Environmental Protection: Recommendations for Improving the Underground Storage Tank Program
Published: 2003-03-05T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Nationwide, underground storage tanks (UST) containing petroleum and other hazardous substances are leaking, thereby contaminating the soil and water, and posing health risks. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which implements the UST program with the states, required tank owners to install leak detection and prevention equipment by the end of 1993 and 1998 respectively. The Congress asked GAO to determine to what extent (1) tanks comply with the requirements, (2) EPA and the states are inspecting tanks and enforcing requirements, (3) upgraded tanks still leak, and (4) EPA and states are cleaning up these leaks. In response, GAO conducted a survey of all states in 2000 and issued a report on its findings in May 2001. This testimony is based on that report, as well as updated information on program performance since that time.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO estimated in its May 2001 report that 89 percent of the 693,107 tanks subject to UST rules had the leak prevention and detection equipment installed, but that more than 200,000 tanks were not being operated and maintained properly, increasing the chance of leaks. States responding to our survey also reported that because of such problems, even tanks with the new equipment continued to leak. EPA and the states attributed these problems primarily to poorly trained staff. While EPA is working with states to identify additional training options, in December 2002, EPA reported that at least 19 to 26 percent of tanks still have problems. EPA and states do not know how many upgraded tanks still leak because they do not physically inspect all tanks. EPA recommends that tanks be inspected once every 3 years, but more than half of the states do not do this. In addition, more than half of the states lack the authority to prohibit fuel deliveries to problem tanks--one of the most effective ways to enforce compliance. States said they did not have the funds, staff, or authority to inspect more tanks or more strongly enforce compliance. As of September 2002, EPA and states still had to ensure completion of cleanups for about 99,427 leaks, and initiation of cleanups at about another 43,278. States also face potentially large, but unknown, future workloads in addressing leaks from abandoned and unidentified tanks. Some states said that their current program costs exceed available funds, so states may seek additional federal support to help address this future workload.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am here today to discuss our work on the nationwide problem of leaking  underground storage tanks (UST) and the recommendations that we made  to address this problem in our May 2001 report on the Environmental  Protection Agency’s (EPA) tank program. As you know, studies show that  tanks leaking petroleum products and other hazardous substances  contaminate the soil or water supplies and can pose health risks, such as  nausea and kidney damage, as well as a costly cleanup burden. Since our  original report, we have continued to examine and update EPA program  data and responses to our recommendations, along with other  information. This examination shows that while the agency has taken a  number of corrective actions, the problems that we identified in May 2001  persist and have yet to be comprehensively resolved.
In 1984, the Congress created the UST program to protect the public from  potential leaks from the more than 2 million operating tanks located  across the nation, mostly at gas stations. Under the program, EPA required  tank owners to install new leak detection equipment by the end of 1993  and new spill-, overfill-, and corrosion-prevention equipment by the end of  1998. If these conditions were not met, owners had to close or remove  their tanks.
EPA has authorized 32 states to implement the program with agency  oversight and monitoring, while 16 states operate their own program  under their own laws with limited EPA oversight. To help states  implement their programs, EPA provides all states funding (about $187,000  per state). In addition, EPA retains direct authority over a small number of  tanks primarily located on Indian tribal lands. In 1986, Congress created a  trust fund to help EPA and the states cover tank cleanup costs that owners  and operators could not afford or were reluctant to pay. The fund is  replenished partly through a $.001/gallon tax on gasoline and other fuels.  At the end of fiscal year 2002, the fund had a balance of about $1.9 billion.
Because the states are primarily implementing the provisions of the  program, we conducted a survey of all 50 states and the District of  Columbia in the fall of 2000 to determine the extent to which tanks comply  with program requirements, how EPA and the states inspect tanks and  enforce requirements, and whether upgraded tanks still leak. We based the  findings of our report, which we are discussing today, primarily on the  survey and our visits to three EPA regions with the largest number of  tanks to monitor. In addition, since the release of our report, we have  updated our findings and reviewed states’ progress in cleaning up tank  releases. In summary, we found that:    About 89 percent of tanks that states monitor had the required leak  prevention and detection equipment installed, according to our estimates  at the time of our 2002 survey. EPA data at the time indicated that about   70 percent of the tanks its regions managed on tribal lands had the  required equipment, although not all regions could even attest to the  location of all tanks on these lands to ensure they had been updated.  Furthermore, we estimated that almost 30 percent of the tanks—more  than 200,000—were not being operated and maintained properly, thus  increasing the chance of leaks and posing health risks. For example, 15  states reported that leak detection equipment was frequently turned off or  improperly maintained. For these and other reasons, states reported that  leaks persisted even in the tanks with the required equipment installed. In  December 2002, EPA reported that 19 to 26 percent of the nation’s  underground storage tanks still have operational problems, although  agency program managers think these numbers are understated because  of inconsistent reporting from the states. EPA is working with the states to  develop an accurate baseline of all tanks that are not in compliance. Both  EPA and the states attribute operational and maintenance problems  primarily to poorly trained staff. We recommended that EPA regions work  with each of the states in their jurisdiction to determine specific training  needs and ways to meet them. In response, EPA has been working with  states and contractors to develop less costly training opportunities, such  as Internet-based training. We also suggested that the Congress consider  increasing the amount of funds it appropriates for states from the trust  fund and allow them to spend a limited portion on training.
While EPA and the states have evidence that tanks continue to leak, they  cannot determine the full extent of the problem because some of them do  not physically inspect all tanks. In fact, at the time of our survey, over half  of the states were not inspecting all of their tanks frequently enough to  meet the minimum rate recommended by EPA —at least once every   3 years, and only one of the three regions that we visited met this rate. In  addition, 27 states lacked the authority to prohibit fuel deliveries to  stations with problem tanks—one of the most effective tools for ensuring  compliance with program requirements—and relied instead on issuing  citations and fines to violators. States said they did not have the available  funding, staff, or authority to conduct more inspections or more strongly  enforce tank compliance. We recommended that EPA negotiate inspection  goals with each state. While EPA has not yet set such inspection goals, it  has been working with states to use third-party inspectors and other  options to increase their inspection coverage. We also suggested that the  Congress may want to (1) consider increasing the amount of funds it  appropriates from the trust fund and allow states to spend a limited  portion on inspections and enforcement, (2) authorize EPA to require  physical inspections of all tanks on a periodic basis, (3) authorize EPA to  prohibit fuel deliveries to non-compliant tanks, and (4) require states to  adopt this enforcement authority.
States still face a considerable workload in ensuring that contamination  from leaking tanks, including those that leak MTBE, is cleaned up, and  that funding is available to address these cleanups. As of September 30,  2002, states and EPA regions had to ensure the completion of ongoing  cleanups for about 99,427 leaks and initiation of cleanups for another  43,278. States also face a potentially large, but unknown, future workload  in addressing releases from both abandoned tanks that have not been  identified and inactive tanks that have been identified but not removed. In  addition, in a June 2002 Vermont Department of Environmental  Conservation survey of state funding programs, nine states reported that  they did not have adequate funding to cover their current cleanup program  costs. Therefore, in the future, some states may need to seek additional  federal support when they turn their attention to addressing the many  unidentified abandoned tanks nationwide that have no financially viable  owners or operators to pay for cleanup, as well as increasing and costly  cleanup of  methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE).
subsections: section_title: Most Tanks Have Been Upgraded, but Many Are Not Properly Operated and Maintained
paragraphs: Based on state responses to our survey, we estimated that nearly 617,000,  or about 89 percent of the approximately 693,000 regulated tanks states  manage, had been upgraded with the federally required equipment by the  end of fiscal year 2000. In comparison, EPA data at that time showed that  about 70 percent of the total number of tanks its regions regulate on tribal  lands had been upgraded, but the accuracy of this data varied among the  regions. For example, one region reported that it had no information on  the actual location of some of the 300 tanks it was supposed to regulate  and therefore could not verify whether these tanks had been upgraded.
Even though most tanks have been upgraded, we estimated from our  survey data that more than 200,000 of them, or about 29 percent, were not  being properly operated and maintained, increasing the risk of leaks.  EPA’s most current program data from the end of fiscal year 2002 show  that these conditions have not changed significantly; tank compliance  rates range from an estimated 19 to 26 percent. However, program  managers estimate these rates are too high because some states have not  inspected all tanks or reported their data in a consistent manner. The  extent of operational and maintenance problems we identified at the time  of our survey varied across the states, as figure 1 illustrates.
Some upgraded tanks also continue to leak, in part because of operational  and maintenance problems. For example, in fiscal year 2000, EPA and the  states confirmed a total of more than 14,500 leaks or releases from  regulated tanks, with some portion coming from upgraded tanks. EPA’s  most recent data show that the agency and states have been able to reduce  the rate of new leaks by more than 50 percent over the past 3 years.
The states reported a variety of operational and maintenance problems,  such as operators turning off leak detection equipment. The states also  reported that the majority of problems occurred at tanks owned by small,  independent businesses; non-retail and commercial companies, such as  cab companies; and local governments. The states attributed these  problems to a lack of training for tank owners, installers, operators,  removers, and inspectors. These smaller businesses and local government  operations may find it more difficult to afford adequate training, especially  given the high turnover rates among tank staff, or may give training a  lower priority. Almost all of the states reported a need for additional  resources to keep their own inspectors and program staff trained, and 41  states requested additional technical assistance from the federal  government to provide such training.
EPA has provided states with a number of training sessions and helpful  tools, such as operation and maintenance checklists and guidelines.  According to program managers, the agency recognizes that many states,  because of their tight budgets, are looking for cost-effective ways of  providing training, such as Internet-based training. To expand on these  efforts, we recommended that EPA regions work with their states to  identify training gaps and develop strategies to fill these gaps. In addition,  we suggested that the Congress consider increasing the amount of funds it  provides from the trust fund and authorizing states to spend a limited  portion on training.
section_title: Most States Do Not Meet EPA’s Recommendation to Inspect All Tanks Every 3 Years or Have the Enforcement Tools Needed to Identify and Correct Problems
paragraphs: According to EPA’s program managers, only physical inspections can  confirm whether tanks have been upgraded and are being properly  operated and maintained. However, at the time of our survey, only 19  states physically inspected all of their tanks at least once every 3 years— the minimum that EPA considers necessary for effective tank monitoring.  Another 10 states inspected all tanks, but less frequently. The remaining 22  states did not inspect all tanks, but instead generally targeted inspections  to potentially problematic tanks, such as those close to drinking water  sources. In addition, one of the three EPA regions that we visited did not  inspect tanks located on tribal land at this rate. According to EPA program  managers, limited resources have prevented states from increasing their  inspection activities. Officials in 40 states said that they would support a  federal mandate requiring states to periodically inspect all tanks, in part  because they expect that such a mandate would provide them needed  leverage to obtain the requisite inspection staff and funding from their  legislatures. Figure 2 illustrates the inspection practices states reported to  us in our survey.
While EPA has not established any required rate of inspections, it has been  encouraging states to consider other ways to increase their rate of  inspections, for example by using third-party inspectors, and a few have  been able to do so. However, to obtain more consistent coverage  nationwide, we suggested that the Congress establish a federal  requirement for the physical inspections of all tanks on a periodic basis,  and provide states authority to spend trust fund appropriations on  inspection activities as a means to help states address any staff or  resource limitations.
In addition to more frequent inspections, a number of states said that they  needed additional enforcement tools to correct problem tanks. As figure 3  illustrates, at the time of our survey, 27 states reported that they did not  have the authority to prohibit suppliers from delivering fuel to stations  with problem tanks, one of the most effective tools to ensure compliance.  According to EPA program managers, this number has not changed.
EPA believes, and we agree, that the law governing the tank program does  not give the agency clear authority to regulate fuel suppliers and therefore  prohibit their deliveries. As a result, we suggested that the Congress  consider (1) authorizing EPA to prohibit delivery of fuel to tanks that do  not comply with federal requirements, (2) establishing a federal  requirement that states have similar authority, and (3) authorizing states to  spend limited portions of their trust fund appropriations on enforcement  activities.
section_title: States Have Made Progress in Cleaning Up Leaks but Still Face a Potentially Large Workload; Some May Need Federal Funds to Help Address It
paragraphs: At the end of fiscal year 2002, EPA and states had completed cleanups of  about 67 percent (284,602) of the 427,307 known releases at tank sites.  Because states typically set priorities for their cleanups by first addressing  those releases that pose the most risks, states may have already begun to  clean up some of the worst releases to date. However, states still have to  ensure that ongoing cleanups are completed for another 23 percent  (99,427) and that cleanups are initiated at a backlog of 43,278 sites. EPA  has also established a national goal of completing 18,000 to 23,000  cleanups each year through 2007. However, in addition to their known  workload, states may likely face a potentially large but unknown future  cleanup workload for several reasons: (1) as many as 200,000 tanks may be  unregistered or abandoned and not assessed for leaks, according to an  EPA estimate; (2) tens of thousands of empty and inactive tanks have not  been permanently closed or had leaks identified; and (3) some states are  reopening completed cleanups in locations where MTBE was subsequently  detected.
This increasing workload poses financial challenges for some states. In the  June 2002 Vermont survey of state funding programs, nine states said they  did not have adequate funding to cover their current program costs, let  alone unanticipated future costs. For example, while tank owners and  operators have the financial responsibility for cleaning up contamination  from their tanks, there are no financially viable parties responsible for the  abandoned tanks that states have not yet addressed. In addition, MTBE is  being detected nationwide and its cleanup is costly. States reported that it  could cost more to test for MTBE because additional steps are needed to  ensure the contamination is not migrating farther than other contaminants,  and MTBE can cause longer plumes of contamination, adding time and  costs to cleanups. If there are no financially viable parties responsible for  these cleanups, states may have to assume more of these costs.