
2004: 2,600[B];
2005: 5,400[B].
North Carolina;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
North Dakota;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
Ohio;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
Oklahoma;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
Oregon[ A];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty].
Pennsylvania[E];
2001: 0;
2002: 100,000[E];
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
Rhode Island;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
South Carolina;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 1,096;
2004: 76;
2005: 0.
South Dakota[F];
2001: [Empty].
Tennessee;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
Texas;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
Utah;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
Vermont[G];
2001: 0;
2002: 1,776[G];
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
Virginia;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
Washington[A];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty].
West Virginia[A];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty].
Wisconsin;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
Wyoming;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0.
Source: Responses to GAO's survey of tank program and/or state fund
managers.
[A] Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland,
Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia never had state financial
assurance funds.
[B] Estimated amount.
[C] Iowa used to operate an insurance-type fund that provided financial
responsibility coverage, but the fund has been privatized.
[D] Michigan's state financial assurance fund is no longer active.
[E] Pennsylvania officials reported that $17,500,000 of the diverted
funds had been reimbursed to the state fund as of September 30, 2005.
[F] South Dakota officials did not respond to the survey.
[G] Vermont officials reported that $530,000 of the diverted funds had
been reimbursed to the state fund as of September 30, 2005.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District of Columbia:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO Survey Of The 50 States: Financing Cleanups Of Leaking Underground
Storage Tanks:
Introduction:
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an agency of the
legislative branch that reviews federal programs on behalf of the U.S.
Congress. To aid in our continuing reviews of the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Underground Storage Tank program, we are
currently surveying the 50 states as part of a study of how states
finance the cleanup of leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites.
We will use the information gathered in this survey to provide the
Congress with information about the magnitude of LUST cleanup costs
across all 50 states and the resources available to state programs to
address these cleanups.
We are aware of similar survey efforts conducted in the past year by
the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and by EPA's
Office of Underground Storage Tanks. We have discussed our survey with
these parties and eliminated overlap where feasible.
Your prompt response to this survey is very important. Without your
state's response, we will not be able to accurately report to the
Congress on the magnitude of LUST cleanup costs across all 50 states,
how states are financing these cleanups, and the resources the states
have to fund these cleanups. Your prompt participation will help us
avoid costly follow-ups.
To answer some of our questions, you may need to coordinate your
responses with other state agencies responsible for certain aspects of
the program.
Instructions:
This questionnaire can be filled out using MS-Word and returned via e-
mail to USTSurvey@gao.gov. If you prefer, you may print copies of the
questionnaire and complete them by hand. If you choose to print the
questionnaire, please mail or fax it to:
Nico Sloss, Senior Analyst:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
10 Causeway Street, Suite 575:
Boston, MA 02222:
Fax: (617) 788-0505:
Please use your mouse to navigate by clicking on the field or check box
you wish to answer.
* To select a check box or button, simply click on the center of the
box.
* To change or deselect a check box response, simply click on the check
box and the `X' will disappear.
* To answer a question that requires that you write a comment, click on
the answer box and begin typing. The box will expand to accommodate
your answer.
Definitions:
To help ensure consistency in survey responses from the various states,
we provide definitions for terms in this survey at or near the point at
which the term appears. Please consider these definitions when
responding to survey questions.
If you have any questions about the contents of this questionnaire,
please contact:
Nico Sloss;
Phone: (617)788-0516;
e-mail: SlossN@gao.gov.
Or:
Gerald Laudermilk;
Phone: (617)788-0543;
e-mail: LaudermilkG@gao.gov.
Database Information:
1. We are interested in information about your state's database(s) for
underground storage tank (UST) program management, including data on
the number of tanks and releases in your state, as well as financial
information about your state's program. [Please describe one database
in each row. Provide documentation for reviews of databases via e-mail
attachment, fax or mail to the addresses listed above.]
What is the name of your state's database(s) for UST management?;
Yes.
No.
Have there been any reviews of the quality of the data?.
Yes.
No.
What year was the most recent review? [Enter 4 digit year.]
2. Which of the following types of information does each of the
databases you listed above contain? [For each database, check all that
apply]
Database:
Tank data (e.g. location)?
Release data?
expenditure/financial data?
Financial Responsibility data?
3. What procedures are used to ensure all data contained in the
databases you listed above are accurately recorded? [For each database,
check all that apply.]
Database:
Systematic monitoring or spot checks of entered data?
Verification to source documents?
Automated edit checks/data entry controls?
Error correction procedures?
No procedures in place?
4. What are the known limitations of the current data (e.g., data
elements that are known to be incomplete, incorrect, or out-of-date)
for each of the databases you listed above?
Database:
Description of Limitations:
None?
5. Is there any additional information about the way your states' data
for UST management is collected, entered, stored, and quality reviewed
that would help inform our interpretation of these data?
Scope of the Problem:
Federally regulated USTs: In this survey we are concerned with
federally regulated USTs, as defined by EPA. These tanks include "any
one or combination of tanks (including underground pipes connected
thereto) that is used to contain an accumulation of regulated
substances, and the volume of which (including the volume of
underground pipes connected thereto) is 10 percent or more beneath the
surface of the ground. This term does not include any: (a) farm or
residential tank of 1,100 gallons or less capacity used for storing
motor fuel for noncommercial purposes; (b) tank used for storing
heating oil for consumptive use on the premises where stored; (c)
septic tank; (d) certain pipeline facilities; (e) surface impoundment,
pit, pond, or lagoon; (f) storm-water or wastewater collection system;
(g) flow-through process tank; (h) liquid trap or associated gathering
lines directly related to oil or gas production and gathering
operations; or (i) storage tank situated in an underground area if the
storage tank is situated upon or above the surface of the floor."
6. What are the cumulative data for the number of federally regulated
USTs for your state, first as of September 30, 2004, and then as of
September 30, 2005? Are these numbers exact or estimated?
a. Active Tanks;
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2004: Number:
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2004: Is this an exact number or an
estimate?
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2005: Number:
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2005: Is this an exact number or an
estimate?
b. Closed tanks;
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2004: Number:
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2004: Is this an exact number or an
estimate?
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2005: Number:
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2005: Is this an exact number or an
estimate?
c. Confirmed releases;
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2004: Number:
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2004: Is this an exact number or an
estimate?
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2005: Number:
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2005: Is this an exact number or an
estimate?
d. Cleanups initiated;
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2004: Number:
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2004: Is this an exact number or an
estimate?
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2005: Number:
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2005: Is this an exact number or an
estimate?
e. Cleanups completed;
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2004: Number:
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2004: Is this an exact number or an
estimate?
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2005: Number:
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2005: Is this an exact number or an
estimate?
f. Emergency responses;
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2004: Number:
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2004: Is this an exact number or an
estimate?
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2005: Number:
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2005: Is this an exact number or an
estimate?
7. How many new releases from federally regulated USTs did your state
confirm in each of the last five federal fiscal years?
a. 2001;
New Releases: Number:
Is this an exact amount or an estimate?
b. 2002;
New Releases: Number:
Is this an exact amount or an estimate?
c. 2003;
New Releases: Number:
Is this an exact amount or an estimate?
d. 2004;
New Releases: Number:
Is this an exact amount or an estimate?
e. 2005;
New Releases: Number:
Is this an exact amount or an estimate?
f. How did you calculate the number of new releases from USTs your
state confirmed in each of the last five years?
8. How many new releases from federally regulated USTs do you estimate
that your state will confirm over the next five years?
___ Estimated number of new releases your state will confirm over the
next five years:
a. How did you estimate the number of new releases from federally
regulated USTs that your state will confirm over the next five years?
b. How many of these new releases over the next five years do you
estimate will require at least some amount of public funding to clean
up?
___ Estimated number of new releases over the next five years that will
require at least some amount of public funding to clean up:
c. How did you estimate the number of new releases over the next five
years that will require at least some amount of public funding to clean
up?
9. EPA computes your state's "cleanup backlog" by subtracting the
cumulative number of cleanups completed from the cumulative number of
confirmed releases. Based on the numbers you provided above, your
state's cleanup backlog, as of September 30, 2005 is: 0. Is this number
correct?
Yes:
No.
What is the correct number?
___ releases in the backlog:
Please refer to this number when answering questions about your state's
cleanup backlog in completing the remainder of this survey.
10. Considering the number of releases in your state's cleanup backlog
as of September 30, 2005, how many involve MtBE at levels requiring
cleanup?
Number of releases with MtBE___
a. How did you calculate the number of releases in your state's cleanup
backlog that involve the release of MtBE at levels requiring cleanup?
11. Considering the number of releases in your state's cleanup backlog
as of September 30, 2005, how many have affected groundwater at levels
requiring cleanup?
Number of releases affecting groundwater___
a. How did you calculate the number of releases in your state's cleanup
backlog that have affected groundwater at levels requiring cleanup?
12. Is there any additional information about your state's data for UST
management that would help inform our interpretation of your responses
to questions about the scope and type of UST cleanups in your state?
Sources of Funding for Cleanup:
Definitions:
Public funding: Includes any funding controlled and/or provided by
state and federal agencies-for example, funds from the federal LUST
Trust Fund, state financial assurance funds, other state funds that
have not been approved by EPA to serve as financial responsibility
mechanisms, or funds appropriated by the state to pay for cleanup that
would not otherwise occur. Do not include funds spent by federal,
state, and local governmental agencies to clean up releases from tanks
they either own or operate-these funds would be considered to be
provided by the responsible party.
State financial assurance fund: Any state fund used to pay for cleanups
of releases from federally regulated USTs. We do not make a distinction
between funds that EPA has approved as a financial responsibility
mechanism and those that EPA has not approved. We recognize that in
some cases a state's fund may cover tanks without a viable responsible
party as well as other types of tanks. In those cases where a state
fund is dedicated solely to coverage of tanks without a viable
responsible party, the survey provides a separate space to answer
questions about such a fund.
Responsible party funding Includes both direct expenditures by
responsible parties (for example, a tank owner paying out-of-pocket for
all or a portion of the costs of cleanup) and indirect expenditures
(for example, a tank owner's insurance company paying for all or a
portion of the costs of cleanup). Note: In this survey, we request the
known or estimated number of cleanups funded by responsible parties,
not specific cost data.
EPA-defined site cleanup costs: "All costs associated with site
response concerning prevention or mitigation of threats to public
health, welfare, or the environment that may occur by a release (or
suspected release) of petroleum from an underground storage tank. These
costs include emergency responses, site investigations, exposure
assessments, the planning and design of corrective action, and the
conduct, management and oversight of long-term remedial corrective
actions."
13. Considering the number of releases in your state's cleanup backlog
as of September 30, 2005, what is your estimate of the number of these
releases for which EPA-defined site cleanup costs will be paid for
exclusively by responsible parties and the number of these releases for
which some amount of public funding will be required? [Please provide
your best estimate.]
a. ___ number of releases for which cleanup costs will be paid
exclusively by a responsible party:
b. ___ number of releases for which cleanup costs will be paid with
some amount of public funding:
c. How did you estimate the number of releases for which EPA-defined
site cleanup costs will be paid for exclusively by responsible parties
and the number of these releases for which some amount of public
funding will be required?
14. Among those releases in the current cleanup backlog that will
require at least some amount of public funding after September 30,
2005, excluding funds already spent on these cleanups, how many would
you estimate will require public funding amounts in the following
ranges?
Estimated amount of public funding per release: a. $0-$99,999;
Number of releases: ___.
Estimated amount of public funding per release: b. $100,000-$499,999;
Number of releases: ___.
Estimated amount of public funding per release: c. $500,000-$999,999;
Number of releases: ___.
Estimated amount of public funding per release: d. $1,000,000 or more;
Number of releases: ___.
Estimated amount of public funding per release: Number for which costs
cannot be estimated;
Number of releases: ___.
f. How did you estimate the number of releases that fall into each
category of funding?
15. Based on your experience with cleanups of leaking federally
regulated USTs that require some amount of public funding, what do you
estimate is the average cost in public funds to fully address each
release?
$__Estimated average cost in public funds to fully address each
release:
a. What do you estimate is the average cost in public funds to fully
address each release that involves MtBE at levels requiring cleanup?
$__Estimated cost in public funds to fully address each release that
involves MtBE at levels requiring cleanup:
b. What do you estimate is the average cost in public funds to fully
address each release that impacts groundwater at levels requiring
cleanup?
$__Estimated cost in public funds to fully address each release that
impacts groundwater at levels requiring cleanup:
c. How did you estimate these average costs in public funding?
16. In the past year, what was the total amount spent (in actual
outlays) to pay for the public funding portion of cleanups at federally
regulated UST sites? [If possible, provide this amount for the latest
federal fiscal year (10/1/04 to 9/30/05).]
Total outlays?
a. Are these amounts for the latest federal fiscal year (10/1/04 to
9/30/05)?
b. On what date does the year for which you are reporting start? [Enter
mm/dd/yy.] Start of reporting year:
17. Of the total spent in the past year, how much funding was spent (in
actual outlays) from each of the following sources to pay for the
public funding portion of cleanups at federally regulated UST sites?
[1f possible, provide these amounts for the latest federal fiscal year
(10/1/04 to 9/30/05).]
a. Federal LUST Trust Fund?
b. Other federal sources [Please spec]?
c. State financial assurance fund ?
d. State fund dedicated to tanks without a viable owner?
e. Other state sources [Please spec]?
f. Other sources?
g. Are these amounts for the latest federal fiscal year (10/1/04 to
9/30/05)?
Yes.
No.
h. On what date does the year for which you are reporting start? [Enter
mm/dd/yy.] Start of reporting year:
18. Is there any additional information about the amounts of public
funding listed above that would help inform our interpretation of your
responses to these questions?
19. What additional sources of public funding for LUST cleanups, if
any, do you believe have a high probability of becoming available in
the next 5 years?
a. What were the primary factors you considered in making an assessment
of the probability that additional sources of public funding for LUST
cleanups will become available in the next 5 years?
20. Among the current sources of public funding for LUST cleanups,
which sources, if any, do you believe have a high probability of no
longer being available in the next 5 years, and why not?
a. What were the primary factors you considered in making an assessment
of the probability that any of the current sources of public funding
for LUST cleanups will no longer be available in the next 5 years?
Tanks without a Viable Owner:
For purposes of this survey, consider tanks among your state's cleanup
backlog without a viable owner to be those tanks where, as of September
30, 2005, the responsible party was unknown, unwilling, or unable to
perform the needed cleanup (for example, "orphaned" or abandoned
tanks).
21. How many releases in your state's cleanup backlog, identified
above, come from tanks without a viable owner?
Number of releases?
a. How did you calculate the number of releases in your state's cleanup
backlog that come from tanks without a viable owner?
22. For how many releases in your state's cleanup backlog has the state
not yet determined whether a responsible party is known, willing, and
able to perform the cleanup?
Number of releases?
a. How did you calculate the number of releases in your state's cleanup
backlog for which the state has not yet determined whether a
responsible party is known, willing, and able to perform the cleanup?
23. In the past year, how much public funding from all sources was
spent (in actual outlays) on cleaning up releases from USTs, both WITH
and WITHOUT a viable owner? [If possible, provide these amounts for the
latest federal fiscal year, 10/1/04 to 9/30/05.]
a. Public funding spent to clean up tanks with a viable owner.
b. Public funding spent to clean up tanks WITHOUT a viable owner.
c. Is this the total amount ($0) spent (in actual outlays) in the past
year for the public funding portion of cleanups at federally regulated
UST sites?
Yes.
No.
d. Why is this amount different?
e. Is this amount for the latest federal fiscal year (10/1/04 to 9/30/
05)?
Yes.
No.
f. On what date does your reporting year begin?
___[Enter mm/dd/yy.] Beginning date of reporting year:
g. How did you calculate the amount of public funding spent to clean up
releases from USTs with and without a viable owner?
24. Based on the backlog of releases from USTs without a viable owner
as of September 30, 2005, identified above how much do you estimate it
will cost to complete the remainder of the cleanups for all of these
releases? [Enter amount in whole dollars.]
$___Estimated cost:
a. How did you estimate the cost to complete the remainder of the
cleanups for the backlog of releases from USTs without a viable owner?
State Cleanup Funds:
For the purposes of the following questions, please consider two types
of state cleanup funds:
(1) state financial assurance funds that cover the cleanup of
contamination from federally regulated USTs, which may or may not
include tanks without a viable owner, and:
(2) funds that are devoted solely to the cleanup of contamination from
tanks without a viable owner.
In this survey we ask about both types of funds as applicable to your
state.
25. Has your state EVER had a state financial assurance fund, as
defined in (1) above?
Yes.
No. Skip to Q37.
26. What was the status of your state's financial assurance fund as of
September 30, 20057 [Check the option that describes the fund's actual
status.]
Not applicable, never had this type of fund. Skip to Q37.
Fund is no longer active.Skip to Q37.
Accepting and paying all valid claims without restriction Go to Q27:
Accepting and paying claims with some restrictions.
a. Is your state fund limiting the number of claims it accepts based on
the amount of funds it has available to pay for those claims?
Yes.
No.
b. Is your state fund setting priorities for paying claims to conserve
funds?
Yes
No.
C. Is your state's financial assurance fund ONLY accepting claims for
releases that occurred before or after a certain date (e.g., an
eligibility sunset date)?
No.
Yes.
d. What are the eligibility dates for releases? [Fill in either or both
dates as applicable.]
e. Are there other restrictions on accepting and paying claims?
27. Please describe the deductible amount(s) paid by responsible
parties and any maximum amount the state financial assurance fund will
pay for each release from a federally regulated UST.
28. How much was deposited into your state's financial assurance fund
in the past year? [Enter amount in whole dollars.]
Amount deposited?
a. Is this amount for the latest federal fiscal year (10/1/04 to 9/30/
05)?
Yes.
No.
b. On what date does your reporting year begin?
__[Enter mm/dd/yy.] Beginning date of reporting year:
29. How much of the amount deposited into your state's financial
assurance fund in the past year was from each of the following sources?
[Enter amount in whole dollars.]
a. Flat rate fees assessed on tanks?
b. Fees/taxes assessed on a per-unit basis on fuel(s)?
c. Interest?
d. Cost recovery?
e. Combined federal sources [Please specify sources]?
f. Combined state sources[Please sped sources]?
g. Combined other sources[Please sped sources]?
30. What do you anticipate will happen to revenues to your state's
financial assurance fund over the next 5 years, compared with the
annual revenues accrued to the fund in the past year? [Check one.]
a. What were the primary factors you considered in making this
assessment?
31. What was the overall balance of your state's financial assurance
fund as of September 30, 2005? [Enter amount in whole dollars.]
Balance?
a. Of this balance, how much had been obligated as of September 30,
2005? [Enter amount in whole dollars.]
Obligated?
32. What was the amount of the outstanding claims (claims received by
the state program for which funds have not yet been obligated) on your
state's financial assurance fund as of September 30, 2005? [Enter
amount in whole dollars.]
Outstanding claims?
33. During the past 5 years, what amount of funding, if any, did your
state divert from its financial assurance fund for purposes other than
those related to the UST program? [Enter amount in whole dollars.]
f. How much, if any, of the total amount diverted over the past 5 years
had been reimbursed to the state financial assurance fund as of
September 30, 2005? [Enter amount in whole dollars.]
Reimbursed?
g. If applicable, for what purposes did your state divert UST financial
assurance funds?
34. As of September 30, 2005, had your state decided to stop accepting
new claims against the state financial assurance fund after a certain
date?
[Enter mm/dd/yy.] Date after which claims will no longer be accepted:
No decision made to stop accepting claims.
35. As of September 30, 2005, had your state decided to stop collecting
revenues for the state financial assurance fund after a certain date?
[Enter mm/dd/yyj Date after which revenues will no longer be collected:
No decision made to stop collecting claims
36. How capable is your state's financial assurance fund of meeting
future demands upon it? [Check one].
Able to meet all?
Able to meet most?
Able to meet some?
Not able to meet any?
a. What were the primary factors you considered in making this
assessment?
37. What was the status of your state's fund dedicated to tanks without
a viable owner as of September 30, 2005? [Check the option that
describes the fund's actual status].
Not applicable, never had this type of fund. Skip to Q47.
Fund is no longer active.Skip to Q47.
Accepting and paying all valid claims without restriction. Go to Q38
Accepting and paying claims with some restrictions .
a. Is your state fund limiting the number of claims it accepts based on
the amount of funds it has available to pay for those claims?
Yes
No.
b. Is your state fund setting priorities for paying claims to conserve
funds?
Yes
No.
c. Is your state's fund dedicated to tanks without a viable owner ONLY
accepting claims for releases that occurred before or after a certain
date (e.g., an eligibility sunset date)?
No.
Yes.
d. What are the eligibility dates for releases? [Fill in either or both
dates as applicable.]
Before [Enter mm/dd/yy.]
After [Enter mm/dd/yy.]
e. Are there other restrictions on accepting and paying claims?
38. How much was deposited into your state's fund dedicated to tanks
without a viable owner in the past year? [Enter amount in whole
dollars.]
Amount deposited. ?
a. Is this amount for the latest federal fiscal year (10/1/04 to 9/30/
05)?
Yes:
No.
b. On what date does your reporting year begin?
[Enter mm/dd/yy.] Beginning date of reporting year:
39. Approximately how much of the amount deposited into your state's
fund dedicated to tanks without a viable owner in the past year was
from each of the following sources? [Enter amount in whole dollars.]
a. Flat rate fees assessed on tanks.
b. Fees/taxes assessed on a per- unit basis on fuel(s).
c. Interest .
d. Cost recovery.
e. Combined federal sources [Please sped sources]
f. Combined state sources [Please sped sources]
g. Combined other sources [Please sped sources]
40. What do you anticipate will happen to revenues to your state's fund
dedicated to tanks without a viable owner over the next 5 years,
compared with the annual revenues accrued to the fund in the past year?
[Check one.]
Large increase.
Moderate increase.
Stay about the same.
Moderate decrease.
Large decrease.
a. What were the primary factors you considered in making this
assessment?
41. What was the overall balance of your state's fund dedicated to
tanks without a viable owner as of September 30, 2005? [Enter amount in
whole dollars.]
Balance?
a. Of this balance, how much had been obligated as of September 30,
2005? [Enter amount in whole dollars.]
Obligated?
42. What was the amount of the outstanding claims (claims received by
the state program for which funds have not yet been obligated) on your
state's fund dedicated to tanks without a viable owner as of September
30, 2005? [Enter amount in whole dollars.]
43. During the past 5 years, what amount of funding, if any, did your
state divert from its fund dedicated to tanks without a viable owner
for purposes other than those related to the UST program? [Enter amount
in whole dollars.]
a. 2001?
b. 2002?
c. 2003?
d. 2004?
e. 2005?
f. How much, if any, of the total amount diverted over the past 5 years
had been reimbursed to the state fund dedicated to tanks without a
viable owner as of September 30, 2005? [Enter amount in whole dollars.]
Reimbursed?
g. If applicable, for what purposes did your state divert funds from
the fund dedicated to tanks without a viable owner?
44. As of September 30, 2005, had your state decided to stop accepting
new claims against the state fund dedicated to tanks without a viable
owner after a certain date?
[Enter mm/dd/yy.] Date after which claims will no longer be accepted No
decision made to stop accepting claims.
45. As of September 30, 2005, had your state decided to stop collecting
revenues for the state fund dedicated to tanks without a viable owner
after a certain date?
[Enter mm/dd/yy] Date after which revenues will no longer be collected:
No decision made to stop collecting claims.
46. How capable is your state's fund dedicated to tanks without a
viable owner of meeting future demands upon it? [Check one].
Able to meet all.
Able to meet most.
Able to meet some.
Not able to meet any.
a. What were the primary factors you considered in making this
assessment?
47. If your state has never had a fund dedicated to tanks without a
viable owner, or if this fund is no longer active, how does your state
pay for the cleanup of releases from tanks without a viable owner?
Federal Funds:
48. In the past year, how much money from LUST Trust Fund cooperative
agreement funds did your state spend (in actual outlays) on
administrative costs, enforcement costs, and site clean-up costs? [If
possible, provide these amounts for the latest federal fiscal year,
10/1/04 to 9/30/05.]
a. Administrative costs;
b. Enforcement costs ;
c. Site cleanup costs;
d. Total costs;
e. Are these amounts for the latest federal fiscal year (10/1/04 to
9/30/05)?
Yes.
No.
f. On what date does your reporting year begin?
[Enter mm/dd/yy.] Beginning date of reporting year:
49. According to EPA, states may sometimes not spend a given year's
entire LUST Trust Fund award in the year the funds are provided. As of
September 30, 2005, what was the state's unobligated balance of federal
LUST Trust Funds, if any?
State's unobligated balance of federal LUST Trust Funds?
50. Is there any additional information about the LUST Trust Fund
amounts listed above that would help inform our interpretation of your
responses to these questions?
Questions about Financial Responsibility:
51. How do responsible parties who have active federally regulated USTs
in your state demonstrate financial responsibility? Please list the
number of tanks covered by the various available financial
responsibility mechanisms below.
a. State financial assurance fund.
b. Financial test of self- insurance.
c. Corporate guarantee.
d. Insurance coverage.
e. Surety bond.
f. Letter of credit.
g. Trust fund set up by owner or operator.
h. Bond rating test (local government only).
i. Financial test (local government only).
j. Guarantee from another local government or the state (local
government only).
k. A dedicated fund (local government only).
l. Other state- authorized methods:
[Please specify.] .
52. Is there any additional information about how you calculated the
number of tanks covered by the various financial responsibility
mechanisms that would help inform our interpretation of your responses?
53. Which of the following describe your state's procedures for
determining whether a tank owner's financial responsibility is current?
[Check all that apply.]
a. Attempt to check financial responsibility on a regular basis (e.g.
during regular inspections).
b. Target inspections (e.g. to USTs deemed likely to not be current on
financial responsibility).
c. As events warrant (e.g. upon tank installation or upgrade, upon a
release).
d. State does not check financial responsibility.
e. Other [Please specify.]
54. How frequently, if at all, does your state check whether a tank
owner's financial responsibility is current? [Check one.]
At least annually.
Every I to 2 years.
Every 3 years or longer.
State does not check financial responsibility.
Other [Please specify.]
55. Over the past 5 years, how many cases has your state encountered in
which tank owners did not have adequate financial responsibility?
Number of cases?
a. How did you calculate the number of cases that your state has
encountered over the past 5 years in which tank owners did not have
adequate financial responsibility?
56. Does your state ever impose penalties on responsible parties for
multiple releases from federally regulated USTs?
Yes.
No. Go to next question.
a. What are the penalties and the circumstances under which they would
be imposed?
Additional Comments:
57. Are there any issues that have not been covered in this survey that
you anticipate affecting the availability of public finding for
cleanups in the next 5 years?
58. Are there any additional comments you wish to make regarding the
issues in this survey or other matters related to USTs?
Thank you for completing the survey!:
Please save this file now and send an e-mail with your saved
questionnaire file and supporting documentation as an attachment to:
USTSurvev@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
United States Environmental Protection Agency:
Washington, D.C. 20460:
Office Of Solid Waste And Emergency Response:
Mr. John B. Stephenson, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
Unites States Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report entitled, "Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks: EPA Should Take Steps to Better Ensure the
Effective Use of Public Funding for Cleanups." The effective use of
public funds, and more generally the effective cleanup of remaining
releases, is a critical issue in the underground storage tank (UST)
program. You presented a thorough and useful analysis of the issues and
we think the report's recommendations are reasonable and helpful. The
draft report makes four specific recommendations, and our response to
each of them is as follows::
Ensure that states verify, on a regular basis, that tank owners and
operators are maintaining adequate financial responsibility coverage,
as required by RCRA:
EPA agrees that regular verification of financial responsibility
coverage is important to ensure adequate funding for future releases.
As you know, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) requires EPA or
states, as appropriate, to conduct on-site inspections of USTs every
three years to determine compliance with requirements imposed by
Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. EPA is currently working on
grant guidelines to implement those requirements. EPA's draft
guidelines require that the inspections assess compliance with the
financial responsibility requirements.
Improve the Agency's oversight of the solvency of state assurance funds
to ensure that they continue to provide reliable financial
responsibility coverage for tank owners:
EPA agrees that increased oversight of state assurance fund (state
fund) solvency is necessary and important. As the report indicates, EPA
recently developed a monitoring tool to assess the financial condition
of state funds. We are working to improve implementation and utility of
that tool. In addition, in response to EPAct, EPA is working on
guidance to revise and improve our process for monitoring the financial
soundness of state funds, and work with less solvent funds to improve
solvency. EPA expects to complete this guidance in 2007.
Assess, in coordination with the states, the relative effectiveness of
public and private options for financial responsibility coverage to
ensure that they provide timely funding for the cleanup of releases:
EPA agrees an assessment of the relative performance of state funds
(the primary public funding mechanism) and insurance (the primary
private funding mechanism) would be informative and useful. EPA will
consider conducting a study, in conjunction with the states, of the
relative effectiveness of state funds and insurance in providing timely
funding for cleanups.
Better focus how EPA distributes program resources to states, including
LUST Trust Fund money, by:
* ensuring that states are reporting information in their semi-annual
activity reports that is consistent with EPA's definitions;
* encouraging states to review their databases to ensure that only data
on the appropriate universe of underground storage tanks are being
reported in their semi-annual activity reports; and:
* gathering available information from states on releases attributed to
tanks without a viable owner and taking this information into account
in distributing LUST Trust Fund money to states.
Each year EPA distributes LUST Trust Fund money, under an allocation
formula that reflects state performance and need, using information
reported by states in their end-of-year activity report. The
information contained in these reports, including the number of
releases and the population of active tanks, are relevant indicators of
program need and program performance. Nonetheless, EPA agrees with GAO
that it is important to ensure that the information used to support the
LUST allocation formula is as accurate as possible. EPA will continue
to work with regions and states to implement quality control measures
and, in particular, work toward ensuring that reported data is
consistent with existing EPA definitions and is limited to federally-
regulated USTs. In addition, as we begin working on the Energy Policy
Act requirements pertaining to the LUST Trust Fund allocation, EPA will
work with regions and states to consider other changes to improve the
distribution of future LUST money, including changes that more
specifically reflect the need at abandoned LUST sites.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on your draft report and
for your helpful recommendations. EPA will move forward to implement
your recommendations as presented in this letter.
If you have any questions concerning our response, please contact Mark
Barolo in the Office of Underground Storage Tanks at (703) 603-7141.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Susan Parker Bodine:
Assistant Administrator:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Vincent P. Price, Assistant
Director; Krista Breen Anderson; Jenny Chanley; Richard P. Johnson;
Jerry Laudermilk; Jennifer Lutzy McDonald; Anne McDonough-Hughes;
Rebecca Shea; Carol Herrnstadt Shulman; Dominique Sasson; and Nico
Sloss made key contributions to this report.
(360599):
FOOTNOTES
[1] EPA defines a confirmed release as an incident where a release has
been identified and reported to the state (or other designated
implementing agency), which has in turn verified the release.
[2] To calculate the estimated cost to complete the cleanup of known
releases that require at least some public funds, we first provided
states with four cost ranges ($0 - $99,999, $100,000 - $499,999,
$500,000-$999,999, $1,000,000 or more). Second, we asked them to divide
the number of releases in their state for which cleanup costs will be
paid with some amount of public funds among these four cost ranges.
Third, we multiplied the total number of releases in each range by the
midpoint of the range in order to get a total cost for releases in each
range. For the top range, we used $1,000,000 as the midpoint. Finally,
we summed the total costs for each range.
[3] Additionally, officials in New York reported 375 releases that
would be cleaned up using public funding, but they did not respond to
the question about the cost of cleaning up these releases.
[4] GAO, Environmental Protection: More Complete Data and Continued
Emphasis on Leak Prevention Could Improve EPA's Underground Storage
Tank Program, GAO-06-45 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2005).
[5] Michigan accounted for $1.7 billion of the $2.7 billion estimated
cost.
[6] EPA regulations require owners to report current evidence of
financial responsibility in certain specific situations, such as after
a release has occurred. EPA guidance notes that states may review
financial responsibility submissions (1) when owners or operators
submit them or (2) as part of an inspection or compliance assurance
program. However, the guidance does not elaborate on how frequently
states should carry out such reviews.
[7] Arizona's financial assurance fund stopped providing financial
responsibility coverage after June 30, 2006.
[8] In this report we use the phrase "state gasoline taxes" to refer to
any fees or taxes assessed on a per-unit basis on fuels which are made
available to state financial assurance funds under state law.
[9] Of the total amount diverted among these 16 states, only about $18
million had been reimbursed to the state funds as of September 30,
2005.
[10] GAO-06-45.
[11] EPA guidance generally provides that states entering into
cooperative agreements with EPA must make reasonable efforts to recover
costs.
[12] GAO-06-45, p. 29.
[13] See appendix III for a copy of the survey.
[14] The Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials' survey is sponsored by that organization and conducted by
the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
[15] Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make
inferences about a population because in a nonprobability sample, some
elements of the population being studied have no chance or an unknown
chance of being selected as part of the sample.
[16] As indicated previously, we also discussed data reliability with
seven of these states. We did not discuss data reliability with
officials in Utah.
[17] Regions 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, based in Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta,
Chicago, Dallas, and Denver, respectively.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
