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

Letter

Most Tanks Have Been Upgraded, but Many Are Not Properly Operated and Maintained

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.

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

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.

States Have Made Progress in Cleaning Up Leaks but Still Face a Potentially Large Workload; Some May Need Federal Funds to Help Address It

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.