a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

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
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

February 2007

LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE 

TANKS 

EPA Should Take Steps to Better Ensure 

the Effective Use of Public Funding for 

Cleanups 

Highlights of GAO-07-152, a report to 

congressional requesters 

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. 

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. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-152.

To 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. 

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. 
Page i GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4

Background 7

Future Public Costs for Cleaning Up Leaking Underground Storage 

Tanks May Be Substantial 10

States Primarily Rely on Financial Assurance Funds to Clean Up 

Releases and Limit Cleanup Based on Funding Availability 22

Federal Funding Provided to Clean Up Releases from Underground 

Storage Tanks Is Limited 34

Conclusions 43

Recommendations for Executive Action 45

Agency Comments 45

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 47

Appendix II: Selected Data Relating to Underground Storage Tanks 

Reported by States 53

Appendix III: GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District of Columbia 72

Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency 103

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 106

Tables Table 1: Key Data on Underground Storage Tanks in the 50 States 

and the District of Columbia, as of September 30, 2005 9

Table 2: Summary of Reported State Approaches to Ensuring That 

Tank Cleanups Are Completed, by Status of State Financial 

Assurance Fund 26

Table 3: LUST Trust Fund Revenue, Fiscal Years 1987- 2005 37

Table 4: Selected State-Reported Underground Storage Tank 

Performance Measures, as of September 30, 2005 54

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 56

Table 6: State-Reported Numbers of Releases in the State’s Cleanup 

Backlog from Tanks without a Viable Owner, as of 

September 30, 2005 58
Contents

Page ii GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Table 7: State-Reported Frequency of Checking Financial 

Responsibility Coverage 60

Table 8: State-Reported Expenditures of Public Funding to Clean 

Up Underground Storage Tank Sites by Source, 2005 62

Table 9: State-Reported Balance of State Financial Assurance 

Funds, as of September 30, 2005 65

Table 10: State-Reported Revenues to State Financial Assurance 

Funds, 2005 67

Table 11: State-Reported Diversions from State Financial Assurance 

Funds for Purposes Other Than Those Related to the 

Underground Storage Tank Program, 2001–2005 70

Figures Figure 1: States’ Estimates of Expected Future Public Costs to 

Fully Clean Up Known Releases 12

Figure 2: States’ Estimates of the Percentage of Known Releases 

That Would Be Cleaned Up Using Public Funds 14

Figure 3: Number of States That Use Each Source of Funding to 

Clean Up Releases from Tanks without a Viable 

Owner 17

Figure 4: State-Reported Frequency of Checking Whether 

Financial Responsibility Coverage Is Current 19

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 21

Figure 6: State-Reported Expenditures from State Sources, 2005 23

Figure 7: Status of Financial Responsibility Coverage of State 

Financial Assurance Funds, as of September 30, 2005 24

Figure 8: Top Ten States by Size of Reported Balance of Financial 

Assurance Fund, as of September 30, 2005 27

Figure 9: Number of States Reporting Diversions from State 

Financial Assurance Funds, 2001-2005 31

Figure 10: Appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund, Fiscal Years 

1987-2005 35

Figure 11: LUST Trust Fund Balance, Fiscal Years, 1987- 2005 36

Figure 12: States’ Use of LUST Trust Fund Money by Spending 

Category, Fiscal Year 2005 42
Contents

Page iii GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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

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. However, 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.
Page 1 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

February 8, 2007 Letr

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.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 

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.
Page 2 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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 
Page 3 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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 
Page 4 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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 
Page 5 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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 
Page 6 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.
Page 7 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.
Page 8 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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 
Page 9 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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 tankrelated 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

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.

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 

Tank-related data element Definition Number

Tanks

 Active tanks Active, federally regulated underground storage tank systems 

registered with the state.

645,990

 Closed tanks Federally regulated underground storage tanks that have been 

reported to the state as being closed permanently.

1,607,462

Releases

 Confirmed releases 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.

449,779

Cleanups 

 Cleanups initiated 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.

419,919

 Cleanups completed 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.

331,562

Status of cleanup backlog

 Cleanups ongoing Confirmed releases where cleanup has been initiated but not yet 

completed.

88,357

 Cleanups not yet started Confirmed releases where cleanup has not yet been initiated. 29,860
Page 10 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.
Page 11 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.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.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. 

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.
Page 12 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Figure 1: States’ Estimates of Expected Future Public Costs to Fully Clean Up 

Known Releases 

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.

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 

Source: Responses to GAO’s survey of tank program and/or state fund managers.

40%

Costs cannot be estimated

(8,206)

$0–$99,999

(24,940)

$100,000–$499,999

(25,924)

2%

$1,000,000 or more

(956)

$500,000–$999,999

(2,172)

3%

13%

42%
Page 13 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.
Page 14 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Figure 2: States’ Estimates of the Percentage of Known Releases That Would Be Cleaned Up Using Public Funds

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.

0% to 24.99%

25% to 49.99%

50% to 74.99%

75% to 100%

No response

Sources: Responses to GAO’s survey of tank program and/or state fund managers, Map Resources (map).
Page 15 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.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. 

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).
Page 16 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.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. 

5

Michigan accounted for $1.7 billion of the $2.7 billion estimated cost.
Page 17 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Figure 3: Number of States That Use Each Source of Funding to Clean Up Releases 

from Tanks without a Viable Owner

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.

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Number of states (among those that do not have a fund dedicated to tanks without a viable owner)

Rely on new 

owner of site

Federal LUST 

Trust Fund/ 

other federal fundsa

State financial 

assurance fund/ 

other state fund

Source of funding

Source: Reponses to GAO’s survey of tank program and/or state fund managers.
Page 18 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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
Page 19 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

provide states specific guidance on whether or how frequently states 

should engage in routine verification of financial responsibility coverage.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

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.

Source: Responses to GAO’s survey of tank program and/or state fund managers.

18%

Do not check

(7)

Other

(9)

At least annually

(16)

Every 3 years or longera

(15)

14%

30%

32%

6%

Every 1 to 2 years

(3)
Page 20 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.

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.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.

7

Arizona’s financial assurance fund stopped providing financial responsibility coverage after 

June 30, 2006.
Page 21 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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

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.

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.

Source: Responses to GAO’s survey of tank program and/or state fund managers.

66%

34%

Exclusively by

responsible parties

(29,984)

Exclusively by

responsible parties

(16,141)

At least some

public funding

(57,679)

At least some

public funding

(14,670)

52% 48%

Releases in current backlog Releases projected to be identified in the next 5 years
Page 22 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.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.

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.
Page 23 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Figure 6: State-Reported Expenditures from State Sources, 2005

Note: Other state sources include funds dedicated to tanks without a viable owner and other state 

funds.

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). 

Source: Responses to GAO’s survey of tank program and/or state fund managers.

74%

Other state sources

($44 million)

Financial assurance funds formerly 

providing financial responsibility coverage

($231 million)

22%

4%

Financial assurance funds currently

providing financial responsibilty coverage

($800 million)
Page 24 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Figure 7: Status of Financial Responsibility Coverage of State Financial Assurance Funds, as of September 30, 2005

Note: Arizona’s fund stopped providing financial responsibility coverage after June 30, 2006.

Fund provides financial responsibility coverage

Fund no longer provides financial responsibility coverage

Never had a fund that provided financial responsibility coverage

Sources: GAO analysis of EPA data, Map Resources (map).
Page 25 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.
Page 26 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Table 2: Summary of Reported State Approaches to Ensuring That Tank Cleanups Are Completed, by Status of State Financial 

Assurance Fund

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.

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.

Number of states with owner/operators 

that use each method to demonstrate 

financial responsibility coverage

Number of states 

whose financial 

assurance fund 

received funding 

from each source

Status of state financial assurance 

fund as of September 30, 2005

Number of states 

that spent public 

funds from state 

sources on 

cleanup in 2005

Financial 

assurance 

fund

Private 

insurance

Other private 

form of 

coverage

State 

gasoline 

taxes

Tank

fees

State has a financial assurance fund 

that provides financial responsibility 

coverage (37 states) 35 29 13 19 31 18

State financial assurance fund no longer 

provides financial responsibility 

coverage (six states) 6 N/A 6 6 3 1

State never had a financial assurance 

fund that provided financial 

responsibility coverage (seven states 

and the District of Columbia) 4 N/A 7a 7a N/A N/A
Page 27 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Figure 8: Top Ten States by Size of Reported Balance of Financial Assurance Fund, 

as of September 30, 2005

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.

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 

State

U.S. dollars (in millions)

Source: Reponses to GAO’s survey of tank program and/or state fund managers.

0

50

100

150

200

250

PA FL TX NJ CA MO GA KY AZ WI
Page 28 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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 highrisk 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 
Page 29 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.
Page 30 GAO-07-152 Leaking 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 2005.9 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 leadbased 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 

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.
Page 31 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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

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.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Number of states

Source: Reponses to GAO’s survey of tank program and/or state fund managers.
Page 32 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.
Page 33 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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 
Page 34 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.
Page 35 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Figure 10: Appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund, Fiscal Years 1987-2005 

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.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

200

2004

2005

3

199

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

3

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

U.S. dollars (in millions)

Year

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
Page 36 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Figure 11: LUST Trust Fund Balance, Fiscal Years, 1987- 2005

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). 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

200

2004

2005

3

199

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

3

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

U.S. dollars (in millions)

Year

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
Page 37 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Table 3: LUST Trust Fund Revenue, Fiscal Years 1987- 2005 

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.

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 

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year Net tax revenuea Interest income Total net revenue

1987 $73 $1 $74

1988 125 10 135

1989 168 23 191

1990 122 34 156

1991 123 35 158

1992 157 31 188

1993 153 24 177

1994 152 29 180

1995 165 52 217

1996 48 60 108

1997 (2) 58 57

1998 136 61 197

1999 216 58 273

2000 181 79 260

2001 182 95 276b

2002 181 68 249

2003 184 64 249

2004 189 67 256

2005 190 78 269b

Total $2,743 $927 $3,671b
Page 38 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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 
Page 39 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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 
Page 40 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.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.

10GAO-06-45. 
Page 41 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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. 
Page 42 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Figure 12: States’ Use of LUST Trust Fund Money by Spending Category, Fiscal Year 

2005

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.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.

11EPA guidance generally provides that states entering into cooperative agreements with 

EPA must make reasonable efforts to recover costs.

Source: EPA data.

24%

Cleanup

Administration

42%

34%

Enforcement
Page 43 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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 
Page 44 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.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 

12GAO-06-45, p. 29.
Page 45 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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 
Page 46 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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 statereported 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 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.

John B. Stephenson

Director, Natural Resources 

and Environment
Page 47 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

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.1

 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 

1

See appendix III for a copy of the survey.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 48 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.2

• 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 emailed 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. 

2

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. 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 49 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 50 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

sample of states).3 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 

3

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.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 51 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.4

 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.5

 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 

4

As indicated previously, we also discussed data reliability with seven of these states. We did 

not discuss data reliability with officials in Utah.

5

Regions 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, based in Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, and Denver, 

respectively.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 52 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.
Page 53 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Appendix II

Selected Data Relating to Underground 

Storage Tanks Reported by States ApendxiI

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.
Appendix II

Selected Data Relating to Underground 

Storage Tanks Reported by States

Page 54 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Table 4: Selected State-Reported Underground Storage Tank Performance Measures, as of September 30, 2005

State Active tanks Closed tanks

Confirmed 

releases

Cleanups 

initiated

Cleanups 

completed

Cleanup 

backlog

Alabama 18,021 28,631 10,884 10,755 9,317 1,567

Alaska 1,065 6,269 2,278 2,206 1,545 733

Arizona 8,194 20,064 8,191 5,682 5,942 2,249

Arkansas 9,749 19,909 1,294 988 948 346

California 38,753 121,352 44,190 44,190 29,572 14,618

Colorado 8,165 20,770 6,541 6,373 5,602 939

Connecticut 11,871 19,868 2,465 2,415 1,596 869

Delaware 1,598 6,423 2,284 2,228 2,010 274

District of Columbia 732 3,050 815 815 572 243

Florida 31,109 94,240 23,990 14,618 8,761 15,229

Georgia 30,320 44,369 11,023 10,654 8,373 2,650

Hawaii 1,783 5,013 1,840 1,741 1,504 336

Idaho 3,498 9,541 1,345 1,314 1,184 161

Illinois 23,062 62,074 22,410 21,211 14,540 7,870

Indiana 14,049 35,332 8,275 7,457 4,994 3,281

Iowa 7,716 22,092 5,791 5,529 3,948 1,843

Kansas 7,236 19,529 4,616 4,379 2,632 1,984

Kentucky 13,098 35,212 13,151 13,100 10,696 2,455

Louisiana 13,953 31,128 2,719 2,719 1,674 1,045

Maine 3,359 12,222 2,215 2,156 2,075 140

Maryland 9,439 27,647 10,201 9,944 9,282 919

Massachusetts 11,368 22,141 6,103 5,890 5,026 1,077

Michigan 20,730 65,137 20,822 20,314 11,740 9,082

Minnesota 14,328 28,051 9,555 9,064 8,490 1,065

Mississippi 8,713 21,758 6,540 6,355 6,224 316

Missouri 10,305 28,432 6,184 5,803 4,798 1,386

Montana 3,311 12,158 2,898 2,123 1,785 1,113

Nebraska 6,999 14,084 5,951 4,089 3,776 2,175

Nevada 3,688 6,715 2,416 2,408 2,166 250

New Hampshire 2,935 10,856 2,218 2,218 1,389 829

New Jersey 17,931 54,794 9,669 8,812 5,734 3,935

New Mexico 4,098 12,232 2,471 1,786 1,633 838

New York 29,925 81,216 20,442 20,022 18,442 2,000

North Carolina 30,271 63,104 23,520 22,438 16,942 6,578
Appendix II

Selected Data Relating to Underground 

Storage Tanks Reported by States

Page 55 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Source: EPA.

Note: For definitions of performance measures in this table see table 1 of this report.

North Dakota 2,185 6,941 812 803 779 33

Ohio 24,025 42,427 23,559 23,028 20,300 3,259

Oklahoma 11,582 24,265 4,036 4,036 3,537 499

Oregon 6,375 25,123 6,861 6,613 5,472 1,389

Pennsylvania 25,545 59,824 13,861 13,440 9,798 4,063

Rhode Island 1,691 7,111 1,238 1,238 978 260

South Carolina 12,137 31,521 8,698 8,239 5,325 3,373

South Dakota 2,980 6,761 2,347 2,344 2,147 200

Tennessee 16,147 32,429 12,842 12,914 11,892 950

Texas 57,219 109,535 24,301 21,689 20,120 4,181

Utah 4,051 12,635 4,120 4,032 3,681 439

Vermont 3,011 5,196 1,930 1,918 1,136 794

Virginia 25,464 52,174 10,474 10,204 9,662 812

Washington 10,397 34,959 6,142 5,779 4,115 2,027

West Virginia 6,033 18,618 2,909 2,706 1,751 1,158

Wisconsin 13,721 64,759 18,353 17,650 15,033 3,320

Wyoming 2,055 7,771 1,989 1,490 924 1,065

Total 645,990 1,607,462 449,779 419,919 331,562 118,217 

(Continued From Previous Page)

State Active tanks Closed tanks

Confirmed 

releases

Cleanups 

initiated

Cleanups 

completed

Cleanup 

backlog
Appendix II

Selected Data Relating to Underground 

Storage Tanks Reported by States

Page 56 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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

Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each source

State Responsible party only At least some public funding

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 166 1,448

Colorado 310 629

Florida 2,604 12,625

Georgia 877 1,778

Illinois 1,968 5,903

Indiana 1,642 1,642

Kansas 6 1,978

Missouri 364 1,022

Montana 78 1,035

Nevada a 254b

New Jersey 3,517 420

Pennsylvania 2,334 1,744

South Carolina 120 3,258

Texas 1,769 2,192

Utah 175 314

Virginia 609 203

Wyoming 0 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 268 1,500

Arkansas 17 329

Connecticut 10 859

Delaware 192 73

District of Columbia 245 0

Hawaii 336 0

Idaho 100 60

Iowa 514 1,324

Kentucky 246 2,209

Louisiana 0 1,254

Maine 17 80

Maryland 0 927
Appendix II

Selected Data Relating to Underground 

Storage Tanks Reported by States

Page 57 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.

Massachusetts 476 601

Minnesota 0 1,090

Mississippi 68 250

New Hampshire a a

New Mexico 48 790

New York 1,625 375

North Carolina 4,604 1,974

North Dakota 1 32

Ohio 2,362 1,282

Oregon 1,370 21

Rhode Island 67 200

Tennessee 354 655

Vermont 278 516

Washington 1,630 0

Wisconsin 1,097 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 708 25

California c c

Michigan 4,800 4,200

Nebraska 652 1,523

Oklahoma 5 494

West Virginia 1,042 116

This state did not respond to the survey

South Dakota

(Continued From Previous Page)

Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each source

State Responsible party only At least some public funding
Appendix II

Selected Data Relating to Underground 

Storage Tanks Reported by States

Page 58 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Table 6: State-Reported Numbers of Releases in the State’s Cleanup Backlog from 

Tanks without a Viable Owner, as of September 30, 2005 

State Number of releases

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 363

Colorado 188a

Florida b

Georgia 448

Illinois b

Indiana 500a

Kansas 100a

Missouri 212a

Montana 31a

Nevada b

New Jersey b

Pennsylvania 2,334a

South Carolina 33

Texas 200a

Utah 57

Virginia 86a

Wyoming b

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 100a

Arkansas 34a

Connecticut 100a

Delaware 32a

District of Columbia 0

Hawaii 0

Idaho 31a

Iowa b

Kentucky 0

Louisiana 24a

Maine 0

Maryland 30a
Appendix II

Selected Data Relating to Underground 

Storage Tanks Reported by States

Page 59 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.

Massachusetts 50a

Minnesota 43a

Mississippi 36

New Hampshire c

New Mexico 100a

New York 336a

North Carolina 994

North Dakota 11

Ohio 600a

Oregon 33a

Rhode Island b

Tennessee 93

Vermont 90a

Washington b

Wisconsin b

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 b

California 50a

Michigan 4,200a

Nebraska 699a

Oklahoma 61

West Virginia b

This state did not respond to the survey

South Dakota

(Continued From Previous Page)

State Number of releases
Appendix II

Selected Data Relating to Underground 

Storage Tanks Reported by States

Page 60 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Table 7: State-Reported Frequency of Checking Financial Responsibility Coverage

State At least annually Every 1 to 2 years

Every 3 years or 

longer Do not check Other

Alabama X

Alaska X

Arizona X

Arkansas X

California X

Colorado X

Connecticuta X

Delaware X

District of Columbia X

Florida X

Georgia X

Hawaii X

Idaho X

Illinois X

Indiana X

Iowa X

Kansas X

Kentucky X

Louisiana X

Mainea X

Maryland X

Massachusetts X

Michigan X

Minnesotaa X

Mississippi X

Missouri X

Montana X

Nebraskaa X

Nevada X

New Hampshire X

New Jersey X

New Mexico X

New York X

North Carolina X
Appendix II

Selected Data Relating to Underground 

Storage Tanks Reported by States

Page 61 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.

North Dakota X

Ohio X

Oklahoma X

Oregon X

Pennsylvania X

Rhode Island X

South Carolina X

South Dakotab

Tennessee X

Texas X

Utah X

Vermont X

Virginia X

Washington X

West Virginia X

Wisconsin X

Wyoming X

(Continued From Previous Page)

State At least annually Every 1 to 2 years

Every 3 years or 

longer Do not check Other
Appendix II

Selected Data Relating to Underground 

Storage Tanks Reported by States

Page 62 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Table 8: State-Reported Expenditures of Public Funding to Clean Up Underground Storage Tank Sites by Source, 2005

Dollars in thousands

Reported source of funding for expenditures

State

Federal LUST 

Trust Fund Other federal sourcesa

State financial 

assurance fund Other state sourcesb

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 $0 $0 $27,566 $0

Colorado 226 81 23,979 0

Florida 0 0 148,110 0

Georgia 599 0 23,809 0

Illinois 0 0 52,193c 0

Indiana 835 0 45,000c 1,050c

Kansas 284 0 13,287 0

Missouri 837 d 11,270 e

Montanaf 186f 0f 3,820c,f e,f

Nevada 10c 0 6,760c 0

New Jersey 212c 0 1,227 3,433

Pennsylvania 0 0 71,725c 0c

South Carolina 594 28 18,505 2

Texas 1,100c 0 54,039c 5,530c

Utah 9 0 5,403 396

Virginia 515 0 16,957c 0

Wyoming 77 0 7,517 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 883 0 11,389 1,390c

Arkansasf 220f 0f 4,069f 0f

Connecticut 400c 0 6,969 0

Delaware 30c d g 1,050c,e

District of Columbia 0 0 g 0

Hawaii 0 0 g 0

Idaho 0 d 2,000c 0

Iowa 0 0 0 15,036

Kentucky 3 0 21,500 e

Louisiana 0 0 18,436 0

Maineh 0 0 1,151 0
Appendix II

Selected Data Relating to Underground 

Storage Tanks Reported by States

Page 63 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.

Maryland 445c 0 g 327c

Massachusetts 200c d 30,989 250c,e

Minnesotaf 914f 0f 15,000c, f 0e,f

Mississippi 441c 0 8,382c 0

New Hampshire 451 0 13,345 302

New Mexico 0 0 13,621 0

New Yorki

North Carolina 1,196 0 46,966 279

North Dakota 91 0 498 0

Ohio 0 d 8,818 0

Oregon 4 4 g 418

Rhode Island 548 0 2,251 0

Tennessee 690 0 31,045 0

Vermont 0 0 3,105 0

Washington 165 0 g 0c

Wisconsin 0 0 28,000 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 307c 0 g 0

Californiaf 0f 0f 207,505f 800f

Michigan 0c 0 0 13,296c

Nebraskaf 811c,f 0f 10,610c,f 0f

Oklahoma 765 0 15,047 100

West Virginia 173c 0 g 130c

This state did not respond to the survey

South Dakota

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in thousands

Reported source of funding for expenditures

State

Federal LUST 

Trust Fund Other federal sourcesa

State financial 

assurance fund Other state sourcesb
Appendix II

Selected Data Relating to Underground 

Storage Tanks Reported by States

Page 64 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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. 
Appendix II

Selected Data Relating to Underground 

Storage Tanks Reported by States

Page 65 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Table 9: State-Reported Balance of State Financial Assurance Funds, as of 

September 30, 2005

Dollars in thousands

State Amount

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 $7,719

Colorado 2,931

Florida 186,380

Georgia 63,939

Illinois 5,200a

Indiana 9,714

Kansas 2,226

Missouri 71,623

Montana 1,760

Nevada 11,300

New Jersey 95,142

Pennsylvania 206,800

South Carolina 21,712

Texas 168,000a

Utah 8,818

Virginia 943

Wyoming 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 40,000a

Arkansas 13,563

Connecticut 5,200a

Delaware b

District of Columbia b

Hawaii b

Idaho 34,688

Iowa c

Kentucky 54,700

Louisiana 19,186

Maine 5,573
Appendix II

Selected Data Relating to Underground 

Storage Tanks Reported by States

Page 66 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.

Maryland b

Massachusetts 13,651

Minnesota 22,000a

Mississippi 4,458

New Hampshire 4,035

New Mexico 19,044

New York d

North Carolina 2,834

North Dakota 8,378

Ohio 27,337

Oregon b

Rhode Island 2,100a

Tennessee 10,085

Vermont 5,828

Washington b

Wisconsin 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 b

California 92,425

Michigan e

Nebraska 16,169

Oklahoma 13,556

West Virginia b

This state did not respond to the survey

South Dakota

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in thousands

State Amount
Appendix II

Selected Data Relating to Underground 

Storage Tanks Reported by States

Page 67 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Table 10: State-Reported Revenues to State Financial Assurance Funds, 2005

Dollars in thousands

State Tank fees State gasoline taxes Interest Othera

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 $0 $35,022 $167 $0

Colorado 527 26,451 121 15

Florida 1,200 211,900 4,900 3,284b

Georgia 0 22,096 0 0

Illinois 0 72,284 0 0

Indiana 616c 28,875c 225 0

Kansas 0 10,920 125 0

Missouri 1,297 23,665 1,138 87

Montana 0 6,700c 35c 10c

Nevada 450 0 130c 0

New Jersey 0 0 2,284 24,787

Pennsylvania 7,100 53,800 192 13,136

South Carolina 1,203 17,500 799 111

Texas 0 72,000c 0 0

Utah 437 5,682 184 0

Virginia 0 37,897 37 67

Wyoming 490 11,593 0 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 0 29,431c 390c 30c

Arkansas 0 4,906 189 0

Connecticut 0 12,000 0 0

Delaware d d d d

District of Columbia d d d d

Hawaii d d d d

Idaho 99c 0 1,541 1

Iowa e e e e

Kentucky 0 45,100 277 47

Louisiana 25c 21,359 0 41

Mainef 126c 14,234c 74c 443c
Appendix II

Selected Data Relating to Underground 

Storage Tanks Reported by States

Page 68 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.

Maryland d d d d

Massachusetts 2,382c 76,813 g b

Minnesota 0 26,000c 1,000c 115c

Mississippi 0 9,977c 173c 0

New Hampshire 0 11,366 90 0

New Mexico 0 18,191 0 0

New Yorkh

North Carolina 7,987 41,942 50 197

North Dakota 290 0 63c 0

Ohio 13,568 0 380 0

Oregon d d d d

Rhode Island 0 4,200c g 0c,i

Tennessee 3,060 17,785 258 5,475

Vermont 365 5,243 125 288

Washington d d d d

Wisconsin 0 68,000 0 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 d d d d

California 0 218,195 1,611 2,935

Michiganj

Nebraska 534 10,413 696 70

Oklahoma 0 21,324 307 218

West Virginia d d d d

This state did not respond to the survey

South Dakota

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in thousands

State Tank fees State gasoline taxes Interest Othera
Appendix II

Selected Data Relating to Underground 

Storage Tanks Reported by States

Page 69 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.
Appendix II

Selected Data Relating to Underground 

Storage Tanks Reported by States

Page 70 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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

State 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Alabama $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Alaskaa

Arizona 0 0 0 0 0

Arkansas 0 0 0 0 46

California 0 0 0 0 0

Colorado 0 4,000 0 0 0

Delawarea

District of Columbiaa

Florida 12,000b 20,000b 0 0 0

Georgia 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaiia

Idaho 0 0 0 0 0

Illinois 0 12,029b 12,100 500 0

Indiana 0 5,000 4,500 0 0

Iowac

Kansas 0 10,000 0 0 0

Kentucky 8,000 58,400 74,100 27,100 291

Louisiana 0 0 0 0 0

Maine 0 0 0 0 142

Marylanda

Michigand

Mississippi 0 0 833 1,529 3,100

Missouri 0 0 0 0 0

Montana 0 0 0 0 0

Nebraska 0 10,250 300 3,000 1,800

Nevada 900b 900b 900b 900b 1,100

New Hampshire 0 0 0 0 0

New Jersey 0 0 0 45,812 0

New Mexico 1,900b 1,500b 900b 2,600b 5,400b

North Carolina 0 0 0 0 0

North Dakota 0 0 0 0 0

Ohio 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix II

Selected Data Relating to Underground 

Storage Tanks Reported by States

Page 71 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.

Oklahoma 0 0 0 0 0

Oregon a

Pennsylvaniae 0 100,000e 0 0 0

Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 0

South Carolina 0 0 1,096 76 0

South Dakotaf

Tennessee 0 0 0 0 0

Texas 0 0 0 0 0

Utah 0 0 0 0 0

Vermontg 0 1,776g 0 0 0

Virginia 0 0 0 0 0

Washingtona

West Virginiaa

Wisconsin 0 0 0 0 0

Wyoming 0 0 0 0 0

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in thousands

State 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Page 72 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia ApendxiI

.com 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. 

x To select a check box or button, simply click on the center of the box. 
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 73 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

x To change or deselect a check box response, simply click on the check box and the ‘X’ will 

disappear.

x 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 Gerald Laudermilk

Phone: (617) 788-0516 OR Phone: (617) 788-0543 

e-mail: SlossN@gao.gov. e-mail: LaudermilkG@gao.gov .

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. 
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 74 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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?

Have there been any reviews of the 

quality of the data?

What year was the most

recent review? [Enter

4 digit year.]

a. Yes.......

 No........

b. Yes.......

 No........

c. Yes.......

 No........

d. Yes.......

 No........

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)

T

Release data 

T

Expenditure/

financial

data

T

Financial

responsibilit

y data 

T

a. ..........................................................

b. ...........................................................

c. ...........................................................

d. ...........................................................
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 75 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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 

T

Verification

to source 

documents

T

Automated

edit checks/

data entry

controls

T

Error

correction

procedures

T

No

procedures

in place 

T

a. .................................

b. .................................

c. .................................

d. .................................

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

a.... ........................... None

b. .. ........................... None

c. ........................... None

d. ........................... 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?
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 76 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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) stormwater 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?

Cumulative data, as of

September 30, 2004

Cumulative data, as of

September 30, 2005

Is this an exact

number or an 

estimate?

Is this an exact

number or an 

estimate?

Number

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Number

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

a. Active tanks .................

b. Closed tanks.................

c. Confirmed releases.......

d. Cleanups initiated.........

e. Cleanups completed.....

f. Emergency responses...
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 77 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

7. How many new releases from federally regulated USTs did your state confirm in each 

of the last five federal fiscal years? 

New releases 

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Number

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

a. 2001 ............................

b. 2002 ............................

c. 2003 ............................

d. 2004 ............................

e. 2005 ............................

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? 
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 78 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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......................

a. 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?

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Number

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

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?
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 79 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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?

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Number

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

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?
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 80 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.”
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 81 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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

 0 Total 

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

Number

of

releases

T

a. $0 - $99,999 ...............................................

b. $100,000-$499,999 ....................................

c. $500,000-$999,999 ....................................

d. $1,000,000 or more....................................

e. Number for which costs cannot be 

estimated....................................................

f.How did you estimate the number of releases that fall into each category of funding?
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 82 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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).]

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Amount

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

Total outlays................................... $

a. Are these amounts for the latest federal fiscal year (10/1/04 to 9/30/05)? 

Yes ....................

No......................

b. On what date does the year for which you are reporting start? 

[Enter mm/dd/yy.] Start of reporting year 
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 83 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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? [If possible, provide these amounts for the latest federal 

fiscal year (10/1/04 to 9/30/05).]

Funds spent 

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Amount

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

a. Federal LUST Trust Fund .............. $

b. Other federal sources [Please specify]

.............................................. $

c. State financial assurance fund ........ $

d. State fund dedicated to tanks without 

a viable owner ................................ $

e. Other state sources [Please specify]

.............................................. $

f. Other sources [Please specify] $

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?
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 84 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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?
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 85 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Tanks without a Viable Owner 0

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?

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Number

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

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?

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Number

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

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?
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 86 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.]

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Amount

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

a. Public funding spent to clean up 

tanks WITH a viable owner ....... $

b. Public funding spent to clean up 

tanks WITHOUT a viable 

owner........................................... $

 Total $0

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? 
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 87 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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

None ................. Go to Q25.

Don’t know....... Go to Q25.

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?
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 88 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

State Cleanup Funds 0

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, 2005? [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.]

Before [Enter mm/dd/yy.]

After [Enter mm/dd/yy.]
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 89 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.]

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Amount

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

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 
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 90 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.]

Funds deposited

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

Don’t

know

T

None

T

Amount

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

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 specify sources] . $

p

g. Combined other sources

[Please specify 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.]

Large increase................

Moderate increase.........

Stay about the same......

Moderate decrease........

Large decrease...............

a. What were the primary factors you considered in making this assessment?
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 91 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

31. What was the overall balance of your state’s financial assurance fund as of September 

30, 2005? [Enter amount in whole dollars.]

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Amount

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

Balance ........................................... $

a. Of this balance, how much had been obligated as of September 30, 2005? [Enter

amount in whole dollars.]

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Amount

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

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.]

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Amount

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

Outstanding claims ......................... $
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 92 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.]

Funds diverted 

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Amount

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

a. 2001.......................................... $

b. 2002.......................................... $

c. 2003.......................................... $

d. 2004.......................................... $

e. 2005.......................................... $

Total $0

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.]

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Amount

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

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.........
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 93 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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/yy.] 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?
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 94 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

State Fund Dedicated to Tanks without a Viable Owner 0

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?
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 95 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.]

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Amount

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

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.]

Funds deposited 

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Amount

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

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 specify sources] ...... $

g. Combined other sources

[Please specify sources] ...... $
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 96 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.]

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Amount

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

Balance ........................................... $

a. Of this balance, how much had been obligated as of September 30, 2005? [Enter amount 

in whole dollars.]

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Amount

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

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.]

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Amount

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

$
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 97 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.]

Funds diverted 

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Amount

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

a. 2001.......................................... $

b. 2002.......................................... $

c. 2003.......................................... $

d. 2004.......................................... $

e. 2005.......................................... $

Total $0

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.]

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Amount

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

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.........
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 98 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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?
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 99 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.]

Funds spent

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Amount

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

a. Administrative costs $

b. Enforcement costs .................... $

c. Site cleanup costs ..................... $

d. Total costs ................................ $0

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? 

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Amount

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

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? 
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 100 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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.

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Number

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

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.

9

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? 
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 101 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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 1 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?

Is this an exact number

or an estimate?

None

T

Number

T

Exact

T

Estimate

T

Don’t

know

T

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?
Appendix III

GAO Survey of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia

Page 102 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

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: USTSurvey@gao.gov.
Page 103 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Appendix IV

Comments from the Environmental 

Protection Agency ApendxiIV
Appendix IV

Comments from the Environmental 

Protection Agency

Page 104 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Appendix IV

Comments from the Environmental 

Protection Agency

Page 105 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Page 106 GAO-07-152 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Appendix V

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiV

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)
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