This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-152 
entitled 'Leaking Underground Storage Tanks:  EPA Should Take Steps to
Better Ensure the Effective Use of Public Funding for Cleanups' which
was released on February 22, 2007. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

February 2007: 

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: 

EPA Should Take Steps to Better Ensure the Effective Use of Public 
Funding for Cleanups: 

GAO-07-152: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-07-152, a report to congressional requestors 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Underground storage tanks that leak hazardous substances can 
contaminate nearby groundwater and soil. Under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), tank owners and operators are 
primarily responsible for paying to clean up releases from their tanks. 
They can demonstrate their financial responsibility by using, among 
other options, publicly funded state financial assurance funds. Such 
funds function like insurance and are intended to ensure timely 
cleanup. These funds also pay to clean up releases from tanks without a 
viable owner, as does the federal Leaking Underground Storage Tank 
(LUST) Trust Fund. 

GAO was asked to report on (1) states’ estimates of the public costs to 
clean up known releases, (2) states’ primary sources of cleanups 
funding and their viability, and (3) federal sources to address these 
releases. GAO surveyed all states and discussed key issues with EPA and 
selected state officials. 

What GAO Found: 

States estimated that fully cleaning up about 54,000 of the 
approximately 117,000 releases (leaks) known to them as of September 
30, 2005, will cost about $12 billion in public funds. The 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that it costs an 
average of about $125,000 to fully clean up a release. State officials 
said that tank owners or operators will pay to clean up most of the 
remaining 63,000 releases. However, an unknown number of releases lack 
a viable owner, and the full extent of the cost to clean them up is 
unknown. A tank owner may not be viable because the owner fails to 
maintain adequate financial responsibility coverage, which is intended 
to provide some assurance that the owner has access to funds to pay for 
cleanups. While 16 states require annual proof of coverage, 25 states 
check owners’ coverage less often or not at all. Furthermore, 43 states 
expect to confirm about 16,700 new releases in the next 5 years that 
will require at least some public funds for cleanup. 

States reported that they primarily use financial assurance funds to 
pay the costs of cleaning up leaks. States reported that they spent an 
estimated $1.032 billion from financial assurance funds to clean up 
tank releases in 2005. Overall, fund revenues totaled about $1.4 
billion in 2005, of which about $1.3 billion came from state gasoline 
taxes. The assurance funds in the 39 states for which GAO has 
information held an estimated $1.3 billion as of September 30, 2005, 
according to state officials. However, many states also use these funds 
to clean up releases from sources other than underground tanks. Several 
state assurance funds may lack sufficient resources to ensure timely 
cleanups. While EPA monitors the status of state funds, its method of 
monitoring the soundness of these funds has limitations. Furthermore, 
there are concerns that, by paying the bulk of the cleanup costs, state 
financial assurance funds may provide disincentives for tank owners—who 
pay only a relatively small deductible—to prevent releases. 

In addition to their own funds, states employ resources from the LUST 
Trust Fund, the primary federal source of funds for cleaning up 
releases from underground storage tanks. As of September 30, 2005, the 
fund balance was about $2.5 billion. For fiscal year 2005, the Congress 
appropriated about $70 million from the fund to help EPA and the states 
clean up releases and to oversee cleanup activities. EPA distributed 
about $58 million of this amount to the states to investigate and clean 
up releases and conduct enforcement efforts, among other actions. To 
distribute LUST Trust Fund money among the states, EPA uses a formula 
that includes a base amount for each state and factors to recognize 
states’ needs and past cleanup performance. However, although the LUST 
Trust Fund provides funds to states to assist in addressing releases 
from tanks without a viable owner, EPA has not incorporated this factor 
into its formula. Furthermore, EPA’s information on states’ performance 
comes from state reports; 
however, GAO found that some of the information in these reports is 
inaccurate and inconsistent. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends actions for EPA to ensure that (1) tank owners maintain 
adequate financial responsibility coverage and (2) state assurance 
funds provide reliable coverage, among other things. In commenting on a 
draft of this report, EPA agreed with GAO’s recommendations. 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-152]. 

Tot view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click 
on the link above. For more information, contact John B. Stephenson at 
(202)512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Future Public Costs for Cleaning Up Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 
May Be Substantial: 

States Primarily Rely on Financial Assurance Funds to Clean Up Releases 
and Limit Cleanup Based on Funding Availability: 

Federal Funding Provided to Clean Up Releases from Underground Storage 
Tanks Is Limited: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Selected Data Relating to Underground Storage Tanks 
Reported by States: 

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

Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Key Data on Underground Storage Tanks in the 50 States and the 
District of Columbia, as of September 30, 2005: 

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

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

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

Table 5: State-Reported Estimates of the Number of Releases in the 
State's Cleanup Backlog That Will Be Cleaned Up Using Funding from 
Responsible Parties and from Public Sources, as of September 30, 2005: 

Table 6: State-Reported Numbers of Releases in the State's Cleanup 
Backlog from Tanks without a Viable Owner, as of September 30, 2005: 

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

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

Table 9: State-Reported Balance of State Financial Assurance Funds, as 
of September 30, 2005: 

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

Table 11: State-Reported Diversions from State Financial Assurance 
Funds for Purposes Other Than Those Related to the Underground Storage 
Tank Program, 2001-2005: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: States' Estimates of Expected Future Public Costs to Fully 
Clean Up Known Releases: 

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

Figure 3: Number of States That Use Each Source of Funding to Clean Up 
Releases from Tanks without a Viable Owner: 

Figure 4: State-Reported Frequency of Checking Whether Financial 
Responsibility Coverage Is Current: 

Figure 5: States' Estimates of the Percentage of Releases in Their 
Current Backlogs and To Be Identified in the Next 5 Years That Will Be 
Cleaned Up Using Public Funds: 

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

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

Figure 8: Top Ten States by Size of Reported Balance of Financial 
Assurance Fund, as of September 30, 2005: 

Figure 9: Number of States Reporting Diversions from State Financial 
Assurance Funds, 2001-2005: 

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

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

Figure 12: States' Use of LUST Trust Fund Money by Spending Category, 
Fiscal Year 2005: 

Abbreviations: 

DCI: data collection instrument: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tank: 

MTBE: methyl tertiary-butyl ether: 

RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: 

UST: Underground Storage Tank: 

February 8, 2007: 

The Honorable John D. Dingell: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Energy and Commerce: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Hilda L. Solis: 
House of Representatives: 

Underground storage tanks that leak petroleum or other hazardous 
substances can contaminate nearby soil and groundwater, which serves as 
the source of drinking water for nearly half of all Americans. 
Individuals coming into contact with this contamination, which can 
contain known carcinogens, could experience health problems ranging 
from nausea to kidney or liver damage. According to the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), about 450,000 releases from underground 
storage tanks had been confirmed in the 50 states and the District of 
Columbia between 1985 and September 30, 2005--the most recent year for 
which comprehensive data were available.[Footnote 1] In the past 20 
years, EPA and states have spent over $10 billion in public funds to 
clean up these releases. Despite these efforts, as of September 30, 
2005, over 100,000 releases had not yet been fully cleaned up. 

In 1984, the Congress amended the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act (RCRA) to require EPA to develop release detection, prevention, and 
cleanup regulations that apply to owners and operators of underground 
storage tanks. In response, EPA began developing the Underground 
Storage Tank (UST) program in 1985 to prevent releases of petroleum and 
hazardous substances into the environment, detect releases when they 
occur, and clean up any contamination from a release. Under RCRA, tank 
owners and operators must register with a designated state or local 
agency underground tanks that store petroleum or hazardous substances. 
EPA and the states then track and regulate these tanks. EPA's UST 
Program is primarily implemented by the states; EPA maintains 
responsibility for program implementation on lands owned by Indian 
tribes and in Idaho because that state does not have the necessary laws 
in place. EPA also maintains responsibility for taking enforcement 
actions in New York because the state lacks the necessary laws. EPA's 
primary role has been to provide national guidance, assistance, and 
leadership to aid the states in implementing their programs. 

Under RCRA, owners and operators of tank systems are primarily 
responsible for funding the cleanup of releases from underground 
storage tanks. However, under some circumstances, such as where an 
emergency exists, EPA or a state may pay for the cleanup and then seek 
reimbursement from the responsible private party. In order to operate, 
owners and operators must demonstrate that they have access to 
resources to meet their financial responsibility to cover cleanup 
costs. Owners and operators may use a variety of assets to meet this 
financial responsibility, including letters of credit, commercial 
insurance, and other options. 

Some states have established EPA-approved state assurance funds that, 
like commercial insurance, are another means by which owners and 
operators can demonstrate their financial responsibility coverage. 
While the circumstances vary under which states use these funds to 
clean up releases, state financial assurance funds--like commercial 
insurance--typically pay cleanup costs either directly to cleanup 
contractors or by reimbursing tank owners and operators for some or all 
of the expenses of cleaning up leaking tank sites in return for the 
payment of a deductible amount. In addition to assisting known, solvent 
owners and operators with cleanup costs in this manner, some state 
financial assurance funds also pay the costs to clean up releases from 
tanks for which the owners or operators are not "viable"--that is, they 
are unknown, unwilling, or unable to perform the cleanup. States 
typically raise money for the funds through gasoline taxes paid by the 
public and tank registration fees paid by tank owners or operators. 

Finally, the federal government--through the Leaking Underground 
Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund, which was established in 1986 
amendments to RCRA--also provides public funding to ensure that 
releases from tanks are cleaned up. The LUST Trust Fund provides money 
to states for (1) overseeing and enforcing cleanup actions taken by a 
tank owner or operator and (2) cleaning up leaks at tank sites, 
including those without a viable owner, or at sites that require 
emergency action. The fund is capitalized through a $0.001/gallon 
excise tax on gasoline and other motor fuels and the interest that 
accrues to the fund balance annually. The Congress annually 
appropriates amounts from the LUST Trust Fund to EPA, which in turn 
distributes the majority of the funds to help states that have entered 
into cooperative agreements with the agency to implement their cleanup 
programs. 

In this context, you asked us to determine (1) states' estimates of the 
cost in public funding from state and federal sources to clean up known 
releases from underground storage tanks, (2) states' primary sources of 
funding for addressing these releases and the sources' future 
viability, and (3) the funding available from federal sources to 
address these releases. For the purposes of this report we defined 
public funding as including any funding controlled and/or provided by 
state and federal agencies, such as funds from the federal LUST Trust 
Fund, state financial assurance funds, and other funds appropriated by 
states to pay for cleanup that would not otherwise occur. 

To obtain estimates of the cost to the public to clean up known 
releases, we surveyed state officials responsible for underground 
storage tank programs or, where applicable, managers of state cleanup 
funds, in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Only one state, 
South Dakota, did not respond to our survey. Through the survey, we 
gathered state officials' estimates as of September 30, 2005, of the 
current number of known releases that have not yet been cleaned up, the 
number of releases that will require public funding to clean up, and 
the amount of public funding these cleanups will require. We also 
relied on our survey to gather information about state sources of 
funding used to address releases, the status of these sources, and 
their future viability. Because of differences in the time frames used 
by states to answer certain survey questions, we refer to data from 
such questions as 2005 data in this report. We asked a series of 
questions in the survey to allow us to assess the reliability of the 
information provided by states. We determined that the survey data are 
sufficiently reliable as they are used in the body of the report (i.e., 
to be presented in aggregate, as testimonial evidence). The survey data 
presented in appendix II are not reliable for state level comparisons 
but are presented to illustrate the range of state responses and 
associated reliability issues. We also interviewed officials from eight 
states--Florida, Iowa, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, South 
Carolina, and Utah--to gather additional information regarding their 
sources of cleanup money, among other issues. To obtain information 
about the funding available from federal sources, we interviewed 
Department of the Treasury officials responsible for managing the LUST 
Trust Fund and gathered documentation regarding the balance of the 
fund, annual revenues and expenditures, and appropriations of money to 
EPA. We also interviewed EPA officials to learn how money from this 
fund flows from EPA to individual states. To gather additional 
information about state and federal funding available to address 
releases, we conducted interviews with regional program officials from 
EPA's UST program in six EPA regions--those regions based in Boston, 
Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, and Denver. We selected these 
regions primarily because survey responses from one or more states in 
these regions raised questions about similar data they had reported to 
EPA. A more detailed description of our scope and methodology is 
presented in appendix I; selected data on underground storage tanks 
reported by states are summarized in appendix II; and a copy of our 
survey instrument is included as appendix III. We conducted our work 
from June 2005 to December 2006 in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief: 

The cleanup of known releases from leaking underground storage tanks 
could take years to complete, and states reported that it would cost 
around $12 billion in public funds from state and federal sources. This 
amount reflects states' estimates of public cleanup costs for about 
54,000 of the approximately 117,000 known releases that states reported 
had not yet been fully cleaned up as of September 30, 2005. Tank owners 
or operators will pay to clean up the majority of the remaining 63,000 
known releases, according to state officials. However, an unknown 
number of releases lack a viable owner to pay cleanup costs. Some of 
these releases may lack a viable owner because the tank owner or 
operator failed to maintain adequate financial responsibility coverage. 
While 16 states require annual proof that tank owners or operators are 
maintaining the required coverage, the remaining states generally 
reported that they check this coverage less often or not at all, even 
though coverage may change on an annual basis. Without regular 
monitoring that tank owners or operators are maintaining their required 
coverage, this coverage may lapse, potentially making the owner or 
operator nonviable and, in the event of a release, may result in the 
need to use public funds to ensure timely cleanup. For example, 
according to Florida officials, the state has cleaned up about 350 
sites annually in past years using public funding. Of this number, 
approximately three or four sites per year involve responsible parties 
that did not maintain adequate financial responsibility coverage. 
Finally, in addition to the costs associated with currently known 
releases, states expect to spend public funds in the future to clean up 
substantial numbers of releases that are not yet known but which states 
project they will identify within the next 5 years. State officials 
from 43 states reported--primarily based on historical trends--that 
they expected to identify an estimated 16,700 new releases in the next 
5 years requiring at least some public funds for cleanup. However, 
states expect that, overall, the proportion of releases cleaned up 
using public funds will decline in the future, indicating that they 
expect a higher proportion of owners or operators to use private 
sources of financial responsibility coverage to pay for cleanups. 

States reported that they primarily use state financial assurance funds 
to pay the costs of cleaning up leaks from underground storage tanks, 
but they said that several of these funds may not have sufficient 
resources to ensure timely cleanups. State officials reported that 
$1.032 billion--or 96 percent of the estimated $1.076 billion from all 
state sources used to clean up tank releases in 2005--came from state 
financial assurance funds. Overall, states reported that revenues for 
these funds totaled about $1.4 billion in 2005, of which approximately 
$1.3 billion came from some form of state gasoline taxes paid by 
consumers. State financial assurance funds in the 39 states for which 
we have information collectively held an estimated $1.3 billion as of 
federal fiscal year-end 2005, according to state officials. Because 
many state assurance funds also pay to clean up releases from other 
types of tanks--such as aboveground storage tanks--the entire $1.3 
billion balance may not be available for cleaning up releases from 
underground storage tanks. While state financial assurance funds can 
provide large amounts of money for cleaning up these releases, several 
states reported that their financial assurance funds do not have 
sufficient resources to ensure that these cleanups are performed in a 
timely manner. This is a concern because the longer pollution from 
releases is left in place, the greater the potential for it to spread, 
further putting human health and the environment at risk. While EPA 
monitors whether state financial assurance funds can continue to pay 
for cleanups in a timely manner, its recently developed monitoring tool 
has had limited usefulness to date, according to agency officials. A 
more effective system for monitoring the soundness of state funds could 
give EPA greater assurances that these funds are able to pay for or 
support timely cleanups of releases. Furthermore, by allowing owners 
and operators to pay only a small portion of the cleanup costs as their 
deductible, state financial assurance funds might provide a 
disincentive for tank owners to prevent releases from their tanks, 
thereby increasing the burden on already inadequate balances in some 
states' funds. 

The LUST Trust Fund is the primary federal source of funds for cleaning 
up releases from underground storage tanks. From its inception in 1986 
through September 30, 2005, the fund balance had grown to $2.5 billion. 
For fiscal year 2005, the Congress appropriated about $70 million from 
the fund. EPA distributes most of the annual appropriations to support 
the states' cleanup programs and retains the balance to cover its own 
management expenses. States use LUST Trust Fund money for a variety of 
purposes, including investigating releases, conducting enforcement 
actions directed at responsible parties, cleaning up the releases, and 
paying administrative and planning expenses directly related to these 
activities. In fiscal year 2005, EPA distributed about $58 million from 
the LUST Trust Fund to the states, an average of $1.2 million each. The 
annual trust fund distributions generally represent a relatively small 
part of many states' cleanup program revenue. In fiscal year 2005, the 
states spent about 42 percent of their LUST Trust Fund money on 
administrative activities, 34 percent on site cleanups, and 24 percent 
on enforcement, according to EPA. In distributing the annual 
appropriation, EPA uses a formula that includes a base amount for each 
state and factors designed to recognize states' needs and past 
performance in cleaning up releases. Although one purpose of the LUST 
Trust Fund is to help fund cleanups of releases from tanks without a 
viable owner, the EPA formula for distributing the annual 
appropriations does not include this factor. The states do not provide 
EPA with separate data on tanks without a viable owner as an input to 
this formula. Furthermore, EPA develops information on states' needs 
and performance from states' semiannual activity reports on their tank 
numbers and cleanup activities. However, we found that some of the 
information in these reports is inaccurate: for example, reports of two 
states included estimated rather than actual data; some states are 
unsure of how EPA defines the categories of information to be reported, 
and thus they are unsure they are reporting the correct information; 
and at least one state reports release data covering both tanks 
included in EPA's UST program as well as other types of tanks. Unless 
EPA obtains accurate information from states on tank numbers and 
cleanup activities--in particular, data on releases from tanks without 
a viable owner--and uses this information in its formula for allocating 
funds, it cannot ensure that LUST Trust funds are distributed to states 
with the most pressing cleanup needs that require timely cleanups to 
protect human health and the environment. 

We are recommending that EPA take steps to (1) ensure that states 
verify tank owners' financial responsibility coverage on a regular 
basis, (2) improve the agency's oversight of the solvency of state 
assurance funds, (3) assess the relative effectiveness of options for 
financial responsibility coverage, and (4) better focus how EPA 
distributes LUST Trust Fund money to the states. In commenting on a 
draft of this report, EPA agreed with our recommendations and provided 
information on the agency's plans and activities to address each of 
them. 

Background: 

The 1986 amendments to RCRA established the LUST Trust Fund to, among 
other things, finance the cleanup of petroleum releases from 
underground storage tanks. Until recently, states could use these funds 
only for cleanup and related administrative and enforcement activities. 
Within this restriction, trust fund money could be used for the 
following general categories of activities: 

* testing tanks for leaks when one is suspected; 

* investigating a site to evaluate the source and extent of petroleum 
contamination; 

* assessing the number of individuals that may have been exposed to 
petroleum contaminants and the seriousness of exposure, and estimating 
resulting health risks; 

* cleaning up contaminated soil and water; 

* providing safe drinking water to residents at the site of a tank 
leak; 

* providing for temporary or permanent relocation of residents; and: 

* providing reasonable and necessary administrative and planning 
expenses directly related to these activities. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (the 2005 Act), enacted in August 2005, 
expanded the permitted uses of the LUST Trust Fund. It authorizes 
states to use a portion of their LUST Trust Fund money for inspections 
and other leak prevention purposes. Furthermore, the 2005 Act 
authorizes appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund through fiscal year 
2011 of $555 million per year for a variety of activities--including 
release prevention and inspections--in addition to previously 
authorized purposes. This annual amount includes $200 million for 
cleanups of releases from leaking underground storage tanks; $200 
million for the cleanup of releases of oxygenated fuel additives from 
such tanks; $100 million for activities including onsite inspections, 
groundwater protection, and enforcement; and $55 million for delivery 
prohibition, operator training, and release prevention and compliance. 
An additional $50 million per year is authorized from the general fund 
to cover administrative expenses and other activities. Net revenue to 
the LUST Trust Fund from taxes on petroleum products totaled 
approximately $190 million in fiscal year 2005. 

The 2005 Act also included several other provisions regarding 
inspections, operator training, and financial responsibility, among 
other things. Some of these provisions impose ongoing requirements on 
states. For example, the inspection provision requires each state 
receiving federal funding to inspect all of its regulated underground 
storage tanks at least once every 3 years, beginning after the state 
has inspected tanks that have not been inspected since December 1998. 

Effective February 2007, the 2005 Act directs EPA to require that each 
state receiving federal funds either (1) require additional, or 
secondary, structures that would help contain a release (secondary 
containment) for new and replaced underground storage tanks located 
near sources of drinking water or (2) require evidence of financial 
responsibility for tank manufacturers' and installers' certification. 
This coverage would provide for the costs of cleanup directly related 
to releases caused by improper tank manufacture or installation. The 
2005 Act also extended until 2011 the tax on petroleum products that 
capitalizes the federal LUST Trust Fund. 

Under EPA policy, except in rare circumstances and in Indian Country, 
states will address underground storage tank releases that are financed 
by the LUST Trust Fund under an appropriate cooperative agreement with 
EPA. EPA will undertake a cleanup only when (1) there is a major public 
health or environmental emergency, (2) the state is unable to respond, 
and (3) no responsible party is able or willing to provide an adequate 
and timely response. In these circumstances, EPA's involvement is to be 
limited to stabilizing the immediate situation, with the expectation 
that further cleanup will be conducted by the state under its 
cooperative agreement with the agency. States are responsible for 
overseeing cleanup work performed by the party responsible for the 
contamination and for performing the cleanup at sites where no 
responsible party can be found. 

In addition to the LUST Trust Fund, federal money from EPA's 
Brownfields program can be used to clean up sites contaminated by 
petroleum under certain circumstances. In general, Brownfields grants 
are limited to sites whose "expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which 
may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous 
substance, pollutant, or contaminant." Only certain governmental 
organizations, nonprofit organizations, and nonprofit educational 
institutions are eligible for Brownfields cleanup grants. In fiscal 
year 2005, EPA provided eligible entities with about $22.3 million in 
Brownfields grants for cleaning up sites contaminated with petroleum. 
About $4.0 million of these grants were awarded for direct cleanup 
work, $13.3 million for site assessments, and $5.0 million for 
revolving loan fund programs. 

According to data collected from the states and reported by EPA, EPA 
and states have made progress in cleaning up releases from underground 
storage tanks. These data show that of the almost 450,000 releases 
confirmed as of fiscal year-end 2005, cleanups had been initiated for 
about 93 percent and completed for about 74 percent. Table 1 shows key 
tank-related data elements reported by EPA as of September 30, 2005, 
and provides definitions for those data elements. 

Table 1: Key Data on Underground Storage Tanks in the 50 States and the 
District of Columbia, as of September 30, 2005: 

Tanks. 

Tank-related data element: Active tanks; 
Definition: Active, federally regulated underground storage tank 
systems registered with the state; 
Number: 645,990. 

Tank-related data element: Closed tanks; 
Definition: Federally regulated underground storage tanks that have 
been reported to the state as being closed permanently; 
Number: 1,607,462. 

Releases. 

Tank-related data element: Confirmed releases; 
Definition: Incidents where a release has been identified and reported 
to the state/local or other designated implementing agency, which has 
in turn verified the release; 
Number: 449,779. 

Cleanups. 

Tank-related data element: Cleanups initiated; 
Definition: Confirmed releases at which the state or responsible party 
has evaluated the site and initiated cleanup activity, or determined 
that no cleanup action is necessary; 
Number: 419,919. 

Tank-related data element: Cleanups completed; 
Definition: Confirmed releases where cleanup has been initiated and 
where the state has determined that no further actions are currently 
necessary to protect human health and the environment; 
Number: 331,562. 

Status of cleanup backlog. 

Tank-related data element: Cleanups ongoing; 
Definition: Confirmed releases where cleanup has been initiated but not 
yet completed; 
Number: 88,357. 

Tank-related data element: Cleanups not yet started; 
Definition: Confirmed releases where cleanup has not yet been 
initiated; 
Number: 29,860. 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data. 

[End of table] 

As cleanups have progressed, methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE)--a 
gasoline additive designed to reduce emissions and raise octane--has 
continued to be detected in groundwater used for drinking water 
supplies. In some cases, MTBE was added to gasoline to fulfill 
requirements set in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments to reduce certain 
types of emissions. However, because MTBE dissolves easily in water and 
does not cling to soil very well, it migrates faster and farther 
through the ground than other gasoline components, thus making it more 
likely to contaminate public water systems and private drinking water 
wells. MTBE's health effects have not been conclusively established, 
but the federal government has determined it to be a potential human 
carcinogen. The effects of exposure to MTBE include headaches; 
eye, nose, and throat irritation; coughs; nausea; dizziness; and 
disorientation. Low levels of MTBE can make drinking water supplies 
undrinkable due to its offensive taste and odor. Because of 
uncertainties about MTBE's health effects, EPA has not set a national 
standard for MTBE in drinking water. Some states have set their own 
limits on allowable levels of MTBE in drinking water, and some have 
banned its use in gasoline sold in the state. The Congress also took 
action through the 2005 Act to reduce the use of MTBE in gasoline by 
eliminating the requirement from the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments that 
led to the use of MTBE to reduce emissions. 

Future Public Costs for Cleaning Up Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 
May Be Substantial: 

States reported that completing the cleanup of approximately 54,000 
known releases from leaking underground storage tanks would likely 
require substantial amounts of public funds from state and federal 
resources. The public cost of cleaning up releases from tanks without a 
viable owner, as well as the number of releases in states' cleanup 
backlogs that lack a viable owner, is not fully known. In addition to 
the costs associated with known releases, states expect that they will 
use public funds to clean up a substantial number of releases that they 
identify within the next 5 years. 

States Reported That They Expect to Spend an Estimated $12 Billion in 
Public Funds to Complete the Cleanup of about 54,000 Known Releases: 

States reported that cleaning up known releases from leaking 
underground storage tanks would cost an estimated $12 billion in public 
funds from state and federal sources.[Footnote 2] This estimate 
reflects the amount of public funds that states expected it would cost 
to clean up approximately 54,000 known releases. States were unable to 
estimate the cost of cleaning up more than another 8,000 releases whose 
cleanup will require at least some public funds.[Footnote 3] We asked 
states to exclude from their estimates any money spent prior to 
September 30, 2005, to clean up these releases. As figure 1 
illustrates, states reported that a substantial amount of the public 
costs to clean up these releases had not yet been incurred. 

Figure 1: States' Estimates of Expected Future Public Costs to Fully 
Clean Up Known Releases: 

[See PDF for image] - graphic text: 

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

Note: This figure includes only releases that states indicated would be 
cleaned up using some public funds. New York officials did not respond 
to this question. South Dakota officials did not respond to our survey.

[End of figure] - graphic text:  

States reported that nearly half of these releases will require 
$100,000 or more to fully clean up, with about 5 percent requiring 
$500,000 or more. Just over half of the approximately 117,000 releases 
that states reported in our survey had not yet been fully cleaned up 
will be cleaned up using at least some public funds. Tank owners or 
operators will pay the entire costs to clean up another 34 percent of 
these 117,000 releases, according to state officials. States reported 
that they did not know whether any public funds would be used to clean 
up most of the remaining 13 percent of these releases or whether tank 
owners or operators alone would pay for their cleanup. 

The percentage of releases that states reported would be cleaned up 
using at least some public funds varied widely by state, as illustrated 
in figure 2. Some states expected all releases in their backlogs to be 
cleaned up using at least some public funds, while other states did not 
expect public funds to be used to clean up any releases in their 
current backlog. 

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

[See PDF for image] - graphic text: 

Source: Responses to GAO's survey of tank program and/or state fund 
managers, Map resources (map). 

Notes: New Hampshire officials did not provide a response to this 
question. California officials were unable to determine the percentage 
of known releases that would be cleaned up using public funds. South 
Dakota officials did not respond to our survey. 

[End of Figure] - graphic text: 

The approach that different states use regarding who pays for the 
cleanup of leaking underground storage tanks can affect the percentage 
of releases in a state that are cleaned up using at least some public 
funding. One such approach is whether a state has chosen to set up a 
financial assurance fund that provides financial responsibility 
coverage for tank owners. For example, in North Dakota, where nearly 
all tanks are covered by the state's fund, the state expects that more 
than 95 percent of releases in its current backlog will be cleaned up 
using at least some public funding. Similarly, state laws addressing 
when a specific owner or operator is considered to be responsible for a 
release can affect who pays for cleanups. For example, Michigan program 
officials previously told us that the state's causation standard 
exacerbates the funding problem for tanks without a viable owner 
because it requires that the state prove that the present owner/ 
operator is responsible for a site's contamination before it can be 
held responsible for cleanup.[Footnote 4] Proving responsibility 
becomes difficult in cases where releases have occurred in the past and 
ownership of the property has changed. If responsibility cannot be 
established, the state must then fund any cleanup of the site. 

Although EPA estimates that a release costs about $125,000 on average 
to clean up, the cost can vary based on several factors, including the 
extent of contamination, the cleanup method selected, and the presence 
of MTBE or groundwater contamination. In our survey, we asked states 
about the average cost in public funds to clean up both releases with 
MTBE contamination and releases that have contaminated groundwater. We 
also asked for the average cost in public funds to clean up all 
releases. With regard to releases involving MTBE, EPA has reported that 
the additional cost for cleaning up these releases varies widely, from 
no additional cost to a substantial increase, depending on the history 
of the release. States' survey responses generally corresponded with 
this reported variation. Twenty-nine states reported estimates of 
average public costs for cleaning up releases with MTBE contamination 
and for all releases. Most of these states reported that cleaning up 
releases with MTBE contamination costs the same or more than cleaning 
up an average release in the state. However, estimates of the cost 
difference varied widely among states. 

EPA has stated that releases that have contaminated groundwater are 
generally more complicated and more expensive to clean up than releases 
that have not. In our survey, 34 states provided us with estimates for 
the average public cost to clean up all releases as well as the average 
public cost to clean up releases that have contaminated groundwater. 
States' estimates varied widely: about 60 percent of these states 
reported that it was more expensive to clean up releases involving 
groundwater contamination, while about 40 percent reported that it cost 
the same. 

The Number of Releases from Tanks without a Viable Owner and the Public 
Cost of Such Releases Are Not Fully Known: 

The full extent of releases from tanks without a viable owner is 
unknown. While states reported that about 11 percent of the 
approximately 117,000 releases that have not yet been fully cleaned up 
came from such tanks, the actual number could be much higher for two 
reasons. First, 11 states reported that they did not know how many of 
the releases in their backlogs were from tanks without a viable owner. 
Second, 17 states reported that there were approximately 4,000 releases 
from tanks for which they had not yet determined whether a viable owner 
exists. 

The public cost of cleaning up releases from tanks without a viable 
owner is also not fully known. While 26 states and the District of 
Columbia estimated that it would cost a total of $2.7 billion to 
complete the cleanups of known releases from tanks without a viable 
owner, 21 states responded that they did not know the cost, and 2 
states did not respond to the question.[Footnote 5] Because most states 
reported that they clean up such releases using public funding, it is 
likely that many of the known releases from tanks without a viable 
owner will be cleaned up using at least some public money. 

Nearly all states reported to us in our survey that they use public 
funding to clean up releases from tanks without a viable owner. Six 
states reported that they had a state fund dedicated to tanks without a 
viable owner, and other states without such dedicated funds primarily 
reported that they use resources from other types of state funds, such 
as financial assurance funds, or from the federal LUST Trust Fund, as 
illustrated in figure 3. However, four states reported that they may 
wait until the property on which the leaking tank is located is 
purchased and rely on the new owner to clean the site up. 

Figure 3: Number of States That Use Each Source of Funding to Clean Up 
Releases from Tanks without a Viable Owner: 

[See PDF for image] - graphic text: 

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

Note: Some states provided more than one response. New York and New 
Hampshire officials did not provide a response to the question. South 
Dakota officials did not respond to our survey. 

[A] Includes the District of Columbia. 

[End of figure] - graphic text: 

States may have releases from tanks without a viable owner in their 
backlog because the owner or operator responsible for the tank failed 
to maintain adequate financial responsibility coverage. Maintaining 
adequate financial responsibility coverage ensures that money will be 
available to clean up releases from underground storage tanks. This 
money, in turn, contributes to timely completion of cleanup and thus 
reduces the risk to human health and the environment posed by releases 
that are not cleaned up in a timely manner. We asked states about the 
number of cases they had encountered in the past 5 years in which tank 
owners did not have adequate financial responsibility coverage. In 
responding, states used somewhat different definitions of what 
constituted inadequate financial responsibility coverage. In general, 
states that we talked with more in-depth about financial responsibility 
said they counted cases as having inadequate coverage when an owner or 
operator either (1) had not maintained financial responsibility 
coverage or (2) had maintained coverage but did not have proof of 
coverage at the time the state requested it. Twenty-three states 
reported cases of inadequate coverage in the past 5 years, while only 7 
states and the District of Columbia reported no cases; 
19 other states reported that they did not know the number of cases 
involving inadequate coverage. 

The number of cases involving inadequate financial responsibility 
coverage may indicate that at least some public funds will be used to 
clean up a release that otherwise would have been paid for by a 
responsible party. For example, according to Florida officials, the 
state has cleaned up about 350 sites annually in past years using 
public funding. Of these sites, approximately three to four sites per 
year involved responsible parties that did not maintain adequate 
financial responsibility coverage. In our survey, Florida estimated an 
average cost of $380,000 in public funds to fully address each release 
requiring public funds. Consequently, Florida may have spent more than 
$1 million per year on such sites in the past. Florida officials noted 
that the state attempts to recover these funds from the tank owners but 
indicated that such efforts have not always been successful in the 
past. Officials in three additional states--New Jersey, Texas, and 
Utah--also told us that public funds could be used in cases involving 
inadequate financial responsibility coverage, although they did not 
know the number of times public funds had been used in these types of 
situations in the past. 

Checking financial responsibility coverage--for example, verifying 
during a site inspection that an owner or operator has the required 
paperwork to demonstrate coverage--helps to ensure that owners or 
operators maintain adequate coverage as required by federal law. Some 
options that owners or operators can choose for coverage either require 
annual updates or are often renewed annually. For instance, owners or 
operators that self-insure, or choose to demonstrate that they have 
sufficient assets to cover costs resulting from a release, must prepare 
an annual letter with financial information supporting their ability to 
pay. Similarly, owners or operators that choose private insurance for 
financial responsibility coverage must pay annual premiums to maintain 
coverage. However, EPA does not provide states specific guidance on 
whether or how frequently states should engage in routine verification 
of financial responsibility coverage.[Footnote 6] 

Most states reported to us that they attempted to check financial 
responsibility coverage on a regular basis, but only about one-third of 
the states reported that they required annual proof that tank owners or 
operators were maintaining coverage. The remaining states generally 
reported that they checked this coverage less often or not at all (see 
fig. 4). 

Figure 4: State-Reported Frequency of Checking Whether Financial 
Responsibility Coverage Is Current: 

[See PDF for image] - graphic text: 

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

Notes: The "other" category includes responses such as "as events 
warrant," and "annual permit applications contain financial 
responsibility information that may be checked," among other responses. 
Among the seven states that do not check whether financial 
responsibility coverage is current, four states reported that their 
financial assurance funds provide such coverage for all tanks in the 
state. South Dakota officials did not respond to our survey. 

[A] Includes the District of Columbia. 

[End of figure] - graphic text: 

States that do not check financial responsibility coverage on an annual 
basis may not know if owners or operators are maintaining required 
coverage. For example, nearly half of the states that do not annually 
check financial responsibility coverage did not know the number of 
cases of inadequate coverage that had occurred in their state in the 
past 5 years. 

States Anticipate Spending Additional Public Funds on Newly Identified 
Releases: 

Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia reported that they 
anticipate identifying about 37,000 releases over the next 5 years. Of 
these 48 respondents, 43 reported that they expect to spend public 
funds to clean up a total of about 16,700 of these releases, 2 reported 
no expected use of public funds, and 3 were uncertain. Thirty-nine of 
the 43 respondents that expected to spend public funds to clean up 
future releases also provided estimates of the average public cost to 
clean up releases in their state. Using these estimates, we determined 
that the total cost to clean up releases projected to be identified in 
the next five years in these states could be around $2.5 billion. 
States also reported that, overall, the proportion of releases cleaned 
up using public funds is likely to decline in the future. That is, 
together they anticipate using public funds to clean up a higher 
percentage of releases in their current backlog than of releases they 
expect to identify in the next 5 years (see fig. 5). Some states that 
do not use their financial assurance funds to provide financial 
responsibility coverage for newly identified releases, such as Florida 
and Arizona, expect particularly sizable declines.[Footnote 7] These 
states expect that owners or operators will use private sources of 
financial responsibility coverage to pay for the cleanup of most 
releases identified in the next 5 years. 

Figure 5: States' Estimates of the Percentage of Releases in Their 
Current Backlogs and To Be Identified in the Next 5 Years That Will Be 
Cleaned Up Using Public Funds: 

[See PDF for image] - graphic text: 

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

Notes: Only 43 states and the District of Columbia, whose officials 
responded to both questions, were included in this analysis. 
California, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Oregon are 
not included. South Dakota officials did not respond to our survey. 

[End of figure] - graphic text: 

States' responses also indicate that, together, they expect to identify 
somewhat fewer releases per year in the next 5 years, on average, than 
in 2005. Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia provided 
responses in our survey to questions about releases they identified in 
2005 and about new releases they project they will identify in the next 
5 years. In 2005, these states confirmed a combined 8,000 releases, 
compared with their projections of an average of about 7,400 releases 
per year for the next 5 years. In general, state officials told us that 
they based their projections on recent trends, although officials in a 
few states specifically noted that they expected to identify fewer 
releases in the future in part because of tank and equipment upgrade 
requirements or other prevention measures. 

States Primarily Rely on Financial Assurance Funds to Clean Up Releases 
and Limit Cleanup Based on Funding Availability: 

Most states use financial assurance funds to pay for cleaning up 
releases from underground storage tanks, with most of the revenues 
coming from state gasoline taxes.[Footnote 8] In several of these 
states, financial assurance funds limit the number of cleanups they 
perform based on funding availability. Under EPA guidance, EPA 
officials are responsible for determining whether a financial assurance 
fund is financially sound, that is, if it provides reasonable assurance 
that funds are available to pay for cleanup costs. The agency recently 
began collecting information from states to determine the soundness of 
their financial assurance funds, but this effort has had limited 
usefulness. Lack of timely cleanup is a concern because the longer 
pollution from releases is left in place, the greater the potential for 
it to spread, further placing human health and the environment at risk. 

States Clean Up Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 
Primarily Using Financial Assurance Funds: 

States reported that they primarily use financial assurance funds to 
pay the costs of cleaning up leaks from underground storage tanks. 
These funds accounted for $1.032 billion, or 96 percent, of the 
estimated $1.076 billion from all state sources to clean up tank 
releases in 2005, according to our survey results. State financial 
assurance funds generally pay for cleaning up releases from tanks whose 
owners participate in the assurance funds to satisfy federal financial 
responsibility requirements. Figure 6 shows the state sources of 
expenditures for cleanup costs in 2005. 

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

[See PDF for image] - graphic text: 

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

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

[End of figure] - graphic text: 

As shown in figure 6, financial assurance funds can be divided into two 
types: those that currently provide financial responsibility coverage, 
and those that used to but no longer do so. Most states have, or have 
had, financial assurance funds. As of September 30, 2005, 37 states had 
funds that met federal requirements for financial responsibility, 
according to EPA; an additional 6 states had such funds in the past but 
these funds no longer provided coverage for new releases; and 7 states 
and the District of Columbia have never had financial assurance funds 
that were approved by EPA to provide financial responsibility coverage 
(see fig.7). 

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

[See PDF for image] - graphic text: 

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

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

[End of figure] - graphic text: 

The funds in each of the six states that stopped providing financial 
responsibility coverage for new releases did so after a certain 
deadline. Tank owners and operators in these states now demonstrate 
financial responsibility coverage primarily through private insurance, 
according to state officials. However, as recently as fiscal year 2005, 
some of these state funds were still paying out large amounts to clean 
up releases. In fact, over one-fifth of states' public spending to 
clean up releases from underground storage tanks in 2005 came from 
these financial assurance funds. For example, although Florida's fund 
last provided financial responsibility coverage for new releases on 
December 31, 1998, it is still responsible for cleaning up 
approximately 12,000 sites, and it spent almost $150 million on 
cleanups in 2005. Michigan's fund, however, no longer provided 
financial responsibility coverage after June 1995 because it had 
insufficient funds to pay existing and future claims. Michigan state 
officials reported that several other funds provided cleanup money for 
underground storage tanks in 2005, including the Clean Michigan 
Initiative Bond Fund. This fund can be used to pay for many activities, 
such as waterfront improvements and cleanup of contaminated lake and 
river sediments. 

Seven states and the District of Columbia have never had funds that 
provided financial responsibility coverage. In these states, tank 
owners and operators use other ways of demonstrating financial 
responsibility coverage, primarily private insurance and self- 
insurance, according to our survey. While they never had financial 
assurance funds, some of these states have provided cleanup funds to 
address releases from underground storage tanks. In fact, four of these 
states reported paying for such cleanups from state sources in 2005. 
Delaware, for example, reported spending $1 million in 2005 from a 
reimbursement fund for 240 sites. Other states assist or have assisted 
owners and operators with cleanup by operating insurance-type 
mechanisms. In the state of Washington, for example, the state's 
reinsurance program helps owners and operators of underground storage 
tanks obtain affordable pollution liability insurance by assuming part 
of the risk for each loss and insulating the primary insurer from 
losses greater than a certain amount. In the case of a $1,000,000 
policy, for example, Washington's reinsurance program is responsible 
for settlements over $75,000. Table 2 summarizes some of the key 
distinctions among state approaches to ensuring that tanks are cleaned 
up. 

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

Status of state financial assurance fund as of September 30, 2005: 
State has a financial assurance fund that provides financial 
responsibility coverage (37 states); 
Number of states that spent public funds from state sources on cleanup 
in 2005: 35; 
Number of states with owner/operators that use each method to 
demonstrate financial responsibility coverage: Financial assurance 
fund: 29; 
Number of states with owner/operators that use each method to 
demonstrate financial responsibility coverage: Private insurance: 13; 
Number of states with owner/operators that use each method to 
demonstrate financial responsibility coverage: Other private form of 
coverage: 19; 
Number of states whose financial assurance fund received funding from 
each source: State gasoline taxes: 31; 
Number of states whose financial assurance fund received funding from 
each source: Tank fees: 18. 

Status of state financial assurance fund as of September 30, 2005: 
State financial assurance fund no longer provides financial 
responsibility coverage (six states); 
Number of states that spent public funds from state sources on cleanup 
in 2005: 6; 
Number of states with owner/operators that use each method to 
demonstrate financial responsibility coverage: Financial assurance 
fund: N/A; 
Number of states with owner/operators that use each method to 
demonstrate financial responsibility coverage: Private insurance: 6; 
Number of states with owner/operators that use each method to 
demonstrate financial responsibility coverage: Other private form of 
coverage: 6; 
Number of states whose financial assurance fund received funding from 
each source: State gasoline taxes: 3; 
Number of states whose financial assurance fund received funding from 
each source: Tank fees: 1. 

Status of state financial assurance fund as of September 30, 2005: 
State never had a financial assurance fund that provided financial 
responsibility coverage (seven states and the District of Columbia); 
Number of states that spent public funds from state sources on cleanup 
in 2005: 4; 
Number of states with owner/operators that use each method to 
demonstrate financial responsibility coverage: Financial assurance 
fund: N/A; 
Number of states with owner/operators that use each method to 
demonstrate financial responsibility coverage: Private insurance: 7[A]; 
Number of states with owner/operators that use each method to 
demonstrate financial responsibility coverage: Other private form of 
coverage: 7[A]; 
Number of states whose financial assurance fund received funding from 
each source: State gasoline taxes: N/A; 
Number of states whose financial assurance fund received funding from 
each source: Tank fees: N/A. 

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

Note: Certain states did not provide data for certain questions, so the 
information in this table may be incomplete. 

[A] Includes the District of Columbia. 

[End of table] 

At federal fiscal year-end 2005, state financial assurance funds in 39 
states held unexpended balances of approximately $1.3 billion, 
according to estimates reported by state officials. Four states did not 
have or did not report a fund balance. As shown in figure 8, individual 
states' fund balances ranged as high as about $207 million. The top 
five states--Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, and California-
-accounted for more than half of the total balance in these funds. 
Because many state assurance funds also pay to clean up releases from 
other types of tanks--such as aboveground storage tanks--the entire 
balance of any one state's financial assurance fund may not be 
available for cleaning up underground storage tanks. 

Figure 8: Top Ten States by Size of Reported Balance of Financial 
Assurance Fund, as of September 30, 2005: 

[See PDF for image] - graphic text: 

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

Notes: Given limitations in the reliability of the information reported 
by some states, data presented in this table should not be used to 
compare state programs. Financial assurance funds in Florida, Texas, 
New Jersey, and Wisconsin no longer provided financial responsibility 
coverage as of September 30, 2005. 

[End of figure] - graphic text: 

Overall, states reported in our survey that financial assurance funds 
accrued revenues of about $1.4 billion in 2005 from a variety of 
sources. State taxes on gasoline and other fuels accounted for about 
$1.3 billion (92 percent) of this income to state funds. Such taxes are 
generally considered to be paid by the consumer. States reported that 
financial assurance funds also received revenues totaling about $42 
million (3 percent) from fees paid by tank owners and operators. Only 
four states' financial assurance funds collected tank fees but not 
gasoline taxes in 2005, and tank fees were the primary source of 
revenues for only three of these funds, according to our survey. In 
addition to gasoline taxes and fees on tanks, states also reported 
small amounts of revenues from sources such as interest and cost 
recovery. 

Whether a state financial assurance fund collects revenue from various 
sources in a given year can depend on its balance. Many states have 
maximum limits on the overall balance of their funds. Generally, if a 
state's maximum limit is reached, its fund ceases collecting revenues 
from one or more of its revenue sources until the fund balance drops 
below a minimum threshold. For example, Idaho has not collected certain 
fees for its fund since 1998 when the balance of its fund exceeded $30 
million, according to a state official. The fund will again begin 
collecting revenue from these fees once its balance drops to $15 
million. 

Some State Funds Do Not Have Sufficient Resources to Ensure Timely 
Cleanups: 

While state financial assurance funds can provide substantial amounts 
of funding for cleaning up releases, funds in some states may not have 
sufficient resources to ensure that these cleanups are performed in a 
timely manner. Specifically, officials in nine states reported in our 
survey that their funds limit the amount of cleanup work they finance 
based on funding availability. The situation of three such funds, as 
described by state officials, follows: 

* North Carolina. The revenues to the state's financial assurance fund 
have not been sufficient in recent years to address all of the fund's 
high-risk sites. As of February 2006, the state was only authorizing 
cleanup work that the fund could pay for within 90 days. 

* South Carolina. Officials generally preapprove cleanup work only at 
the sites where contamination is most severe. After an initial 
assessment of each site's contamination, the state categorizes releases 
into one of four categories. The most urgent category includes releases 
deemed emergencies, all of which were being actively cleaned up as of 
August 2006. The remaining categories are ranked based on how soon the 
release is likely to affect human health and the environment, as well 
as its impact on groundwater. As of August 2006, less than 40 percent 
of the releases in these categories were being actively cleaned up. 

* Florida. Although the state's financial assurance fund stopped 
providing financial responsibility coverage for new releases in 1998, 
it is having difficulty paying for all of its cleanups. The state fund 
is only able to actively conduct cleanup work at about one-third of the 
12,000 remaining sites. The approximately 8,000 other sites in the 
fund's backlog await cleanup. These cleanups will not occur until money 
becomes available for them, or, potentially, the risk posed by the 
sites increases so much that they require more urgent cleanup. 

The timeliness of cleanups of releases from underground storage tanks 
is especially important because the longer contamination from these 
releases is left in place, the greater the potential becomes for the 
contamination to spread. The farther these contaminants are allowed to 
spread, the greater the chance becomes that they will contaminate 
drinking water and other sensitive resources, potentially putting human 
health and the environment at risk. In addition, when state financial 
assurance funds do not pay cleanup claims on a timely basis, tank 
owners and operators may delay cleanups. For example, tank owners may 
be less likely to voluntarily report releases if they know that 
reporting a release could lead to a mandatory cleanup and believe that 
they will not be reimbursed by the state financial assurance fund for 
performing that cleanup for an extended period, according to an EPA 
regional official. 

To ensure that funds are available to clean up releases in a timely and 
appropriate manner, state financial assurance funds must be financially 
sound. According to EPA guidance on the subject issued in 1993, a state 
assurance fund is financially sound if it provides reasonable assurance 
that money is available to pay for cleanup costs and other liabilities. 
"Reasonable assurance," according to EPA, would be evident, for 
instance, if the fund assets are greater than liabilities or there are 
sufficient resources to meet current demands, that is, the normal 
timing of payment of claims is not significantly delaying cleanups. If 
funding levels or claim processing time has a negative impact on the 
cleanup of releases from underground storage tanks (i.e., causing undue 
delays in cleaning up releases that therefore harm human health and the 
environment), then EPA would be concerned about the financial soundness 
of the fund. 

State financial assurance funds may face additional challenges to 
remaining financially sound in coming years for the following reasons: 

* Financial assurance funds may take on additional liability from tank 
installers and manufacturers. Effective February 2007, the 2005 Act 
directs EPA to require that each state receiving federal funds either 
implement "secondary containment" for new and replaced underground 
storage tanks located near sources of drinking water or to require 
evidence of financial responsibility for tank manufacturers and 
installers. In selecting the second option, states must require that 
any manufacturer or installer of an underground storage tank maintain 
evidence of financial responsibility coverage. In some cases, tank 
installers and manufacturers may turn to state financial assurance 
funds for financial responsibility coverage. While a few state funds 
already provide such coverage to installers, this additional liability 
could strain the resources of some states' funds, according to a senior 
official in EPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks. 

* Some states may discover more releases in the coming years than in 
past years. The 2005 Act requires each state receiving federal funding 
to inspect all of their underground storage tanks on a 3-year cycle, 
beginning after the state inspects tanks that have not been inspected 
since December 1998. For those states that currently inspect sites less 
frequently, the additional inspections, while intended to prevent leaks 
in the long term, could lead to a spike in the number of releases 
discovered. For example, officials in Texas told us that underground 
storage tank facilities in their state are inspected about every 10 
years, on average. Releases in this state that may not have otherwise 
been found for as long as 10 years may be discovered much sooner, 
leading to an increase in confirmed releases over the next few years. 
Finding these releases sooner may mean that the contamination would be 
less extensive, however, and therefore any cleanup required would be 
less costly. 

* State financial assurance funds may also be affected by future 
natural disasters, such as hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. As late 
as June 2006, the impact of the flooding caused by these hurricanes on 
Louisiana's financial assurance fund was not yet fully known, according 
to a state official. If all underground storage tanks that could have 
been affected by the flooding turn out to have had releases, the 
workload of the state assurance fund would increase by 25 percent. 
Payouts from the state assurance fund would increase by approximately 
$4 million per year, according to this official. 

Diversions from state financial assurance funds may also limit some 
states' ability to pay for cleanups under certain circumstances. States 
may sometimes decide to withdraw or withhold money from state financial 
assurance funds. Of the 43 states that have had financial assurance 
funds, 16 reported in our survey that they had diverted a total of 
nearly $435 million from their funds between 2001 and 2005.[Footnote 9] 
Officials in most of these states reported that the diverted amounts 
went to the state's general fund or to offset state budget shortfalls. 
A few states reported using diverted funds for specific programs, such 
as Brownfields grants and loans, a lead-based paint removal program, 
and cleanup of groundwater contamination caused by sources other than 
leaking storage tanks. Officials we interviewed in two states where 
diversions occurred--Florida and South Carolina--reported a negative 
impact on the state program's ability to clean up sites. In Florida, 
for example, $20 million was diverted in 2002. As a result, financial 
assurance fund managers had to adjust the threshold for cleanup, 
meaning that the cleanup of less urgent releases, which otherwise would 
have been addressed, was delayed, according to state officials. 
Officials we interviewed in two other states--Pennsylvania and New 
Jersey--did not believe that diversions had caused a significant 
negative impact, if any. In the largest case of a diversion reported to 
us, for example, the Pennsylvania financial assurance fund loaned the 
legislature $100 million in 2002 to balance the state's budget, 
according to state officials. State officials reported that this 
diversion did not impact the fund's operations, however, because the 
fund still had more than enough money to meet its current expenses. 
Figure 9 shows the number of states with financial assurance funds that 
reported to us that they had experienced a diversion between 2001 and 
2005. 

Figure 9: Number of States Reporting Diversions from State Financial 
Assurance Funds, 2001-2005: 

[See PDF for image] - graphic text: 

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

Notes: Forty-three states have had financial assurance funds that 
provided financial responsibility coverage. As of September 30, 2005, 
two states' funds had been reimbursed for portions of the original 
diversion. 

[End of figure] - graphic text: 

The 2005 Act included language providing that, if a state diverts 
resources from its financial assurance fund, EPA may not distribute a 
certain portion of LUST appropriations to that state for enforcement 
purposes. This provision affects only the 37 states whose financial 
assurance funds still provide financial responsibility coverage for new 
releases. Officials we interviewed in Pennsylvania and South Carolina 
regarding this issue were uncertain about the 2005 Act's impact on 
future diversions in those states. A South Carolina official, for 
example, believed that the provisions could discourage the state from 
making relatively small diversions from the financial assurance fund 
because the loss of federal funding would more than offset the gain 
from the diversion. If the state needed to divert a large amount of 
money, even relative to the $1.3 million overall distribution it 
received from EPA in 2005, the disincentive would not be as 
significant. Two states even commented in their responses to our survey 
that they anticipated diversions in 2006. EPA had not developed 
guidance to implement these provisions of the 2005 Act as of December 
2006. 

Concerns have been raised about whether tank owners have incentives to 
prevent releases from their tanks when they can rely on state financial 
assurance funds to pay the bulk of the cleanup costs. Although EPA 
estimates that releases cost about $125,000 to clean up, on average, 
most state financial assurance funds charge a deductible of $25,000 or 
less, according to our survey. Twelve states described the 
circumstances under which penalties could be imposed on tank owners for 
multiple, or repeated, releases, in their survey responses. Officials 
in several states indicated that penalties were not usually imposed 
simply if multiple releases occurred. Rather, most states imposed 
penalties on the basis of evidence that the tank owner did not comply 
with applicable regulations or failed to report a release. For example, 
New Hampshire officials indicated that, while the state has authority 
for administrative fines and civil penalties in cases involving 
multiple releases, such actions are not automatically imposed. Instead, 
fines and penalties may be assessed if a second release results from a 
tank owner's recalcitrance in achieving and maintaining compliance with 
operational regulations. Of the 20 states that provided comments in 
response to our survey question regarding multiple releases, none 
indicated that increased penalties were imposed simply based on the 
occurrence of a second release. 

EPA's Method of Ensuring the Adequacy of Financial Assurance Funds Has 
Limitations: 

EPA approves state financial assurance funds to provide financial 
responsibility coverage. According to EPA guidance, the agency can 
withdraw this approval if a fund no longer provides coverage that 
ensures timely and adequate cleanup of releases. As discussed earlier, 
EPA would be concerned about the soundness of a state financial 
assurance fund if the funding levels or claim processing time caused 
undue delays in cleaning up releases, thereby potentially harming human 
health and the environment. In Texas, for example, claims substantially 
exceeded revenues during the early years of the state's financial 
assurance fund. By 1992, the fund had a backlog of unpaid bills 
totaling about $170 million. This amount exceeded the fund's annual 
income by approximately 300 percent, and new claims arriving daily 
added to the backlog. In order to catch up, the fund temporarily slowed 
down some cleanup work. Even though the fund stopped accepting new 
releases after December 22, 1998, state officials expect it to remain 
in place at least until 2008. 

EPA monitors the soundness of state financial assurance funds; 
this task is carried out by EPA regions, according to the agency's 1993 
guidance on the subject. This guidance suggested several steps that 
regions could use to adequately monitor fund soundness, including (1) 
collecting baseline data on relevant fund soundness measures from each 
state, (2) evaluating the baseline soundness of each state fund, and 
(3) monitoring these fund soundness measures over time to check for 
developing problems. The guidance also specified that monitoring state 
funds should be accomplished as part of regions' routine oversight of 
state programs. Officials in four of the six EPA regions we interviewed 
conducted fund soundness oversight primarily by discussing the 
financial position of the state assurance fund with relevant state 
officials. 

In 2005, EPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks began collecting 
information from states on various aspects of their financial assurance 
funds. The goals of this effort included providing a better tool to 
monitor state financial assurance funds' soundness and helping EPA work 
with states to resolve any soundness issues. According to some EPA 
officials, however, the data collected were of limited usefulness. One 
region's program manager did not expect that the agency's effort would 
provide any new information, except data to document what he already 
knew. An EPA headquarters official, who is closely involved with the 
effort, agreed that the agency's information collection, at most, 
helped confirm what regions already saw as problem states. Moreover, 
states provided data with gaps or further clarifications needed in key 
areas, such as the number of release sites awaiting funding and the 
estimated total liabilities for underground storage tanks. EPA regional 
officials described this first effort as a collection of baseline 
information, and the agency decided to collect data again in 2006 
without changing its method. Results for 2006 were not available as of 
December 2006. 

The 2005 Act also included language providing that EPA may withdraw 
approval of a state fund for financial responsibility coverage without 
withdrawing approval of the overall state underground storage tank 
program. In response, EPA has formed a workgroup to examine the issue 
of how to assess the soundness of state financial assurance funds and 
to develop criteria for guidance on the conditions under which it might 
withdraw fund approval, including what would constitute a lack of 
financial soundness. The guidance had not been made final as of 
December 2006. 

Federal Funding Provided to Clean Up Releases from Underground Storage 
Tanks Is Limited: 

Annual appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund have averaged about $71 
million in recent years. Typically, about 80 percent of the money is 
distributed to the states to support their cleanup programs. LUST Trust 
Fund money provided to states generally represents a small portion of 
the individual states' cleanup program budgets. In fiscal year 2005, 
the states used about two-thirds of their distributions to fund program 
administration and enforcement activities and one-third to fund the 
cleanup of sites. 

Appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund Have Been Relatively Stable: 

Appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund have been relatively stable 
since fiscal year 1998. Between fiscal years 1998 and 2005, annual 
appropriations from the trust fund have ranged from about $65 million 
to $76 million per year, averaging about $71 million per year. Over 
this period, EPA distributed an average of about 80 percent of the 
annual appropriations to states to support their cleanup programs. EPA 
uses the balance of the annual appropriations to support cleanup 
activities on Indian lands and its own cleanup-related activities. 
Forty-eight states reported spending about $15 million in LUST Trust 
Fund money on site cleanup activities in 2005, by far the largest 
single source of federal money for this purpose reported in our survey. 
Figure 10 shows the level of appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund 
since it began operations. As the figure shows, annual appropriations 
from the trust fund varied considerably in the first 10 years of the 
program. 

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

[See PDF for image] - graphic text: 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data. 

[End of figure] - graphic text: 

Financed by a $0.001/gallon excise tax on gasoline and other motor 
fuels and the interest that accrues to the fund balance annually, the 
balance of the LUST Trust Fund had grown to about $2.5 billion by 
fiscal year-end 2005. The tax has been in effect continuously since 
1987, except for a short period in 1990 and the period between December 
31, 1995, and October 1, 1997, when the tax had expired. Since 1987, 
the fund balance has been growing at an average rate of about $129 
million per year. By fiscal year-end 2005, the LUST Trust Fund had 
collected about $3.7 billion in revenue while appropriations totaled 
about $1.2 billion, leaving a fund balance of approximately $2.5 
billion. Figure 11 shows the changes in the trust fund balance from 
1987 through 2005. 

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

[See PDF for image] - graphic text: 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data. 

[End of figure] - graphic text: 

From the inception of the fund through fiscal year 2005, net tax 
revenue to the LUST Trust Fund has averaged about $144 million per 
year, with interest from investments adding an average of $49 million. 
Net revenues in fiscal years 2001 and 2005 also included relatively 
small amounts expended from the fund by EPA and subsequently recovered 
from the parties responsible for the contamination and redeposited to 
the fund (see table 3). 

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

Dollars in millions. 

1987; 
Net tax revenue[A]: $73; 
Interest income: $1; 
Total net revenue: $74. 

1988; 
Net tax revenue[A]: 125; 
Interest income: 10; 
Total net revenue: 135. 

1989; 
Net tax revenue[A]: 168; 
Interest income: 23; 
Total net revenue: 191. 

1990; 
Net tax revenue[A]: 122; 
Interest income: 34; 
Total net revenue: 156. 

1991; 
Net tax revenue[A]: 123; 
Interest income: 35; 
Total net revenue: 158. 

1992; 
Net tax revenue[A]: 157; 
Interest income: 31; 
Total net revenue: 188. 

1993; 
Net tax revenue[A]: 153; 
Interest income: 24; 
Total net revenue: 177. 

1994; 
Net tax revenue[A]: 152; 
Interest income: 29; 
Total net revenue: 180. 

1995; 
Net tax revenue[A]: 165; 
Interest income: 52; 
Total net revenue: 217. 

1996; 
Net tax revenue[A]: 48; 
Interest income: 60; 
Total net revenue: 108. 

1997; 
Net tax revenue[A]: (2); 
Interest income: 58; 
Total net revenue: 57. 

1998; 
Net tax revenue[A]: 136; 
Interest income: 61; 
Total net revenue: 197. 

1999; 
Net tax revenue[A]: 216; 
Interest income: 58; 
Total net revenue: 273. 

2000; 
Net tax revenue[A]: 181; 
Interest income: 79; 
Total net revenue: 260. 

2001; 
Net tax revenue[A]: 182; 
Interest income: 95; 
Total net revenue: 276[B]. 

2002; 
Net tax revenue[A]: 181; 
Interest income: 68; 
Total net revenue: 249. 

2003; 
Net tax revenue[A]: 184; 
Interest income: 64; 
Total net revenue: 249. 

2004; 
Net tax revenue[A]: 189; 
Interest income: 67; 
Total net revenue: 256. 

2005; 
Net tax revenue[A]: 190; 
Interest income: 78; 
Total net revenue: 269[B]. 

Total; 
Net tax revenue[A]: $2,743; 
Interest income: $927; 
Total net revenue: $3,671[B]. 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data. 

Note: Figures may not add to total due to rounding. 

[A] Net tax revenue includes income from taxes, less refunds and 
credits. 

[B] The total also includes $40,000 in cost recoveries in fiscal year 
2001 and $1,455,000 in cost recoveries in fiscal year 2005. 

[End of table] 

LUST Trust Fund Money Is a Relatively Small Part of Many States' 
Programs: 

States' revenues from the LUST Trust Fund's annual appropriations 
represent a relatively small part of many states' cleanup program 
revenue in any given year. In fiscal year 2005, EPA distributed about 
$58 million of LUST Trust Fund money to the states, or about $1.2 
million per state. State programs spent much more than this on the 
cleanup portion of their programs alone. In fact, 45 states each 
reported spending an average of $24 million in 2005 to clean up 
contamination from leaking tanks. LUST Trust Fund money used for 
cleanup work is generally intended to pay for cleaning up releases from 
tanks without a viable owner. Even when examining only this aspect of 
the cleanup effort, nine states reported spending amounts that far 
exceeded their LUST Trust Fund distribution--more than $2 million each 
in 2005 alone to clean up contamination from leaking tanks without a 
viable owner. As discussed earlier in this report, the cleanup work 
from such tanks that remains to be done is significant. 

Distributing the annual LUST Trust Fund appropriation among the states 
is a two-step process. First, EPA headquarters uses a formula to 
determine the amount each state should receive and then divides the 
money among the regions based on the total for the states within each 
region. Second, EPA regional officials consider the components of the 
state formulas, along with additional factors, to determine the actual 
amount to be distributed to each of the states in their region. 
Additional factors that may be considered, according to EPA regional 
officials, include states' actual need for money in light of such 
things as funding carryovers from prior years, states' work plans, or 
any special projects. For the most part, the EPA regional officials 
whom we interviewed stated that deviations from the formula 
distributions, when they occur, are usually relatively minor. 

The formula EPA headquarters uses to distribute LUST Trust Fund money 
to the regions incorporates three components: (1) a minimum 
distribution of $300,000 per state; (2) a need-based amount that 
considers the numbers of underground storage tanks and releases in the 
state, as well as the percentage of the population relying on 
groundwater for potable water; and (3) a performance-based bonus to 
states that meet or exceed the national averages for the numbers of 
cleanups initiated and completed. The distribution formula does not 
consider the number of releases from tanks without a viable owner in 
various states, nor does it consider the risk that specific releases 
may pose to human health and the environment. EPA develops information 
on states' needs and performance from states' semiannual activity 
reports on their tank numbers and cleanup activities. However, our 
survey disclosed several concerns regarding the accuracy of these 
reports, including the following: 

* According to officials in two states, the information they report in 
the semiannual activity reports is based on estimates rather than 
actual performance. For example, a Maine official told us that the data 
the state reports is generated by canvassing their regional staff, and 
the state has found errors in the data reported in the past. A Wyoming 
official told us that the state tracks contaminated sites rather than 
releases. Because EPA reports call for data on releases rather than 
sites, Wyoming provides its best estimate of release data. 

* Some of the reporting problems disclosed in our survey are related to 
the definitions of the reporting elements. An Arizona program official 
told us, for example, that the program was uncertain of EPA's 
definition of the cleanups initiated performance measure. The state 
official expressed concern that the state's definition of cleanups 
initiated may not agree with the EPA definition. The state reports a 
site as "cleanup initiated" when the release has been confirmed and a 
case number assigned. According to the EPA definition, however, cleanup 
initiated requires that the state or responsible party has evaluated 
the site and initiated physical activity (e.g., removal or treatment of 
the contamination, removal of the contaminated soil, or monitoring of 
the groundwater or soil being remediated). Cleanup initiated should 
also be reported in situations where the state has evaluated the site 
and determined that no physical activity is necessary to protect human 
health and the environment. 

* A Louisiana Underground Storage Tank Program official told us that a 
review of its files disclosed that the program had been reporting 
duplicate entries and releases that did not meet EPA's definition. 

* An Oregon Underground Storage Tank Program Coordinator told us that, 
in the process of cleaning up its database information, program 
officials found many sites being reported that were duplicates or 
involved releases that did not come from regulated tanks. 

* A Maryland Department of the Environment official acknowledged that 
it has been reporting semiannual performance data incorrectly, and as a 
result, some of the state's performance activities have been double 
counted. 

* An Oklahoma Petroleum Storage Tank Division official told us that the 
division had been reporting performance data on all tanks regulated by 
the state, including the aboveground storage tanks, and also 
undercounting the number of "active tanks" by excluding tanks that were 
only temporarily out of service. 

To help ensure the accuracy of the states' semiannual activities 
reports, EPA recommends that the regions review each state's data 
submission for reasonableness based on the state's prior reports and 
the regional program manager's knowledge of the state's program. When 
any of the states' data appear questionable, the regions are asked to 
follow up with the states to obtain an explanation or corrected data. 
Our interviews with EPA regional officials indicated that they were 
generally following this headquarters guidance. Nevertheless, in some 
cases regional officials were not aware of reporting problems with the 
states in their regions that our survey disclosed. To ensure that 
states properly understand EPA's definition of the data reporting 
elements, at least one EPA region reminds its states of the EPA 
definitions each time a semiannual activity report is due. Other 
regions we interviewed were less proactive, essentially relying on 
informal discussions, the experience of the state officials, or the 
posting of the definitions on the EPA Web site. 

EPA also aggregates elements of the states' semiannual activity reports 
to measure program performance against the national goals it 
establishes in accordance with the Government Performance and Results 
Act. For fiscal year 2005, EPA's goals for the underground storage tank 
program included (1) completing 14,500 cleanups, (2) completing 30 
cleanups in Indian Country, and (3) decreasing newly reported confirmed 
releases to fewer than 10,000. On the basis of the states' reports for 
fiscal year 2005, EPA reported that all the goals were met. 

Money from the LUST Trust Fund is meant, in part, to address releases 
from tanks without a viable owner. In a November 2005 report, we 
recommended that EPA collect available information from states, in 
their reports to the agency, regarding the number and cleanup status of 
all known abandoned underground storage tanks within their 
boundaries.[Footnote 10] This information would improve EPA's ability 
to determine how to most efficiently and effectively distribute LUST 
Trust Fund dollars to the states. Although 37 states and the District 
of Columbia reported numbers of releases that came from tanks without a 
viable owner in our survey, as of December 2006, EPA Office of 
Underground Storage Tanks officials stated that EPA had not yet 
required states to report this information because of concerns 
regarding the burden this might place on some states. 

States Use LUST Trust Fund Money in a Variety of Ways to Support Their 
Programs: 

Under cooperative agreements with EPA, states receive distributions 
from the LUST Trust Fund to help cover the cost of administering their 
LUST cleanup programs. According to EPA regional officials, the states' 
programs are all set up differently and, under EPA guidelines, the 
states can decide how they will best use the LUST Trust Fund money to 
fit their particular program. According to EPA, over the past 10 years, 
on average, states have used roughly one-third of their LUST Trust Fund 
money for each of the following categories: (1) administrative 
activities, including LUST Trust Fund program management, general 
management and administrative support, program guidance and 
implementation, and training; (2) enforcement activities, including all 
actions necessary to identify a leaking underground storage tank site's 
potentially responsible party; issuance of letters, notices, and orders 
to the responsible parties; oversight of the cleanups; and activities 
associated with cost recovery actions; and (3) cleanup activities 
consisting largely of emergency responses, site investigations, 
exposure assessments, and corrective actions. 

In fiscal year 2005, most of the states reported spending at least some 
of their LUST Trust Fund money in all three categories. However, some 
states focused their spending on just one or two categories. For 
example, 10 states reported they did not spend any of their LUST Trust 
Fund money on cleanup activities in fiscal year 2005. Figure 12 shows 
the states' use of LUST Trust Fund money by spending category. 

Figure 12: States' Use of LUST Trust Fund Money by Spending Category, 
Fiscal Year 2005: 

[See PDF for image] - graphic text: 

Source: EPA data. 

[End of figure] - graphic text: 

Regional officials told us that many states prefer to use their LUST 
Trust Fund money to fund staff positions rather than cleanups. For 
example, according to an EPA Region 5 official, although states in 
their region initially used their LUST Trust Fund money to perform 
cleanups, they soon decided that funding staff positions was more cost 
effective than performing the cleanup and pursuing cost recovery, which 
can be an expensive and time-consuming process. By funding additional 
staff positions rather than cleanup activities, states were often able 
to identify the responsible parties and force them to do the cleanups, 
thereby avoiding the time and expense of pursuing cost-recovery 
actions. A Region 6 official told us that some states view the cost 
recovery process as a deterrent to using the federal money for cleanup 
activities.[Footnote 11] Because they have state money available for 
cleanup efforts, states can use the federal money for staff salaries. 
Region 8 officials noted that some states actually require the use of 
state money for cleanup, and thus the federal money is used for 
administrative or enforcement activities, particularly salaries. 

An EPA official in Region 4, however, took issue with states that do 
not use LUST Trust Fund money for cleanups. The EPA official stated 
that, in some cases, cleanups that could have been performed with the 
LUST Trust Fund money are not being undertaken because the money is 
being used for salaries. The official told us that Region 4 encourages 
states to fund salaries with state money so that LUST Trust Fund money 
can be used for cleanups; however, the official acknowledged that 
ultimately it is up to the states to decide how to use these federal 
funds, within the permitted parameters. 

Conclusions: 

EPA generally relies on states to ensure that tank owners and operators 
comply with federal financial responsibility regulations, but it does 
not provide specific guidance to the states as to whether or how 
frequently they should verify financial responsibility coverage. As a 
result, states verify coverage according to differing schedules or not 
at all. Therefore, EPA lacks assurance that states are adequately 
overseeing and enforcing financial responsibility provisions. We found 
that only about one-third of states check coverage on an annual basis, 
while the remaining states generally reported they check less 
frequently or not at all. Additionally, many states could not provide 
information on the extent of inadequate financial responsibility in 
their states for the past 5 years. If states do not verify coverage on 
a routine basis, it may be difficult for them to know whether owners or 
operators will have the required coverage in the event of a release. If 
the required coverage is not in place when a release occurs, funds may 
not be available to pay for cleanup in a timely manner, thus increasing 
the potential for contamination to spread and damage the environment 
and human health. Additionally, a lack of available funds may result in 
taxpayers paying more of the cleanup costs than they would have 
otherwise paid. 

In addition, EPA's method of monitoring whether state financial 
assurance funds provide adequate financial responsibility coverage has 
limitations. Unless EPA improves how it monitors the soundness of state 
financial assurance funds, it will not be aware of deficiencies in 
coverage before they occur or in sufficient time to take action to 
avoid funding shortages, which could delay the cleanup of releases and 
potentially threaten human health and the environment. 

Under the principle of "the polluter pays," tank owners and operators 
are primarily responsible for the costs of cleaning up contamination 
from their leaking tanks. RCRA requires these owners and operators to 
obtain some form of financial responsibility coverage to demonstrate 
that they have access to resources to cover cleanup costs. In response, 
many states developed financial assurance funds, at least in part to 
ensure that releases are cleaned up in a timely manner. In the event of 
a release, tank owners covered by these funds usually pay a relatively 
small deductible, while the funds provide sometimes large sums of 
public funding to complete the required cleanup. Because these 
deductibles are often small, they may not provide an incentive for tank 
owners to prevent releases from occurring. In addition, in many states, 
tank owners are using financial responsibility mechanisms other than 
state assurance funds. While some state funds are currently 
encountering difficulties paying for cleanups in a timely manner, tank 
owners in many states will increasingly rely on other means of 
financial responsibility coverage, making it important to know whether 
state funds or private forms of coverage are more effective in ensuring 
timely cleanups. EPA is ideally situated, through its existing 
relationship with state program officials throughout the country, to 
shed light on this issue. 

EPA's distribution of LUST Trust Fund money to states depends on data 
that may not be accurate. In addition, states are not required to 
report data to EPA on the number of releases from tanks without a 
viable owner. Although one of the purposes of the fund is to help 
states clean up releases from tanks without a viable owner, EPA 
currently allocates resources to the states without taking into account 
the number of such releases in each state. In our November 2005 report, 
we recommended that EPA collect available data from the states 
regarding the number of tanks in each state that had no viable 
owners.[Footnote 12] In commenting on this recommendation, EPA 
expressed concern about placing an undue burden on states. In our 
response, we explained that we were not suggesting that states should 
try to identify new sites that they were not currently aware of, but 
merely report on sites without viable owners separately from the 
aggregated data that they already provided to EPA. We continue to 
believe that such reporting would be worthwhile and would not present 
an undue burden to most states. In our survey, 37 states and the 
District of Columbia reported data on the number of tanks without 
viable owners that had known releases. Taking this information into 
account in distributing LUST Trust Fund money could encourage the 
remaining states to gather such information as well. In addition, 
developing national data on the extent to which releases remaining to 
be cleaned up are attributed to tanks without viable owners would be 
useful to both EPA and the Congress in assessing the future public 
funding needs for EPA's UST program. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We recommend that the Administrator, EPA, take the following four 
actions: 

* Ensure that states verify, on a regular basis, that tank owners and 
operators are maintaining adequate financial responsibility coverage, 
as required by RCRA; 

* Improve the agency's oversight of the solvency of state assurance 
funds to ensure that they continue to provide reliable financial 
responsibility coverage for tank owners; 

* Assess, in coordination with the states, the relative effectiveness 
of public and private options for financial responsibility coverage to 
ensure that they provide timely funding for the cleanup of releases; 
and: 

* Better focus how EPA distributes program resources to states, 
including LUST Trust Fund money, by: 

- ensuring that states are reporting information in their semiannual 
activity reports that is consistent with EPA's definitions; 

- encouraging states to review their databases to ensure that only data 
on the appropriate universe of underground storage tanks are being 
reported in their semiannual activity reports; and: 

- gathering available information from states on releases attributed to 
tanks without a viable owner and taking this information into account 
in distributing LUST Trust Fund money to states. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided EPA with a draft of this report for its review and comment. 
EPA agreed with our recommendations and provided information on the 
agency's plans and activities to address each of them. Regarding our 
recommendation that EPA ensure that states verify that tank owners and 
operators maintain adequate financial responsibility coverage, the 
agency indicated that it has issued draft guidelines that would require 
inspections of underground storage tanks to assess compliance with 
financial responsibility requirements. Regarding our recommendation 
that EPA improve its oversight of the solvency of state assurance 
funds, the agency indicated that it would strengthen its oversight by 
improving a recently developed monitoring tool and by developing 
guidance for its oversight process. Regarding our recommendation that 
EPA assess the relative effectiveness of public and private options for 
financial responsibility coverage, the agency indicated that it would 
consider conducting such a study in conjunction with the states. 
Finally, regarding our recommendation to better focus how EPA 
distributes program resources to states, the agency stated that it 
would work toward ensuring that state-reported data are consistent with 
existing EPA definitions and are limited to federally regulated 
underground storage tanks. Also, EPA stated that it would consider 
changes to improve the distribution of future LUST Trust Fund money. 
EPA's letter commenting on our report is included as appendix IV. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the EPA 
Administrator and other interested parties. We will also make copies 
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are 
listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

John B. Stephenson: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

The objectives of this review were to provide information on (1) 
states' estimates of the cost in public funding from state and federal 
sources to clean up known releases from underground storage tanks, (2) 
states' primary sources of funding for addressing these releases and 
their future viability, and (3) the funding available from federal 
sources to address these releases. 

For the purposes of this review, we defined public funding as including 
any money controlled and/or provided by state and federal agencies--for 
example, money from the federal Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) 
Trust Fund, state financial assurance funds, other state funds that 
have not been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 
provide financial responsibility coverage, or money appropriated by the 
state to pay for cleanup that would not otherwise occur. Our definition 
excluded money spent by federal, state, and local government agencies 
to clean up releases from tanks they either own or operate--this money 
would be considered to be provided by the responsible party. 

To address our objectives, we developed and administered a survey to 
state officials responsible for underground storage tank programs or, 
where applicable, for state cleanup funds, in the 50 states and the 
District of Columbia.[Footnote 13] Specifically, we prepared and e- 
mailed a Word Electronic Questionnaire to obtain data, whether 
estimated or actual, from states on underground storage tanks, 
including the number of tanks, releases, and cleanups, and financial 
responsibility and funding sources for cleanups. The practical 
difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce nonsampling error. 
For example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted, 
the sources of information available to respondents, or the types of 
people who do not respond can introduce unwanted variability into the 
survey results. We included steps in both the data collection and data 
analysis stages to minimize such nonsampling errors. For example, in 
the research design and data collection stages, we took the following 
steps: 

* We obtained from EPA its list of state contacts. We then attempted to 
contact all listed state officials via e-mail and asked them to tell us 
whether they or someone else in their state would be the most 
appropriate contact. Upon receiving this e-mail, a few officials 
identified more appropriate survey respondents. In states where we were 
not able to contact the officials on EPA's list via e-mail, we sent the 
e-mail regarding the most appropriate contact to officials named on 
lists of state contacts from two other professional organizations that 
also conduct surveys about underground storage tanks--the New England 
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission and the Association of 
State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials--and, in some 
cases, to officials listed on states' underground storage tank-related 
Web sites.[Footnote 14] 

* We pretested the survey with officials from four states between 
October 28, 2005, and December 21, 2005, and used their feedback to 
refine the survey. States were selected for the pretests to ensure 
variation in size of workload and status of the state financial 
assurance fund. For these pretests, we sent agency officials a draft of 
the survey. We then interviewed the officials to ensure that the (1) 
questions were clear and unambiguous; (2) terms used were precise, 
including our definition of public funding; and (3) data needed to 
respond to the questions was available to the state officials. As a 
result of our pretests, we made changes to some of the survey 
questions. 

* We sent an announcement on November 18, 2005, of the upcoming survey 
to state contacts (including the District of Columbia) and then e- 
mailed the survey as an attachment on January 19, 2006. We asked 
respondents to return the survey by e-mail, fax, or mail by February 3, 
2006. We accepted responses to the survey through mid-October 2006. 

* We sent e-mail reminders and conducted follow-up telephone calls with 
nonrespondents. 

To minimize nonsampling error in the data analysis stage, we took the 
following steps: 

* For selected survey questions, where we were able to, we 
independently corroborated survey data by comparing these data with EPA 
data. We then followed up with states and EPA as needed about 
discrepancies. 

* We included a series of data reliability questions in the survey to 
assess the accuracy of the information provided to us by the 
respondents. Specifically, we collected information about (1) the 
databases states used to provide survey data; (2) the internal controls 
on those databases (e.g., whether it had been reviewed for quality, the 
procedures to ensure accurate data entry, and known limitations); (3) 
whether the data provided were actual or estimates; and (4) the 
assumptions, data, and calculations used to provide the actual or 
estimated data for selected questions. We also requested supporting 
documentation if states noted their database(s) had been reviewed for 
quality. 

* We used a data collection instrument (DCI) to systematically and 
consistently record all available data reliability information (from 
survey responses, published reports, or interviews) in order to make 
assessments of the reliability of the survey data provided by each 
state. The DCI was then reviewed by an independent person who assessed 
the accuracy of DCI data entries and the reasonableness of the 
judgments on the reliability of states' survey data. As expected, there 
was wide variability in the level of oversight of the databases states 
use to track underground storage tank information. There was similar 
variability in the ways state officials described how they arrived at 
responses to certain questions--whether it was based on states' 
"actual" data, derived estimates, or some other source. Specifically, 
some states provided explanations for their responses that were precise 
and grounded in reasonable mathematical or trend based assumptions, 
while others noted that their responses were educated guesses. Given 
the limitations in the information reported from some states, we 
determined that the survey data are not comparable by state, nor should 
they be reported using such terms as "actual" sums, budgets, or 
outlays. Consequently, the data are presented in the body of the report 
as aggregate information on what states estimate their underground 
storage tank and leaking underground storage tank numbers and funding 
to be. We report all states' responses to selected questions only in 
appendix II, because of the known limitations in the reliability of 
state level comparisons. Such data are included in appendix II because 
of congressional request and in order to illustrate the range of 
responses states provided to selected questions and the wide variance 
in the reliability of those responses. With these provisos, the survey 
data are sufficiently reliable as they are used in the body of the 
report (i.e., to be presented in aggregate, as testimonial evidence). 
The survey data presented in appendix II are not reliable for state 
level comparisons. 

* We conducted interviews regarding data reliability with a 
nonprobability sample of seven states (see next page for a further 
discussion of this sample of states).[Footnote 15] These interviews 
included in-depth questions focusing on topics such as the states' 
database reviews and database limitations identified in their survey 
responses. 

* We contacted state officials to clarify survey responses when 
necessary and used a centralized tracking document to record all 
changes. Changes made in the tracking document were verified against 
the keypunched data to ensure all changes and updates were recorded. 
When changes took place after a survey was keypunched, the updates were 
made in the computer program used to generate survey results. 

* We edit-checked all surveys before they were keypunched, verified all 
keypunched survey data against hard copies of the surveys, and verified 
the computer programs used to generate survey results. 

From the population of 51 state contacts who were asked to participate 
in our survey, we received 50 questionnaires for an overall response 
rate of 98 percent. We did not receive a questionnaire from South 
Dakota. We do not know if responses for South Dakota would have 
differed materially from those of the states that completed the survey. 

From the responses we received, we gathered information about (1) state 
databases used to track underground storage tank information; (2) 
states' data for underground storage tank management, including data 
regarding active and closed tanks, confirmed releases, and cleanups 
initiated and completed; (3) states' sources of money for cleanup, 
including state financial assurance funds; (4) states' use of federal 
money to clean up leaking underground storage tanks; and (5) financial 
responsibility. We provided states with the definition of public 
funding described previously in this section, and we asked them to 
respond to all survey questions about such funding according to this 
definition. The survey was focused specifically on federally regulated 
underground storage tanks, as defined by EPA. A few states reported 
they were not able to provide us with data specific to federally 
regulated underground storage tanks for selected questions, and 
instead, they generally provided us with either data including a 
different universe of tanks or data prorated based on the number of 
federally regulated underground storage tanks in the state for these 
questions. Additionally, most survey questions that asked for data for 
a specific year referred to the federal fiscal year. If states were 
unable to provide data for the federal fiscal year, we asked them to 
provide us with the starting date of their alternative reporting year. 
As a result, we present such data in the report as 2005 data. 

In addition to conducting a survey to address our three objectives, we 
also interviewed agency officials in a nonprobability sample of eight 
states--Florida, Iowa, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 
Texas, and Utah--to gather additional information regarding selected 
survey topics. Specifically, we talked with this group of states about 
topics such as their use of LUST Trust Fund money, restrictions within 
their state financial assurance fund on accepting claims, diversions 
from their state financial assurance funds, the process of phasing out 
their state financial assurance funds, and cases of inadequate 
financial responsibility coverage in their state.[Footnote 16] We 
selected this sample of states in order to discuss as many of our 
topics of interest as possible within a limited number of interviews. 
To select the states, we first reviewed all states' responses to survey 
questions related to the relevant topics to determine which states 
would be able to discuss each topic of interest. We then calculated a 
score for each state based on the number of relevant topics they could 
discuss, as indicated by their survey responses. We interviewed all 
states that had scores at or above a threshold score that we 
determined, based on how many states we would need to discuss the 
relevant topics with to obtain sufficient information for the purposes 
of this report. 

We also conducted interviews with regional program officials from EPA's 
Underground Storage Tank Program in six EPA regions to gather 
additional information about (1) states' primary sources of money for 
addressing releases from leaking underground storage tanks, (2) these 
sources' future viability, and (3) the federal funding available to 
address these releases.[Footnote 17] We selected these regions 
primarily because survey responses from one or more states in these 
regions raised questions about similar data they had reported to EPA. 
We spoke with regional officials about these apparent discrepancies, as 
well as about the regions' processes for distributing money from the 
LUST Trust Fund, states' use of LUST Trust Fund money, and the solvency 
of states' financial assurance funds. 

To obtain further information about the federal funding to address 
these releases, we interviewed Department of the Treasury officials 
responsible for managing the LUST Trust Fund, interviewed EPA 
headquarters and regional officials to determine the process by which 
EPA distributes LUST Trust Fund money, and gathered documentation 
regarding appropriations of money from the fund to EPA, states' 
expenditure of fund money, and the balance of the fund and its annual 
revenues. The documentation we gathered included (1) annual 
apportionment letters, which we used to track appropriations of LUST 
Trust Fund money to EPA; (2) EPA Spending Reports, which we used to 
track state expenditures of LUST Trust Fund money; and (3) Treasury's 
LUST Trust Fund Financial Statements, which we used to track the fund 
balance and revenues collected into the fund. We selected these sources 
based on EPA officials' indications that they were the most appropriate 
sources for the purposes of this report. For Treasury's LUST Trust Fund 
Financial Statements, we obtained and reviewed relevant documentation 
on their reliability, including copies of audits of Treasury's 
financial statements and internal controls. These audits were conducted 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We 
also discussed the reliability of Treasury's LUST Trust Fund data with 
knowledgeable EPA and Treasury officials. We found the data elements 
that we used in this report from Treasury's financial statements 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this review. 

We conducted our work from June 2005 to December 2006 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Selected Data Relating to Underground Storage Tanks 
Reported by States: 

As described in appendix I, our assessment of the reliability of the 
data provided by states in their surveys found wide variability in the 
level of oversight of the databases that states use to track 
underground storage tank information, and similar variability in the 
ways state officials described how they arrived at responses to certain 
questions. For the purposes of this report, we have divided states into 
three relative categories, according to our assessment of the 
reliability of their survey responses: (1) 17 states generally reported 
having fairly recent data quality reviews, several internal controls on 
the data, no significant data quality problems, and provided fairly 
precise and mathematically grounded explanations for their 
calculations; (2) 26 states and the District of Columbia generally 
reported having some internal controls on the data, and/or some data 
quality problems, and/or provided a mix of "guesses" and fairly precise 
explanations of their calculations; and (3) 6 states generally reported 
having few, if any internal controls on the data, and/or significant 
data quality problems, and/or didn't provide explanations for their 
calculations or reported that they were guesses. In tables 5, 6, 8, 9, 
and 10 in this appendix, we have identified the states that fall into 
each category. Overall, given the limitations in the information 
reported from some states, data reported by states and presented in 
this appendix should not be used to compare state programs. 

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

State: Alabama; 
Active tanks: 18,021; 
Closed tanks: 28,631; 
Confirmed releases: 10,884; 
Cleanups initiated: 10,755; 
Cleanups completed: 9,317; 
Cleanup backlog: 1,567. 

State: Alaska; 
Active tanks: 1,065; 
Closed tanks: 6,269; 
Confirmed releases: 2,278; 
Cleanups initiated: 2,206; 
Cleanups completed: 1,545; 
Cleanup backlog: 733. 

State: Arizona; 
Active tanks: 8,194; 
Closed tanks: 20,064; 
Confirmed releases: 8,191; 
Cleanups initiated: 5,682; 
Cleanups completed: 5,942; 
Cleanup backlog: 2,249. 

State: Arkansas; 
Active tanks: 9,749; 
Closed tanks: 19,909; 
Confirmed releases: 1,294; 
Cleanups initiated: 988; 
Cleanups completed: 948; 
Cleanup backlog: 346. 

State: California; 
Active tanks: 38,753; 
Closed tanks: 121,352; 
Confirmed releases: 44,190; 
Cleanups initiated: 44,190; 
Cleanups completed: 29,572; 
Cleanup backlog: 14,618. 

State: Colorado; 
Active tanks: 8,165; 
Closed tanks: 20,770; 
Confirmed releases: 6,541; 
Cleanups initiated: 6,373; 
Cleanups completed: 5,602; 
Cleanup backlog: 939. 

State: Connecticut; 
Active tanks: 11,871; 
Closed tanks: 19,868; 
Confirmed releases: 2,465; 
Cleanups initiated: 2,415; 
Cleanups completed: 1,596; 
Cleanup backlog: 869. 

State: Delaware; 
Active tanks: 1,598; 
Closed tanks: 6,423; 
Confirmed releases: 2,284; 
Cleanups initiated: 2,228; 
Cleanups completed: 2,010; 
Cleanup backlog: 274. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Active tanks: 732; 
Closed tanks: 3,050; 
Confirmed releases: 815; 
Cleanups initiated: 815; 
Cleanups completed: 572; 
Cleanup backlog: 243. 

State: Florida; 
Active tanks: 31,109; 
Closed tanks: 94,240; 
Confirmed releases: 23,990; 
Cleanups initiated: 14,618; 
Cleanups completed: 8,761; 
Cleanup backlog: 15,229. 

State: Georgia; 
Active tanks: 30,320; 
Closed tanks: 44,369; 
Confirmed releases: 11,023; 
Cleanups initiated: 10,654; 
Cleanups completed: 8,373; 
Cleanup backlog: 2,650. 

State: Hawaii; 
Active tanks: 1,783; 
Closed tanks: 5,013; 
Confirmed releases: 1,840; 
Cleanups initiated: 1,741; 
Cleanups completed: 1,504; 
Cleanup backlog: 336. 

State: Idaho; 
Active tanks: 3,498; 
Closed tanks: 9,541; 
Confirmed releases: 1,345; 
Cleanups initiated: 1,314; 
Cleanups completed: 1,184; 
Cleanup backlog: 161. 

State: Illinois; 
Active tanks: 23,062; 
Closed tanks: 62,074; 
Confirmed releases: 22,410; 
Cleanups initiated: 21,211; 
Cleanups completed: 14,540; 
Cleanup backlog: 7,870. 

State: Indiana; 
Active tanks: 14,049; 
Closed tanks: 35,332; 
Confirmed releases: 8,275; 
Cleanups initiated: 7,457; 
Cleanups completed: 4,994; 
Cleanup backlog: 3,281. 

State: Iowa; 
Active tanks: 7,716; 
Closed tanks: 22,092; 
Confirmed releases: 5,791; 
Cleanups initiated: 5,529; 
Cleanups completed: 3,948; 
Cleanup backlog: 1,843. 

State: Kansas; 
Active tanks: 7,236; 
Closed tanks: 19,529; 
Confirmed releases: 4,616; 
Cleanups initiated: 4,379; 
Cleanups completed: 2,632; 
Cleanup backlog: 1,984. 

State: Kentucky; 
Active tanks: 13,098; 
Closed tanks: 35,212; 
Confirmed releases: 13,151; 
Cleanups initiated: 13,100; 
Cleanups completed: 10,696; 
Cleanup backlog: 2,455. 

State: Louisiana; 
Active tanks: 13,953; 
Closed tanks: 31,128; 
Confirmed releases: 2,719; 
Cleanups initiated: 2,719; 
Cleanups completed: 1,674; 
Cleanup backlog: 1,045. 

State: Maine; 
Active tanks: 3,359; 
Closed tanks: 12,222; 
Confirmed releases: 2,215; 
Cleanups initiated: 2,156; 
Cleanups completed: 2,075; 
Cleanup backlog: 140. 

State: Maryland; 
Active tanks: 9,439; 
Closed tanks: 27,647; 
Confirmed releases: 10,201; 
Cleanups initiated: 9,944; 
Cleanups completed: 9,282; 
Cleanup backlog: 919. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Active tanks: 11,368; 
Closed tanks: 22,141; 
Confirmed releases: 6,103; 
Cleanups initiated: 5,890; 
Cleanups completed: 5,026; 
Cleanup backlog: 1,077. 

State: Michigan; 
Active tanks: 20,730; 
Closed tanks: 65,137; 
Confirmed releases: 20,822; 
Cleanups initiated: 20,314; 
Cleanups completed: 11,740; 
Cleanup backlog: 9,082. 

State: Minnesota; 
Active tanks: 14,328; 
Closed tanks: 28,051; 
Confirmed releases: 9,555; 
Cleanups initiated: 9,064; 
Cleanups completed: 8,490; 
Cleanup backlog: 1,065. 

State: Mississippi; 
Active tanks: 8,713; 
Closed tanks: 21,758; 
Confirmed releases: 6,540; 
Cleanups initiated: 6,355; 
Cleanups completed: 6,224; 
Cleanup backlog: 316. 

State: Missouri; 
Active tanks: 10,305; 
Closed tanks: 28,432; 
Confirmed releases: 6,184; 
Cleanups initiated: 5,803; 
Cleanups completed: 4,798; 
Cleanup backlog: 1,386. 

State: Montana; 
Active tanks: 3,311; 
Closed tanks: 12,158; 
Confirmed releases: 2,898; 
Cleanups initiated: 2,123; 
Cleanups completed: 1,785; 
Cleanup backlog: 1,113. 

State: Nebraska; 
Active tanks: 6,999; 
Closed tanks: 14,084; 
Confirmed releases: 5,951; 
Cleanups initiated: 4,089; 
Cleanups completed: 3,776; 
Cleanup backlog: 2,175. 

State: Nevada; 
Active tanks: 3,688; 
Closed tanks: 6,715; 
Confirmed releases: 2,416; 
Cleanups initiated: 2,408; 
Cleanups completed: 2,166; 
Cleanup backlog: 250. 

State: New Hampshire; 
Active tanks: 2,935; 
Closed tanks: 10,856; 
Confirmed releases: 2,218; 
Cleanups initiated: 2,218; 
Cleanups completed: 1,389; 
Cleanup backlog: 829. 

State: New Jersey; 
Active tanks: 17,931; 
Closed tanks: 54,794; 
Confirmed releases: 9,669; 
Cleanups initiated: 8,812; 
Cleanups completed: 5,734; 
Cleanup backlog: 3,935. 

State: New Mexico; 
Active tanks: 4,098; 
Closed tanks: 12,232; 
Confirmed releases: 2,471; 
Cleanups initiated: 1,786; 
Cleanups completed: 1,633; 
Cleanup backlog: 838. 

State: New York; 
Active tanks: 29,925; 
Closed tanks: 81,216; 
Confirmed releases: 20,442; 
Cleanups initiated: 20,022; 
Cleanups completed: 18,442; 
Cleanup backlog: 2,000. 

State: North Carolina; 
Active tanks: 30,271; 
Closed tanks: 63,104; 
Confirmed releases: 23,520; 
Cleanups initiated: 22,438; 
Cleanups completed: 16,942; 
Cleanup backlog: 6,578. 

State: North Dakota; 
Active tanks: 2,185; 
Closed tanks: 6,941; 
Confirmed releases: 812; 
Cleanups initiated: 803; 
Cleanups completed: 779; 
Cleanup backlog: 33. 

State: Ohio; 
Active tanks: 24,025; 
Closed tanks: 42,427; 
Confirmed releases: 23,559; 
Cleanups initiated: 23,028; 
Cleanups completed: 20,300; 
Cleanup backlog: 3,259. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Active tanks: 11,582; 
Closed tanks: 24,265; 
Confirmed releases: 4,036; 
Cleanups initiated: 4,036; 
Cleanups completed: 3,537; 
Cleanup backlog: 499. 

State: Oregon; 
Active tanks: 6,375; 
Closed tanks: 25,123; 
Confirmed releases: 6,861; 
Cleanups initiated: 6,613; 
Cleanups completed: 5,472; 
Cleanup backlog: 1,389. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Active tanks: 25,545; 
Closed tanks: 59,824; 
Confirmed releases: 13,861; 
Cleanups initiated: 13,440; 
Cleanups completed: 9,798; 
Cleanup backlog: 4,063. 

State: Rhode Island; 
Active tanks: 1,691; 
Closed tanks: 7,111; 
Confirmed releases: 1,238; 
Cleanups initiated: 1,238; 
Cleanups completed: 978; 
Cleanup backlog: 260. 

State: South Carolina; 
Active tanks: 12,137; 
Closed tanks: 31,521; 
Confirmed releases: 8,698; 
Cleanups initiated: 8,239; 
Cleanups completed: 5,325; 
Cleanup backlog: 3,373. 

State: South Dakota; 
Active tanks: 2,980; 
Closed tanks: 6,761; 
Confirmed releases: 2,347; 
Cleanups initiated: 2,344; 
Cleanups completed: 2,147; 
Cleanup backlog: 200. 

State: Tennessee; 
Active tanks: 16,147; 
Closed tanks: 32,429; 
Confirmed releases: 12,842; 
Cleanups initiated: 12,914; 
Cleanups completed: 11,892; 
Cleanup backlog: 950. 

State: Texas; 
Active tanks: 57,219; 
Closed tanks: 109,535; 
Confirmed releases: 24,301; 
Cleanups initiated: 21,689; 
Cleanups completed: 20,120; 
Cleanup backlog: 4,181. 

State: Utah; 
Active tanks: 4,051; 
Closed tanks: 12,635; 
Confirmed releases: 4,120; 
Cleanups initiated: 4,032; 
Cleanups completed: 3,681; 
Cleanup backlog: 439. 

State: Vermont; 
Active tanks: 3,011; 
Closed tanks: 5,196; 
Confirmed releases: 1,930; 
Cleanups initiated: 1,918; 
Cleanups completed: 1,136; 
Cleanup backlog: 794. 

State: Virginia; 
Active tanks: 25,464; 
Closed tanks: 52,174; 
Confirmed releases: 10,474; 
Cleanups initiated: 10,204; 
Cleanups completed: 9,662; 
Cleanup backlog: 812. 

State: Washington; 
Active tanks: 10,397; 
Closed tanks: 34,959; 
Confirmed releases: 6,142; 
Cleanups initiated: 5,779; 
Cleanups completed: 4,115; 
Cleanup backlog: 2,027. 

State: West Virginia; 
Active tanks: 6,033; 
Closed tanks: 18,618; 
Confirmed releases: 2,909; 
Cleanups initiated: 2,706; 
Cleanups completed: 1,751; 
Cleanup backlog: 1,158. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Active tanks: 13,721; 
Closed tanks: 64,759; 
Confirmed releases: 18,353; 
Cleanups initiated: 17,650; 
Cleanups completed: 15,033; 
Cleanup backlog: 3,320. 

State: Wyoming; 
Active tanks: 2,055; 
Closed tanks: 7,771; 
Confirmed releases: 1,989; 
Cleanups initiated: 1,490; 
Cleanups completed: 924; 
Cleanup backlog: 1,065. 

State: Total; 
Active tanks: 645,990; 
Closed tanks: 1,607,462; 
Confirmed releases: 449,779; 
Cleanups initiated: 419,919; 
Cleanups completed: 331,562; 
Cleanup backlog: 118,217. 

Source: EPA. 

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

[End of table] 

Table 5: State-Reported Estimates of the Number of Releases in the 
State's Cleanup Backlog That Will Be Cleaned Up Using Funding from 
Responsible Parties and from Public Sources, as of September 30, 2005: 

State. 

The following states generally (1) reported having fairly recent data 
quality reviews (2) reported having several internal controls on the, 
data, (3) reported having no significant data quality problems, and (4) 
provided fairly precise and mathematically grounded explanations for 
their calculations. 

Alabama; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 166; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 1,448. 

Colorado; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 310; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 629. 

Florida; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 2,604; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 12,625. 

Georgia; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 877; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 1,778. 

Illinois; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 1,968; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 5,903. 

Indiana; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 1,642; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 1,642. 

Kansas; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 6; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 1,978. 

Missouri; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 364; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 1,022. 

Montana; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 78; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 1,035. 

Nevada; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: [A]; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 254[B]. 

New Jersey; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 3,517; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 420. 

Pennsylvania; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 2,334; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 1,744. 

South Carolina; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 120; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 3,258. 

Texas; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 1,769; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 2,192. 

Utah; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 175; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 314. 

Virginia; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 609; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 203. 

Wyoming; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 0; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 1,065. 

The following states generally (1) reported having some internal 
controls on the data, and/or (2) reported some data quality problems, 
and/or (3) provided a mix of "guesses" and fairly precise explanations 
of their calculations. 

Arizona; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 268; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 1,500. 

Arkansas; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 17; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 329. 

Connecticut; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 10; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 859. 

Delaware; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 192; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 73. 

District of Columbia; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 245; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 0. 

Hawaii; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 336; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 0. 

Idaho; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 100; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 60. 

Iowa; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 514; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 1,324. 

Kentucky; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 246; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 2,209. 

Louisiana; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 0; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 1,254. 

Maine; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 17; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 80. 

Maryland; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 0; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 927. 

Massachusetts; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 476; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 601. 

Minnesota; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 0; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 1,090. 

Mississippi; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 68; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 250. 

New Hampshire; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: [A]; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: [A]. 

New Mexico; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 48; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 790. 

New York; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 1,625; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 375. 

North Carolina; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 4,604; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 1,974. 

North Dakota; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 1; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 32. 

Ohio; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 2,362; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 1,282. 

Oregon; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 1,370; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 21. 

Rhode Island; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 67; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 200. 

Tennessee; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 354; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 655. 

Vermont; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 278; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 516. 

Washington; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 1,630; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 0. 

Wisconsin; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 1,097; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 2,300. 

These states generally (1) reported having few, if any internal 
controls on the data, and/or (2) reported having significant data 
quality problems, and/or (3) didn't provide explanations for their 
calculations or reported that they were guesses. 

Alaska; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 708; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 25. 

California; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: [C]; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: [C]. 

Michigan; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 4,800; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 4,200. 

Nebraska; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 652; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 1,523. 

Oklahoma; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 5; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 494. 

West Virginia; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: Responsible party only: 1,042; 
Estimated number of releases to be cleaned up with funding from each 
source: At least some public funding: 116. 

This state did not respond to the survey. 

South Dakota. 

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

[A] State officials did not respond. 

[B] For this question, Nevada officials provided us with the combined 
number of underground storage tanks, aboveground storage tanks, and 
heating oil tanks that will be cleaned up using funding from the 
state's financial assurance fund. 

[C] Number of releases to be cleaned up with (1) funding from 
responsible parties only and (2) at least some public funding is 
unknown. 

[End of table] 

Table 6: State-Reported Numbers of Releases in the State's Cleanup 
Backlog from Tanks without a Viable Owner, as of September 30, 2005: 

The following states generally (1) reported having fairly recent data 
quality reviews, (2) reported having several internal controls on the 
data, (3) reported having no significant data quality problems, and (4) 
provided fairly precise and mathematically grounded explanations for 
their calculations. 

State: Alabama; 
Number of releases: 363. 

State: Colorado; 
Number of releases: 188[A]. 

State: Florida; 
Number of releases: [B]. 

State: Georgia; 
Number of releases: 448. 

State: Illinois; 
Number of releases: [B]. 

State: Indiana; 
Number of releases: 500[A]. 

State: Kansas; 
Number of releases: 100[A]. 

State: Missouri; 
Number of releases: 212[A]. 

State: Montana; 
Number of releases: 31[A]. 

State: Nevada; 
Number of releases: [B]. 

State: New Jersey; 
Number of releases: [B]. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Number of releases: 2,334[A]. 

State: South Carolina; 
Number of releases: 33. 

State: Texas; 
Number of releases: 200[A]. 

State: Utah; 
Number of releases: 57. 

State: Virginia; 
Number of releases: 86[A]. 

State: Wyoming; 
Number of releases: [B]. 

State: The following states generally (1) reported having some internal 
controls on the data, and/or (2) reported some data quality problems, 
and/or (3) provided a mix of "guesses" and fairly precise explanations 
of their calculations. 

State: Arizona; 
Number of releases: 100[A]. 

State: Arkansas; 
Number of releases: 34[A]. 

State: Connecticut; 
Number of releases: 100[A]. 

State: Delaware; 
Number of releases: 32[A]. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Number of releases: 0. 

State: Hawaii; 
Number of releases: 0. 

State: Idaho; 
Number of releases: 31[A]. 

State: Iowa; 
Number of releases: [B]. 

State: Kentucky; 
Number of releases: 0. 

State: Louisiana; 
Number of releases: 24[A]. 

State: Maine; 
Number of releases: 0. 

State: Maryland; 
Number of releases: 30[A]. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Number of releases: 50[A]. 

State: Minnesota; 
Number of releases: 43[A]. 

State: Mississippi; 
Number of releases: 36. 

State: New Hampshire; 
Number of releases: [C]. 

State: New Mexico; 
Number of releases: 100[A]. 

State: New York; 
Number of releases: 336[A]. 

State: North Carolina; 
Number of releases: 994. 

State: North Dakota; 
Number of releases: 11. 

State: Ohio; 
Number of releases: 600[A]. 

State: Oregon; 
Number of releases: 33[A]. 

State: Rhode Island; 
Number of releases: [B]. 

State: Tennessee; 
Number of releases: 93. 

State: Vermont; 
Number of releases: 90[A]. 

State: Washington; 
Number of releases: [B]. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Number of releases: [B]. 

State: These states generally (1) reported having few, if any internal 
controls on the data, and/or (2) reported having significant data 
quality problems, and/or (3) didn't provide explanations for their 
calculations or reported that they were guesses. 

State: Alaska; 
Number of releases: [B]. 

State: California; 
Number of releases: 50[A]. 

State: Michigan; 
Number of releases: 4,200[A]. 

State: Nebraska; 
Number of releases: 699[A]. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Number of releases: 61. 

State: West Virginia; 
Number of releases: [B]. 

State: This state did not respond to the survey. 

State: South Dakota. 

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

[A] Estimated numbers of releases. 

[B] Number of releases unknown. 

[C] New Hampshire officials did not respond to this survey question. 

[End of table]  

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

State: Alabama; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: X. 

State: Alaska; 
At least annually: X; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Arizona; 
At least annually: X; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Arkansas; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: X; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: California; 
At least annually: X; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Colorado; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: X. 

State: Connecticut[A]; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: X; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Delaware; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: X; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: District of Columbia; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: X; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Florida; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: X; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Georgia; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: X; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Hawaii; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: X; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Idaho; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: X; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Illinois; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: X. 

State: Indiana; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: X; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Iowa; 
At least annually: X; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Kansas; 
At least annually: X; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Kentucky; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: X; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Louisiana; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: X; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Maine[A]; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: X; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Maryland; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: X; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Massachusetts; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: X; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Michigan; 
At least annually: X; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Minnesota[A]; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: X; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Mississippi; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: X. 

State: Missouri; 
At least annually: X; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Montana; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: X; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Nebraska[A]; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: X; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Nevada; 
At least annually: X; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: New Hampshire; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: X. 

State: New Jersey; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: X; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: New Mexico; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: X; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: New York; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: X; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: North Carolina; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: X. 

State: North Dakota; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: X. 

State: Ohio; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: X; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Oklahoma; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: X; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Oregon; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: X; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
At least annually: X; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Rhode Island; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: X. 

State: South Carolina; 
At least annually: X; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: South Dakota[B]; 
At least annually: [Empty]. 

State: Tennessee; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: X. 

State: Texas; 
At least annually: X; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Utah; 
At least annually: X; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Vermont; 
At least annually: X; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Virginia; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: X; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Washington; 
At least annually: X; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: West Virginia; 
At least annually: [Empty]; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: X; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Wisconsin; 
At least annually: X; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

State: Wyoming; 
At least annually: X; 
Every 1 to 2 years: [Empty]; 
Every 3 years or longer: [Empty]; 
Do not check: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

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

Note: The "other" category includes responses such as "as events 
warrant," and "annual permit applications contain financial 
responsibility information that may be checked," among other responses. 

[A] Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, and Nebraska, which reported they do 
not check whether financial responsibility coverage is current, also 
reported that their financial assurance funds provide such coverage for 
all tanks in the state. 

[B] South Dakota officials did not respond to the survey. 

[End of table] 

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

Dollars in thousands. 

The following states generally (1) reported having fairly recent data 
quality reviews, (2) reported having several internal controls on the 
data, (3) reported having no significant data quality problems, and (4) 
provided fairly precise and mathematically grounded explanations for 
their calculations. 

Alabama; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
$0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
$0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: $27,566; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
$0. 

Colorado; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
226; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
81; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 23,979; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0. 

Florida; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 148,110; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0. 

Georgia; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
599; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 23,809; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0. 

Illinois; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 52,193[C]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0. 

Indiana; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
835; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 45,000[C]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
1,050[C]. 

Kansas; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
284; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 13,287; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0. 

Missouri; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
837; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
[D]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 11,270; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
[E]. 

Montana[F]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
186[F]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0[F]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 3,820[C,F]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
[E,F]. 

Nevada; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
10[C]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 6,760[C]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0. 

New Jersey; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
212[C]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 1,227; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
3,433. 

Pennsylvania; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 71,725[C]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
0[C]. 

South Carolina; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
594; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
28; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 18,505; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 2. 

Texas; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
1,100[C]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 54,039[C]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
5,530[C]. 

Utah; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
9; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 5,403; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
396. 

Virginia; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
515; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 16,957[C]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0. 

Wyoming; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
77; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 7,517; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0. 

The following states generally (1) reported having some internal 
controls on the data, and/or (2) reported some data quality problems, 
and/or (3) provided a mix of "guesses" and fairly precise explanations 
of their calculations. 

Arizona; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
883; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 11,389; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
1,390[C]. 

Arkansas[F]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
220[F]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0[F]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 4,069[F]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
0[F]. 

Connecticut; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
400[C]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 6,969; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0. 

Delaware; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
30[C]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
[D]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: [G]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
1,050[C,E]. 

District of Columbia; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: [G]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0. 

Hawaii; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: [G]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0. 

Idaho; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
[D]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 2,000[C]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0. 

Iowa; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
15,036. 

Kentucky; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
3; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 21,500; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
[E]. 

Louisiana; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 18,436; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0. 

Maine[H]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 1,151; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0. 

Maryland; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
445[C]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: [G]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
327[C]. 

Massachusetts; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
200[C]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
[D]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 30,989; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
250[C,E]. 

Minnesota[F]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
914[F]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0[F]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 15,000[C, F]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
0[E,F]. 

Mississippi; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
441[C]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 8,382[C]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0. 

New Hampshire; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
451; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 13,345; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
302. 

New Mexico; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 13,621; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0. 

New York[I]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
[Empty]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
[Empty]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: [Empty]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
[Empty]. 

North Carolina; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
1,196; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 46,966; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
279. 

North Dakota; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
91; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 498; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0. 

Ohio; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
[D]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 8,818; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0. 

Oregon; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
4; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
4; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: [G]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
418. 

Rhode Island; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
548; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 2,251; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0. 

Tennessee; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
690; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 31,045; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0. 

Vermont; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 3,105; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0. 

Washington; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
165; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: [G]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
0[C]. 

Wisconsin; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 28,000; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0. 

These states generally (1) reported having few, if any internal 
controls on the data, and/or (2) reported having significant data 
quality problems, and/or (3) didn't provide explanations for their 
calculations or reported that they were guesses. 

Alaska; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
307[C]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: [G]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 0. 

California[F]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
0[F]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0[F]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 207,505[F]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
800[F]. 

Michigan; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
0[C]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
13,296[C]. 

Nebraska[F]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
811[C,F]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0[F]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 10,610[C,F]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
0[F]. 

Oklahoma; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
765; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: 15,047; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
100. 

West Virginia; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Federal LUST Trust Fund: 
173[C]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other federal sources[A]: 
0; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: State financial assurance 
fund: [G]; 
Reported source of funding for expenditures: Other state sources[B]: 
130[C]. 

This state did not respond to the survey. 

South Dakota. 

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

Note: Our survey asked states to base their responses on federal fiscal 
year 2005 (Oct. 1, 2004 to Sept. 30, 2005) if possible; 
some states, however, reported responses as of other time frames, such 
as July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005. 

[A] The other federal sources category includes sources such as 
Brownfields grants. 

[B] The other state sources category includes sources such as funds 
dedicated to tanks without a viable owner and other state funds. 

[C] Estimated amount. 

[D] Amount unknown. 

[E] Officials indicated they did not know one or more aspects of the 
"other state sources" category. 

[F] Officials in Arkansas, California, Minnesota, Montana, and Nebraska 
indicated that the amounts they reported included expenditures on sites 
in addition to federally-regulated underground storage tanks. 

[G] Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, 
Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia never had state financial 
assurance funds. 

[H] Maine officials based their response to this question on calendar 
year 2004. 

[I] New York officials did not respond to these survey questions. 

[End of table] 

Table 9: State-Reported Balance of State Financial Assurance Funds, as 
of September 30, 2005: 

Dollars in thousands. 

The following states generally (1) reported having fairly recent data 
quality reviews, (2) reported having several internal controls on the 
data, (3) reported having no significant data quality problems, and (4) 
provided fairly precise and mathematically grounded explanations for 
their calculations. 

Alabama; 
Amount: $7,719. 

Colorado; 
Amount: 2,931. 

Florida; 
Amount: 186,380. 

Georgia; 
Amount: 63,939. 

Illinois; 
Amount: 5,200[A]. 

Indiana; 
Amount: 9,714. 

Kansas; 
Amount: 2,226. 

Missouri; 
Amount: 71,623. 

Montana; 
Amount: 1,760. 

Nevada; 
Amount: 11,300. 

New Jersey; 
Amount: 95,142. 

Pennsylvania; 
Amount: 206,800. 

South Carolina; 
Amount: 21,712. 

Texas; 
Amount: 168,000[A]. 

Utah; 
Amount: 8,818. 

Virginia; 
Amount: 943. 

Wyoming; 
Amount: 17,688. 

The following states generally (1) reported having some internal 
controls on the data, and/or (2) reported some data quality problems, 
and/or (3) provided a mix of "guesses" and fairly precise explanations 
of their calculations. 

Arizona; 
Amount: 40,000[A]. 

Arkansas; 
Amount: 13,563. 

Connecticut; 
Amount: 5,200[A]. 

Delaware; 
Amount: [B]. 

District of Columbia; 
Amount: [B]. 

Hawaii; 
Amount: [B]. 

Idaho; 
Amount: 34,688. 

Iowa; 
Amount: [C]. 

Kentucky; 
Amount: 54,700. 

Louisiana; 
Amount: 19,186. 

Maine; 
Amount: 5,573. 

Maryland; 
Amount: [B]. 

Massachusetts; 
Amount: 13,651. 

Minnesota; 
Amount: 22,000[A]. 

Mississippi; 
Amount: 4,458. 

New Hampshire; 
Amount: 4,035. 

New Mexico; 
Amount: 19,044. 

New York; 
Amount: [D]. 

North Carolina; 
Amount: 2,834. 

North Dakota; 
Amount: 8,378. 

Ohio; 
Amount: 27,337. 

Oregon; 
Amount: [B]. 

Rhode Island; 
Amount: 2,100[A]. 

Tennessee; 
Amount: 10,085. 

Vermont; 
Amount: 5,828. 

Washington; 
Amount: [B]. 

Wisconsin; 
Amount: 35,798. 

These states generally (1) reported having few, if any internal 
controls on the data; 
and/or (2) reported having significant data quality problems; 
and/or (3) didn't provide explanations for their calculations or 
reported that they were guesses. 

Alaska; 
Amount: [B]. 

California; 
Amount: 92,425. 

Michigan; 
Amount: [E]. 

Nebraska; 
Amount: 16,169. 

Oklahoma; 
Amount: 13,556. 

West Virginia; 
Amount: [B]. 

This state did not respond to the survey. 

South Dakota. 

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

[A] Estimated amount. 

[B] Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, 
Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia never had state financial 
assurance funds. 

[C] Iowa used to operate an insurance-type fund that provided financial 
responsibility coverage, but the fund has been privatized. 

[D] New York officials did not respond to this survey question. 

[E] Michigan's state financial assurance fund is no longer active. 

[End of table] 

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

Dollars in thousands. 

The following states generally (1) reported having fairly recent data 
quality reviews, (2) reported having several internal controls on the 
data, (3) reported having no significant data quality problems, and (4) 
provided fairly precise and mathematically grounded explanations for 
their calculations. 

Alabama; 
Tank fees: $0; 
State gasoline taxes: $35,022; 
Interest: $167; 
Other[A]: $0. 

Colorado; 
Tank fees: 527; 
State gasoline taxes: 26,451; 
Interest: 121; 
Other[A]: 15. 

Florida; 
Tank fees: 1,200; 
State gasoline taxes: 211,900; 
Interest: 4,900; 
Other[A]: 3,284[B]. 

Georgia; 
Tank fees: 0; 
State gasoline taxes: 22,096; 
Interest: 0; 
Other[A]: 0. 

Illinois; 
Tank fees: 0; 
State gasoline taxes: 72,284; 
Interest: 0; 
Other[A]: 0. 

Indiana; 
Tank fees: 616[C]; 
State gasoline taxes: 28,875[C]; 
Interest: 225; 
Other[A]: 0. 

Kansas; 
Tank fees: 0; 
State gasoline taxes: 10,920; 
Interest: 125; 
Other[A]: 0. 

Missouri; 
Tank fees: 1,297; 
State gasoline taxes: 23,665; 
Interest: 1,138; 
Other[A]: 87. 

Montana; 
Tank fees: 0; 
State gasoline taxes: 6,700[C]; 
Interest: 35[C]; 
Other[A]: 10[C]. 

Nevada; 
Tank fees: 450; 
State gasoline taxes: 0; 
Interest: 130[C]; 
Other[A]: 0. 

New Jersey; 
Tank fees: 0; 
State gasoline taxes: 0; 
Interest: 2,284; 
Other[A]: 24,787. 

Pennsylvania; 
Tank fees: 7,100; 
State gasoline taxes: 53,800; 
Interest: 192; 
Other[A]: 13,136. 

South Carolina; 
Tank fees: 1,203; 
State gasoline taxes: 17,500; 
Interest: 799; 
Other[A]: 111. 

Texas; 
Tank fees: 0; 
State gasoline taxes: 72,000[C]; 
Interest: 0; 
Other[A]: 0. 

Utah; 
Tank fees: 437; 
State gasoline taxes: 5,682; 
Interest: 184; 
Other[A]: 0. 

Virginia; 
Tank fees: 0; 
State gasoline taxes: 37,897; 
Interest: 37; 
Other[A]: 67. 

Wyoming; 
Tank fees: 490; 
State gasoline taxes: 11,593; 
Interest: 0; 
Other[A]: 0. 

The following states generally (1) reported having some internal 
controls on the data, and/or (2) reported some data quality problems, 
and/or (3) provided a mix of "guesses" and fairly precise explanations 
of their calculations. 

Arizona; 
Tank fees: 0; 
State gasoline taxes: 29,431[C]; 
Interest: 390[C]; 
Other[A]: 30[C]. 

Arkansas; 
Tank fees: 0; 
State gasoline taxes: 4,906; 
Interest: 189; 
Other[A]: 0. 

Connecticut; 
Tank fees: 0; 
State gasoline taxes: 12,000; 
Interest: 0; 
Other[A]: 0. 

Delaware; 
Tank fees: [D]; 
State gasoline taxes: [D]; 
Interest: [D]; 
Other[A]: [D]. 

District of Columbia; 
Tank fees: [D]; 
State gasoline taxes: [D]; 
Interest: [D]; 
Other[A]: [D]. 

Hawaii; 
Tank fees: [D]; 
State gasoline taxes: [D]; 
Interest: [D]; 
Other[A]: [D]. 

Idaho; 
Tank fees: 99[C]; 
State gasoline taxes: 0; 
Interest: 1,541; 
Other[A]: 1. 

Iowa; 
Tank fees: [E]; 
State gasoline taxes: [E]; 
Interest: [E]; 
Other[A]: [E]. 

Kentucky; 
Tank fees: 0; 
State gasoline taxes: 45,100; 
Interest: 277; 
Other[A]: 47. 

Louisiana; 
Tank fees: 25[C]; 
State gasoline taxes: 21,359; 
Interest: 0; 
Other[A]: 41. 

Maine[F]; 
Tank fees: 126[C]; 
State gasoline taxes: 14,234[C]; 
Interest: 74[C]; 
Other[A]: 443[C]. 

Maryland; 
Tank fees: [D]; 
State gasoline taxes: [D]; 
Interest: [D]; 
Other[A]: [D]. 

Massachusetts; 
Tank fees: 2,382[C]; 
State gasoline taxes: 76,813; 
Interest: [G]; 
Other[A]: [B]. 

Minnesota; 
Tank fees: 0; 
State gasoline taxes: 26,000[C]; 
Interest: 1,000[C]; 
Other[A]: 115[C]. 

Mississippi; 
Tank fees: 0; 
State gasoline taxes: 9,977[C]; 
Interest: 173[C]; 
Other[A]: 0. 

New Hampshire; 
Tank fees: 0; 
State gasoline taxes: 11,366; 
Interest: 90; 
Other[A]: 0. 

New Mexico; 
Tank fees: 0; 
State gasoline taxes: 18,191; 
Interest: 0; 
Other[A]: 0. 

New York[H]; 
Tank fees: [Empty]; 
State gasoline taxes: [Empty]; 
Interest: [Empty]; 
Other[A]: [Empty]. 

North Carolina; 
Tank fees: 7,987; 
State gasoline taxes: 41,942; 
Interest: 50; 
Other[A]: 197. 

North Dakota; 
Tank fees: 290; 
State gasoline taxes: 0; 
Interest: 63[C]; 
Other[A]: 0. 

Ohio; 
Tank fees: 13,568; 
State gasoline taxes: 0; 
Interest: 380; 
Other[A]: 0. 

Oregon; 
Tank fees: [D]; 
State gasoline taxes: [D]; 
Interest: [D]; 
Other[A]: [D]. 

Rhode Island; 
Tank fees: 0; 
State gasoline taxes: 4,200[C]; 
Interest: [G]; 
Other[A]: 0[C,I]. 

Tennessee; 
Tank fees: 3,060; 
State gasoline taxes: 17,785; 
Interest: 258; 
Other[A]: 5,475. 

Vermont; 
Tank fees: 365; 
State gasoline taxes: 5,243; 
Interest: 125; 
Other[A]: 288. 

Washington; 
Tank fees: [D]; 
State gasoline taxes: [D]; 
Interest: [D]; 
Other[A]: [D]. 

Wisconsin; 
Tank fees: 0; 
State gasoline taxes: 68,000; 
Interest: 0; 
Other[A]: 0. 

These states generally (1) reported having few, if any internal 
controls on the data, and/or (2) reported having significant data 
quality problems, and/or (3) didn't provide explanations for their 
calculations or reported that they were guesses. 

Alaska; 
Tank fees: [D]; 
State gasoline taxes: [D]; 
Interest: [D]; 
Other[A]: [D]. 

California; 
Tank fees: 0; 
State gasoline taxes: 218,195; 
Interest: 1,611; 
Other[A]: 2,935. 

Michigan[J]; 
Tank fees: [Empty]; 
State gasoline taxes: [Empty]; 
Interest: [Empty]; 
Other[A]: [Empty]. 

Nebraska; 
Tank fees: 534; 
State gasoline taxes: 10,413; 
Interest: 696; 
Other[A]: 70. 

Oklahoma; 
Tank fees: 0; 
State gasoline taxes: 21,324; 
Interest: 307; 
Other[A]: 218. 

West Virginia; 
Tank fees: [D]; 
State gasoline taxes: [D]; 
Interest: [D]; 
Other[A]: [D]. 

This state did not respond to the survey. 

South Dakota. 

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

Note: Our survey asked states to base their responses on federal fiscal 
year 2005 (Oct. 1, 2004 to Sept. 30, 2005) if possible; 
some states, however, reported responses as of other time frames, such 
as July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005. 

[A] Other category includes: cost recovery, other state sources such as 
fines, and other sources such as loan repayments. Revenues from federal 
sources are not included. 

[B] Officials indicated they did not know one or more aspects of the 
"other" category. 

[C] Estimated amounts. 

[D] Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, 
Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia never had state financial 
assurance funds. 

[E] Iowa used to operate an insurance-type fund that provided financial 
responsibility coverage, but the fund has been privatized. 

[F] Maine officials based their response to this question on calendar 
year 2004. 

[G] Amount of interest revenues unknown. 

[H] New York officials did not respond to this survey question. 

[I] Rhode Island officials estimated their state fund collected $300 
from other sources in 2005. 

[J] Michigan's state financial assurance fund is no longer active. 

[End of table] 

Table 11: State-Reported Diversions from State Financial Assurance 
Funds for Purposes Other Than Those Related to the Underground Storage 
Tank Program, 2001-2005: 

Dollars in thousands. 

Alabama; 
2001: $0; 
2002: $0; 
2003: $0; 
2004: $0; 
2005: $0. 

Alaska[A]; 
2001: [Empty]; 
2002: [Empty]; 
2003: [Empty]; 
2004: [Empty]; 
2005: [Empty]. 

Arizona; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

Arkansas; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 46. 

California; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

Colorado; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 4,000; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

Delaware[A]; 
2001: [Empty]; 
2002: [Empty]; 
2003: [Empty]; 
2004: [Empty]; 
2005: [Empty]. 

District of Columbia[A]; 
2001: [Empty]; 
2002: [Empty]; 
2003: [Empty]; 
2004: [Empty]; 
2005: [Empty]. 

Florida; 
2001: 12,000[B]; 
2002: 20,000[B]; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

Georgia; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

Hawaii[A]; 
2001: [Empty]; 
2002: [Empty]; 
2003: [Empty]; 
2004: [Empty]; 
2005: [Empty]. 

Idaho; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

Illinois; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 12,029[B]; 
2003: 12,100; 
2004: 500; 
2005: 0. 

Indiana; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 5,000; 
2003: 4,500; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

Iowa[C]; 
2001: [Empty]; 
2002: [Empty]; 
2003: [Empty]; 
2004: [Empty]; 
2005: [Empty]. 

Kansas; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 10,000; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

Kentucky; 
2001: 8,000; 
2002: 58,400; 
2003: 74,100; 
2004: 27,100; 
2005: 291. 

Louisiana; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

Maine; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 142. 

Maryland[A]; 
2001: [Empty]; 
2002: [Empty]; 
2003: [Empty]; 
2004: [Empty]; 
2005: [Empty]. 

Michigan[D]; 
2001: [Empty]; 
2002: [Empty]; 
2003: [Empty]; 
2004: [Empty]; 
2005: [Empty]. 

Mississippi; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 833; 
2004: 1,529; 
2005: 3,100. 

Missouri; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

Montana; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

Nebraska; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 10,250; 
2003: 300; 
2004: 3,000; 
2005: 1,800. 

Nevada; 
2001: 900[B]; 
2002: 900[B]; 
2003: 900[B]; 
2004: 900[B]; 
2005: 1,100. 

New Hampshire; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

New Jersey; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 45,812; 
2005: 0. 

New Mexico; 
2001: 1,900[B]; 
2002: 1,500[B]; 
2003: 900[B]; 
2004: 2,600[B]; 
2005: 5,400[B]. 

North Carolina; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

North Dakota; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

Ohio; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

Oklahoma; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

Oregon[ A]; 
2001: [Empty]; 
2002: [Empty]; 
2003: [Empty]; 
2004: [Empty]; 
2005: [Empty]. 

Pennsylvania[E]; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 100,000[E]; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

Rhode Island; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

South Carolina; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 1,096; 
2004: 76; 
2005: 0. 

South Dakota[F]; 
2001: [Empty]. 

Tennessee; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

Texas; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

Utah; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

Vermont[G]; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 1,776[G]; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

Virginia; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

Washington[A]; 
2001: [Empty]; 
2002: [Empty]; 
2003: [Empty]; 
2004: [Empty]; 
2005: [Empty]. 

West Virginia[A]; 
2001: [Empty]; 
2002: [Empty]; 
2003: [Empty]; 
2004: [Empty]; 
2005: [Empty]. 

Wisconsin; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

Wyoming; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0. 

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

[A] Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, 
Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia never had state financial 
assurance funds. 

[B] Estimated amount. 

[C] Iowa used to operate an insurance-type fund that provided financial 
responsibility coverage, but the fund has been privatized. 

[D] Michigan's state financial assurance fund is no longer active. 

[E] Pennsylvania officials reported that $17,500,000 of the diverted 
funds had been reimbursed to the state fund as of September 30, 2005. 

[F] South Dakota officials did not respond to the survey. 

[G] Vermont officials reported that $530,000 of the diverted funds had 
been reimbursed to the state fund as of September 30, 2005. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

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

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO Survey Of The 50 States: Financing Cleanups Of Leaking Underground 
Storage Tanks: 

Introduction: 

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an agency of the 
legislative branch that reviews federal programs on behalf of the U.S. 
Congress. To aid in our continuing reviews of the Environmental 
Protection Agency's (EPA) Underground Storage Tank program, we are 
currently surveying the 50 states as part of a study of how states 
finance the cleanup of leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites. 
We will use the information gathered in this survey to provide the 
Congress with information about the magnitude of LUST cleanup costs 
across all 50 states and the resources available to state programs to 
address these cleanups. 

We are aware of similar survey efforts conducted in the past year by 
the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and by EPA's 
Office of Underground Storage Tanks. We have discussed our survey with 
these parties and eliminated overlap where feasible. 

Your prompt response to this survey is very important. Without your 
state's response, we will not be able to accurately report to the 
Congress on the magnitude of LUST cleanup costs across all 50 states, 
how states are financing these cleanups, and the resources the states 
have to fund these cleanups. Your prompt participation will help us 
avoid costly follow-ups. 

To answer some of our questions, you may need to coordinate your 
responses with other state agencies responsible for certain aspects of 
the program. 

Instructions: 

This questionnaire can be filled out using MS-Word and returned via e- 
mail to USTSurvey@gao.gov. If you prefer, you may print copies of the 
questionnaire and complete them by hand. If you choose to print the 
questionnaire, please mail or fax it to: 

Nico Sloss, Senior Analyst: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
10 Causeway Street, Suite 575: 
Boston, MA 02222: 

Fax: (617) 788-0505: 

Please use your mouse to navigate by clicking on the field or check box 
you wish to answer. 

* To select a check box or button, simply click on the center of the 
box. 

* To change or deselect a check box response, simply click on the check 
box and the `X' will disappear. 

* To answer a question that requires that you write a comment, click on 
the answer box and begin typing. The box will expand to accommodate 
your answer. 

Definitions: 

To help ensure consistency in survey responses from the various states, 
we provide definitions for terms in this survey at or near the point at 
which the term appears. Please consider these definitions when 
responding to survey questions. 

If you have any questions about the contents of this questionnaire, 
please contact: 

Nico Sloss; 
Phone: (617)788-0516; 
e-mail: SlossN@gao.gov. 

Or: 

Gerald Laudermilk; 
Phone: (617)788-0543; 
e-mail: LaudermilkG@gao.gov. 

Database Information: 

1. We are interested in information about your state's database(s) for 
underground storage tank (UST) program management, including data on 
the number of tanks and releases in your state, as well as financial 
information about your state's program. [Please describe one database 
in each row. Provide documentation for reviews of databases via e-mail 
attachment, fax or mail to the addresses listed above.] 

What is the name of your state's database(s) for UST management?; 

Yes. 
No. 

Have there been any reviews of the quality of the data?. 

Yes. 
No. 

What year was the most recent review? [Enter 4 digit year.] 

2. Which of the following types of information does each of the 
databases you listed above contain? [For each database, check all that 
apply] 

Database: 

Tank data (e.g. location)? 
Release data? 
expenditure/financial data? 
Financial Responsibility data? 

3. What procedures are used to ensure all data contained in the 
databases you listed above are accurately recorded? [For each database, 
check all that apply.] 

Database: 

Systematic monitoring or spot checks of entered data? 
Verification to source documents? 
Automated edit checks/data entry controls? 
Error correction procedures? 
No procedures in place? 

4. What are the known limitations of the current data (e.g., data 
elements that are known to be incomplete, incorrect, or out-of-date) 
for each of the databases you listed above? 

Database: 

Description of Limitations:  

None?

5. Is there any additional information about the way your states' data 
for UST management is collected, entered, stored, and quality reviewed 
that would help inform our interpretation of these data? 

Scope of the Problem: 

Federally regulated USTs: In this survey we are concerned with 
federally regulated USTs, as defined by EPA. These tanks include "any 
one or combination of tanks (including underground pipes connected 
thereto) that is used to contain an accumulation of regulated 
substances, and the volume of which (including the volume of 
underground pipes connected thereto) is 10 percent or more beneath the 
surface of the ground. This term does not include any: (a) farm or 
residential tank of 1,100 gallons or less capacity used for storing 
motor fuel for noncommercial purposes; (b) tank used for storing 
heating oil for consumptive use on the premises where stored; (c) 
septic tank; (d) certain pipeline facilities; (e) surface impoundment, 
pit, pond, or lagoon; (f) storm-water or wastewater collection system; 
(g) flow-through process tank; (h) liquid trap or associated gathering 
lines directly related to oil or gas production and gathering 
operations; or (i) storage tank situated in an underground area if the 
storage tank is situated upon or above the surface of the floor." 

6. What are the cumulative data for the number of federally regulated 
USTs for your state, first as of September 30, 2004, and then as of 
September 30, 2005? Are these numbers exact or estimated? 

a. Active Tanks; 
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2004: Number: 
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2004: Is this an exact number or an 
estimate?
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2005: Number: 
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2005: Is this an exact number or an 
estimate? 

b. Closed tanks;  
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2004: Number: 
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2004: Is this an exact number or an 
estimate?
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2005: Number: 
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2005: Is this an exact number or an 
estimate? 

c. Confirmed releases;  
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2004: Number: 
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2004: Is this an exact number or an 
estimate?
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2005: Number: 
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2005: Is this an exact number or an 
estimate? 

d. Cleanups initiated; 
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2004: Number: 
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2004: Is this an exact number or an 
estimate?
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2005: Number: 
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2005: Is this an exact number or an 
estimate? 

e. Cleanups completed; 
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2004: Number: 
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2004: Is this an exact number or an 
estimate?
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2005: Number: 
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2005: Is this an exact number or an 
estimate? 

f. Emergency responses; 
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2004: Number: 
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2004: Is this an exact number or an 
estimate?
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2005: Number: 
Cumulative data as of September 30, 2005: Is this an exact number or an 
estimate? 

7. How many new releases from federally regulated USTs did your state 
confirm in each of the last five federal fiscal years? 

a. 2001; 
New Releases: Number: 
Is this an exact amount or an estimate? 

b. 2002; 
New Releases: Number: 
Is this an exact amount or an estimate? 

c. 2003; 
New Releases: Number: 
Is this an exact amount or an estimate? 

d. 2004; 
New Releases: Number: 
Is this an exact amount or an estimate? 

e. 2005; 
New Releases: Number: 
Is this an exact amount or an estimate? 

f. How did you calculate the number of new releases from USTs your 
state confirmed in each of the last five years? 

8. How many new releases from federally regulated USTs do you estimate 
that your state will confirm over the next five years? 

___ Estimated number of new releases your state will confirm over the 
next five years: 

a. How did you estimate the number of new releases from federally 
regulated USTs that your state will confirm over the next five years? 

b. How many of these new releases over the next five years do you 
estimate will require at least some amount of public funding to clean 
up? 

___ Estimated number of new releases over the next five years that will 
require at least some amount of public funding to clean up: 

c. How did you estimate the number of new releases over the next five 
years that will require at least some amount of public funding to clean 
up? 

9. EPA computes your state's "cleanup backlog" by subtracting the 
cumulative number of cleanups completed from the cumulative number of 
confirmed releases. Based on the numbers you provided above, your 
state's cleanup backlog, as of September 30, 2005 is: 0. Is this number 
correct? 

Yes: 

No. 

What is the correct number? 
___ releases in the backlog: 

Please refer to this number when answering questions about your state's 
cleanup backlog in completing the remainder of this survey. 

10. Considering the number of releases in your state's cleanup backlog 
as of September 30, 2005, how many involve MtBE at levels requiring 
cleanup? 

Number of releases with MtBE___

a. How did you calculate the number of releases in your state's cleanup 
backlog that involve the release of MtBE at levels requiring cleanup? 

11. Considering the number of releases in your state's cleanup backlog 
as of September 30, 2005, how many have affected groundwater at levels 
requiring cleanup? 

Number of releases affecting groundwater___

a. How did you calculate the number of releases in your state's cleanup 
backlog that have affected groundwater at levels requiring cleanup? 

12. Is there any additional information about your state's data for UST 
management that would help inform our interpretation of your responses 
to questions about the scope and type of UST cleanups in your state? 

Sources of Funding for Cleanup: 

Definitions: 

Public funding: Includes any funding controlled and/or provided by 
state and federal agencies-for example, funds from the federal LUST 
Trust Fund, state financial assurance funds, other state funds that 
have not been approved by EPA to serve as financial responsibility 
mechanisms, or funds appropriated by the state to pay for cleanup that 
would not otherwise occur. Do not include funds spent by federal, 
state, and local governmental agencies to clean up releases from tanks 
they either own or operate-these funds would be considered to be 
provided by the responsible party. 

State financial assurance fund: Any state fund used to pay for cleanups 
of releases from federally regulated USTs. We do not make a distinction 
between funds that EPA has approved as a financial responsibility 
mechanism and those that EPA has not approved. We recognize that in 
some cases a state's fund may cover tanks without a viable responsible 
party as well as other types of tanks. In those cases where a state 
fund is dedicated solely to coverage of tanks without a viable 
responsible party, the survey provides a separate space to answer 
questions about such a fund. 

Responsible party funding Includes both direct expenditures by 
responsible parties (for example, a tank owner paying out-of-pocket for 
all or a portion of the costs of cleanup) and indirect expenditures 
(for example, a tank owner's insurance company paying for all or a 
portion of the costs of cleanup). Note: In this survey, we request the 
known or estimated number of cleanups funded by responsible parties, 
not specific cost data. 

EPA-defined site cleanup costs: "All costs associated with site 
response concerning prevention or mitigation of threats to public 
health, welfare, or the environment that may occur by a release (or 
suspected release) of petroleum from an underground storage tank. These 
costs include emergency responses, site investigations, exposure 
assessments, the planning and design of corrective action, and the 
conduct, management and oversight of long-term remedial corrective 
actions." 

13. Considering the number of releases in your state's cleanup backlog 
as of September 30, 2005, what is your estimate of the number of these 
releases for which EPA-defined site cleanup costs will be paid for 
exclusively by responsible parties and the number of these releases for 
which some amount of public funding will be required? [Please provide 
your best estimate.] 

a. ___ number of releases for which cleanup costs will be paid 
exclusively by a responsible party: 

b. ___  number of releases for which cleanup costs will be paid with 
some amount of public funding: 

c. How did you estimate the number of releases for which EPA-defined 
site cleanup costs will be paid for exclusively by responsible parties 
and the number of these releases for which some amount of public 
funding will be required? 

14. Among those releases in the current cleanup backlog that will 
require at least some amount of public funding after September 30, 
2005, excluding funds already spent on these cleanups, how many would 
you estimate will require public funding amounts in the following 
ranges? 

Estimated amount of public funding per release: a. $0-$99,999; 
Number of releases: ___. 

Estimated amount of public funding per release: b. $100,000-$499,999; 
Number of releases: ___. 

Estimated amount of public funding per release: c. $500,000-$999,999; 
Number of releases: ___. 

Estimated amount of public funding per release: d. $1,000,000 or more; 
Number of releases: ___. 

Estimated amount of public funding per release: Number for which costs 
cannot be estimated; 
Number of releases: ___. 

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

15. Based on your experience with cleanups of leaking federally 
regulated USTs that require some amount of public funding, what do you 
estimate is the average cost in public funds to fully address each 
release? 

$__Estimated average cost in public funds to fully address each 
release: 

a. What do you estimate is the average cost in public funds to fully 
address each release that involves MtBE at levels requiring cleanup? 

$__Estimated cost in public funds to fully address each release that 
involves MtBE at levels requiring cleanup: 

b. What do you estimate is the average cost in public funds to fully 
address each release that impacts groundwater at levels requiring 
cleanup? 

$__Estimated cost in public funds to fully address each release that 
impacts groundwater at levels requiring cleanup: 

c. How did you estimate these average costs in public funding? 

16. In the past year, what was the total amount spent (in actual 
outlays) to pay for the public funding portion of cleanups at federally 
regulated UST sites? [If possible, provide this amount for the latest 
federal fiscal year (10/1/04 to 9/30/05).] 

Total outlays? 

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

b. On what date does the year for which you are reporting start? [Enter 
mm/dd/yy.] Start of reporting year: 

17. Of the total spent in the past year, how much funding was spent (in 
actual outlays) from each of the following sources to pay for the 
public funding portion of cleanups at federally regulated UST sites? 
[1f possible, provide these amounts for the latest federal fiscal year 
(10/1/04 to 9/30/05).] 

a. Federal LUST Trust Fund? 

b. Other federal sources [Please spec]? 

c. State financial assurance fund ?  

d. State fund dedicated to tanks without a viable owner? 

e. Other state sources [Please spec]? 

f. Other sources? 

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

Yes. 

No. 

h. On what date does the year for which you are reporting start? [Enter 
mm/dd/yy.] Start of reporting year: 

18. Is there any additional information about the amounts of public 
funding listed above that would help inform our interpretation of your 
responses to these questions? 

19. What additional sources of public funding for LUST cleanups, if 
any, do you believe have a high probability of becoming available in 
the next 5 years? 

a. What were the primary factors you considered in making an assessment 
of the probability that additional sources of public funding for LUST 
cleanups will become available in the next 5 years? 

20. Among the current sources of public funding for LUST cleanups, 
which sources, if any, do you believe have a high probability of no 
longer being available in the next 5 years, and why not? 

a. What were the primary factors you considered in making an assessment 
of the probability that any of the current sources of public funding 
for LUST cleanups will no longer be available in the next 5 years? 

Tanks without a Viable Owner: 

For purposes of this survey, consider tanks among your state's cleanup 
backlog without a viable owner to be those tanks where, as of September 
30, 2005, the responsible party was unknown, unwilling, or unable to 
perform the needed cleanup (for example, "orphaned" or abandoned 
tanks). 

21. How many releases in your state's cleanup backlog, identified 
above, come from tanks without a viable owner? 

Number of releases? 

a. How did you calculate the number of releases in your state's cleanup 
backlog that come from tanks without a viable owner? 

22. For how many releases in your state's cleanup backlog has the state 
not yet determined whether a responsible party is known, willing, and 
able to perform the cleanup? 

Number of releases? 

a. How did you calculate the number of releases in your state's cleanup 
backlog for which the state has not yet determined whether a 
responsible party is known, willing, and able to perform the cleanup? 

23. In the past year, how much public funding from all sources was 
spent (in actual outlays) on cleaning up releases from USTs, both WITH 
and WITHOUT a viable owner? [If possible, provide these amounts for the 
latest federal fiscal year, 10/1/04 to 9/30/05.] 

a. Public funding spent to clean up tanks with a viable owner. 
b. Public funding spent to clean up tanks WITHOUT a viable owner. 

c. Is this the total amount ($0) spent (in actual outlays) in the past 
year for the public funding portion of cleanups at federally regulated 
UST sites? 

Yes. 
No. 

d. Why is this amount different? 

e. Is this amount for the latest federal fiscal year (10/1/04 to 9/30/ 
05)? 

Yes.  

No. 

f. On what date does your reporting year begin? 

___[Enter mm/dd/yy.] Beginning date of reporting year: 

g. How did you calculate the amount of public funding spent to clean up 
releases from USTs with and without a viable owner? 

24. Based on the backlog of releases from USTs without a viable owner 
as of September 30, 2005, identified above how much do you estimate it 
will cost to complete the remainder of the cleanups for all of these 
releases? [Enter amount in whole dollars.] 

$___Estimated cost: 

a. How did you estimate the cost to complete the remainder of the 
cleanups for the backlog of releases from USTs without a viable owner? 

State Cleanup Funds: 

For the purposes of the following questions, please consider two types 
of state cleanup funds: 

(1) state financial assurance funds that cover the cleanup of 
contamination from federally regulated USTs, which may or may not 
include tanks without a viable owner, and: 

(2) funds that are devoted solely to the cleanup of contamination from 
tanks without a viable owner. 

In this survey we ask about both types of funds as applicable to your 
state. 

25. Has your state EVER had a state financial assurance fund, as 
defined in (1) above? 

Yes. 
No. Skip to Q37. 

26. What was the status of your state's financial assurance fund as of 
September 30, 20057 [Check the option that describes the fund's actual 
status.] 

Not applicable, never had this type of fund. Skip to Q37. 

Fund is no longer active.Skip to Q37. 

Accepting and paying all valid claims without restriction Go to Q27: 

Accepting and paying claims with some restrictions.   

a. Is your state fund limiting the number of claims it accepts based on 
the amount of funds it has available to pay for those claims? 

Yes. 
No.  

b. Is your state fund setting priorities for paying claims to conserve 
funds? 

Yes  
No. 

C. Is your state's financial assurance fund ONLY accepting claims for 
releases that occurred before or after a certain date (e.g., an 
eligibility sunset date)? 

No. 
Yes.  

d. What are the eligibility dates for releases? [Fill in either or both 
dates as applicable.] 

e. Are there other restrictions on accepting and paying claims? 

27. Please describe the deductible amount(s) paid by responsible 
parties and any maximum amount the state financial assurance fund will 
pay for each release from a federally regulated UST. 

28. How much was deposited into your state's financial assurance fund 
in the past year? [Enter amount in whole dollars.] 

Amount deposited?

a. Is this amount for the latest federal fiscal year (10/1/04 to 9/30/ 
05)? 

Yes. 
No. 

b. On what date does your reporting year begin? 

__[Enter mm/dd/yy.] Beginning date of reporting year: 

29. How much of the amount deposited into your state's financial 
assurance fund in the past year was from each of the following sources? 
[Enter amount in whole dollars.] 

a. Flat rate fees assessed on tanks?  

b. Fees/taxes assessed on a per-unit basis on fuel(s)? 

c. Interest? 

d. Cost recovery?  

e. Combined federal sources [Please specify sources]? 

f. Combined state sources[Please sped sources]?  

g. Combined other sources[Please sped sources]?  

30. What do you anticipate will happen to revenues to your state's 
financial assurance fund over the next 5 years, compared with the 
annual revenues accrued to the fund in the past year? [Check one.] 

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

31. What was the overall balance of your state's financial assurance 
fund as of September 30, 2005? [Enter amount in whole dollars.] 

Balance? 

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

Obligated? 

32. What was the amount of the outstanding claims (claims received by 
the state program for which funds have not yet been obligated) on your 
state's financial assurance fund as of September 30, 2005? [Enter 
amount in whole dollars.] 

Outstanding claims? 

33. During the past 5 years, what amount of funding, if any, did your 
state divert from its financial assurance fund for purposes other than 
those related to the UST program? [Enter amount in whole dollars.] 

f. How much, if any, of the total amount diverted over the past 5 years 
had been reimbursed to the state financial assurance fund as of 
September 30, 2005? [Enter amount in whole dollars.] 

Reimbursed? 

g. If applicable, for what purposes did your state divert UST financial 
assurance funds? 

34. As of September 30, 2005, had your state decided to stop accepting 
new claims against the state financial assurance fund after a certain 
date? 

[Enter mm/dd/yy.] Date after which claims will no longer be accepted: 

No decision made to stop accepting claims. 

35. As of September 30, 2005, had your state decided to stop collecting 
revenues for the state financial assurance fund after a certain date? 

[Enter mm/dd/yyj Date after which revenues will no longer be collected: 

No decision made to stop collecting claims 

36. How capable is your state's financial assurance fund of meeting 
future demands upon it? [Check one]. 

Able to meet all? 
Able to meet most? 
Able to meet some? 
Not able to meet any?  

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

37. What was the status of your state's fund dedicated to tanks without 
a viable owner as of September 30, 2005? [Check the option that 
describes the fund's actual status]. 

Not applicable, never had this type of fund. Skip to Q47. 
Fund is no longer active.Skip to Q47. 
Accepting and paying all valid claims without restriction. Go to Q38 
Accepting and paying claims with some restrictions . 

a. Is your state fund limiting the number of claims it accepts based on 
the amount of funds it has available to pay for those claims? 

Yes 
No. 

b. Is your state fund setting priorities for paying claims to conserve 
funds? 

Yes 
No. 

c. Is your state's fund dedicated to tanks without a viable owner ONLY 
accepting claims for releases that occurred before or after a certain 
date (e.g., an eligibility sunset date)? 

No. 
Yes. 

d. What are the eligibility dates for releases? [Fill in either or both 
dates as applicable.] 

Before [Enter mm/dd/yy.] 

After [Enter mm/dd/yy.] 

e. Are there other restrictions on accepting and paying claims? 

38. How much was deposited into your state's fund dedicated to tanks 
without a viable owner in the past year? [Enter amount in whole 
dollars.] 

Amount deposited. ?  

a. Is this amount for the latest federal fiscal year (10/1/04 to 9/30/ 
05)? 

Yes: 
No. 

b. On what date does your reporting year begin? 

[Enter mm/dd/yy.] Beginning date of reporting year: 

39. Approximately how much of the amount deposited into your state's 
fund dedicated to tanks without a viable owner in the past year was 
from each of the following sources? [Enter amount in whole dollars.] 

a. Flat rate fees assessed on tanks.
b. Fees/taxes assessed on a per- unit basis on fuel(s). 
c. Interest . 
d. Cost recovery.
e. Combined federal sources [Please sped sources] 
f. Combined state sources [Please sped sources] 
g. Combined other sources [Please sped sources]  

40. What do you anticipate will happen to revenues to your state's fund 
dedicated to tanks without a viable owner over the next 5 years, 
compared with the annual revenues accrued to the fund in the past year? 
[Check one.] 

Large increase. 
Moderate increase. 
Stay about the same. 
Moderate decrease. 
Large decrease. 

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

41. What was the overall balance of your state's fund dedicated to 
tanks without a viable owner as of September 30, 2005? [Enter amount in 
whole dollars.] 

Balance? 

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

Obligated? 

42. What was the amount of the outstanding claims (claims received by 
the state program for which funds have not yet been obligated) on your 
state's fund dedicated to tanks without a viable owner as of September 
30, 2005? [Enter amount in whole dollars.] 

43. During the past 5 years, what amount of funding, if any, did your 
state divert from its fund dedicated to tanks without a viable owner 
for purposes other than those related to the UST program? [Enter amount 
in whole dollars.] 

a. 2001? 
b. 2002? 
c. 2003? 
d. 2004? 
e. 2005? 

f. How much, if any, of the total amount diverted over the past 5 years 
had been reimbursed to the state fund dedicated to tanks without a 
viable owner as of September 30, 2005? [Enter amount in whole dollars.] 

Reimbursed? 

g. If applicable, for what purposes did your state divert funds from 
the fund dedicated to tanks without a viable owner? 

44. As of September 30, 2005, had your state decided to stop accepting 
new claims against the state fund dedicated to tanks without a viable 
owner after a certain date? 

[Enter mm/dd/yy.] Date after which claims will no longer be accepted No 
decision made to stop accepting claims. 

45. As of September 30, 2005, had your state decided to stop collecting 
revenues for the state fund dedicated to tanks without a viable owner 
after a certain date? 

[Enter mm/dd/yy] Date after which revenues will no longer be collected: 
No decision made to stop collecting claims.  

46. How capable is your state's fund dedicated to tanks without a 
viable owner of meeting future demands upon it? [Check one]. 

Able to meet all. 
Able to meet most. 
Able to meet some. 
Not able to meet any.  

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

47. If your state has never had a fund dedicated to tanks without a 
viable owner, or if this fund is no longer active, how does your state 
pay for the cleanup of releases from tanks without a viable owner? 

Federal Funds: 

48. In the past year, how much money from LUST Trust Fund cooperative 
agreement funds did your state spend (in actual outlays) on 
administrative costs, enforcement costs, and site clean-up costs? [If 
possible, provide these amounts for the latest federal fiscal year, 
10/1/04 to 9/30/05.] 

a. Administrative costs; 

b. Enforcement costs ; 

c. Site cleanup costs; 

d. Total costs;

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

Yes. 
No. 

f. On what date does your reporting year begin? 

[Enter mm/dd/yy.] Beginning date of reporting year: 

49. According to EPA, states may sometimes not spend a given year's 
entire LUST Trust Fund award in the year the funds are provided. As of 
September 30, 2005, what was the state's unobligated balance of federal 
LUST Trust Funds, if any? 

State's unobligated balance of federal LUST Trust Funds? 

50. Is there any additional information about the LUST Trust Fund 
amounts listed above that would help inform our interpretation of your 
responses to these questions? 

Questions about Financial Responsibility: 

51. How do responsible parties who have active federally regulated USTs 
in your state demonstrate financial responsibility? Please list the 
number of tanks covered by the various available financial 
responsibility mechanisms below. 

a. State financial assurance fund. 
b. Financial test of self- insurance. 
c. Corporate guarantee. 
d. Insurance coverage. 
e. Surety bond. 
f. Letter of credit. 
g. Trust fund set up by owner or operator. 
h. Bond rating test (local government only). 
i. Financial test (local government only). 
j. Guarantee from another local government or the state (local 
government only). 
k. A dedicated fund (local government only). 
l. Other state- authorized methods: 

[Please specify.] . 

52. Is there any additional information about how you calculated the 
number of tanks covered by the various financial responsibility 
mechanisms that would help inform our interpretation of your responses? 

53. Which of the following describe your state's procedures for 
determining whether a tank owner's financial responsibility is current? 
[Check all that apply.] 

a. Attempt to check financial responsibility on a regular basis (e.g. 
during regular inspections).  
b. Target inspections (e.g. to USTs deemed likely to not be current on 
financial responsibility). 
c. As events warrant (e.g. upon tank installation or upgrade, upon a 
release). 
d. State does not check financial responsibility. 
e. Other [Please specify.] 

54. How frequently, if at all, does your state check whether a tank 
owner's financial responsibility is current? [Check one.] 

At least annually. 
Every I to 2 years. 
Every 3 years or longer. 
State does not check financial responsibility. 
Other [Please specify.] 

55. Over the past 5 years, how many cases has your state encountered in 
which tank owners did not have adequate financial responsibility? 

Number of cases? 

a. How did you calculate the number of cases that your state has 
encountered over the past 5 years in which tank owners did not have 
adequate financial responsibility? 

56. Does your state ever impose penalties on responsible parties for 
multiple releases from federally regulated USTs? 

Yes. 

No. Go to next question. 

a. What are the penalties and the circumstances under which they would 
be imposed? 

Additional Comments: 

57. Are there any issues that have not been covered in this survey that 
you anticipate affecting the availability of public finding for 
cleanups in the next 5 years? 

58. Are there any additional comments you wish to make regarding the 
issues in this survey or other matters related to USTs? 

Thank you for completing the survey!: 

Please save this file now and send an e-mail with your saved 
questionnaire file and supporting documentation as an attachment to: 
USTSurvev@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency: 

United States Environmental Protection Agency: 
Washington, D.C. 20460: 
Office Of Solid Waste And Emergency Response: 

Mr. John B. Stephenson, Director: 
Natural Resources and Environment: 
Unites States Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Stephenson: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report entitled, "Leaking 
Underground Storage Tanks: EPA Should Take Steps to Better Ensure the 
Effective Use of Public Funding for Cleanups." The effective use of 
public funds, and more generally the effective cleanup of remaining 
releases, is a critical issue in the underground storage tank (UST) 
program. You presented a thorough and useful analysis of the issues and 
we think the report's recommendations are reasonable and helpful. The 
draft report makes four specific recommendations, and our response to 
each of them is as follows:: 

Ensure that states verify, on a regular basis, that tank owners and 
operators are maintaining adequate financial responsibility coverage, 
as required by RCRA: 

EPA agrees that regular verification of financial responsibility 
coverage is important to ensure adequate funding for future releases. 
As you know, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) requires EPA or 
states, as appropriate, to conduct on-site inspections of USTs every 
three years to determine compliance with requirements imposed by 
Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. EPA is currently working on 
grant guidelines to implement those requirements. EPA's draft 
guidelines require that the inspections assess compliance with the 
financial responsibility requirements. 

Improve the Agency's oversight of the solvency of state assurance funds 
to ensure that they continue to provide reliable financial 
responsibility coverage for tank owners: 

EPA agrees that increased oversight of state assurance fund (state 
fund) solvency is necessary and important. As the report indicates, EPA 
recently developed a monitoring tool to assess the financial condition 
of state funds. We are working to improve implementation and utility of 
that tool. In addition, in response to EPAct, EPA is working on 
guidance to revise and improve our process for monitoring the financial 
soundness of state funds, and work with less solvent funds to improve 
solvency. EPA expects to complete this guidance in 2007. 

Assess, in coordination with the states, the relative effectiveness of 
public and private options for financial responsibility coverage to 
ensure that they provide timely funding for the cleanup of releases: 

EPA agrees an assessment of the relative performance of state funds 
(the primary public funding mechanism) and insurance (the primary 
private funding mechanism) would be informative and useful. EPA will 
consider conducting a study, in conjunction with the states, of the 
relative effectiveness of state funds and insurance in providing timely 
funding for cleanups. 

Better focus how EPA distributes program resources to states, including 
LUST Trust Fund money, by: 

* ensuring that states are reporting information in their semi-annual 
activity reports that is consistent with EPA's definitions; 

* encouraging states to review their databases to ensure that only data 
on the appropriate universe of underground storage tanks are being 
reported in their semi-annual activity reports; and: 

* gathering available information from states on releases attributed to 
tanks without a viable owner and taking this information into account 
in distributing LUST Trust Fund money to states. 

Each year EPA distributes LUST Trust Fund money, under an allocation 
formula that reflects state performance and need, using information 
reported by states in their end-of-year activity report. The 
information contained in these reports, including the number of 
releases and the population of active tanks, are relevant indicators of 
program need and program performance. Nonetheless, EPA agrees with GAO 
that it is important to ensure that the information used to support the 
LUST allocation formula is as accurate as possible. EPA will continue 
to work with regions and states to implement quality control measures 
and, in particular, work toward ensuring that reported data is 
consistent with existing EPA definitions and is limited to federally- 
regulated USTs. In addition, as we begin working on the Energy Policy 
Act requirements pertaining to the LUST Trust Fund allocation, EPA will 
work with regions and states to consider other changes to improve the 
distribution of future LUST money, including changes that more 
specifically reflect the need at abandoned LUST sites. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on your draft report and 
for your helpful recommendations. EPA will move forward to implement 
your recommendations as presented in this letter. 

If you have any questions concerning our response, please contact Mark 
Barolo in the Office of Underground Storage Tanks at (703) 603-7141. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Susan Parker Bodine: 
Assistant Administrator: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Vincent P. Price, Assistant 
Director; Krista Breen Anderson; Jenny Chanley; Richard P. Johnson; 
Jerry Laudermilk; Jennifer Lutzy McDonald; Anne McDonough-Hughes; 
Rebecca Shea; Carol Herrnstadt Shulman; Dominique Sasson; and Nico 
Sloss made key contributions to this report. 

(360599): 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] EPA defines a confirmed release as an incident where a release has 
been identified and reported to the state (or other designated 
implementing agency), which has in turn verified the release. 

[2] To calculate the estimated cost to complete the cleanup of known 
releases that require at least some public funds, we first provided 
states with four cost ranges ($0 - $99,999, $100,000 - $499,999, 
$500,000-$999,999, $1,000,000 or more). Second, we asked them to divide 
the number of releases in their state for which cleanup costs will be 
paid with some amount of public funds among these four cost ranges. 
Third, we multiplied the total number of releases in each range by the 
midpoint of the range in order to get a total cost for releases in each 
range. For the top range, we used $1,000,000 as the midpoint. Finally, 
we summed the total costs for each range. 

[3] Additionally, officials in New York reported 375 releases that 
would be cleaned up using public funding, but they did not respond to 
the question about the cost of cleaning up these releases. 

[4] GAO, Environmental Protection: More Complete Data and Continued 
Emphasis on Leak Prevention Could Improve EPA's Underground Storage 
Tank Program, GAO-06-45 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2005). 

[5] Michigan accounted for $1.7 billion of the $2.7 billion estimated 
cost. 

[6] EPA regulations require owners to report current evidence of 
financial responsibility in certain specific situations, such as after 
a release has occurred. EPA guidance notes that states may review 
financial responsibility submissions (1) when owners or operators 
submit them or (2) as part of an inspection or compliance assurance 
program. However, the guidance does not elaborate on how frequently 
states should carry out such reviews. 

[7] Arizona's financial assurance fund stopped providing financial 
responsibility coverage after June 30, 2006. 

[8] In this report we use the phrase "state gasoline taxes" to refer to 
any fees or taxes assessed on a per-unit basis on fuels which are made 
available to state financial assurance funds under state law. 

[9] Of the total amount diverted among these 16 states, only about $18 
million had been reimbursed to the state funds as of September 30, 
2005. 

[10] GAO-06-45. 

[11] EPA guidance generally provides that states entering into 
cooperative agreements with EPA must make reasonable efforts to recover 
costs. 

[12] GAO-06-45, p. 29. 

[13] See appendix III for a copy of the survey. 

[14] The Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management 
Officials' survey is sponsored by that organization and conducted by 
the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. 

[15] Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make 
inferences about a population because in a nonprobability sample, some 
elements of the population being studied have no chance or an unknown 
chance of being selected as part of the sample. 

[16] As indicated previously, we also discussed data reliability with 
seven of these states. We did not discuss data reliability with 
officials in Utah. 

[17] Regions 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, based in Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, 
Chicago, Dallas, and Denver, respectively. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. 
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, 
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202) 
512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548: