Furthermore, state program requirements and  standards are sometimes more stringent and inclusive than those under the  federal program. Table 1 shows key tank-related data  reported by EPA as of March 31, 2005. EPA, however, does not require states to provide specific data on all known  abandoned underground storage tanks. In addition,  although one of the primary purposes of the LUST Trust Fund is to provide  money for cleaning up abandoned tank sites, EPA lacks information—such  as the number of releases from known abandoned tanks in each state and  how many of these releases have been or are being cleaned up—to help it  determine how to most efficiently and effectively allocate funds to the  states for this purpose. Several Funding Sources Exist For Cleaning Up Tank Releases, but Some States’ Resources for Remediating Abandoned Tank Sites Are Limited

While tank owners and operators are primarily responsible for cleaning up  contamination from leaks in their underground storage tanks, some states  assist them through financial assurance or indemnification funds. EPA estimates  that the average remediation cost per site has been about $125,000, but  costs sometimes have exceeded $1 million. According to EPA program officials, states  historically have used about two-thirds of the federal trust fund money  allocated to them each year to oversee and support the cleanups paid for by  state funds, tank owners/operators, and other financial assurance  mechanisms, while the states have used the remaining one-third to directly  pay for cleanups of abandoned tanks that are not covered by the other  funding sources. For example, in fiscal year 2004, EPA awarded $61.7  million in trust funds to assist states’ leaking tank cleanup efforts. While neither California nor Pennsylvania are experiencing significant  problems funding cleanups of leaking tank sites, officials in both states said  that they could use more federal funding for leak prevention initiatives and  welcome the flexibility to use federal trust funds for that purpose, as  provided by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. States Identify, Assess, and Clean Up Leaking Tank Sites Using Similar Means

States become aware of leaking underground storage tanks through a  variety of methods, including owner/operator reports, complaints by local  residents, incidental discovery during land redevelopment or removal of  tanks for upgrading or replacement, and compliance inspections. Regular  and frequent tank inspections also can detect new leaks—and potentially  prevent future ones—before they can lead to serious environmental or  health damage, and lessen or avoid the need for costly cleanups. In this regard, in  1988, EPA issued regulations governing leak detection, among other things. Tanks must generally be  monitored for leaks at least once every 30 days. State officials told us that  California requires annual inspections of all tanks; Maryland inspected its  state’s tanks every 3 years; Michigan generally inspected every 3 years,  depending upon the location of the tanks and state inspection staffing  levels; North Carolina inspected once every 4 or 5 years, due to funding  limits; and Pennsylvania inspected at least once every 5 years. States Use Risk-Based Assessments to Determine Cleanup Priorities

The 5 states we contacted all use risk-based systems to prioritize leaking  underground storage tank sites for cleanup according to the immediate  threat they pose to human health, safety, and/or the environment. However, EPA notes that the process that  states must conduct to establish that a tank is abandoned—that its owner is  unknown or unwilling or unable to pay for leak cleanups—may involve  ownership searches to identify the potentially responsible party and  assessment of their financial ability and willingness to pay for cleanup. Because a limited portion of these  data—information on abandoned tanks being cleaned up using LUST Trust  Fund resources—is currently broken out and provided to EPA’s regions, the  UST Program could easily utilize these existing data and EPA would only  have to require states to break out the remaining data on the number and  cleanup status of their known abandoned sites. Status as of August 2005: Cleanup was completed. Impacts of contamination: Soil and groundwater contamination  occurred at the site but was contained within the property. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency involvement: None. Tanks at this  site were subsequently removed. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of this review were to identify (1) information available on  the number and cleanup status of leaking underground storage tanks, (2)  existing sources of funding for cleanups at contaminated tank sites, and (3)  processes used to identify, assess, and clean up sites in 5 states with large  numbers of leaking tanks—California, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina,  and Pennsylvania.
Why GAO Did This Study

Leaking underground storage tanks that contain hazardous products, primarily gasoline, can contaminate soil and groundwater. To address this problem, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under its Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program, required tank owners to install leak detection equipment and take measures to prevent leaks. In 1986, the Congress created a federal trust fund to assist states with cleanups. Cleanup progress has been made, but, as of early 2005, cleanup efforts had not yet begun for over 32,000 tanks, many of which may require state and/or federal resources to address. GAO identified (1) data on the number and cleanup status of leaking tanks, (2) funding sources for tank cleanups, and (3) processes used by five states with large numbers of leaking tanks--California, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania--to identify, assess, and clean up sites.

What GAO Found

Data submitted to EPA by the states show that, as of March 31, 2005, more than 660,000 tanks were in use and about 1.6 million were no longer in use. In addition, states identified about 449,000 tank releases (leaks) and about 416,000 initiated cleanups, with almost 324,000 of those cleanups completed. States also compile limited data on abandoned tanks--tanks whose owners are unknown, or unwilling or unable to pay for their cleanup--but EPA does not require states to provide separate data on all of their known abandoned tanks. Without this separate data, EPA cannot effectively determine the number and cleanup status of these tanks, or how to most efficiently and effectively allocate federal cleanup funds to the states. Tank owners and operators are primarily responsible for paying to clean up their own sites, but abandoned tanks are cleaned up using state resources, that may be limited, and federal trust funds. EPA estimates that the average remediation costs per site have been about $125,000, but costs sometimes have exceeded $1 million. Officials from two of the five states we contacted reported that their state funds may be inadequate to address contamination at abandoned tank sites. In this regard, Michigan and North Carolina officials told GAO that, because of resource constraints, they let contamination at abandoned tank sites attenuate (diminish) naturally once immediate threats are addressed. Furthermore, due to limited resources, states must sometimes find other options for cleaning up sites. For example, Pennsylvania officials asked EPA to take over the cleanup work at the abandoned Tranguch site in 1996 because the owner was bankrupt and the state could not pay the expected cleanup costs. The five states that GAO contacted identify, assess, and clean up leaking tank sites using similar processes. Generally, owners and operators are responsible for conducting these activities under state oversight. Leaking tanks are identified when tank owners report leaks; land redevelopment activities uncover unknown tanks; or state agencies investigate contamination complaints or inspect tanks for regulatory compliance. While regular tank inspections can detect new leaks and potentially prevent future ones, as of early 2005, only two of the five states GAO contacted--California and Maryland--consistently inspected all the state's tanks at least once every 3 years, the minimum rate of inspection that EPA considers adequate. The Energy Policy Act, enacted in August 2005, among other things, requires inspections at least once every 3 years and provides federal trust funds for this and other leak prevention purposes. EPA and some state officials told GAO that increasing inspection frequency could require additional resources. Being able to use trust fund allocations for this purpose will help in this regard. The five states GAO contacted, once they become aware of leaking tanks, identify responsible parties and require them to hire consultants to conduct site assessments and plan and implement cleanup work. The states generally prioritize sites for cleanup according to the immediate threat they pose to human health, safety, and/or the environment.