STATEMENT OF
MARIANNE LAMONT HORINKO
ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR
OFFICE OF SOLID
WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
SUPERFUND,
TOXICS, RISK AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES
SENATE
MAY 8, 2002
Good morning Madam Chairman
and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Marianne Horinko, EPA’s Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. I am pleased to appear today to discuss S.
1850, the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2001, identify some of the
challenges facing the Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program, and describe work
EPA has undertaken to address those challenges.
Background
In 1984, Congress responded
to the increasing threat to groundwater posed by leaking USTs by adding
Subtitle I to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The statute directed EPA to develop a
comprehensive regulatory program for USTs storing petroleum or certain
hazardous substances to protect the environment and human health from UST
releases. EPA’s 1988 regulations set
minimum standards for new tanks and required owners of substandard tanks to
upgrade or close them. The regulations
addressed a variety of other requirements including those related to leak
detection and cleanup of releases when they occur.
In 1986, Congress created
the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund to provide a stronger
funding base for the cleanup portion of the underground storage tank
program. The LUST Trust Fund provides
money for EPA to help administer the program nationwide and implement the
program in Indian Country. In 1998,
Congress also created explicit authority for EPA to provide LUST funding to
Federally recognized Indian tribes. The majority of the LUST Trust Funds are
provided to the states to oversee cleanups, take enforcement actions at leaking
tank sites, and undertake state-lead cleanups when a responsible party cannot
be found or is unable or unwilling to remediate a site which presents a threat
to public health and the environment.
EPA provides approximately 81 percent of the annual LUST Trust Fund
appropriation to the states. Since the
inception of the LUST Trust Fund, states have received approximately $790
million.
Since its inception in the mid-1980s, EPA's UST program has developed an extremely effective partnership with states to implement the program. From the outset, this program was designed to be implemented primarily by states. In general, all states implement an underground storage tank program using grants and cooperative agreements from EPA. Twenty-nine states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia have been formally approved by EPA to operate their UST programs in lieu of the federal UST program. EPA retains the authority to implement and enforce the state’s UST program in authorized states and to implement and enforce the federal program in unauthorized states. EPA implements and enforces the program in Indian Country where EPA works closely with Indian tribes. EPA continues to work with other states to help them have their programs formally approved. In many respects, the successes achieved by this program are due to partnerships, not only with states and tribes, but also with the private sector. We believe the UST program’s effective partnerships can serve as a model for other programs.
EPA and states have made
substantial progress in cleaning up releases from leaking USTs. Since the inception of the program,
approximately 419,000 petroleum releases from
USTs have been reported. Much
progress has already occurred in cleaning up releases. Cleanups have been
initiated for 379,000 (over 90 percent) of these releases and cleanups have
been completed for about 269,000 (approximately two-thirds) of the releases. This represents a tremendous amount of work
and success by the states, tribes, EPA, responsible parties and cleanup
contractors. Among the major factors
affecting this success are the cleanup funds states have established. These funds, which raise and expend
approximately $1 billion annually, pay for the vast majority of site
assessments and remediation each year.
We have also made
considerable progress reducing the number of new releases. Since 1990, the number of new releases
reported annually has averaged approximately 30,000. In FY 2001, the number of new releases reported dropped to
approximately 6,500. While this
represents a dramatic improvement, it is still too many.
Program Challenges
While substantial progress
has been made since the mid-1980s, there are additional challenges that still
need to be addressed. First, while many
releases have been cleaned up, there are still approximately 150,000 where the
cleanup has not been completed including releases with methyl tertiary-butyl ether
(MTBE) contamination. Second, there are
hundreds of thousands of abandoned USTs, many of which have had releases that
need to be addressed. Third, while USTs
have been improved and generally are operated and maintained properly,
approximately 25 percent of the UST systems still need to be brought into
compliance and all UST systems need to be operated and maintained properly so
that once they are in compliance, they remain in compliance. And finally, while UST systems are greatly
improved and the number of new releases has dramatically reduced, there are
still releases from new and upgraded systems.
The first challenge is the
large number of releases – 150,000 – that are not yet cleaned up. While substantial progress has been made on
many of these releases, there still is an immense amount of work that remains
to be done to increase the pace at which cleanups are completed, and reduce and
ultimately eliminate this backlog of releases.
The vast majority of
regulated USTs contain petroleum products that contain toxic substances, such
as benzene, toluene, and naphthalene.
Therefore, releases from USTs may pose both human health and
environmental risks. Further, the
presence of MTBE makes the challenge of cleaning up these releases more difficult,
because MTBE is more likely to reach groundwater than other petroleum
constituents, and once it does, can make the water unpotable due to its
unpleasant taste and odor.
MTBE contamination has
affected communities across the country
For example, the City of Santa Monica, California has faced a massive
loss of a significant portion of its drinking water supplies due to MTBE
contamination caused by failures of UST systems. Lake Tahoe has faced similar problems. In Long Island, New York, MTBE contamination has resulted in
alternate or improved water supplies having to be provided for over 160
affected public and private wells.
Pascoag, Rhode Island, while smaller in size than Santa Monica, Lake
Tahoe or Long Island, has also lost its water supply. More recently, attention has turned to a release in Roselawn,
Indiana. In this case, the source of
the release, which may be from an UST system, has not yet been identified.
MTBE contamination from all
sources, including USTs, is fairly widespread.
A 2001 U.S. Geological Survey study found that MTBE was detected in 9
percent of community water systems in 10 states, although generally below EPA’s
drinking water advisory value. A
national study by the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
in 2000 found that most states detect MTBE at 60 to 80 percent of leaking UST
sites. Based on an analysis of data
from 31 states, a report in Environmental
Science & Technology (May 2000) estimated that up to 9,000 community
water supplies in those 31 states may be threatened by MTBE contamination.
The second challenge we face
is finding, removing and, where necessary, cleaning up abandoned USTs. The General Accounting Office (GAO)
estimated there are approximately 200,000 abandoned USTs at brownfields
sites. In addition, there are many
abandoned USTs at sites that have not been designated as brownfields
sites. The workload associated with
abandoned tanks, many of which have not yet been found, probably exceeds that
of dealing with the backlog of known release sites that have yet to be cleaned
up.
Preventing releases before
they occur is the best way to protect human health and the environment. The remaining challenges focus on preventing
and rapidly detecting releases before they become problems.
The third challenge involves
compliance with the UST regulations. In
a recent report, Improved Inspections and
Enforcement Would Better Ensure the Safety of Underground Storage Tanks,
the GAO estimated that approximately 29 percent of USTs were not operated or
maintained properly. While the vast
majority of USTs have the proper equipment, proper operation and maintenance
remains a considerable challenge.
Owners and operators of USTs normally have many responsibilities which
compete with the time necessary to properly operate and maintain their UST
systems. The challenge here is to help
all owners and operators to achieve compliance and maintain it through ongoing
proper operation and maintenance of their UST systems. We will do this using all available tools
including compliance assistance, training, inspections, and enforcement.
Finally, as we have already
noted, new and upgraded UST systems continue to have releases, although at a
much reduced rate. There is also
evidence releases are not being detected by the existing leak detection
infrastructure as often as they should be.
The federal requirements set basic UST system performance standards, but
allow a wide variety of approaches to meet those standards. While that provides significant flexibility
to the tank owners, it also complicates efforts to operate, maintain, and
inspect UST systems. If the equipment
is insufficient or the operation and maintenance of the equipment is not
performed correctly, there will continue to be significant risk posed by
releases from USTs. Our challenge is to
determine the source and cause of the problems, and identify the appropriate
remedies.
Program Initiatives To Address The Challenges
In October 2000, EPA
announced four initiatives to address the challenges facing the program: (1)
Faster Cleanups, (2) USTfields for Abandoned Tanks, (3) Improving Compliance,
and (4) Evaluating UST System Performance.
In addition, the Agency has taken additional actions to deal with the
challenges posed by MTBE. Before
turning to the four initiatives, let’s briefly examine some of the work that
deals with MTBE.
EPA has undertaken several
efforts to aid states in addressing problems with MTBE contamination. EPA has provided substantial funding and/or
technical support to Santa Monica, South Lake Tahoe and Long Island to
remediate MTBE. In addition, EPA is
chairing a federal-state workgroup that will create a multi-chapter interim
guidance for states on MTBE related issues.
Two years ago, EPA supported a grant to the New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission to develop a national baseline survey on the scope
of the MTBE problem. EPA also maintains
a website which documents MTBE remediation case studies so that experiences
with MTBE remediation can be shared nationwide. EPA is also conducting a demonstration of treatment and
remediation technologies for MTBE-contaminated soil, groundwater and drinking
water at Port Hueneme, California.
Faster Cleanups
The goal of our first
initiative, Faster Cleanups, is to increase the pace at which cleanups,
including those with MTBE contamination, are initiated and completed, with an
eye toward making land and water resources available for reuse. To accomplish this goal, EPA is finalizing a
method for setting goals for completing cleanups more quickly. EPA has also recently created a web-based
tool box for promoting pay-for-performance contracting methods which in most
cases shortened cleanup times and reduced cleanup costs by 30 to 50
percent. Finally, EPA plans to foster
the development of voluntary multi-site cleanup agreements between state or
Regional EPA programs and private, federal, or tribal owners of multi-site
leaking underground storage tanks. The
economies of scale in developing multi-site agreements should help achieve
faster cleanups.
USTfields
Our second initiative,
dealing with USTfields, is designed to address abandoned USTs. USTfields applies to abandoned or underused
industrial and commercial properties where reuse is complicated by real or
perceived environmental contamination from federally regulated USTs. Petroleum contamination is generally
excluded from coverage under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act and is not, therefore, covered under EPA’s
current brownfields program. EPA has
undertaken the USTfields initiative to address petroleum contamination from
abandoned tanks generally excluded from brownfields reuse. In November 2000, EPA announced its first
ten USTfield pilot grants. A recently
released report, Recycling America’s Gas
Stations, captures the experiences from the first ten pilots. These pilots are intended to help increase
our knowledge of finding out how best to address abandoned and underused
petroleum-impacted sites. EPA expects to announce an additional 40
USTfield grants later this spring.
In January 2002, President
Bush signed the “Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization
Act” into law. Under this legislation,
substantially more funding is authorized to deal with abandoned petroleum
contaminated sites that are not addressed under current programs. The President's budget requests $30 million
to carry out this effort. This
legislation will enable states, tribes, and communities throughout the country
to assess, remediate, and ready for reuse a multitude of sites that otherwise
would remain abandoned for many years.
The USTfield pilots will provide invaluable lessons as we deal with many
abandoned sites under the new legislation.
Compliance
Our third initiative focuses
on improving compliance with the UST requirements. EPA and our state and tribal partners are constantly working to
improve compliance. As part of this
initiative, we are taking several specific steps. First, we have changed the way we are measuring compliance to
focus on proper operation and maintenance.
Previously, we focused primarily on whether the facility had the proper
equipment. As part of this initiative,
we are improving the quality of compliance data so that EPA, states, and the
public have an accurate and consistent measure of compliance. Second, we are looking at a variety of
approaches, including third-party inspections and environmental results
programs, such as the one in Massachusetts being used to improve compliance by
dry cleaners, printers and photo finishers, to help improve compliance. Third, EPA is promoting multi-site
compliance agreements between EPA and multi-site owners to bring their tanks
into operational compliance. Finally,
EPA is focusing additional attention on training needs, both for inspectors and
for owners and operators. We are
nearing completion of an evaluation of training needs. And we are working to increase training
opportunities through a variety of institutions, including universities, and
are exploring increased use of internet-based training.
UST System Performance
The fourth initiative,
Evaluating UST System Performance, is an effort to determine the sources and
causes of releases, as well as the reasons for the failure of release detection
to detect releases, and to develop approaches to address these problems. To evaluate the performance of UST systems,
EPA needed to gather and review quantitative and qualitative data currently
available, and to initiate additional studies to gather additional quantitative
data. EPA gathered and analyzed more
than 50 existing reports or studies from states and industry and has met with
or interviewed numerous state and industry experts. In order to obtain greater quantitative information about the
types of systems failing and the reasons for those failures, EPA is partnering
with 24 states to perform leak autopsies at new release sites to determine the
source and cause of the release. EPA is
also initiating studies with a number of states to evaluate specific UST system
components and technologies and to compare the performance of various UST
systems. EPA has learned much from
these efforts about the sources and causes of problems, and there are clear
trends emerging from these efforts.
EPA’s evaluation of UST system performance has confirmed that new and upgraded UST systems still have releases and those releases are often not properly detected. We have identified faults with most components of UST systems, including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the various components. Many of the problems appears to be caused by human error or oversight – including failure to test and maintain corrosion protection and leak detection systems – but problems with the actual equipment is also of concern. Piping continues to be the leading cause for concern. Spills and overfills during product delivery also continue at an unacceptable rate and releases from dispensers have emerged as a major concern. Since most UST systems in operation are still single-walled, a failure of these UST systems will lead to a release directly into the environment. And when a release does occur, the existing release detection infrastructure is failing to adequately detect releases from tanks and pipes, and is, in fact, not even designed to detect most spills and overfills or dispenser releases. Also, the release detection infrastructure is by design reactive, only detecting releases after they enter the environment, unless a system is secondarily contained with interstitial monitoring. Finally, there is emerging evidence that vapor releases from new and upgraded UST systems are common, and released vapors – including MTBE – can find their way into the groundwater.
It is important to note that
the current generation of UST systems is significantly more protective than the
previous generation, but a number of problems remain. More work needs to be done to further understand the sources and
causes of problems and to identify appropriate remedies. As part of this work, we will be collecting
additional data. We will also increase
our discussions with states and the regulated community to further examine
these issues and to discuss potential solutions to the problems and challenges
that still face us. This remains a
significant priority for EPA.
In summary, Madam Chairman,
we believe very substantial progress has been made on a variety of UST
challenges including closing substandard USTs, improving compliance, and
cleaning up releases. Nevertheless, the
amount of work, especially in light of MTBE contamination, remaining to be
accomplished is also substantial. We
look forward to working with Congress, states, and our other partners to
address the work before us.
S. 1850 - Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2001
I would like to commend
Senators Chafee, Carper, Smith, Jeffords and Inhofe for introducing S. 1850, the Underground Storage Tank
Compliance Act of 2001, which would help prevent and clean up releases from
USTs. The Agency has been reviewing
the legislation and continues to analyze specific provisions. While we do not have an official
Administration position on the bill, I have some thoughts I would like to
share.
First of all, I appreciate
the Subcommittee’s recognition of the importance of preventing and cleaning up
UST releases. While tremendous progress
has been made over the past decade there are still substantial challenges and
risks posed by USTs, as I have outlined in this testimony. More specifically, the focus on remediating
MTBE contamination is both timely and appropriate. As I have discussed, MTBE poses challenges to communities
throughout the country. There are
thousands of releases containing MTBE that still need to be addressed, and this
will be a continuing challenge for EPA, its state and tribal partners, and the
regulated community.
Preventing future releases
is equally important and I also commend the Subcommittee on its efforts to
provide more tools and resources to make that happen. S.1850's focus on inspection frequency and improving operator
training is appropriate and could go a long way toward ensuring UST systems are
properly managed to reduce the risk of releases.
Section 6 of S. 1850 has
several important provisions. One of
these provisions deals with delivery prohibition programs. Approximately 20 states have some form of
delivery prohibition program. While
these programs vary from state-to-state, many states have found these effective
in promoting compliance with the UST requirements. This tool could be extremely valuable to those states that do not
currently have delivery prohibition programs and to the federal government.
The legislation expands the
eligible uses of LUST funding. This
would give increased flexibility to both states and EPA to direct our resources
to the most pressing needs. For
example, we could use LUST funding for inspections and enforcement to ensure
compliance with the preventive requirements.
Since unique factors affect many states, the flexibility will prove
particularly important to deal with state-specific issues.
The legislation also places
increased emphasis on operator training.
We believe this is extremely important to ensure proper operation and
maintenance of UST systems. Some states,
including California, are already taking steps to ensure proper operator
training. Given the high turnover in facility personnel, ensuring proper
training for all UST operators is particularly challenging. To meet this challenge will take
considerable effort by the regulated community, states, and EPA.
While there are many
provisions in S. 1850 that would strengthen the current UST program, there are
provisions that need further clarification or could have the unintended effect
of hindering UST program progress. We would be pleased to work with you and
your staff to discuss these issues and concerns with the funding authorization
levels in more detail.
I again commend the Subcommittee for focusing on the challenges facing the UST program and for supporting efforts to protect our citizens from risks posed by leaking USTs. I look forward to working closely with the Environment and Public Works Committee and Congress as it continues deliberations on the bill.