| |
Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today
to discuss the increasing concern that our nation’s waters are becoming
contaminated with methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). About a third of the states, in certain areas, use gasoline
that contains MTBE to help them limit air pollution because it burns cleaner.
However, the substance could also pose risks to human health, especially
as a contaminant in drinking water wells. One
of the primary ways in which the contaminant has migrated into wells and
groundwater is from leaking underground tanks used to store gasoline.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the responsibility through
the Underground Storage Tank Program and working primarily through the states to
ensure the tanks do not leak, and if they do, that the contamination is cleaned
up. However, several studies,
including our own report on EPA’s implementation of the tank program,
showed that many tanks have leaked—and continue to leak—hazardous
substances, such as MTBE and benzene. These
leaks, in turn, contaminate soil and groundwater, posing health risks to those
who live nearby or drink the water. Such
health risks can range from nausea to kidney or liver damage or even cancer.
As a result, some communities have closed their drinking water wells.
A recent news report illustrates the problem. A school in Roselawn, Indiana, discovered that the children
had been using and drinking water with nearly 10 times the EPA-recommended safe
level of MTBE. I understand that an
investigation is trying to determine whether the MTBE came from a nearby tank
and whether it is a factor contributing to the children’s nosebleeds and other
reported health problems.
When there is a gasoline
overflow, spill, or tank leak—referred to as releases—the tank owners and
operators are to report the incident to EPA if the release is on tribal lands,
or otherwise to the state agency implementing the tank program, and to initiate
cleanup. Most releases are not
discovered, however, until the tanks are taken out of service, when they must be
permanently closed to eliminate future leaks. To help states cover their program costs, the Congress
annually provides the states with grants from a trust fund it created in 1986.
In fiscal year 2001, states each received from $252,000 to $4.5 million,
depending primarily on their cleanup workload, for a total of $58.7 million.
States can use these resources for, among other things, cleaning up
releases when the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to perform the
cleanup, or cannot be identified. The
fund is replenished primarily through a $.001/gallon federal tax on gasoline and
other fuels and had a balance of $1.7 billion at the end of fiscal year 2001.
Because of rising concerns
about continuing releases and the resulting contamination, especially from MTBE,
we determined the (1) extent to which these releases may contain MTBE, and
whether the contaminant poses health risks or affects cleanups, (2) progress
states have made in cleaning up releases, and (3) the party responsible for the
cleanup costs. In summary, we found
the following:
- A majority of the 50
states have reported finding MTBE when they discover gasoline contamination
at their tank sites and, increasingly, in their groundwater, surface water,
and drinking water. This
widespread contamination occurs, even though currently only certain
communities in only about one-third of the states use gasoline with MTBE as
a fuel additive. Contamination
continues because, among other things, MTBE has been used in the past as an
octane enhancer and is currently transported through the same fuel pipes and
trucks that deliver gasoline across the country.
MTBE’s health effects have not been conclusively established, but the
federal government has determined it to be a potential human carcinogen.
Because of the health uncertainties, EPA has not regulated MTBE;
instead it has simply advised people not to drink water that contains
concentrations in excess of 20 to 40 parts per billion.
Fourteen states have gone further on their own and partially or
completely banned the use of MTBE within their borders or established other
regulations on its use. According
to a December 2000 report on a survey of state tank program managers
sponsored by EPA,
finding MTBE at a tank site does not typically affect the cleanup method but
can increase the time and cost of cleanup because MTBE travels faster and
farther than other gasoline contaminants. Several states reported that their cleanup costs doubled
as a result of addressing MTBE.
- States have made progress
in addressing the releases they have discovered, including MTBE
contamination, but face a continuing and substantial cleanup workload.
States reported to EPA that they have completed cleanups of 64
percent of the more than 400,000 identified releases as of the end of fiscal
year 2001, and have begun some type of cleanup action for another 26
percent. Nevertheless, states
still have to both complete these ongoing cleanups and begin cleanups for
almost another 40,000 releases, or determine that they do not pose enough
risk to warrant a cleanup. In
addition, states face a potentially large, but unknown, future workload in
addressing releases from a number of sources, as we previously reported.
These include unidentified abandoned tanks, identified but empty and
inactive tanks that have not yet been removed, active tanks that leak
because their leak detection and prevention equipment is not being properly
operated and maintained, and unreported leaks from tanks in those states
that do not inspect them. Some
states reported that even their new tanks with the latest leak detection and
prevention equipment are leaking, increasing the cleanup workload.
A majority of the 13 states that we contacted—those that had
cleaned up many releases or had a large backlog left to address—identified
the lack of staff to oversee cleanups as a barrier affecting cleanup
progress.
- States typically depend on
tank owners or operators to pay some portion of cleanup costs and cover the
remainder with their own funding programs.
The states depend on the relatively small federal trust fund grants
to pay staff to oversee cleanups and administer their programs. States typically do not receive appropriations from
their legislatures to cover their cleanup costs but pay for them out of
funds supported by state gasoline tax revenues, annual tank fees, or both.
In a May 2001 survey of state funding programs, by the Vermont
Department of Environmental Conservation,
36 states reported having adequate funding to cover their current costs
while 11 reported having more costs to cover than funds available.
In addition, 16 states have stopped accepting, or are scheduled to
stop accepting, new claims for reimbursements, leaving it up to tank owners
to obtain adequate insurance or other means to cover their cleanup
liabilities. In the future,
some states may seek additional federal support when and if their funding
programs end and they turn their attention to addressing the many
unidentified abandoned tanks nationwide that have no financially viable
owners to pay for cleanup.
MTBE
Has Been Detected Nationwide But the Extent of Its Effect on Human Health and
the Cleanup of Releases Is Uncertain
While
the full extent of MTBE contamination is unknown, most states reported in the
EPA-sponsored survey that they are finding the contaminant in groundwater from
releases at tank sites, and some are beginning to find it in their drinking
water sources. The extent to which
the contaminant poses a health risk is uncertain, however, in part because EPA
does not yet have the data necessary to determine MTBE’s health effects. Detecting MTBE from a release typically does not influence
the type of cleanup method selected, but could increase the time and cost of the
cleanup, according to a number of states.
Most States Have Found MTBE
in Groundwater from Releases at Tank Sites; Fewer Have Found It in Their
Drinking Water
Portions
of 17 states and the District of Columbia currently use gasoline potentially
containing the additive MTBE to limit air pollution (see figure 1).
However, MTBE is being detected nationwide because, among other things,
it had been used as an octane enhancer in gasoline in the past and because the
pipes and trucks used to carry gasoline throughout the nation have been cross
contaminated with the substance.
Figure
1: States Using MTBE and Other Fuel Additives to Limit Air Pollution
Source:
EPA.
Forty-four
states reported in the EPA-sponsored survey that they sample groundwater at
leaking tank sites and test it for MTBE. Furthermore, 35 states reported that they find
MTBE in groundwater at least 20 percent of the time they sample for it, and 24
states said that they find it at least 60 percent of the time.
States
are not only finding MTBE at tank sites with reported releases—half of the
states reported finding it at tank sites even when there was no documented
release, although they did not know the number of these cases.
About half of the states also reported finding MTBE that they could not
attribute to a leaking tank and suspected that it came from other sources, such
as above-ground tanks used to store fuel.
The
extent of MTBE contamination may be understated because some tank releases go
undetected and because only 19 states said that they are taking any extra steps
to make sure that MTBE is not migrating further from a tank site than other
contaminants when a release has been detected.
MTBE is less likely to cling to soil than other gasoline components and
dissolves more easily in water, allowing it to travel faster, farther, and
sometimes deeper. Therefore,
parties might have to use more test wells around a leaking tank to determine if
and where MTBE is present. If
states do not conduct the extra tests, they may not detect the MTBE.
Some
of the states that have identified MTBE contamination have also found that it
reached drinking water sources. More
states may not have reported finding MTBE in part because only 24 states in the
EPA-sponsored survey said that their drinking water program offices routinely
analyzed drinking water sources for MTBE, while another 24 said that their
offices were not conducting these analyses.
Although a number of states were not sure how many public or private
drinking water wells had been contaminated by MTBE, 11 states said that at least
10 public wells had been contaminated at the time of the survey, and 15 states
reported that 10 private wells had been closed.
The Maryland Department of the Environment reported that MTBE was found
in low concentrations in about 100 of more than 1,200 water systems tested.
In contrast, some communities in California, Kansas, and Maine have had
more extensive problems with contaminated groundwater.
For example, Santa Monica, California, closed seven wells supplying 50
percent of the city’s water.
At
the national level, the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) and EPA have conducted some
water-monitoring efforts, but have yet to find high concentrations of MTBE in
many drinking water sources. According
to a USGS study, MTBE was detected in generally lower concentrations in 14
percent of surface water sources.
Another USGS study points out, however, that it was 10 times more likely
to find MTBE in areas that use it as a fuel additive to reduce pollution.
A third USGS study, done in cooperation with EPA and issued in 2001,
examined monitoring data from over 2,000 randomly selected community water
systems in the northeast and mid-Atlantic regions and reported that MTBE was
detected in about 9 percent of the systems that analyzed samples for MTBE.
Finally, EPA has completed the first year of a 3-year effort—under the
recently implemented Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule—to have all large
water systems (serving populations of 10,000 or more), as well as selected small
public water systems (serving populations of 3,000 or less), test their water
for MTBE. Of the one-third of the
systems required to test in the first year, 1 of 131 large systems and 3 of the
283 small systems detected the substance.
Reviews on the Extent that
MTBE in Drinking Water Poses Health Risks Are Still Pending
An
interagency assessment of potential health risks associated with fuel additives
to gasoline, primarily MTBE, concluded that while available data did not fully
determine risks, MTBE should be regarded as a potential carcinogenic risk to
humans.
However, the extent that MTBE may be present in high concentrations in
drinking water and jeopardizing public health is unknown.
Because MTBE has a bad taste and odor at
relatively
low concentrations, people may not be able to tolerate drinking contaminated
water in large enough quantities to pose a health risk.
On the other hand, some people may become desensitized to the taste and
smell and could end up drinking MTBE for years in their well water, according to
the EPA program manager.
EPA
has efforts underway to fill in some of the data gaps on the health effects of
MTBE and its occurrence in drinking water supplies.
Additional research and water quality monitoring must be concluded before
EPA can determine whether a water quality standard—an enforceable limit on the
concentration of MTBE allowed in drinking water—is warranted.
EPA has issued an advisory suggesting that drinking water should not
contain MTBE in concentrations greater than 20 to 40 parts per billion, based on
taste and odor concerns. EPA is considering taking further steps to regulate MTBE, but
notes that to establish a federally enforceable standard could take about 10
years.
While
the potential health risks of MTBE are uncertain, 14 states---9 of which are not
required to use a fuel additive to limit air pollution in certain areas—have
partially or completely banned the use of MTBE within their boundaries (see
figure 2).
Figure
2: States That Have Banned MTBE
(year of ban)
Source:
EPA.
In
addition, seven states reported in the December 2000 EPA-sponsored survey that
they had established their own health-based primary drinking water standard for
MTBE, as shown in figure 3. Six of
these states currently use fuel additives to limit air pollution and the seventh
state voluntarily used such additives until 1999.
Figure
3: States With a Health-Based Drinking Water Standard for MTBE
Source:
A Survey of State Experiences with MTBE
Contamination at Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites, New England
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (December 15, 2000).
Another
five states reported
establishing a secondary standard to limit the allowable amount of MTBE in
drinking water. These standards
vary considerably, however, with concentrations ranging from 5 to 70 parts per
billion.
Discovery of MTBE Does Not
Drive the Cleanup Methods Implemented, but Could Increase the Cleanup’s
Duration and Cost
According to the EPA-sponsored
survey, 37 states said that finding gasoline, or its components of concern,
in soil or groundwater at a tank site is the primary driver of cleanup
activities, not the presence of MTBE. In
other words, the methods used to clean up gasoline can also be used to address
MTBE contamination. These proven
cleanup technologies include pumping and treating groundwater at its source,
treating the water at its point of use by running it through a filter, or using
a process known as air sparging (injecting air into the contaminated area to
volatilize and extract MTBE). Letting
the contaminant naturally break down over time—known as natural
attenuation—may not be as effective as with other components of gasoline
because MTBE persists longer in soil and groundwater.
However, addressing MTBE could
add time and costs to cleanups. According
to the EPA-sponsored survey, 16 states reported cost increases as a result of
MTBE cleanup, most less than 20 percent; 5 states reported that their costs had
doubled. States spent, on average,
about $88,000 addressing releases at each tank site in fiscal year 2001.
Nineteen states indicated that it could cost more to test for MTBE
because they take additional steps to ensure that this contaminant is not
migrating beyond other contaminants in a release.
Several states reported that their laboratories charged $10 to $50 more
per sample to analyze for MTBE. In
addition, many of the 16 states that cited higher cleanup costs for MTBE
attributed these increases to such factors as longer plumes and increased
cleanup time. Finally, the
discovery of MTBE can increase costs because filters used to remove MTBE from
water have to be changed more frequently.
States Have Made Progress in
Cleaning Up Tank Releases, but Still Face a Potentially Large Cleanup Workload
States reported to EPA that as
of the end of 2001, they had completed cleanups of 64 percent (267,969) of the
416,702 known releases at tank sites and had begun some type of cleanup action
for another 26 percent (109,486), as figure 4 illustrates.
Figure
4: States Have Made Progress in Cleaning Up Tank Releases
Source:
GAO’s analysis of data provided by states to EPA. Note: Due to rounding,
the percentages do not total 100 percent.
Because states typically set
priorities for their cleanups by first addressing those releases that pose the
most risk, states may have already begun to clean up some of the worst releases
to date. However, EPA tank program
managers cautioned that some of the many cleanups that are underway may still be
in their early stages because states have varying criteria for “underway.”
For example, California reports a cleanup is underway as soon as a release is
reported, even if no work has begun. In
addition, states still have to address the remaining 39,247 known releases (9
percent) where cleanup is not underway by either ensuring it has begun or is not
needed because the releases do not pose a risk. Figure 5 illustrates the remaining cleanup workload for known
releases in each state and the District of Columbia.
Figure
5: States Still Have a Number of Cleanups to Initiate or Complete
As the figure shows, while
states have made progress, seven states still have more than 5,000 releases that
they have not fully addressed. Most
of the 13 states we contacted cited a lack of staff as a barrier to achieving
more cleanups. For example, the May
2001 Vermont survey of state funding programs indicated that, on average across
the states, each staff person was responsible for overseeing about 130 tank
sites during that year.
In addition to this known
workload, states most likely will continue to face a potentially large but
unknown future cleanup workload for a number of reasons:
- In a June 2000 report to
the Congress, EPA estimated that as many as 200,000 tanks nationwide may be
unregistered, abandoned, or both, and have not been assessed for leaks.
- Furthermore, even though
many owners chose to close their tanks rather than upgrade them with leak
detection and prevention equipment as federally required, tens of thousands
of tanks nationwide are still empty and inactive, and have not been
permanently closed, as we previously reported.
Consequently, any leaks from these tanks may not have been
identified.
- We also reported that an
estimated 200,000 or more active tanks were not being properly operated or
maintained, increasing the chance of a spill or leak.
For example, 15 states reported that leak detection equipment was
frequently turned off or improperly maintained.
- In addition, we reported
that many states do not inspect their tanks frequently enough to ensure that
they are not leaking and that known releases are reported.
Only 19 states were physically inspecting all of their tanks at least
once every 3 years—the minimum EPA considers necessary for effective tank
monitoring. In addition, 22
states were not inspecting all of their tanks on any regular basis.
- While the number of leaks
should decrease in the future—because all new of active tanks should have
leak detection and prevention equipment—we previously reported that 14
states traced newly discovered leaks to upgraded tanks and 20 states did not
know whether their upgraded tanks leaked.
- Finally, 10 states
reported in the EPA-sponsored survey that they had reopened a small number
of completed cleanups because MTBE had been subsequently detected.
If more states follow suit, the future cleanup workload will
increase, although the size of this workload is unknown.
In addition, states may be responsible for the costs of these
reopened cleanups because tank owners and operators are not required to
maintain financial responsibility for tanks that were properly cleaned up or
closed.
States Rely on Their Own Programs and
Private Parties to Pay for Cleanups, but May Require Federal Funding to
Accelerate Cleanups and Address Abandoned Tanks
States have relied primarily on
their own funding programs and private parties to pay for cleanups, using the
relatively small federal trust fund grants they receive for staff, program
administration, and to a lesser extent, cleanups. States’ reliance on private and federal funding could
increase in the future if they end their funding programs and begin to address
the problem of abandoned tanks with no financially viable owner.
State Funding Programs and Private Parties Have
Paid for Most Cleanups
In creating the Underground
Storage Tank program, the Congress expected tank owners and operators to take
financial responsibility for cleaning up contamination from their tanks,
correcting environmental damage, and compensating third parties for any
injuries. Tank owners and operators
were to demonstrate that they had the financial resources to cover potential
cleanup liabilities. Initially,
private insurers were hesitant to take on the risks of providing liability
coverage to owners and operators of underground storage tank systems, so many
states created their own financial assurance funds.
These state funds could be used to cover the financial responsibilities
of owners and operators for site cleanup as long as long as the state funds met
the federal financial responsibility requirements. Forty-seven states established such programs most often from
a gasoline tax, an annual tank fee, or both, rather than state appropriations.
The remaining three states relied on owners and operators to locate
suitable insurance, now more readily available, or other financial resources. Under many state programs, owners or operators pay for the
cleanup and seek reimbursement for a portion of the cleanup costs from the
state. Six of the 13 states we
contacted cap the amount of reimbursements and expect tank owners and operators
to be financially liable for the remaining costs.
In the May 2001 Vermont survey
of state funding programs, states reported spending a cumulative $6.2 billion
from their funds since their programs began (13 states did not report their
costs). The amount of private funds
spent on cleanups is unknown. At
the time of the survey, 36 states reported having adequate funding to cover
their current costs, but 11 other states said that they were about $625 million
short of the funds necessary to cover known claims.
Program managers in five of the 13 states we contacted said that their
state funds were stable. In
addition, nine states reported that eligibility for their programs had ended—meaning
they would no longer accept any reimbursement claims for new releases—and
another seven states expected eligibility to end by 2026.
Furthermore, the program fees used to replenish state programs had
expired in 1 state and were expected to expire in another 12 states within the
next decade. As a result of these
provisions, tank owners and operators would be responsible for cleanup costs
with no state funding support.
States Have Used Federal Funds Primarily for
Cleanup Oversight
States have been using federal
grants from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund primarily to pay for
staff to oversee cleanups and pursue owners and operators so that they clean up
their sites, according to the EPA program manager.
States cannot use these federal funds to clean up releases when an owner
or operator can pay. States spent $662.5 million in federal trust fund dollars
from fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year 2001,
roughly 10 percent of the expenditures from states’ funds during the same
period. States used $19.5 million,
or 36 percent, of the $58.7 million they received in fiscal year 2001 grants on
cleanup (see figure 6).
Figure
6: States’ Use of Grants from the Federal Trust Fund
Of the 13 states we contacted,
7 said that their programs rely on the federal grants. On the other hand, for example, a program manager in Florida
said that the state’s program does not depend on federal grants because it is
a small amount of money compared with the amount coming from the state fund.
Some states use their federal funds for staffing costs.
However, a Maryland program official pointed out that the size of the
annual federal grants to states has not kept pace with the salary and other
costs they must cover for staff. An
Indiana program official attributed a backlog of 4,000 cleanups at one point in
the state’s program to a lack of federal funding that could be used to pay for
additional staff. States may be
using their federal trust fund grants to pay for staff because the use of these
funds is more restrictive than the state funds, which can be used to reimburse
tank owners for their cleanup costs, among other things.
Six states have used an
additional funding source that receives federal support to cover some cleanup
costs, namely, their Clean Water State Revolving Funds. States get federal seed money to initiate and maintain this
type of fund. Eligible parties can
apply for loans under the fund and have used them to cover a variety of leak
prevention and cleanup projects. According
to the EPA, the six states using this vehicle have made a total of $84 million
in loans for tank cleanups through June 2000.
Program managers in 9 of the 13 states we contacted said that they did
not expect to use their revolving loan fund for tank cleanups.
Some States May Seek More Federal Support for
Cleanups in the Future
In addition to the federal
grants and loan funds, some states may look to the federal government in the
future to help them clean up those abandoned tanks that pose health risks when
financially viable parties cannot be identified to pay for cleanups.
States admit that they do not often identify releases until they are
closing or removing tanks, meaning that EPA and the states might inadvertently
be underestimating the risks and cleanup workload that abandoned tanks pose.
States may seek additional
federal assistance to address abandoned tanks if state funding programs expire
or are depleted. As of January
2002, states can access one new source of federal funding for abandoned tanks,
made possible by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields
Revitalization Act. Under the act,
the Congress authorized up to $50 million annually to clean up properties that
may be contaminated by a petroleum release, including abandoned tanks.
Scope and Methodology
To respond to your questions,
we primarily analyzed data (1) that states reported to EPA on the status of tank
releases, (2) from the December 2000 report on the EPA-sponsored survey of state
tank programs, and (3) from the May 2001 Vermont survey of state cleanup funding
programs. In addition, we contacted
13 state tank program managers to discuss their cleanup workload, their concerns
with MTBE, and their approach for funding cleanups.
We selected these states because they had addressed the largest number of
releases, had the largest backlog, or both.
We also met with EPA tank program managers to discuss cleanup efforts.
We performed our work from April to May 2002 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
- - - - -
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my
statement. I would be pleased to
respond to any question you or Members of the Committee may have.
Contact and Acknowledgments
For further information, please
contact John Stephenson at (202) 512-3841.
Individuals making key contributions to this testimony were Ellen
Crocker, Rich Johnson, Eileen Larence, Gerald Laudermilk, Christopher Murray,
and Paul Schearf.
(360215)
|
|
