Leaking Underground Storage Tanks - A Threat to Public Health & Environment - Resources for Healthy Children www.scribd.com/doc/254613619 - For more information, Please see Organic Edible Schoolyards & Gardening with Children www.scribd.com/doc/254613963 - Gardening with Volcanic Rock Dust www.scribd.com/doc/254613846 - Double Food Production from your School Garden with Organic Tech www.scribd.com/doc/254613765 - Free School Gardening Art Posters www.scribd.com/doc/254613694 - Increase Food Production with Companion Planting in your School Garden www.scribd.com/doc/254609890 - Healthy Foods Dramatically Improves Student Academic Success www.scribd.com/doc/254613619 - City Chickens for your Organic School Garden www.scribd.com/doc/254613553 - Huerto Ecológico, Tecnologías Sostenibles, Agricultura Organica www.scribd.com/doc/254613494 - Simple Square Foot Gardening for Schools - Teacher Guide www.scribd.com/doc/254613410 - Free Organic Gardening Publications www.scribd.com/doc/254609890 ~
This document discusses funding for stormwater controls in Maryland. It summarizes that urban stormwater runoff is a major source of pollution to the Chesapeake Bay, and controlling it is critical for improving bay health. However, developing stable funding programs for stormwater mitigation is challenging and controversial, as seen with the "Rain Tax." As populations and urban areas grow, so do impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff pollution loads to local waterways. Effective funding policies and public education are needed to address this issue.
Water resources in the USA face issues like water shortage, pollution, and aging infrastructure exacerbated by climate change. Over 1.7 million people lack basic plumbing access. Water management needs to improve health while balancing costs, with average water bills varying significantly between cities. Solutions include pollution control, water reuse, and federal funding through programs like the State Revolving Funds and water recycling projects.
This document summarizes citizen efforts to advocate for environmental justice and combat pollution from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in Wisconsin. It discusses how CAFOs produce massive amounts of untreated waste that pollutes groundwater and how citizens have taken on monitoring water quality and public health impacts themselves. It encourages supporting local sustainable agriculture and voting with your food dollars to promote clean water protection.
The United States has made progress on environmental protection through laws and regulations since the 1970s, but still has work to do. While manufacturing companies now comply with environmental regulations and recycling has increased, issues like conserving water and protecting wildlife still require long-term comprehensive planning. In response, many cities and universities have formed sustainability offices and adopted green plans using new technologies. However, continued highway expansion promotes sprawl and vehicle emissions, threatening species through habitat loss and collisions. More sustainable transportation options like light rail are needed.
In 2014 the Auditor General criticised management of the iconic river that flows past the state capital Perth. The river remains filthy and may be closed to water contact after summer rains. There are today few birds and fish and parts are smelly and on four palliative care oxygen tanks. There are steps that can be followed to at least halt the river's decline. New Zealand has a template that can be adopted.
Presentation For Florida Irrigation Societyedward_klaas
The document discusses lessons learned from the recent drought in Georgia. It summarizes the drought's impacts, including severely reduced water levels in reservoirs and streams. It also covers population growth trends in Georgia that are increasing water demand, and conflicts between Georgia and downstream states over shared water resources in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river basin. Conservation and improved water management will be increasingly important to address the state's water challenges.
The document discusses water scarcity issues facing Western US states. It notes that the population in Western states grew significantly in the 1990s and 2000s, increasing demand for water resources. Several Western states are also among the driest in the nation. The document outlines that thermoelectric power generation, irrigation, and public supply account for the majority of water usage in the Western US. Sustainable water resource management is challenging given population growth, limited opportunities for developing new water supplies, and competing demands.
The Aggregate Resource Act is being revised in Ontario. Here is the info I submitted to the ARA committee July 5th 2012 speaking of how aggregates put agricultural sectors, and water supplies and our GDP at risk.
This document discusses funding for stormwater controls in Maryland. It summarizes that urban stormwater runoff is a major source of pollution to the Chesapeake Bay, and controlling it is critical for improving bay health. However, developing stable funding programs for stormwater mitigation is challenging and controversial, as seen with the "Rain Tax." As populations and urban areas grow, so do impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff pollution loads to local waterways. Effective funding policies and public education are needed to address this issue.
Water resources in the USA face issues like water shortage, pollution, and aging infrastructure exacerbated by climate change. Over 1.7 million people lack basic plumbing access. Water management needs to improve health while balancing costs, with average water bills varying significantly between cities. Solutions include pollution control, water reuse, and federal funding through programs like the State Revolving Funds and water recycling projects.
This document summarizes citizen efforts to advocate for environmental justice and combat pollution from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in Wisconsin. It discusses how CAFOs produce massive amounts of untreated waste that pollutes groundwater and how citizens have taken on monitoring water quality and public health impacts themselves. It encourages supporting local sustainable agriculture and voting with your food dollars to promote clean water protection.
The United States has made progress on environmental protection through laws and regulations since the 1970s, but still has work to do. While manufacturing companies now comply with environmental regulations and recycling has increased, issues like conserving water and protecting wildlife still require long-term comprehensive planning. In response, many cities and universities have formed sustainability offices and adopted green plans using new technologies. However, continued highway expansion promotes sprawl and vehicle emissions, threatening species through habitat loss and collisions. More sustainable transportation options like light rail are needed.
In 2014 the Auditor General criticised management of the iconic river that flows past the state capital Perth. The river remains filthy and may be closed to water contact after summer rains. There are today few birds and fish and parts are smelly and on four palliative care oxygen tanks. There are steps that can be followed to at least halt the river's decline. New Zealand has a template that can be adopted.
Presentation For Florida Irrigation Societyedward_klaas
The document discusses lessons learned from the recent drought in Georgia. It summarizes the drought's impacts, including severely reduced water levels in reservoirs and streams. It also covers population growth trends in Georgia that are increasing water demand, and conflicts between Georgia and downstream states over shared water resources in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river basin. Conservation and improved water management will be increasingly important to address the state's water challenges.
The document discusses water scarcity issues facing Western US states. It notes that the population in Western states grew significantly in the 1990s and 2000s, increasing demand for water resources. Several Western states are also among the driest in the nation. The document outlines that thermoelectric power generation, irrigation, and public supply account for the majority of water usage in the Western US. Sustainable water resource management is challenging given population growth, limited opportunities for developing new water supplies, and competing demands.
The Aggregate Resource Act is being revised in Ontario. Here is the info I submitted to the ARA committee July 5th 2012 speaking of how aggregates put agricultural sectors, and water supplies and our GDP at risk.
This document discusses key trends related to increasing water scarcity and their implications for humanitarian action. It notes that water scarcity exacerbated by factors like climate change, population growth, and energy demands could heighten vulnerability and increase humanitarian needs. Specifically, water scarcity may amplify conflict, food insecurity, and health issues. It could also necessitate scaling up humanitarian operations to meet growing needs, especially regarding slow-onset disasters. The document analyzes current and projected global water scarcity situations in depth.
2015 has been a very important year for humanity and the health of our planet. With your generous support, we made substantial strides advancing global sustainability in 2015. Click on the slideshow below for highlights from the year.
This document summarizes a policy brief on environmental governance of extractive activities in Latin America and the Caribbean. The brief finds that while extractive industries generate economic benefits, they often damage the environment and local livelihoods. Local communities most impacted feel their concerns are neglected. The brief recommends that national governments, foreign investors, and international organizations seriously involve local communities in decision making to achieve sustainable and equitable development. Unless local voices are included and practices improved, extractive activities will likely lead to more tensions and potential conflicts.
Palestine has very limited water resources due to its arid climate and political restrictions. It relies heavily on underground aquifers for water supply but extracts only a small portion of the total annual recharge due to Israeli control. Climate change is projected to further reduce precipitation and aquifer recharge, exacerbating water scarcity issues. Without a clear political solution or economic means for desalination, Palestine faces major challenges in ensuring access to sufficient, sustainable water supplies for its population.
This document discusses the importance of groundwater and aggregates to Waterloo Region's economy and water supply. It notes that Waterloo Region relies almost entirely on groundwater from aquifers, and extracts over 100 million litres per day. Aggregate extraction poses risks to these aquifers and the Grand River, which provides 25% of the region's water. The region has a large manufacturing and agricultural economy that depends on available water supplies. Protecting farmland and water resources is crucial for long-term economic and food security as global water and food crises emerge. Strengthening environmental assessments and accountability is needed to properly evaluate risks of aggregate extraction.
Water: consumption, usage patterns, and residential infrastructure. A compara...JhonPedrazaGarcia
To cite this article: Daniel R. Rondinel-Oviedo & Jaime M. Sarmiento-Pastor (2020): Water:
consumption, usage patterns, and residential infrastructure. A comparative analysis of three regions
in the Lima metropolitan area, Water International, DOI: 10.1080/02508060.2020.1830360
US-Mexico Transboundary Water Sharing & Human Rights ViolationsAmira Noeuv
The document discusses water sharing between the US and Mexico, human rights violations resulting from their agreements, and considerations for future policies. It summarizes the 1944 Water Treaty between the two countries, which apportions water from the Colorado River and Rio Grande River. However, the treaty neglects important issues like groundwater use and environmental sustainability. As a result, socioeconomically underrepresented communities, immigrants, and indigenous groups on both sides of the border experience human rights violations related to access to clean water. The document calls for policies to address these shortcomings while also considering the treaty's successes and efforts by groups like the International Boundary and Water Commission.
The document summarizes the current water situation in the West Bank of Palestine. It notes that Palestinians have lost access to major water sources like the Jordan River since 1967 and now rely on limited and unequally shared groundwater sources. On average, Palestinians consume less than half the recommended minimum water needs. Water allocation is mainly based on available resources but is also influenced by the political situation and Israeli occupation, which restrict Palestinian access and development. While socioeconomic factors affect distribution between communities, other overriding constraints like limited funding and infrastructure control the process more than economic or social criteria.
72.9% of Mexico's water withdrawals in 2009 were for agricultural purposes, with 12.0% for industrial uses and 8.0% for cooling thermoelectric plants. From 2003 to 2011, over 43% of Mexico's water-related government budget was spent on water supply and sanitation, while close to 95% of water-related official development assistance went to water supply and sanitation projects. Mexico faces water challenges including water pollution, overexploitation of groundwater sources, and effects of water-related natural disasters.
Immigration is driving population growth in the United States and putting strain on ecosystems like the Chesapeake Bay. The population in the Chesapeake Bay watershed has grown to over 17 million residents and is increasing by 150,000 people per year, threatening the Bay's ability to sustain life. Between 2000 and 2009, immigration directly accounted for 40% of population growth in the watershed, and when including children born to immigrants, immigration accounted for 66% of total growth. Immediate action is needed to reduce immigration levels and achieve population stability in order to protect the Chesapeake Bay.
This document discusses the growing issue of global water scarcity and its implications. It notes that while freshwater availability is flat or declining, water withdrawals are increasing, driven largely by intensive agriculture. This is exacerbating water stress in many regions. The document predicts that as stress increases, agricultural water use will decline relative to industrial and domestic use. It examines the impacts on major cotton growing countries and companies' responses to the issue, such as measuring and reducing water footprints. Dissolving pulp is presented as a potential substitute for cotton that could benefit from these trends.
Overview of the groundwater issues of Brant County including concerns for development and gravel pits over recharge and potential impacts of a proposed Lake Erie pipeline.
This document provides an overview of water pollution policy in the United States, with a focus on agricultural nonpoint source pollution. It discusses the history of water pollution regulation, including exemptions for agricultural runoff. Key EPA programs aimed at nonpoint source pollution like Sections 208, 319, and 303(d) are examined. Current trends in voluntary conservation practices and funding challenges are also summarized. The implications of the Des Moines Water Works lawsuit against drainage districts for regulating agricultural runoff are explored.
The document discusses several global water security issues including population growth, climate change, and water management strains threatening regional stability. It notes water issues are increasingly relevant globally and intersect with other policy areas. While water wars are likely overblown, changing demographics are challenging historical water sharing norms. The document outlines water conflicts between several countries and regions and the economic and social impacts of water shortages. It provides examples of strategies to address water challenges from industry, governments, and organizations.
This document proposes an educational outreach program in Butler County, Ohio to address stormwater runoff and nutrient loading issues impacting local streams. The program will use Community Based Social Marketing and citizen science approaches involving stream monitoring. It will target both urban and rural residents through materials distribution and mobile workshops at local farmers markets. The three phase plan includes: 1) creating educational materials and training, 2) implementing the outreach at markets over 12 weeks, and 3) evaluating the program's success through surveys and focus groups. The proposal outlines the current problems, location, project details, and qualifications of the leading organizations to execute the comprehensive plan.
This document discusses water resources and water scarcity. It defines water resources and their key characteristics of utility, limited availability, and potential for depletion. It classifies water resources based on origin (natural vs human) and availability (renewable vs non-renewable). The document outlines different types of water resources like groundwater, surface water, and their various sources. It discusses increasing global water scarcity and its physical and economic causes. It also summarizes various factors contributing to water scarcity and some strategies for water conservation.
Mega drought in a mega city at a continental scale: São Paulo, BrazilErick Fernandes
Can local communities be empowered to establish a "Green Wall" for sustainable livelihoods by protecting the vulnerable Amazon Forest and the agricultural and industrial heartlands of Brazil?
Who topic a, topic b, and committee backgroundGera Morton
WHO is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters and setting standards. It aims to ensure equitable access to healthcare and collective defense against disease threats. The document discusses obstacles to delivering vaccines and medicines in developing countries, including diverging standards between developed and developing nations. It also notes opportunities like increased funding from organizations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and public-private partnerships. Pollution is discussed as a threat to water quality and cause of water-borne diseases. Groundwater contamination has various sources and impacts health. Air pollution from industry and transport also damages health, crops and structures.
Water resources in the USA face issues like water shortage, pollution, and aging infrastructure exacerbated by climate change. Over 1.7 million people lack basic plumbing access. Water management needs to improve health while balancing costs, with average water bills varying significantly between cities. Solutions include pollution control, water reuse, and federal funding through programs like the State Revolving Funds and water recycling projects.
The document summarizes various costs associated with hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" for oil and gas extraction. These costs include cleanup of contaminated drinking water supplies, which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars; impacts to public health like respiratory illness that impose health care costs; damage to natural areas and habitat that harm wildlife and industries like hunting; infrastructure damage to roads that requires millions in repairs; and costs of water infrastructure to support fracking operations. Taxpayers may also face costs of orphaned wells if companies abandon fracking sites. The true costs of fracking to society are likely much higher than acknowledged by the oil and gas industry.
Fracking by the numbers: key impact of dirty drilling at the state and nati...Dr Lendy Spires
Fracking poses significant threats to the environment and public health according to this report. It produces enormous volumes of toxic wastewater containing cancer-causing and radioactive materials, uses huge quantities of water, releases thousands of tons of air pollutants, and produces substantial greenhouse gas emissions. Fracking infrastructure has damaged over 360,000 acres of land across the United States. The report argues that given the scale and severity of these impacts, states should prohibit fracking to protect the environment and public health.
This document discusses key trends related to increasing water scarcity and their implications for humanitarian action. It notes that water scarcity exacerbated by factors like climate change, population growth, and energy demands could heighten vulnerability and increase humanitarian needs. Specifically, water scarcity may amplify conflict, food insecurity, and health issues. It could also necessitate scaling up humanitarian operations to meet growing needs, especially regarding slow-onset disasters. The document analyzes current and projected global water scarcity situations in depth.
2015 has been a very important year for humanity and the health of our planet. With your generous support, we made substantial strides advancing global sustainability in 2015. Click on the slideshow below for highlights from the year.
This document summarizes a policy brief on environmental governance of extractive activities in Latin America and the Caribbean. The brief finds that while extractive industries generate economic benefits, they often damage the environment and local livelihoods. Local communities most impacted feel their concerns are neglected. The brief recommends that national governments, foreign investors, and international organizations seriously involve local communities in decision making to achieve sustainable and equitable development. Unless local voices are included and practices improved, extractive activities will likely lead to more tensions and potential conflicts.
Palestine has very limited water resources due to its arid climate and political restrictions. It relies heavily on underground aquifers for water supply but extracts only a small portion of the total annual recharge due to Israeli control. Climate change is projected to further reduce precipitation and aquifer recharge, exacerbating water scarcity issues. Without a clear political solution or economic means for desalination, Palestine faces major challenges in ensuring access to sufficient, sustainable water supplies for its population.
This document discusses the importance of groundwater and aggregates to Waterloo Region's economy and water supply. It notes that Waterloo Region relies almost entirely on groundwater from aquifers, and extracts over 100 million litres per day. Aggregate extraction poses risks to these aquifers and the Grand River, which provides 25% of the region's water. The region has a large manufacturing and agricultural economy that depends on available water supplies. Protecting farmland and water resources is crucial for long-term economic and food security as global water and food crises emerge. Strengthening environmental assessments and accountability is needed to properly evaluate risks of aggregate extraction.
Water: consumption, usage patterns, and residential infrastructure. A compara...JhonPedrazaGarcia
To cite this article: Daniel R. Rondinel-Oviedo & Jaime M. Sarmiento-Pastor (2020): Water:
consumption, usage patterns, and residential infrastructure. A comparative analysis of three regions
in the Lima metropolitan area, Water International, DOI: 10.1080/02508060.2020.1830360
US-Mexico Transboundary Water Sharing & Human Rights ViolationsAmira Noeuv
The document discusses water sharing between the US and Mexico, human rights violations resulting from their agreements, and considerations for future policies. It summarizes the 1944 Water Treaty between the two countries, which apportions water from the Colorado River and Rio Grande River. However, the treaty neglects important issues like groundwater use and environmental sustainability. As a result, socioeconomically underrepresented communities, immigrants, and indigenous groups on both sides of the border experience human rights violations related to access to clean water. The document calls for policies to address these shortcomings while also considering the treaty's successes and efforts by groups like the International Boundary and Water Commission.
The document summarizes the current water situation in the West Bank of Palestine. It notes that Palestinians have lost access to major water sources like the Jordan River since 1967 and now rely on limited and unequally shared groundwater sources. On average, Palestinians consume less than half the recommended minimum water needs. Water allocation is mainly based on available resources but is also influenced by the political situation and Israeli occupation, which restrict Palestinian access and development. While socioeconomic factors affect distribution between communities, other overriding constraints like limited funding and infrastructure control the process more than economic or social criteria.
72.9% of Mexico's water withdrawals in 2009 were for agricultural purposes, with 12.0% for industrial uses and 8.0% for cooling thermoelectric plants. From 2003 to 2011, over 43% of Mexico's water-related government budget was spent on water supply and sanitation, while close to 95% of water-related official development assistance went to water supply and sanitation projects. Mexico faces water challenges including water pollution, overexploitation of groundwater sources, and effects of water-related natural disasters.
Immigration is driving population growth in the United States and putting strain on ecosystems like the Chesapeake Bay. The population in the Chesapeake Bay watershed has grown to over 17 million residents and is increasing by 150,000 people per year, threatening the Bay's ability to sustain life. Between 2000 and 2009, immigration directly accounted for 40% of population growth in the watershed, and when including children born to immigrants, immigration accounted for 66% of total growth. Immediate action is needed to reduce immigration levels and achieve population stability in order to protect the Chesapeake Bay.
This document discusses the growing issue of global water scarcity and its implications. It notes that while freshwater availability is flat or declining, water withdrawals are increasing, driven largely by intensive agriculture. This is exacerbating water stress in many regions. The document predicts that as stress increases, agricultural water use will decline relative to industrial and domestic use. It examines the impacts on major cotton growing countries and companies' responses to the issue, such as measuring and reducing water footprints. Dissolving pulp is presented as a potential substitute for cotton that could benefit from these trends.
Overview of the groundwater issues of Brant County including concerns for development and gravel pits over recharge and potential impacts of a proposed Lake Erie pipeline.
This document provides an overview of water pollution policy in the United States, with a focus on agricultural nonpoint source pollution. It discusses the history of water pollution regulation, including exemptions for agricultural runoff. Key EPA programs aimed at nonpoint source pollution like Sections 208, 319, and 303(d) are examined. Current trends in voluntary conservation practices and funding challenges are also summarized. The implications of the Des Moines Water Works lawsuit against drainage districts for regulating agricultural runoff are explored.
The document discusses several global water security issues including population growth, climate change, and water management strains threatening regional stability. It notes water issues are increasingly relevant globally and intersect with other policy areas. While water wars are likely overblown, changing demographics are challenging historical water sharing norms. The document outlines water conflicts between several countries and regions and the economic and social impacts of water shortages. It provides examples of strategies to address water challenges from industry, governments, and organizations.
This document proposes an educational outreach program in Butler County, Ohio to address stormwater runoff and nutrient loading issues impacting local streams. The program will use Community Based Social Marketing and citizen science approaches involving stream monitoring. It will target both urban and rural residents through materials distribution and mobile workshops at local farmers markets. The three phase plan includes: 1) creating educational materials and training, 2) implementing the outreach at markets over 12 weeks, and 3) evaluating the program's success through surveys and focus groups. The proposal outlines the current problems, location, project details, and qualifications of the leading organizations to execute the comprehensive plan.
This document discusses water resources and water scarcity. It defines water resources and their key characteristics of utility, limited availability, and potential for depletion. It classifies water resources based on origin (natural vs human) and availability (renewable vs non-renewable). The document outlines different types of water resources like groundwater, surface water, and their various sources. It discusses increasing global water scarcity and its physical and economic causes. It also summarizes various factors contributing to water scarcity and some strategies for water conservation.
Mega drought in a mega city at a continental scale: São Paulo, BrazilErick Fernandes
Can local communities be empowered to establish a "Green Wall" for sustainable livelihoods by protecting the vulnerable Amazon Forest and the agricultural and industrial heartlands of Brazil?
Who topic a, topic b, and committee backgroundGera Morton
WHO is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters and setting standards. It aims to ensure equitable access to healthcare and collective defense against disease threats. The document discusses obstacles to delivering vaccines and medicines in developing countries, including diverging standards between developed and developing nations. It also notes opportunities like increased funding from organizations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and public-private partnerships. Pollution is discussed as a threat to water quality and cause of water-borne diseases. Groundwater contamination has various sources and impacts health. Air pollution from industry and transport also damages health, crops and structures.
Water resources in the USA face issues like water shortage, pollution, and aging infrastructure exacerbated by climate change. Over 1.7 million people lack basic plumbing access. Water management needs to improve health while balancing costs, with average water bills varying significantly between cities. Solutions include pollution control, water reuse, and federal funding through programs like the State Revolving Funds and water recycling projects.
The document summarizes various costs associated with hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" for oil and gas extraction. These costs include cleanup of contaminated drinking water supplies, which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars; impacts to public health like respiratory illness that impose health care costs; damage to natural areas and habitat that harm wildlife and industries like hunting; infrastructure damage to roads that requires millions in repairs; and costs of water infrastructure to support fracking operations. Taxpayers may also face costs of orphaned wells if companies abandon fracking sites. The true costs of fracking to society are likely much higher than acknowledged by the oil and gas industry.
Fracking by the numbers: key impact of dirty drilling at the state and nati...Dr Lendy Spires
Fracking poses significant threats to the environment and public health according to this report. It produces enormous volumes of toxic wastewater containing cancer-causing and radioactive materials, uses huge quantities of water, releases thousands of tons of air pollutants, and produces substantial greenhouse gas emissions. Fracking infrastructure has damaged over 360,000 acres of land across the United States. The report argues that given the scale and severity of these impacts, states should prohibit fracking to protect the environment and public health.
Fracking by the numbers key impact of dirty drilling at the state and natio...Dr Lendy Spires
Fracking poses significant threats to the environment and public health according to this report. It produces enormous volumes of toxic wastewater containing cancer-causing and radioactive materials, uses huge quantities of water, and releases large amounts of air and global warming pollution. The infrastructure of fracking also damages land by industrializing rural areas and forests. With over 80,000 wells drilled since 2005 across 17 states, the cumulative impacts of fracking on water, air, land, and public health have grown to alarming levels according to the analysis in this report.
1. The document discusses recommendations for addressing the environmental and public health impacts of hydraulic fracturing. It outlines two policy options - mandating disclosure of fracking fluid chemicals or taxing water consumption in fracking.
2. It provides background on the history and rapid expansion of fracking since 2003. While fracking has economic benefits, there are concerns about potential long-term environmental impacts on water.
3. The first recommended policy option is to incentivize fracking companies to disclose the components of their fracking fluids to increase transparency and public trust. A six-month period would allow companies to modify potentially toxic chemicals before full disclosure is mandated.
The document discusses issues related to responsible investment in water services. It notes that water scarcity is a growing global problem, with demand for water infrastructure investments expected to reach hundreds of billions annually. However, water utilities often lack transparency regarding their environmental, social, and governance performance. The document calls for water utilities to provide consistent, comparable data on key issues like water quality, sewage treatment, governance policies and impacts on local water resources to help facilitate responsible investment.
The document discusses various types and causes of pollution including littering, water pollution, and air pollution. It notes that littering costs the US $11.5 billion annually to clean up and that plastic trash in the Pacific Ocean has created a garbage patch twice the size of Texas. Water pollution is also discussed, noting that a third of the world's population lives with water stress. Various sources of air pollution are outlined like vehicle emissions, factories, and smoke stacks. The health effects of air pollution include lung cancer, asthma, and other respiratory issues.
Western Lake Erie “impairment” designation: What does it mean? How can it hap...Ohio Environmental Council
This document discusses waterway impairment designations under the Clean Water Act. It explains that if water quality criteria for a waterway are not met, it is considered "impaired" and requires a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) to limit pollutants. The TMDL process for the Chesapeake Bay is discussed as a case study, including litigation that led to its establishment and requirements for states to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads by certain percentages and timelines. Nonpoint sources are included in TMDLs and states must describe plans to achieve load reductions.
This document discusses the state water plan for Texas. It notes that water is key to Texas' economy, which has grown significantly and is projected to double in population by 2060 while water supplies decrease by 18%. Without implementing the state water plan to ensure sufficient water supplies, Texas could face water shortages that would be catastrophic to the economy, costing billions per year. The plan requires $17 billion in funding to develop needed water management strategies to provide enough water even during severe droughts.
This document discusses several types and effects of pollution including littering, plastic garbage patches in oceans, water pollution, and air pollution. It notes that littering costs the US $11.5 billion annually to clean up and plastic in the oceans has created a garbage patch twice the size of Texas. It also discusses issues with water access, quality concerns, and chemical contaminants. The document outlines failures of the Clean Water Act and exposure of Americans to dangerous chemicals in drinking water. It provides facts on air pollution and the negative health impacts of criteria pollutants and vehicle emissions.
This article discusses the Sierra Atlantic Albany chapter's top legislative priorities for 2009 of establishing a clean energy economy and clean water. It outlines bills focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, protecting wetlands and isolated waters, restoring public access to environmental reviews, establishing e-waste recycling requirements, and increasing oversight and regulations around natural gas drilling. The chapter is urging state legislators and agencies to prioritize green job creation and direct federal stimulus funds towards clean energy and environmental restoration projects.
The privatization of water violates human rights and benefits large corporations at the expense of developing populations. Over 1 billion people lack access to safe drinking water, and water privatization has led to steep price increases, human rights violations, and in some cases wars and riots. While there may be benefits to privatization like cost control, changes must be made to prioritize access to clean water as a basic human right and save millions of lives.
The document provides background on brownfield sites and contamination in the United States. It discusses the environmental and public health problems posed by brownfield sites, including ecosystem and human health impacts. Common contaminants found at brownfield sites like lead, VOCs, and asbestos are profiled. The document then outlines approaches to remediating brownfield sites, including risk assessment and common techniques like soil vapor extraction. It discusses how remediation decisions must be made on a site-by-site basis. The role of Groundwork Trusts in equitable brownfield redevelopment is covered. Finally, the Groundwork USA Trust Act of 2015, which would provide funding for nonprofit remediation efforts, is introduced.
Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the e...Energy for One World
The report from the Special Rapporteur evaluates how large businesses have pushed civilization to the brink of disaster by exceeding planetary boundaries and evaluates frameworks for ensuring businesses respect human rights. Systemic changes are needed, including new business models that incorporate environmental limits, policies that internalize externalities, and goals beyond GDP growth. The Rapporteur provides extensive recommendations for states.
This document discusses six strategic sectors that can be used to develop maps for progress:
1) Finance and investment to obtain wealth for the common good
2) Health and dissemination of knowledge from biotechnology to eradicate diseases
3) Biotechnological agriculture and water treatment as bases for food and survival
4) Energy geopolitics on fossil fuels, alternative energies, and new energy sources
5) Geopolitical dynamics as a global interrelation
6) Active ownership in companies to foster long-term value creation over short-term gains
The document discusses the global challenges of water resource management. It notes that rapid population growth, increasing water demands, deteriorating water quality, and climate change are exacerbating a global water crisis. While there have been many international agreements regarding this crisis, little progress has been made in implementing solutions. Achieving targets for access to safe drinking water and sanitation by 2015 will require significant increases in funding from national governments, international donors, and private sector investment. Pricing water appropriately and utilizing public-private partnerships could help address the crisis by increasing investment while protecting access for poor communities.
This document provides an overview of climate change impacts in California and the state's policies and programs to address it. It discusses six key effects of climate change in CA, including increased air pollution, extreme heat, drought, flooding and spread of diseases. It outlines CA's ambitious renewable energy targets, including 50% renewable electricity by 2030. Key programs to support these goals are described, such as the California Solar Initiative and Green Tariff Shared Renewables. The summary concludes that CA is a leader in renewable energy and climate policy that other regions could potentially learn from.
The document discusses environmental impacts and regulatory failures related to fracking in Ohio. It summarizes concerns about risks to public health and the environment from water and air pollution, increased toxic waste, and inadequate chemical disclosure laws and emergency response regulations. Specific incidents of well blowouts, fires, and fish kills are presented as examples illustrating the need for strengthened rules regarding setbacks, containment, chemical information sharing, and first responder resources.
The document discusses water supply in the Roman Republic. It notes that Rome was a big city that needed a steady supply of water. The Roman Republic obtained its water from springs in the mountains and used aqueducts to transport the water from the mountains down to the city. The water supplied public baths and was also used for drinking water.
Climate change is exacerbating rain-related disease risk. Models project significant increases in the frequency and intensity of intense rainfall events in Wisconsin by 2055 due to climate change. More frequent and intense storms increase the risk of waterborne diseases by overwhelming aging infrastructure and increasing pathogen runoff into water sources. Studies have shown increases in acute gastrointestinal illnesses, especially in children, following heavy rainfall events. Contaminated groundwater from failing septic systems also poses a disease risk. Climate change impacts like more frequent extreme rainfall events threaten greater waterborne disease outbreaks unless infrastructure is upgraded and policies are implemented to mitigate risks.
Similar to Leaking Underground Storage Tanks - A Threat to Public Health & Environment (20)
Pesticides & Chemicals Hurt your Child’s Health & Comprehensionv2zq
INCLUDES LINKS TO:
Over 120 books and web sites on Education, Children's Health and Academic Success, Organic Food Recipes, Organic Non-Sugar Sweeteners, School Lunches ~ Over 300 books on Organic Gardening and Heirloom Gardening ~ Over 200 books on Sustainable Technology and Alternative Housing ~ Over 30 books on Renewable Energy ~ Many Free PDF files on Rain Gardens, Roof Gardens, Aeroponic Gardening, Rainwater Harvesting, Waterwise Gardening, Green Eco Churches, Vegetable Oil Cars, Organic Gardening Guides, Ram Pumps, Companion Planting, Garden Therapy Manuals, Faith Healing
Resource Handbook for City Beekeeping & Honey for Healthv2zq
This document provides summaries of and links to numerous books and resources about urban beekeeping and beekeeping topics. It begins by noting some browser compatibility issues and then lists over 50 books on topics like urban beekeeping, top-bar beekeeping, natural beekeeping approaches, mason bees, and bee health. Links are provided to purchase or borrow each book from various sources.
The Book on Value Added Products from Beekeepingv2zq
This document provides an overview of value-added products that can be produced from beekeeping, including honey, pollen, wax, propolis, royal jelly, venom, and bees themselves. It discusses the composition, uses, production methods, storage, quality control and recipes for each product. The document is intended to help beekeepers diversify and increase their income by utilizing all primary beekeeping products, not just honey. It also suggests these products can support small home-based businesses and developing industries to strengthen local markets for beekeeping.
This document provides instructions for making different types of candles using beeswax or paraffin wax, including pillar candles, spiral candles, and flower candles. The instructions explain how to cut and roll the beeswax to form different candle shapes without using heat. Additional instructions are provided for making tea light candles in used tea cups using paraffin wax, including two pouring stages and securing the wick. A third set of instructions explains how to make flower-shaped tart candles using molds and paraffin wax. Safety warnings are also listed.
Cosmetic Properties of Honey & Antioxidant Activity v2zq
This document discusses the antioxidant properties and cosmetic uses of various types of honey. It reviews the historical use of honey topically and in cosmetics. An experiment measured the hydrating power of emulsions containing six different honeys on human skin. The Brazilian pot-honey of Melipona fasciculata was found to have the highest polyphenol content and antioxidant activity by two methods. It also produced an emulsion with the highest measured hydrating power on skin. The polyphenol contents and antioxidant properties varied between honey types and were correlated with their hydrating abilities in emulsions applied to human skin.
This document reviews honey as a nutrient and functional food. It discusses honey's composition, nutritional value, and potential health benefits. Some key points:
1) Honey is composed mainly of carbohydrates (glucose and fructose), small amounts of proteins, vitamins, minerals, and polyphenols. It provides a marginal contribution to daily nutrient requirements.
2) Different types of honey have varying glycemic indices depending on their fructose/glucose ratio, with some lower-GI honeys potentially beneficial for diabetes management.
3) Studies show honey may be an effective performance-enhancing carbohydrate source for athletes, though more research is still needed to confirm its benefits.
Honey has a long history of medicinal use dating back thousands of years. It was commonly used in ancient Egyptian, Chinese, Indian, Greek and Roman medicine to treat wounds, infections, and other ailments. Honey remains an important part of traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurvedic medicine, and the developing field of apitherapy. Specific types of honey are prescribed for certain conditions based on their properties. Honey is used internally and externally to treat infections, respiratory issues, digestive problems, wounds and more according to traditional medical systems.
Making Beeswax Candles, Polishes & Homemade Cosmetics - Part 1 v2zq
Beeswax has been used for thousands of years for a variety of purposes. In ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, and China, beeswax was used for mummification, paintings, seals, candles, and medicine. Throughout history, beeswax was crucial for lost wax casting techniques and was the main ingredient in encaustic painting. While beeswax was once the primary wax, the development of paraffin wax in the 19th century reduced its exclusivity, though it remains the most expensive natural wax. Beeswax is still used today in batik art, sculpture preservation, candle making, wood polishes, and leather treatments.
Making Beeswax Candles, Polishes & Homemade Cosmetics - Part 2 v2zq
Bees produce beeswax from their wax glands to build honeycomb cells. They produce the greatest amount of wax during colony growth in spring under moderate climate conditions. Beeswax is made from carbohydrates in honey through the wax glands on the bee's abdomen. Old honeycomb needs to be recycled and rendered into beeswax blocks to control wax moths and produce high quality wax. There are several methods for small-scale wax production including melting comb in boiling water or using sun melters to extract wax, which is then further purified. Proper processing and equipment are needed to produce quality beeswax and avoid defects from contamination, emulsions or darkening.
Pollen is described as the "perfectly complete food" and its nutritional value and medical uses have been praised for centuries. However, bee-collected pollen only began to be used widely for human nutrition after World War II with the development of pollen traps. Proper drying, storage, and processing are important to preserve pollen's quality and nutrients. Drying should be done at low temperatures, ideally below 30°C, to avoid vitamin losses. Freezing or freeze-drying pollen provides the best preservation of nutrients, though dried pollen can be stored for 1-2 years if kept cool, dry and dark. Standards have been proposed for pollen, including limits on moisture content and minimum levels of proteins
Using Bee Glue for Health, Medicine & Perfume v2zq
This document provides a review of the composition, history, and health benefits of propolis. It discusses that propolis is a resinous substance collected by bees from tree buds and used as a sealant in beehives. The composition of propolis depends on its botanical source, with poplar and Baccharis plants being common sources. Historically, propolis was used in ancient Egypt and by Greek, Roman, and medieval physicians for its medicinal properties. Modern research has identified hundreds of compounds in propolis and demonstrated broad anti-microbial, anti-inflammatory, and immune-boosting effects in cell and animal studies.
A Guide for Developing a Hygiene Promotion Program to Increase Handwashing wi...v2zq
This document provides a guide for developing large-scale national handwashing promotion programs. It lays out the experiences of the Global Public-Private Partnership for Handwashing with Soap (PPPHW) which has brought together governments, donors, private sector partners, and organizations to promote handwashing on a mass scale. The guide covers laying the foundation for a national program, understanding target consumers through research, implementing promotion programs, and organizing public-private partnerships. It emphasizes the importance of handwashing in preventing diarrhea and respiratory infections, which are two leading causes of child mortality globally. Promoting handwashing with soap at key times can reduce diarrhea incidence by 42-47% and respiratory infections by 30%, making it
Big Batch Soap Making - A Guide for Making your own Soap v2zq
This document provides instructions for making large or "big batch" cold process soap. It discusses the advantages of big batch soap making such as being more cost effective and producing more consistent results. The document outlines the basic supplies needed, provides a sample recipe formulation for a 50 lb batch, and gives step-by-step instructions for scaling the recipe and mixing the master batch. It also discusses making and adjusting lye solutions, essential equipment, and sources for supplies to enable large scale soap production.
Detergents Toxics Link - Counting the Cost of Cleanlinessv2zq
This document discusses laundry detergents in India. It notes that detergents contain chemicals that can harm human health and the environment. The Indian government has not adequately addressed these issues through legislation. As a result, the detergent industry does little to reduce harmful chemicals or inform consumers without mandatory rules. The document provides details on the composition and effects of detergents, as well as the Bureau of Indian Standards' guidelines for eco-friendly detergents. However, no products on the market actually comply with these standards.
Development of Equipment for Making Homemade Laundry Soap v2zq
The document describes the development of equipment for homemade laundry soap production, including a pedal-powered soap mixer, mold, and cutting and stamping machines. Simple machines were designed and tested to enhance local soap production. The pedal-powered mixer allows soap to be properly mixed with little effort in minutes. The wooden mold can withstand hot soap temperatures without damage. The cutting and stamping machine facilitates faster, neater cutting and stamping of soap bars compared to manual methods. The soap produced was found to form good lather and feel fair on the skin. The soap making equipment assembly provides a cost-effective model for small-scale soap production businesses.
How to Make a Field Mandatory in Odoo 17Celine George
In Odoo, making a field required can be done through both Python code and XML views. When you set the required attribute to True in Python code, it makes the field required across all views where it's used. Conversely, when you set the required attribute in XML views, it makes the field required only in the context of that particular view.
Communicating effectively and consistently with students can help them feel at ease during their learning experience and provide the instructor with a communication trail to track the course's progress. This workshop will take you through constructing an engaging course container to facilitate effective communication.
Main Java[All of the Base Concepts}.docxadhitya5119
This is part 1 of my Java Learning Journey. This Contains Custom methods, classes, constructors, packages, multithreading , try- catch block, finally block and more.
Gender and Mental Health - Counselling and Family Therapy Applications and In...PsychoTech Services
A proprietary approach developed by bringing together the best of learning theories from Psychology, design principles from the world of visualization, and pedagogical methods from over a decade of training experience, that enables you to: Learn better, faster!
Philippine Edukasyong Pantahanan at Pangkabuhayan (EPP) CurriculumMJDuyan
(𝐓𝐋𝐄 𝟏𝟎𝟎) (𝐋𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝟏)-𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐬
𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐏𝐏 𝐂𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐮𝐦 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬:
- Understand the goals and objectives of the Edukasyong Pantahanan at Pangkabuhayan (EPP) curriculum, recognizing its importance in fostering practical life skills and values among students. Students will also be able to identify the key components and subjects covered, such as agriculture, home economics, industrial arts, and information and communication technology.
𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧 𝐄𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐮𝐫:
-Define entrepreneurship, distinguishing it from general business activities by emphasizing its focus on innovation, risk-taking, and value creation. Students will describe the characteristics and traits of successful entrepreneurs, including their roles and responsibilities, and discuss the broader economic and social impacts of entrepreneurial activities on both local and global scales.
Strategies for Effective Upskilling is a presentation by Chinwendu Peace in a Your Skill Boost Masterclass organisation by the Excellence Foundation for South Sudan on 08th and 09th June 2024 from 1 PM to 3 PM on each day.
हिंदी वर्णमाला पीपीटी, hindi alphabet PPT presentation, hindi varnamala PPT, Hindi Varnamala pdf, हिंदी स्वर, हिंदी व्यंजन, sikhiye hindi varnmala, dr. mulla adam ali, hindi language and literature, hindi alphabet with drawing, hindi alphabet pdf, hindi varnamala for childrens, hindi language, hindi varnamala practice for kids, https://www.drmullaadamali.com
Temple of Asclepius in Thrace. Excavation resultsKrassimira Luka
The temple and the sanctuary around were dedicated to Asklepios Zmidrenus. This name has been known since 1875 when an inscription dedicated to him was discovered in Rome. The inscription is dated in 227 AD and was left by soldiers originating from the city of Philippopolis (modern Plovdiv).
BÀI TẬP DẠY THÊM TIẾNG ANH LỚP 7 CẢ NĂM FRIENDS PLUS SÁCH CHÂN TRỜI SÁNG TẠO ...
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks - A Threat to Public Health & Environment
1. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks:
A Threat to Public Health & Environment
Quality
Photos courtesy of EPA
This report details the threats to public health from leaking underground
storage tanks (UST) and key facts on federal and state UST programs.
Leaking USTs are a grave threat to America's groundwater. Gas stations,
industries and other entities use USTs to hold toxic material such as
gasoline and oil that contain dangerous substances, including benzene,
toluene and heavy metals that can cause cancer and harm developing
children. USTs can threaten communities as their walls corrode by silently
leaking toxins into our drinking water supplies, homes and businesses.
There are 680,000 USTs and a backlog of 130,000 cleanups; 9,000 new
leaks are discovered annually. In 2004, UST cleanups declined by 22
percent compared to 2003. Chemicals in USTs can quickly move through
soil and pollute groundwater. One gallon of petroleum can contaminate
one million gallons of water. One pin-prick sized hole in an UST can leak
400 gallons of fuel a year. More than 100 million people drink groundwater
in states where delayed cleanups threaten groundwater quality.
The federal government has $2.4 billion in surplus taxpayer UST cleanup
funds collected from a fee on gasoline sales, but the current administration
proposes to spend only $73 million to clean up sites in 2006, just 3 percent
of surplus funds. The administration should help protect communities by
funding more cleanup, prevention and enforcement activities at UST sites.
Given the serious threat to public health from leaking USTs, federal and
state governments must undertake five common-sense actions:
1. Fund more cleanups, prevention & enforcement activities;
2. Require secondary containment, leak detection & biannual inspections
3. Enforce protections in states that fail to safeguard communities;
4. Make polluters pay to clean up contamination from leaking USTs, and
5. Ensure that people know about leaking USTs in their communities.
SECTIONS IN THIS REPORT
• Overview of Problem: Leaking USTs Threaten Drinking Water
• Current Administration Fails to Protect Drinking Water
• Severe Slowdown in Pace of Cleanups
• More Than $3 Billion in Under-Funded Cleanups Nationwide
• Dangerous Chemicals Leak From USTs
• Contamination Endangers Communities Across the Country
• Vulnerable Populations and Contamination
• The Tip of a Toxic Iceberg: Reported Contamination at USTs
• Solution: Protect Communities and Drinking Water
• Appendix: National Charts, State Fact Sheets, Misc. Info. & Bibliography
For more information: Call Grant Cope at (202) 548-6585 or visit
http://www.sierraclub.org/toxics/Leaking_USTs/
2. Endangering Community Drinking Water
Leaking underground storage tanks (“USTs”) are one
of the most serious threats to the quality of our nation’s
groundwater. Fifty percent of the nation’s population,
and 100 percent in virtually all rural areas, rely on
groundwater for drinking water. About 680,000
federally-regulated USTs are buried in urban and rural
areas across our nation. Forty-five states have
designated USTs are a major threat to groundwater
quality. More than 100 million people rely on
groundwater for drinking water in states where
backlogged USTs cleanups pose a serious threat to
groundwater quality.
Tanks Can Leak Toxic Substances
Underground storage tanks hold toxic material, such as
gasoline and waste oil, which contain dangerous
substances that can cause cancer and harm developing
children. Chemicals in USTs can quickly move
through soil and pollute groundwater. There is no safe
level of exposure to many of these toxic substances.
Backlog and Decline in Needed Cleanups
There is a backlog of 130,000 cleanups at active,
federally-regulated USTs. Additionally, officials have
not inspected 76,000 closed USTs for contamination or
190,000 unregistered USTs that pose a threat of
contamination. Officials find 9,000 new leaks each
year. The pace of cleanups has dropped by 22 percent,
averaging 23,000 from 1997–2001, to 16,000 since
2001. Cleanups hit a low of 14,285 in 2004.
Inadequate UST Programs Need Help
States usually run UST programs using federal and
state fees on fuel sales. However, state programs face
billions of dollars in deficits, and current federal
funding for inspections, enforcement and cleanups is
inadequate. Federal and state UST programs fail to
enforce protections that require polluters to
immediately clean up dangerous pollution and owners
and operators of USTs to show that they can pay for
cleanups. Some states have transferred UST cleanup
funds for use as general revenue, which can be used for
such things as highway construction.
Current Administration Fails to Provide Help
A 1/10th
of one cent fee on gasoline sales funds
oversight and enforcement activities at USTs, and
cleanups when polluters do not have the ability to pay
or when they refuse to clean up. The federal
government has $2.4 billion in surplus funds.
However, the current administration proposes to spend
only $73 million to clean up UST site in 2006, a mere
3 percent of available funds.
Safeguard Communities with Increased Funding,
Prevention and Polluter Pays Protections
The current administration should protect communities by:
1. Funding more cleanups, prevention & enforcement;
2. Requiring secondary containment, leak monitoring
and biannual inspection of USTs;
3. Enforcing federal protections in states that fail to
provide communities with such protections;
4. Standing by its commitment to make polluters pay
to clean up contamination from leaking USTs, and
5. Ensuring that people know about leaking USTs in
their communities.
States with Biggest Cleanup Backlog & Population Using Groundwater (GW) for Drinking Water
State
Backlog in
Cleanups
% of
Population
Using GW
# of People
Drinking
Groundwater State
Backlog in
Cleanups
% of
Population
Using GW
# of People
Drinking
Groundwater
1 FL 17,544 93% 16,144,565 11 OH 3,463 46% 5,305,522
2 CA 15,049 46% 16,331,679 12 IN 3,449 64% 3,967,094
3 MI 9,039 46% 4,651,805 13 MD 3,280 31% 1,711,882
4 IL 8,591 33% 4,220,926 14 GA 2,924 41% 3,655,365
5 NC 6,927 50% 4,253,528 15 AZ 2,597 60% 3,457,788
6 TX 4,577 45% 10,210,470 16 KY 2,522 25% 1,040,626
7 PA 4,456 41% 5,111,392 17 NY 2,297 35% 6,652,572
8 NJ 3,825 53% 4,627,804 18 NE 2,262 87% 1,521,823
9 WI 3,641 70% 3,845,300 19 KS 2,082 50% 1,378,693
10 SC 3,515 45% 1,884,933 20 IA 2,039 78% 2,307,426
Sources: EPA, FY 2004 Semi-Annual End-of-Year Activity Rpt. (2004), US Census Bur., Annual Est. of Pop. for the US,(2004), EPA, Safe Drinking Water Act, Sec. 1429 Rpt. for Cong. (1999).
2
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Threaten Drinking Water
3. Current Administration Fails to Protect Drinking Water Quality
Leaking underground storage tanks (“USTs”) are one of
the most serious threats to our nation’s drinking water
supplies. Despite recent cuts in public health and
environmental funding, the federal government has $2.4
billion in surplus funds in the UST program, which can
only be spent on cleaning up contamination from USTs.
However, the current administration has requested only 3
percent of these dedicated surplus funds, despite a
nationwide 22 percent decline in the pace of cleanups
between 2003 and 2004. The federal government should
protect public health by using surplus funds to help states
across the nation clean up leaking USTs.
Cleanups Protect Public Health
Fifty percent of the nation’s population,
including virtually 100 percent in rural areas,
uses groundwater for drinking water. Leaking
USTs threaten groundwater quality in 45 states.
These tanks can hold toxins that quickly
spreads through soil and water and that can
cause cancer and harm developing children.
Congress created the UST program in 1984 to
address pollution caused by USTs. In 1986,
Congress created a federal UST fund to
expedite cleanups and required owners and
operators of USTs to demonstrate that they can
clean up sites. A 1/10th
of one cent fee on gas
sales provides the fund with money. Congress
also directed EPA to create regulations that all
federally-regulated USTs had to meet by 1998.
Contamination Harms Communities
Leaking USTs can threaten community and
individual drinking water supplies, contaminate
houses and businesses with toxic vapors,
pollute local environments for decades and
dramatically reduce residential and commercial
property values. Contaminated plumes can
spread thousands of feet, affecting vast
stretches of urban and rural communities.
Nationwide Slowdown in Cleanups
There are 680,000 federally-regulated USTs
with a backlog of 130,000 cleanups and 9,000
new leaks discovered annually. The pace of
cleanups has recently dropped by 22 percent,
or an average annual decline of 7,000 cleanups.
Administration Fails to Request
Available & Needed Cleanup Funds
There is $2.4 billion in surplus funds available
for cleaning up UST contamination. However,
the administration asked for only 3 percent of
these funds. A small 10 percent increase in the
use of funds would pay for approximately 2000
additional cleanups.
Under-Funding Toxic Chemical Cleanups
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
Available Funding Requested Funding
Backlog of 130,000 Cleanups Nationwide
Source: EPA, FY 2004 Semi-Annual End-
of-Year Activity Report (2004).
# of Backlogged Cleanups
> 3,000
> 1,000 - < 2,999
> 40 - < 1,000
Source: U.S. Department of Treasury, Budget for FY 2006, Appendix for the EPA (2005).
Surplus Funds
New Revenue
Revenue from
Interest on
Surplus
Amount
Requested
FY 2006
3
4. Severe Slowdown in the Pace of Cleanups Across the Nation
Following years of progress in cleaning up leaking USTs,
national cleanup figures have recently declined. The nation
averaged 23,000 cleanups per year from 1997-2001.
Cleanups have declined to 16,000 per year since 2001,
with cleanups dropping to 14,285 in 2004. Officials
discover 6,000 to 12,000 new releases each year. Thus, the
number of needed cleanups could begin to grow, erasing
years of progress in protecting communities.
State UST programs act as insurance, with taxpayers
paying the premium through gas fees, UST owners paying
a deductible and taxpayers paying the remaining costs.
States have compounded recent fiscal difficulties by using
cleanup funds for other purposes. Many program now lack
adequate cleanup funds, and some funding mechanisms are
set to expire. Thus, federal resources are badly needed to
pay for cleanups, prevention and enforcement.
100 M. People Drink Groundwater in States With Big Cleanup Backlog
Every state has a backlog of needed cleanups at leaking
USTs. However, the 20 states with the largest backlog
have a backlog of over 100,000 needed cleanups. These
states have between 17,500 and more than 2,000
backlogged cleanups, with an average backlog of 5,000 .
Over 200,000,000 people live in these 20 states. From 93% -
31 percent of the population in each state relies on
groundwater for drinking water. Over 100 million people in
the 20 states with largest number of backlogged cleanups
rely on groundwater for drinking water.
States with Biggest Cleanup Backlog & Population Using Groundwater (GW) for Drinking Water
State
Cleanup
Backlog
% of
Population
Drinking
Groundwater
# of People
Drinking
Groundwater State
Cleanup
Backlog
% of
Population
Drinking
Groundwater
# of People
Drinking
Groundwater
1 FL 17,544 93% 16,144,565 11 OH 3,463 46% 5,305,522
2 CA 15,049 46% 16,331,679 12 IN 3,449 64% 3,967,094
3 MI 9,039 46% 4,651,805 13 MD 3,280 31% 1,711,882
4 IL 8,591 33% 4,220,926 14 GA 2,924 41% 3,655,365
5 NC 6,927 50% 4,253,528 15 AZ 2,597 60% 3,457,788
6 TX 4,577 45% 10,210,470 16 KY 2,522 25% 1,040,626
7 PA 4,456 41% 5,111,392 17 NY 2,297 35% 6,652,572
8 NJ 3,825 53% 4,627,804 18 NE 2,262 87% 1,521,823
9 WI 3,641 70% 3,845,300 19 KS 2,082 50% 1,378,693
10 SC 3,515 45% 1,884,933 20 IA 2,039 78% 2,307,426
Backlog State Population Pop. Drinking Groundwater
TOTAL 104,079 206,598,754 102,281,194
Ave. Backlog 5,204 Ave. Add’l. Releases Reported Annually 9,000
Sources: EPA, FY 2004 Semi-Annual End-of-Year Activity Rpt. (2004), US Census Bur., Annual Est. of Pop. for the US,(2004), EPA, Safe Drinking Water Act, Sec. 1429 Rpt. for Cong. (1999).
Twenty-Two Percent Decline in Cleanups Nationwide
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Source: EPA, FY 1997-2004 Semi-Annual End-of-Year Activity Report.
4
5. States Below National Average in Cleanups
Rank* State
Below
Average
Cleaned
Up Rank State
Below
Average
Cleaned
Up Rank* State
Below
Average
Cleaned
Up
1 FL -40% 31% 8 NJ -12% 59% 17 CT -7% 64%
2 WY -28% 43% 10 AK -10% 61% 17 IA -7% 64%
3 KS -17% 54% 10 IL -10% 61% 19 CA -6% 65%
4 MI -15% 56% 10 NH -10% 61% 20 WA -4% 67%
5 IN -14% 57% 10 LA -10% 61% 20 PA -4% 67%
5 WV -14% 57% 14 NE -9% 62% 22 AZ -3% 68%
7 VT -13% 58% 14 MT -9% 62% 23 DC -2% 69%
8 SC -12% 59% 14 NM -9% 62% 24 NC -1% 70%
Source: EPA, FY2004 Semi-Annual End-of-year Activity Report (2004). *Rankings demonstrate ties between states.
Over $3 Billion in Under-Funded Cleanups Nationwide
State UST programs act as insurance plans for cleanups
by paying for the vast majority of cleanup costs using
money collected mostly from state fees on gasoline sales.
But some states have transferred money out of their
programs for purposes other than cleaning up
contamination; other programs are refusing to pay for
new cleanups; and the legal authority for some fees and
programs will soon end. Moreover, at least one state
(MI) has internally reported a $1.7 billion deficit in
public funding to pay for all known UST cleanups.
The federal government can play a critical role in helping
state programs pay for cleanups, inspections and oversight
that protect public health and drinking water. Federal
resources can be especially important for cleaning up
“orphan” sites where the owners of leaking USTs are
bankrupt, refuse to pay for a cleanup or cannot be found.
The federal government should provide increased funding
to clean up leaking USTs, ensure states are properly
managing their cleanup programs and work to strengthen
leak-prevention and enforcement efforts at USTs.
Twenty-Four States Fail to Meet National Average for Cleanups
Nationally, 71 percent of all confirmed releases from
USTs are cleaned up. However, 24 states have failed to
meet this national cleanup average. Failure to meet this
important measure of progress can result from a lack of
funding, a large number of cleanups involving ground-
water contamination, a failure to vigorously enforce laws
requiring cleanups or a combination of these and other
factors. Increased federal oversight, enforcement and
resources can help address such failures and increase
protections for public health.
5
Top 20 States with Largest Short-Term Funding Problems
Rank State Funding
Cleanup
Backlog
Rank State Funding
Cleanup
Backlog
1 MI -$1,700 9,039 11 OH -$5 3,463
2 CA -$1,029 15,049 12 AL -$5 1,657
3 WI -$152 3,641 13 WV -$1.10 1,214
4 TN -$95 1,221 14 VT -$0.5 797
5 CT -$53 857 15 DE -$0.30 297
-$28 16 AK $0 885
6 NC
-$4 6,927 17 WY $0.00 1,132
7 MA -$20 1,294 18 RI $0.50 260
8 CO -$14 998 19 MT $0.51 1,085
9 PA -$10 4,456 20 KS $3 2,082
10 VA -$8 910
Deficit in Funding for Top 20 -$3,123.48
Backlogged Cleanups in Top 20 57,264
Dollar figures in millions. All figures from 2004 except Wisconsin’s deficit figure, which is from 2003. A, Commercial tank fund. B,
Residential tank fund. See Chart 5 or 6 for a complete description of state funding information.
Source: ATSWMO, 2004 State Financial Assurance Fund Survey Results (2004), EPA, FY 2004 Semi-Annual End-of-Year Activity
Report (2004) and documents from the States of Michigan, Vermont and Tennessee on file with the author.
6. Dangerous Chemicals Leak from Underground Storage Tanks
Leaking underground storage tanks can hold substances
such as fuel (e.g. gasoline or diesel), used oil and other
toxic substances. Leaking tanks can contain dozens of
dangerous chemicals that can contaminate groundwater,
seep into homes and pose a risk of explosion.
Gasoline is a complex blend of several hundred
compounds. Once tanks leak, many of these contaminants
can move rapidly through surrounding soil, quickly
contaminate large quantities of groundwater and seep into
surface water, such as lakes and rivers.
Potential Contaminants at Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Site
Toxic
Substance
Health Effects
Health-
Based
Drinking
Water Goal
Pollutant
Class
From
Mobility
in Soil
Benzene
Causes cancer and adversely effects developing
children and the reproductive system. Suspected
of harming the nervous (i.e. brain), cardiovascular
(i.e. heart and blood vessels) and respiratory (i.e.
lungs) systems.
0 VOC1
Gasoline
and other
petroleum
substances
High
Toluene
Adversely effects developing children, and
suspected of damaging the reproductive,
respiratory, nervous and immune (i.e. increase risk
of infectious disease and cancer) systems.
1 ppm3
VOC1
Gasoline
and other
petroleum
substances
High with
other
chemicals
in gas
MTBE
Suspected of causing cancer, damaging the
nervous and respiratory systems and harming the
ability of the kidneys to clean dangerous impurities
in the blood.
13 ppb4, 5
Oxygenate Gasoline
High with
other
chemicals
in gas
Cadmium
Causes cancer and adversely effects developing
children and the reproductive system. Suspected
of adversely affecting the nervous, endocrine and
immune systems.
5 ppb4 Heavy
Metal
Used motor
oil & other
waste oils
High in
acidic
conditions
Xylenes
Suspected of adversely effecting developing
children, damaging the reproductive, immune and
respiratory systems.
10 ppm3
VOC1
Gasoline
and other
petroleum
substances
Moderate
Naphthalene
Recognized cause of cancer, suspected of
adversely effecting developing children, and of
damaging the nervous, cardiovascular and
respiratory systems.
1.7 ppb4,6
PAH2
Gasoline
and other
petroleum
substances
High in
sandy soils
1,2
Dichloroethane
Recognized cause of cancer and suspected of
causing adverse development and reproductive
effects and of harming the cardiovascular, nervous
and respiratory systems.
0 VOC1 Leaded
Gasoline7
Very High
to High
Ethylbenzene
Recognized cause of cancer and suspected of
adversely effecting developing children and
reproductive system and of damaging the nervous
and respiratory systems.
0.7 ppm3
VOC1
Gasoline
and other
petroleum
substances
Moderate
Ethylene
Dibromide
Known to cause cancer and adverse effects on
developing children and reproductive systems.
0 SOC8 Leaded
Gasoline7 High
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls
(PCBs)
Known to cause cancer and adversely effect
developing children. Suspected of harming the
endocrine, immune and nervous systems.
0 SOC8
Used Oil Low
Lead
Recognized cause of cancer and adverse effects
on developing children. Suspected of harming the
nervous, reproductive and endocrine, respiratory
and immune systems.
0
Heavy
Metal
Used motor
oil & other
waste oils
Low
Source: Environmental Defense, Scorecard.org (2005), Michigan DEQ, RPD Operational Memo. #2 (2004), ATSDR, Toxicological Profiles (various).
1. VOC: Volatile Organic Compound. 2. PAH: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon. 3. PPM: Parts Per Million 4. Parts Per Billion
5. California Drinking Water Health Advisory 6. California Drinking Water Notification Level 7. Lead Scavenger, Lead is still used in fuel for planes and off-road vehicles.
8. Synthetic Organic Compound
6
7. USTs and Their Facilities Could Endanger Children and Other Vulnerable People
20 Million People Drink From More Than 100,000 Small Groundwater Systems
Contamination Threatens Vulnerable People
Leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) hold gasoline, diesel fuel, waste oil
and other toxic materials that contain dangerous chemicals and heavy metals that
are known to cause cancer, injure developing children and harm the human
reproductive and nervous systems. Living near a leaking UST or drinking water
from a well that is polluted by an UST may present a serious threat to vulnerable
people, such as children. Small water systems can have fewer monitoring and
notification requirements than big systems. Pollution from USTs can seep under
homes and schools, without any notice to exposed people. Millions of kids and
other individuals in schools, churches and day care centers are potentially at risk.
About 20 million people drink water from small drinking
water systems that get rely on groundwater. Most people
get drinking water from community water systems that
mostly supply water to large numbers of people. But,
millions of people get drinking water from more than
100,000 small water systems that rely on groundwater.
Kids and Other Vulnerable Individuals Drink Water from Small Systems That Use Groundwater
More than 4 million kids and other individuals at daycare centers, schools and camps get their water from small systems.
More than 1.3 million people in churches get their drinking water from small systems.
More than 2.4 million people in restaurants get their drinking water from small systems.
Children & Other Individuals Served Drinking by Small Systems That Rely on Groundwater
Facilities Served # of People Served Facilities Served # of People Served
Day Care Centers, Schools & Camps 4,009,839 Restaurants 2,410,487
Campgrounds & RV Parks 658,840 Nursing Homes 13,910
Churches 1,313,052 Medical Facilities 352,684
TOTAL 8,758,812
Source: EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Ground Water Rule (2000). Note: Small systems includes both Non-transient non-community water systems
and Transient non-community water systems.
Leaking USTs have contaminated drinking water
supplies for schools and threatened drinking water
supplies for the elderly. Preliminary research has found
that children who live near gas stations or automobile
repair shops were four times more likely to develop
childhood leukemia than children who did not live near
such stations establishments. Gas stations often have
USTs that hold gasoline. Gas contains benzene, which is
known to cause leukemia. Gasoline and other dangerous
substances can silently leak from USTs, contaminating
groundwater and migrating under nearby properties,
including yards and playgrounds.
Children, The Elderly, Churches and Others Are Threatened by Contamination
In Roselawn, IN, MTBE from a leaking UST contaminated a school’s drinking water supply and threatened a senior
center’s drinking water well. (2001)
In San Diego, CA, a school district tested the air and soil near a facility after six workers had contracted cancer since
1998, and two days later revealed that it had removed three leaking USTs more than eight years ago. (2005)
In Newton, CT, the UST at a new school released 4,000 gals. of heating oil over Christmas vacation. (2005)
In Decatur, AL, contamination from an UST was discovered in 1999. Neither the state nor the UST’s owner told nearby
residents. A five-year old girl named Haley Terry, who lived and played near the site, has contracted leukemia. Though no
samples were taken in 1999, soils samples taken from Haley’s yard in 2005 show evidence of contamination. (2005)
More than 150 water systems in 17 states have filed suit against the makers of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) for
contamination, including the Columbia Board of Education, Horace Porter School and Our Lady of the Rosary Chapel in
CT; the United Methodist Church in Wellfleet, MA; Christ the King Catholic Church in Queens, NY; and the Buchanan
County School Board and Patrick County School Board in VA. (2005) 7
8. Three Types of Drinking Water Systems
Community Water System: Water providers that supply drinking water through at least 15 connections (for example pipes) to year-round
residents or that regularly serves water to at least 25 year-round residents.
Non-transient Non-community Water System (NTNCWS): Water provider that regularly serves drinking water to at least 25 of the same persons
over 6 months and that is not a community water system.
Transient Non-community Water System (TWS): Water provider that does not regularly serve at 25 of the same persons six months out of a year
and that is not a community water system.
Number of Small Systems That Rely on Groundwater For Drinking Water
State # of TSW
Pop. Served
by TWS
# of
NTNCWS
Pop. Served by
NTNCWS State # of TSW
Pop. Served
by TWS
# of
NTNCWS
Pop. Served
by NTNCWS
AL 123 11,170 46 21,182 MT 1,011 140,745 215 38,504
AK 906 97,647 0 0 NE 584 22,241 189 26,219
AZ 602 120,126 216 100,317 NV 273 55,792 91 28,497
AR 442 22,521 57 13,528 NH 1,012 181,949 421 77,505
CA 3,698 1,301,671 1,018 359,096 NJ 2,955 346,484 1,009 274,758
CO 1,061 153,454 133 34,884 NM 506 74,256 149 38,101
CT 3,360 2,980,181 641 121,664 NY 5,742 853,533 693 248,223
DE 215 57,634 86 24,840 NC 5,373 542,400 655 198,136
FL 3,660 304,865 1,119 286,055 ND 215 16,910 22 2,349
GA 663 127,661 291 80,240 OH 3,545 533,921 1,116 276,441
HI 3 1,125 14 7,437 OK 302 34,172 123 20,419
ID 1,033 125,873 265 68,195 OR 1,390 233,477 332 67,531
IL 3,715 413,000 446 142,655 PA 7,017 922,336 1,251 480,328
IN 2,984 327,229 693 158,102 RI 300 48,875 70 25,246
IA 639 78,653 133 35,715 SC 577 54,837 248 71,239
KS 110 4,481 67 23,602 SD 243 42,949 25 3,072
KY 83 9,374 80 21,620 TN 503 61,504 58 11,010
LA 482 115,804 234 88,070 TX 1,378 245,171 748 253,468
MD 2,509 93,757 495 142,171 UT 439 79,371 52 20,969
MA 863 209,476 229 67,650 VT 718 523,079 1 25
MI 8,930 1,187,331 1,718 344,654 VA 1,911 443,920 772 312,422
MN 6,963 252,602 672 49,514 WA 1,498 283,735 287 70,009
MS 169 28,006 126 89,416 WV 644 47,313 182 39,318
MO 1,040 138,894 227 76,360 WI 9,704 731,781 1,049 214,561
TOTAL 92,093 14,683,286 18,764 5,155,317
Systems Population Served
Total # of Small Systems and Population Served 110,857 19,838,603
Source: EPA, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Ground Water Rule, Proposed Rule 65 Fed. Reg.30194 (2000). 8
9. One gallon of petroleum can contaminate one million
gallons of groundwater.
One pin-prick sized hole in an underground storage
tank can leak 400 gallons of fuel a year.
Gasoline-related compounds were detected in 10% of
drinking water sources sampled across the nation.
More than 1,800 municipal water supplies are known to be
contaminated with MTBE.
Twenty-seven states reported plumes of MTBE
contamination thousands of feet in length.
Oil companies knew of MTBE’s potential to contaminate
groundwater as early as 1981.
Contamination Endangers Communities Across the Country
State Description of Contamination
AZ Wilcox has a four feet thick layer of fuel floating on top of its groundwater aquifer that has polluted drinking water wells. (2004)
CA Santa Monica lost half of its drinking water supply wells in 1995 from MTBE contamination. (2001)
CA South Lake Tahoe shut down 1/3 of its drinking water wells due to MTBE contamination in 1997. (2000)
CA
The Western San Bernardino County Water District has a four-foot thick layer of diesel, gasoline, jet fuel and other petroleum
products floating on top of its groundwater aquifer used for drinking water. (2001)
CO Eighty percent of Denver’s shallow drinking water wells are contaminated with detectable levels of MTBE. (1998)
FL
Leaking USTs have caused church day care workers complained of petroleum fumes, oily films on dishes and a potential
underground explosion. (1998)
IA
Sioux City, Ida Grove and Galva detected MTBE and benzene in their drinking water supplies. Galva and Ida Grove had to switch
their source of water and Sioux City is relying on un-contaminated wells. (2003)
IN
In the city of Roselawn, MTBE contaminated a school’s drinking water supply and threatened a senior center’s drinking water well.
(2004) The water supplies for 25 communities in Illinois are contaminated with MTBE. (2001)
MA Eighty six communities in Massachusetts had detectible levels of MTBE in their drinking water supplies. (2004)
MD More than 600 drinking water wells in Maryland are polluted with MTBE, including 84 contaminated properties in Fallston. (2005)
ME
Six-teen percent of Maine’s drinking water supplies had detectable levels of MTBE and more than 5,000 residential wells could
have MTBE levels that exceed state drinking water standards. (1998) One area of contamination in the village of Tenants Harbor
contaminated 105 drinking water wells. (2004)
MO USTs have contaminated 50 drinking water sources, including six public drinking water systems. (2003)
NC Gasoline contaminated drinking water for over 150 people in Wrightsboro. (1998)
NE Eight communities serving about 10,000 people detected MTBE in their drinking water. (2003)
NH MTBE has polluted at least 15% of New Hampshire’s drinking water supplies, including 40,000 private wells. (2004)
NJ
MTBE contaminated 65 public drinking water supplies. (1998) In Ringwood, gasoline compounds contaminated residential
drinking wells and forced the construction of new drinking water supply lines to effected homes. (2004)
NY MTBE contaminated more than 200 residential drinking water supplies in rural New York. (1998)
OR
Free-floating gasoline was found in a monitoring well on school property and within 500 feet of a wildlife refuge. Officials
conducting the cleanup had to block gasoline vapors from entering homes. (2000)
PA MTBE contaminated 13 wells along the Quakertown-Richland border. (2001)
Highest Concentration of MTBE in Groundwater (ppb)
State Level State Level State Level State Level State Level
AK 10,300 IA 99,400 MT 19,8000 OH 265,000 VA 1,240,000
AR > 10,000 ID 50,000 NC > 10,000 OR 250,000 VT 536,000
AZ 68,000 KS 500,000 NE 38,610 RI 2,200,000 WA 7,150
CA 2,000,000 LA 25,000 NH 180,000/170,000 SC 2,500,000 WV 5,000
CO 170,000 ME 1,000,000 NJ > 10,000 SD 200 WI 4,000
CT 100,000 MD 500,000 NM 450,000 TN 200 WY 4,300
DE 300,000 MI 344,000 NV 220,000 TX 9,131,994
GA 300 MN 73,000 NY 4,400,000 UT 101,000
Source: New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, The Complied Results of the Survey of State Experiences with MtBE and other Oxygenate Contamination at
LUST Sites (March-April 2003).
9
10. Undercutting Protections
Inadequate Inspections
Officials have failed to ensure that 30% of all
federally-regulated USTs, totaling more than
200,000 tanks, are properly operated and maintained.
EPA and state officials have failed to inspect all
76,000 closed tanks that do not meet current federal
requirements, despite officials having found inactive
tanks still pose a risk of contamination.
Only physical inspections can confirm that USTs
meet federal protections. However, 22 states do not
inspect all of their USTs. Thus, they do not know if
their USTs meet federal protections; they may never
inspect some tanks. Only 19 states physically
inspect all of their USTs once every three years. Ten
states inspect USTs less than once every five years.
States that fail to physically inspect all tanks allow
owners to certify that their USTs meet existing pro-
tections or they inspect only a small number of tanks.
The Tip of a Toxic Iceberg: Reported Contamination at USTs
The 130,000 known leaking USTs are likely just the tip
of a toxic iceberg. Officials do not discover most leaks
until USTs are taken out of service. Moreover, officials
have not checked for leaks at 76,000 closed USTs or at
an estimated 190,000 unregistered USTs that pose a
threat of contamination. EPA also fails to ensure that
states adequately inspect tanks, train staff or enforce
protections. Tanks that meet federal safeguards can leak;
including vapors that can spread contaminate.
Nationally, there are 3.8 million non-federally regulated
USTs buried across our nation. These USTs are not
subject to federal inspection, maintenance or cleanup rules,
though some states protections may apply. States with
inadequate resources must try to address both federally-
regulated and non-federally-regulated leaks. Federal and
state officials acknowledge that they frequently lack the
necessary resources and legal authorities for inspecting
USTs and cleaning up and preventing contamination.
Officials in 40 states support a federal mandate that
required states to periodically inspect all USTs.
Industry representatives support periodic, and annual if
possible, inspections and of USTs.
Insufficient Training & Staffing
Frequent problems undercut the effectiveness of leak
prevention equipment in 19 states.
Leak detection equipment is frequently turned off or
improperly maintained in 15 states.
Frequent problems hamper the operation of equipment
that prevents spills and overfilling in seven states.
Official in 47 states say their staff needs extra training.
Forty-one states say that their programs need more
federal technical assistance.
Failing to Use Federal Surplus Funds
Increase Federal Financial Resources
The federal government has $2.4 billion in surplus funds
collected from taxpayers. However, the current
administration has proposed to use only 3% of these
funds to help pay for cleaning up contamination at UST
sites.
The Government Accountability Office
recommended increased use the federal UST surplus
to “promote better inspections and enforcement and
to address related resource shortfalls.”
EPA is failing to meet its goal of cutting the number
of needed cleanups in half by 2007, which requires
cleanups to average between 18,000-23,000 per year.
However, the current administration failed to request
additional resources to meet its cleanup goal.
Neglecting Enforcement
Ineffective Enforcement
State officials share the responsibility of enforcing
protections at UST facilities with the federal EPA.
However, many state officials lack the resources to
adequately enforce such protections.
Government officials acknowledge that leak
detection and overfill protection devices are turned
off, rendered inoperable or improperly maintained.
Official in 27 states say they need additional
enforcement authorities
Officials in 46 states say that they need additional
enforcement resources.
Officials must ensure that polluters pay for cleanups.
However, states often pay for cleanups using fees
collected from taxpayer who buy gas, even though an
owner may have the ability to pay for a cleanup. 10
11. Protect Communities and Drinking Water
The federal government should undertake five essential
actions to protect communities and their drinking water
supplies from UST contamination. Without such action,
the current slowdown in cleanups could grow more
severe, resulting in an increased number of contaminated
sites and reversing decades of progress since Congress
created federal UST protections in 1984.
The federal government should increase funding, pollution
prevention measures, efforts to make polluters pay to clean
up their contamination, enforcement of minimum federal
safeguards and the public’s right to know when polluters
contaminate the environment. Delaying such protections
will increase threats to communities, drinking water
supplies and cleanup costs
Increase Funding to Protect Communities
The federal government should increase funding for
prevention, cleanups and enforcement of protections:
Preventing Contamination: Training and Inspections
The federal government should increase funding for
trainings on leak prevention and the proper operation and
maintenance of USTs. Officials should inspect all closed
and unregistered USTs that could cause contamination.
Initial training for and two-year inspection of each
UST facility in the nation: $63 M
Inspecting all UST facilities every two years: $20 M
Searching for and inspecting unregistered USTs over
a two-year period: $20 M*
Cleaning Up Contamination
The federal government should increase clean up funds
when states are unable to adequately fund such activities.
The average UST cleanup costs $125,000.
Using 10 percent of the surplus funds would pay for
an additional 2,000 cleanups.
Enforcing Protections for Public Health
The federal government should increase funds for
administrative, civil and criminal enforcement against
entities that violate protections at UST facilities.
Prevent Contamination
The federal government should require secondary
containment and leak monitoring on all USTs:
EPA and state officials acknowledge that secondary
containment is one of the most effective means to
prevent contamination from leaks. Congress
required ships that carry oil in US waters to have
double hulls to protect the environment. Tanks that
store dangerous substances above our groundwater
and near our homes should have similar protections.
Leak monitoring equipment is essential to alert
officials about leaks before they can spread.
* Additional resources may be needed to locate and inspect estimated 76,000
abandoned and unregistered USTs that might be found during the initial survey.
Use Effective Enforcement Tools
The current administration should stand by its commitment
to make polluters pay to clean up contamination and work
to ensure that all government programs have effective
enforcement tools, including the power to:
Prohibit fuel deliveries to owners and operators of
tanks that fail to comply with existing protections;
Fine violators of existing protections;
Issue immediate citations to the owners or operators of
tanks for violations;
Seek civil sanctions in court against the owners or
operators of tanks that violate protections;
Seek criminal charges against owners or operators of
tanks that violate protections; and
Make polluters pay the full cost of cleaning up
contamination from a leaking UST.
Ensure Minimum Federal Safeguards
The federal government has largely delegated the UST
program to the states. However, it has failed to monitor
state programs to ensure they meet minimum federal
safeguards. The current administration should assess
whether UST programs meet federal safeguards, including:
Financing: States must have a stable funding source
and owners/operators must have ample cleanup funds,
Enforcement: Ensure that polluters who have the
ability to pay for cleanups in fact fund such activities,
Pollution Prevention: Regularly inspect USTs and
ensure that all USTs meet strong prevention standards,
Cleanup Activities: The immediate clean up of
concentrated contamination (“free product”) and
expeditious clean up of all backlogged sites.
Public Right to Know About Pollution
The administration should ensure the public has the right
to know about the location, content and ownership of
USTs and the extent of contamination from an UST.
11
12. Charts Fact Sheets and Bibliographies
The subsequent sections contain the following information:
1. National Charts
Chart One: Backlog of Cleanups at Leaking UST Sites
Chart Two: Percentage of Population that Relies on Groundwater for Drinking Water
Chart Three: Percentage of Leaking UST Sites Cleaned Up
Chart Four: Top States with Lowest Percentage of Sites Cleaned Up
Chart Five: State UST Funding, By Rank
Chart Six: State UST Funding, By State
Chart Seven: State Considers Leaking USTs a Threat to Groundwater Quality
2. Major Karst Aquifers in the United States: Karst aquifers provide 40 percent of the nation’s drinking
water that is derived from groundwater. However, this types of aquifers can also be extremely
vulnerable to contamination.
3. State Underground Storage Tank Fact Sheets: A description of state UST programs, use of
groundwater and contamination of groundwater by related-UST pollutants.
4. Bibliographies
National Report
State Fact Sheets
13. States Backlog of Cleanups at Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Rank State
Cleanup
Backlog
% of Pop. Relying on
Ground Water as a
Drinking Water
Rank State
Cleanup
Backlog
% of Pop. Relying
on Ground Water as
a Drinking Water
1 FL 17,544 93 29 WY 1,132 59
2 CA 15,049 46 30 MT 1,085 53
3 MI 9,039 46 31 LA 1,015 61
4 IL 8,591 33 32 CO 998 22
5 NC 6,927 50 33 NM 913 90
6 TX 4,577 45 34 VA 910 34
7 PA 4,456 41 35 AK 885 64
8 NJ 3,825 53 36 CT 857 54
9 WI 3,641 70 37 NH 837 62
10 SC 3,515 45 38 VT 797 65
11 OH 3,463 46 39 PR 597 28
12 IN 3,449 64 40 OK 502 34
13 MD 3,280 31 41 UT 498 57
14 GA 2,924 41 42 HI 366 97
15 AZ 2,597 60 43 AR 332 53
16 KY 2,522 25 44 MS 301 92
17 NY 2,297 35 45 DE 297 66
18 NE 2,262 87 46 NV 275 31
19 KS 2,082 50 47 RI 260 27
20 IA 2,039 78 48 SD 247 70
21 WA 2,002 61 49 DC 243 0
22 AL 1,657 52 50 ID 168 96
23 OR 1,526 44 51 ME 134 60
24 MO 1,456 54 52 ND 43 57
25 MA 1,294 46
26 TN 1,221 47
27 WV 1,214 43
28 MN 1,199 80
TOTAL 129,340
Sources: EPA, FY 2004 Semi-Annual End-ofYear Activity Report 2-3 (2004).
EPA, Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress 4 (1999) (excludes USTs on Native American lands).
Chart 1
14. Percent of the Population that Relies on
Groundwater for Drinking Water, By State
State
% of Pop. Drinking
Groundwater Population
Pop. Drinking
Groundwater
Pop. Drinking
Surface Water
AK 64% 655,435 416,856.66 238,578.34
AL 52% 4,530,182 2,351,164.46 2,179,017.54
AR 53% 2,752,629 1,461,646.00 1,290,983.00
AZ 60% 5,743,834 3,457,788.07 2,286,045.93
CA 46% 35,893,799 16,331,678.55 19,562,120.46
CO 22% 4,601,403 1,016,910.06 3,584,492.94
CT 54% 3,503,604 1,895,449.76 1,608,154.24
DC 0% 553,523 0.00 553,523.00
DE 66% 830,364 548,870.60 281,493.40
FL 93% 17,397,161 16,144,565.41 1,252,595.59
GA 41% 8,829,383 3,655,364.56 5,174,018.44
HI 97% 1,262,840 1,218,640.60 44,199.40
IA 78% 2,954,451 2,304,471.78 649,979.22
ID 96% 1,393,262 1,340,318.04 52,943.96
IL 33% 12,713,634 4,220,926.49 8,492,707.51
IN 64% 6,237,569 3,967,093.88 2,270,475.12
KS 50% 2,735,502 1,378,693.01 1,356,808.99
KY 25% 4,145,922 1,040,626.42 3,105,295.58
LA 61% 4,515,770 2,750,103.93 1,765,666.07
MA 46% 6,416,505 2,932,342.79 3,484,162.22
MD 31% 5,558,058 1,711,881.86 3,846,176.14
ME 60% 1,317,253 795,620.81 521,632.19
MI 46% 10,112,620 4,651,805.20 5,460,814.80
MN 80% 5,100,958 4,070,564.48 1,030,393.52
MO 54% 5,754,618 3,095,984.48 2,658,633.52
MS 92% 2,902,966 2,673,631.69 229,334.31
MT 53% 926,865 494,945.91 431,919.09
NC 50% 8,541,221 4,253,528.06 4,287,692.94
ND 57% 634,366 360,954.25 273,411.75
NE 87% 1,747,214 1,521,823.39 225,390.61
NH 62% 1,299,500 801,791.50 497,708.50
NJ 53% 8,698,879 4,627,803.63 4,071,075.37
NM 90% 1,903,289 1,711,056.81 192,232.19
NV 31% 2,334,771 719,109.47 1,615,661.53
NY 35% 19,227,088 6,652,572.45 12,574,515.55
OH 46% 11,459,011 5,305,522.09 6,153,488.91
OK 34% 3,523,553 1,194,484.47 2,329,068.53
OR 44% 3,594,586 1,567,239 2,027,347
PA 41% 12,406,292 5,111,392 7,294,900
PR 28% 3,894,855 1,082,770 2,812,085
RI 27% 1,080,632 286,367 794,265
SC 45% 4,198,068 1,884,932.53 2,313,135.47
SD 70% 770,883 538,076.33 232,806.67
TN 47% 5,900,962 2,773,452.14 3,127,509.86
TX 45% 22,490,022 10,210,469.99 12,279,552.01
Sources: EPA, Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress 4 (1999) and
US Census Bureau, Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States and States, and for Puerto
Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2004 (NST-EST2004-01) (2004).
Chart 2
15. Percent of the Population that Relies on
Drinking Water, By State
State
% of Pop. Drinking
Groundwater Population
Pop. Drinking
Groundwater
Pop. Drinking
Surface Water
UT 57% 2,389,039 1,361,752.23 1,027,286.77
VA 34% 7,459,827 2,543,801.01 4,916,025.99
VT 65% 621,394 403,906.10 217,487.90
WA 61% 6,203,788 3,771,903 2,431,885
WI 70% 5,509,026 3,845,300 1,663,726
WV 43% 1,815,354 786,048.28 1,029,305.72
WY 59% 506,529 296,319.47 210,209.54
Sources: EPA, Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress 4 (1999) and
US Census Bureau, Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States and States, and for Puerto
Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2004 (NST-EST2004-01) (2004).
Chart 2
16. Percent of UST Sites Cleaned Up
National Average for Cleanups: 71 percent of all sites cleaned up
Rank State
Percent of Sites
Cleaned Up
Percent of Sites
Cleaned Up
Confirmed
Releases
Number of
Cleanups
1 FL -40% 31% 25,359 7,815
2 WY -28% 43% 1,979 847
3 KS -17% 54% 4,560 2,478
4 MI -15% 56% 20,511 11,472
5 IN -14% 57% 8,032 4,583
5 WV -14% 57% 2,828 1,614
7 VT -13% 58% 1,904 1,107
8 SC -12% 59% 8,541 5,026
8 NJ -12% 59% 9,383 5,558
10 AK -10% 61% 2,280 1,395
10 IL -10% 61% 22,218 13,627
10 NH -10% 61% 2,166 1,329
10 LA -10% 61% 2,633 1,618
14 NE -9% 62% 5,922 3,660
14 MT -9% 62% 2,854 1,769
14 NM -9% 62% 2,433 1,520
17 CT -7% 64% 2,408 1,551
17 IA -7% 64% 5,741 3,702
19 CA -6% 65% 42,825 27,776
20 WA -4% 67% 6,026 4,024
20 PA -4% 67% 13,609 9,153
22 AZ -3% 68% 8,137 5,540
23 DC -2% 69% 788 545
24 NC -1% 70% 23,233 16,306
25 GA 2% 73% 10,636 7,712
25 MD 2% 73% 12,216 8,936
25 AR 2% 73% 1,243 911
28 MO 5% 76% 6,075 4,619
29 OR 7% 78% 6,794 5,268
29 MA 7% 78% 6,009 4,715
31 RI 8% 79% 1,218 958
32 HI 9% 80% 1,803 1,437
32 WI 9% 80% 18,136 14,495
32 KY 9% 80% 12,865 10,343
35 TX 10% 81% 23,771 19,194
36 CO 13% 84% 6,368 5,370
37 AL 14% 85% 10,763 9,106
37 OH 14% 85% 23,367 19,904
39 DE 16% 87% 2,220 1,923
39 MN 16% 87% 9,390 8,191
39 OK 16% 87% 3,946 3,444
39 ID 16% 87% 1,321 1,153
43 UT 17% 88% 4,058 3,560
43 NY 17% 88% 19,621 17,324
45 NV 18% 89% 2,400 2,125
45 SD 18% 89% 2,323 2,076
Source: EPA, FY 2004 Semi-Annual End-of-Year Activity Report (2004).
Chart 3
17. Percent of UST Sites Cleaned Up
National Average for Cleanups: 71 percent of all sites cleaned up
Rank State
Percent of Sites
Cleaned Up
Percent of Sites
Cleaned Up
Confirmed
Releases
Number of
Cleanups
47 TN 19% 90% 12,512 11,291
48 VA 20% 91% 10,181 9,271
49 ME 23% 94% 2,129 1,995
50 ND 24% 95% 811 768
50 MS 24% 95% 6,456 6,155
Total 71% 446,178 316,780
Source: EPA, FY 2004 Semi-Annual End-of-Year Activity Report (2004).
Chart 3
18. Top States with Lowest Percent of Sites Cleaned Up
Rank State
State % vs.
Nat'l
Average
%
Cleaned
Up
Confirmed
Releases
Total
Cleanups Rank State
State % vs.
Nat'l
Average
%
Cleaned
Up
Confirmed
Releases
Total
Cleanups
1 FL -40% 31% 25359 7815 14 NE -9% 62% 5922 3660
2 WY -28% 43% 1979 847 14 MT -9% 62% 2854 1769
3 KS -17% 54% 4560 2478 14 NM -9% 62% 2433 1520
4 MI -15% 56% 20511 11472 17 CT -7% 64% 2408 1551
5 IN -14% 57% 8032 4583 17 IA -7% 64% 5741 3702
5 WV -14% 57% 2828 1614 19 CA -6% 65% 42825 27776
7 VT -13% 58% 1904 1107 20 WA -4% 67% 6026 4024
8 SC -12% 59% 8541 5026 20 PA -4% 67% 13609 9153
8 NJ -12% 59% 9383 5558 22 AZ -3% 68% 8137 5540
10 AK -10% 61% 2280 1395 23 DC -2% 69% 788 545
10 IL -10% 61% 22218 13627 24 NC -1% 70% 23233 16306
10 NH -10% 61% 2166 1329
10 LA -10% 61% 2633 1618
Source: EPA, FY Semi-Annual End-of-year Activity Report (2004).
Chart 4
19. State Underground Storage Tank Program Funding, By Rank
Rank State
Funding
Deficit
(millions)
Total Approx.
Current
Balance ('03-04)
(millions)
Outstanding
Claims ('03-
'04) (millions)
Rank State
Funding
Deficit
(millions)
Total Approx.
Current
Balance ('03-
04) (millions)
Outstanding
Claims ('03-
'04) (millions)
1
MI -$1,700.00 $0 $170.00 25 MS $5.65 $5.90 $0.25
2 CA -$1,029.00 $171.00 $1,200 26 ME $5.98 $5.98 $0.00
3 WI -$151.80 $13.2
G
$4.43 27 MD $6.17 $6.17 $0.00
4 CT -$53.00 $5.00 $58 28 NH $6.23 $9.14 $2.91
5 TN -$95.60 $8 $20 29 ND $6.67 $7.68 1.01
I
-$27.52 0.68
J
$28.20 30 MN $7.60 $19.60 $12.00
6 NC
-$4.15 1.3
K
$5.45 31 AR $9.38 $15.15 $5.77
7 MA -$20.00 NA
A
$20 32 OK $10.14 $10.70 $0.56
8 CO -$14.30 $1.53 $15.83 33 LA $13.03 $15.09 $2.06
9 PA -$10.00 $204 $214 34 IL $14.20 $22.00 $7.80
10 VA -$7.59 $1.01 $9 35 NM $16.37 $19.77 3.4
D
11 OH -$5.12 $29.91 $35.03 36 NE $22.00 $24.40 $2.40
12 AL -$4.60 $0.90 $5.50 $25.30 29.3
E
$4
13 WV -$1.10 $0.20 $1.30
37 WA
-$0.46 0.31
F
$0.77
14 VT -$0.49 $4.89 $5.38 38 IN $23.50 $31.00 $7.50
15 AK $0 $0 NA 39 ID $39.00 $39 $0
16 WY $0.00 $98.41 NA 40 MO $47.27 $48 $1.13
17 DE $0.15 $0.50 $0.35 41 GA $54.20 $68.40 $14
18 RI $0.50 $1.50 $1.00 42 NJ $70.00 $80.00 $10.00
19 MT $0.51 $1.21 $0.70 43 IA $100.00 $100 0
20 KS $2.70 $2.70 $0 44 TX $131.40 $181 $49.50
21 NV $3.00 $5 $2.00 45 FL $272.00 $273 $1
22 SC $3.29 $29.67 $26.38 46 AZ NA $25.00 NA
23 KY $4.30 $22 $18.10 47 NY NA $20.00 NA
24 SD $5.15 $5.30 $0.15 48 UT NA $8.70 NA
TOTAL -$2,069.35 $1,630 $1,966.67
Chart 5
20. State Underground Storage Tank Program Funding
Sources: ASTSWMO, 2004 State Financial Assurance Funds Survey Results (2004), except for Michigan, Tennessee, South Carolina, Vermont and Wisconsin figures, which
are provided by: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Site Funding Needs Environmental Remediation and Redevelopment (Jan. 2003) (on file with author)
(outstanding claims based on estimated public funding needed to cleanup known sites); South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Underground Storage
Tank Quarterly Financial Report July 1, 2004 - December 31, 2004 Second Quarter; Petroleum Cleanup Fund Advisory Committee, Sixteenth Annual Report on the Status of
(Vermont's) Petroleum Cleanup Fund (2004) (outstanding claims based on estimated public funding needed to cleanup known sites) and Wisconsin's deficit figure is from
ASTSWMO's 2003 survey (deficit figure is based on estimated public funding needed to cleanup known sites.
NOTE: Deficit figures differ from figures provided by ASTSWMO due to inclusion of internally produced reports that describe large deficits based on the number of expected
future cleanups that will need public funding.
A MA's fund was repealed in FY04 so all revenue goes to the General Fund.
B The funds for MD and NY are not an assurance or a financial responsibility fund, tank owners need private insurance or be self-insured.
C Workplan liability and reserve (through March 2004).
D Received and unpaid February 2003, (approved but unpaid to 3/31/04).
E Commercial Underground Storage Tank Program
F Oil Heat Program
G Additional funds by bonding was approved by our legislature for $94 million for the FY '04 &'05. We have drawn $45 of the $94 million so far. Of the $45 million, we have a
balance of $18,978,616.74 left.
H Effective 1/1/96 USTs that meet the new or upgraded tank requirements must have private insurance or be self-insured. Effective 12/22/01 all coverage for ASTs and USTs
is $190,000.
I Reserves J Commercial K Non-commercial
Chart 5
21. State Underground Storage Tank Program Funding, by State
State
Funding
Deficit
(millions)
Total Approx.
Current
Balance ('03-
04) (millions)
Outstanding
Claims ('03-
'04) (millions)
State
Funding
Deficit
(millions)
Total Approx.
Current Balance
('03-04)
(millions)
Outstanding
Claims ('03-
'04) (millions)
AK $0 $0 NA -$27.52 0.68
J
$28.20
AL -$4.60 $0.90 $5.50
NC
-$4.15 1.3
K
$5.45
AR $9.38 $15.15 $5.77 ND $6.67 $7.68 1.01
I
AZ NA $25.00 NA NE $22.00 $24.40 $2.40
CA -$1,029.00 $171.00 $1,200 NH $6.23 $9.14 $2.91
CO -$14.30 $1.53 $15.83 NJ $70.00 $80.00 $10.00
CT -$53.00 $5.00 $58 NM $16.37 $19.77 3.4
D
DE $0.15 $0.50 $0.35 NV $3.00 $5 $2.00
FL $272.00 $273 $1 NY NA $20.00 NA
GA $54.20 $68.40 $14 OH -$5.12 $29.91 $35.03
IA $100.00 $100 0 OK $10.14 $10.70 $0.56
ID $39.00 $39 $0 PA -$10.00 $204 $214
IL $14.20 $22.00 $7.80 RI $0.50 $1.50 $1.00
IN $23.50 $31.00 $7.50 SC $3.29 $29.67 $26.38
KS $2.70 $2.70 $0 SD $5.15 $5.30 $0.15
KY $4.30 $22 $18.10 TN -$95.60 $8 $20
LA $13.03 $15.09 $2.06 TX $131.40 $181 $49.50
MA -$20.00 NA
A
$20 UT NA $8.70 NA
MD $6.17 $6.17 $0.00 VA -$7.59 $1.01 $9
ME $5.98 $5.98 $0.00 VT -$0.49 $4.89 $5.38
MI -$1,700.00 $0 $170.00 $25.30 29.3
E
$4
MN $7.60 $19.60 $12.00
WA
-$0.46 0.31
F
$0.77
MO $47.27 $48 $1.13 WI -$151.80 $13.2
G
$4.43
MS $5.65 $5.90 $0.25 WV -$1.10 $0.20 $1.30
MT $0.51 $1.21 $0.70 WY $0.00 $98.41 NA
-$2,069.35 $1,630 $1,966.67
Chart 6
22. State Underground Storage Tank Program Funding, by State
Sources: ASTSWMO, 2004 State Financial Assurance Funds Survey Results (2004), except for Michigan, Tennessee, South Carolina, Vermont and Wisconsin
figures, which are provided by: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Site Funding Needs Environmental Remediation and Redevelopment (Jan. 2003)
(on file with author) (outstanding claims based on estimated public funding needed to cleanup known sites); South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control, Underground Storage Tank Quarterly Financial Report July 1, 2004 - December 31, 2004 Second Quarter; Petroleum Cleanup Fund
Adviosry Committee, Sixteenth Annual Report on the Status of (Vermont's) Petroleum Cleanup Fund (2004) (outstanding claims based on estimated public
funding needed to cleanup known sites) and Wisconsin's deficit figure is from ASTSWMO's 2003 survey (deficit figure is based on estimated public funding
needed to cleanup known sites.
NOTE: Deficit figures differ from figures provided by ASTSWMO due to inclusion of internally produced reports that describe large deficits based on the number of
expected future cleanups that will need public funding.
A MA's fund was repealed in FY04 so all revenue goes to the General Fund.
B the funds for MD and NYs are not an assurance or a financial responsibility fund, tank owners need private insurance or be self-insured.
C Workplan liability and reserve (through March 2004).
D Received and unpaid February 2003, (approved but unpaid to 3/31/04).
E Commercial Underground Storage Tank Program
F Oil Heat Program
G Additional funds by bonding was approved by our legislature for $94 million for the FY '04 &'05. We have drawn $45 of the $94 million so far. Of the $45
million, we have a balance of $18,978,616.74 left.
H Effective 1/1/96 USTs that meet the new or upgraded tank requirements must have private insurance or be self-insured. Effective 12/22/01 all coverage for
ASTs and USTs is $190,000.
I Reserves J Commercial K Non-commercial
Chart 6
23. Leaking USTs Are A Threat To
Groundwater Quality (GW)
in 45 States
State Threat to GW State Threat to GW
AK Y MS Y
AL Y MT Y
AR Y NC Y
AS ND
AZ NE Y
CA Y NH Y
CNMI NJ
CO Y NM Y
CT Y NV Y
DC Y NY Y
DE Y OH Y
FL Y OK Y
GA Y OR Y
GU Y PA Y
HI Y PR
IA Y RI Y
ID SC Y
IL Y SD Y
IN Y TN
KS Y TX Y
KY Y UT
LA Y VA Y
MA VI
MD Y VT Y
ME Y WA Y
MI Y WI Y
MN Y WV Y
MO Y WY Y
Sources: EPA, National Water Quality Inventory Report (2000) and State
reports on file with the author.
Chart 7
24. Major Karst Aquifers in the United States
Karst regions contain aquifers that can provide plentiful supplies of groundwater. However,
many karst aquifers are also vulnerable to contamination because contamination can move
rapidly through the ground and throughout the aquifer. Karst regions comprise 20 percent
of our nation’s land surface area and provide 40 percent of the nation’s groundwater that is
used for drinking water.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Karst (Available at http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/karst/) (Last checked on April 8, 2005).
25. State & District Underground Storage Tank Fact Sheets
1. Alaska 14. Iowa 27. Ohio
2. Alabama 15. Kansas 28. Pennsylvania
3. Arkansas 16. Kentucky 29. Rhode Island
4. Arizona 17. Maine 30. South Carolina
5. California 18. Maryland 31. South Dakota
6. Colorado 19. Massachusetts 32. Tennessee
7. Connecticut 20. Michigan 33. Texas
8. District of Columbia 21. Minnesota 34. Virginia
9. Delaware 22. Missouri 35. Vermont
10. Florida 23. Montana 36. Washington
11. Georgia 24. North Carolina 37. Wisconsin
12. Illinois 25. Nebraska 38. West Virginia
13. Indiana 26. New Hampshire
26. Bibliography for National Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Report
The following citations describe the material used to produce the national report on the status of leaking
underground storage tanks.
1. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profiles (various)
2. Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, 2003 State Financial
Assurance Funds Survey Results (2003) (Tables 1, 2, 3, and 5)
3. Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, 2004 State Financial
Assurance Funds Survey Results (2004) (Tables 1, 2, 3, and 5)
4. Audrey Grasso, Voicesnews.com, EPA Considers Fine for Newton Oil Spill (2005)
5. Beth Daley, Globe Staff, Report Cites Trace Chemicals in Water (Dec. 16, 2004)
6. City of Santa Monica, Economic & Demographic Profile: Population & Race (2005)
7. Congressional Research Service, MTBE in Gasoline: Clean Air and Drinking Water Issues 98-290
ENR (2004)
8. Dan Benson, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Homeowners File Suit Against Two Firms (Apr. 2, 2000)
9. David Danelski and Jennifer Bowles, Troubled Waters Regulators Struggle to Deal with Fuel Leaks
from an Inland Tank Farm (Aug. 12, 2001)
10. Eric Fleichauer, The Decatur Daily News, Parent Wonder If Girl’s Leukemia Linked to Gasoline
(2005)
11. Enric Volante, Arizona Daily Star, Leaking Fuel Tanks Foul Soil, Water under Our Feet (Mar. 28,
2004)
12. Environmental Defense, Scorecard.org (2005) (various chemical profiles)
13. Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 141.2 (2004)
14. Environmental Protection Agency, Cleaning Up the Nation’s Waste Sites: Markets and Technology
Trends, EPA 542-R-04-015 (2004)
15. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General, Impact of EPA and State Drinking
Water Capacity Development Efforts Uncertain, Rpt. No. 2003-P-00018 (2003)
16. Environmental Protection Agency, FY 1996-2004 Semi-Annual End-of-the-Year Reports (1996-
2004)
17. Environmental Protection Agency, National Water Quality Inventory 2000, EPA-841-R-02-001
(2000)
27. 18. Environmental Protection Agency, Opportunity for Targeted Public Health protection through the
Underground Storage Tank and Source Water Protection Programs (2004)
19. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Ground Water Rule (2000)
20. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground
Storage Tank Program, EPA 510-R-00-001 (2000)
21. Environmental Protection Agency, Safe Drinking Water Act, Sec. 1429 Rpt. for Cong. (1999)
22. Environmental Protection Agency, Underground Storage Tanks, Leaking Underground Storage
Tank (LUST) Trust Fund (Available at http://www.epa.gov/swerust1/ltffacts.htm)
23. Environmental Working Ground, Like Oil & Water, As Congress Considers Legal Immunity for Oil
Companies More Communities Go To Court Over MTBE (2005)
24. Erik Olson, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, Testimony Before the
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the
House of Representatives (2005)
25. G. William Page and Harvey Rabinowitz, Groundwater Contamination: Its Effects on Property
Values and Cities, 59 J. Am. Planning Assoc. 473 (1993)
26. Hal Bernton, Seattle Times, Gasoline Additive Found in Ground Water at 30 sites, Contamination
Risk High in Area; Report says (Oct. 11, 2000)
27. Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, The Effectiveness of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cleanup
Programs, 108th
Cong, 1st
Sess. (2003)
28. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Land Quality, MTBE Contamination,
Roselawn Indiana (Updated 2004)
29. Jake Thompson, Fuel Additive Found in Municipal Wells, Small Amounts of MTBE, Used to Help
Gasoline Burn Cleaner, Have Been Detected in a Few Towns in Nebraska and Iowa (Nov. 30,
2003)
30. James Fuller, Daily Herald, How Leaking Tanks Underground Have Affected Barrington (Aug. 20,
2002)
31. Jan Barry, The Record, DEP Widens Underground Tank Checks; Aim is to Guard Aquifers From
Gasoline Contamination (Aug. 19, 2004)
32. Jim Doyle and Susan Sward, San Francisco Chronicle, MTBE Leaks A Ticking Bomb Gas Additive
Taints Water Nationwide (Dec. 14, 1998)
33. Knight-Tribune News Service, Florida Times Union, Diesel Spills Pose Threat to State’s Drinking
Water (Mar. 31, 1998)
34. Letter from Christine Todd Whiteman, Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection
Agency to The Honorable W.J. “Billy” Tauzin, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce (May 7, 2003)
28. 35. Lisa Kozleski, Gas Additive MTBE Found in More Wells, All are Within 1,400 Feet of an Exxon
Station on Richland Township-Quakertown Border (May 17, 2001)
36. Lisa Kozleski, Two More Wells Tainted by MTBE Milford Twp. Spill Was Found in December as
Owner Put in New Tanks (Feb. 8, 2001)
37. Martha Bisacchi, Post-Tribune, New Well Plan May Solve Contamination at School, Morocco’s
MtBE-Tainted Water Would be Filtered, New Well Dug if Approved (Dec. 8, 2004)
38. Martha Bisacchi, Post-Tribune, School Water Unsafe To Drink; The U.S. EPA Told Lincoln
Elementary Students And Staff The Water Is Contaminated With A Gasoline Additive (Apr. 4,
2002)
39. Mary Bender, The Press-Enterprise, Eastvale: The District Will Have to Ensure Toxic Remnants
From Dairies Don’t Harm Students (2005)
40. Melissa Widner, The Rensselaer Republican, MTBE Found in Four DeMotte Business Wells
(2005)
41. Meredith Goad, Portland Press Herald, One Fouled Well Sets Off Search; The DEP’s Hunt for the
Limits of Contamination Spreads Ever Outward in Tenants Harbor (Jul. 11, 1004)
42. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, RPD Operational Memo. #2 (2004)
43. New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, 44 L.U.S.T.LINE (July 2003)
44. New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, 45 L.U.S.T.LINE (Oct. 2003)
45. New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, 47 L.U.S.T.LINE (June 2004)
46. New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, Summary Report on a Survey of
State Experiences with MtBE and Other Oxygenate Contamination at LUST Sites (2003)
47. New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, The Complied Results of the Survey
of State Experiences with MtBE and Other Oxygenate Contamination at LUST Sites (2003)
48. Pat Brennan, Orange County Register, Prosecutors Allege MTBE Conspiracy: Reports Showed
Problems, but Oil Distributors Allegedly Looked the Other Way. Arco Denies Allegations (Oct. 20,
2000)
49. Rebecca Tsaros Dickson, Concord Monitor, Bill Would Ban MtBE in State; Plan Joins Ban, Gas
Reformulation Rules (Mar. 27, 2004)
50. Richard Cockle, The Oregonian, DEQ Will Clean Up Leaking Fuel Tanks (Oct. 12, 2000)
51. Rob O’Dell, North County Times, Buried Fuel Tanks Raise a Host of Concerns in VUSD (2005)
52. Robert Simons, Settlement of an Oil Pipeline Leak with Contaminated Residential Property: A
Case Study 24 Real Estate Issues 46 (1999) (See also, Robert Simons, et al., The Effect of
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Residential Property Value, 14 J. Real Estate Res. 129
(1999) and Robert Simons, et al., The Effects of LUSTS from Gas Stations on Residential and
Commercial Property that is Actually Contaminated, The Appraisal J. (April, 1999)
29. 53. Ted Shelsby, The Sun, Hartford Considers Freeze on New Gas Stations; Gasoline Additive MTBE
Found in Wells Near Exxon (July 11, 2004)
54. Ted Shelsby, The Sun, Traces of MTBE Found at More Harford Sites (Oct. 6, 2004)
55. Terry Hillig, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, City Wants Oil Companies to Pay for Contamination Village
Runs Plant Solely to Treat Water From Tainted Well; Use of Additive is Now Illegal (Jul. 30, 2001)
56. The Sun, Harford Residents Ask Legislatures to End MTBE Use (Jan. 17, 2005)
57. The Sun, New Rules to Prevent MTBE Leaks Will Go Into Effect Today (Jan 26, 2005)
58. Tom Walsh, The Patriot Ledger, U.S. Geological Survey Maps Seeping Underground Storage
Tanks, Well Water in 15 Towns at Risk from Toxic Leaks (Apr. 8, 2000)
59. United States Census Bureau, Annual Estimate of Population for the United States (2004)
60. United States Code of Federal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 280 (2003)
61. United States Code, 42 U.S.C. section 6991 et seq. (2002)
62. United States Department of Treasury, The Budget for Fiscal Year 2006, Appendix for the
Environmental Protection Agency (2005)
63. United States General Accounting Office, Availability of Insurance for Petroleum Underground
Storage Tanks, GAO/T-RCED-88-9 (1987)
64. United States General Accounting Office, Drinking Water, Stronger Efforts Essential for Small
Communities to Comply with Standards, GAO/RECD-94-40 (1994)
65. United States General Accounting Office, Drinking Water, Information on Quality of Wter Found at
Community Water Systems and Private Wells, GAO/RECD-97-123 (1997)
66. United States General Accounting Office, Improved Inspections and Enforcement Would Ensure
Safer Underground Storage Tanks, GAO-01-464 (2001)
67. United States General Accounting Office, Safe Drinking Water Act, Progress and Future
Challenges in Implementing the 1996 Amendments, GAO/RECD-99-31 (1999)
68. United States General Accounting Office, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Environment
and Hazardous Materials, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives,
MTBE Contamination From Underground Storage Tanks (2002)
69. United States General Accounting Office, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Environment
and Hazardous Materials, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives,
Recommendations for Improving the Underground Storage Tank Program, GAO-030529T (2003)
70. United States General Accounting Office, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Superfund,
Toxics, Risk and Waste Management, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate,
Improved Inspections and Enforcement Would Ensure Safer Underground Storage Tanks, GAO-
02-712T (2002)
30. 71. United States Geological Survey, A National Survey of Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether and other Volatile
Organic Compounds in Drinking-Water Sources: Results of the Random Survey, Water-Resources
Investigations Reports 02-4079 (2003)
72. United States Geological Survey, MTBE and Other Volatile Organic Compounds-New Finding and
Implication on the Quality of Source Waters Used for Drinking-Water Supplies, FS-105-01 (2001)
73. United States Geological Survey, Natural and Human Factors Affecting Shallow Water Quality in
Surficial Aquifers in the Connecticut, Housatonic, and Thames River Basins, Water-Resources
Report 98-4042 (1998)
74. United States Geological Survey, Occurrence and Distribution of Methyl tert-Butyl Ether and Other
Volatile Organic Compounds in Drinking Water in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Regions of the
United States, 1993-98, Water-Resources Investigation Report 00-4228 (2001)
75. United States Geological Survey, VOCs in Shallow Groundwater in New Residential/Commercial
Areas of the United States, 38 Environ. Sci. Technol. 5327 (2004)
76. William Carlsen, The San Diego Tribune, Cover-up Charged on Gas Additive Peril, Court Papers
say U.S. Knew of Water-Supply Threat 15 Years Ago (Aug. 20, 2001)
77. William Speed Weed, Gas Leak, 90 Current Science 6 (2005)
31. Bibliography for State Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fact Sheets
The following citations describe the material used to produce the individual state-by-state fact sheets
contained in this document.
Figures on the number and percent of a state’s population that uses groundwater for drinking water
comes from: Environmental Protection Agency, Safe Drinking Water Act, Sec. 1429 Rpt. for Cong.
(1999)
Each state’s UST program figures on the average cost per cleanup, number of agency fund staff,
types of tanks covered, funding sources, approximate current balance, outstanding claims,
expiration of funding mechanisms and program and funding or legislative information comes from:
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, 2003 State Financial
Assurance Funds Survey Results (2003) (Tables 1, 2, 3, and 5) or Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, 2004 State Financial Assurance Funds Survey
Results (2004) (Tables 1, 2, 3, and 5), unless otherwise noted
Figures on each state’s population comes from: United States Census Bureau, Annual Estimate of
Population for the United States (2004)
Figures on the number of backlogged cleanups, state rank for the number of backlogged cleanups,
the percent of sites cleaned up, percent above national average, total number of sties in history of
the program, total number of active tanks, and total number of emergency cleanups taken from:
Environmental Protection Agency, FY 2004 Semi-Annual End-of-the-Year Report (2004)
The following citations list sources that the document generally uses to describe the Groundwater and
UST Contamination sections of the state-by-state fact sheets.
ALASKA
1. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Alaska’s Final 2002/2003 Integrated
Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (2003)
2. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Underground Storage Tank Revolving
Loan Fund Annual Report: Fiscal Year 2004 (2005)
ALABAMA
1. Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Alabama 2000 Water Quality Report
to Congress (2000)
2. Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2000 Water Quality Report to
Congress 305(b) Report (2000)
3. Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Alabama’s 2004 Integrated Water
Quality Monitoring & Assessment Report (2004)
ARKANSAS
1. Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, 2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring
and Assessment Report (2002)
32. ARIZONA
1. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Draft Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) and 303(d)
Listing Report (2004)
2. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Impacts to Groundwater Resources in
Arizona From Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTS) (2003)
3. Arizona Office of the Auditor General, Performance Audit of the Department of
Environmental Quality: Waste Programs Division (2004)
4. United States Geological Survey, Water-Use Trends in the Desert Southwest—1950-2000
(2004)
CALIFORNIA
1. Department of Water Resources, California’s Groundwater-Bulletin 118, Update 2003
(2003)
2. Department of Water Resources, Water Facts: Numbering Water Wells in California (2000)
3. National Ground Water Association, Ground Water’s Role in California’s Economic Vitality
(2004)
4. State Water Resources Control Board, 2002 California 305(b) Report on Water Quality
(2003)
COLORADO
1. Department of Public Health and Environment, Status of Water Quality in Colorado: 2002
(2002)
CONNECTICUT
1. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, 2004 Water Quality Report to
Congress (2004)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
1. 20 DCMR Chapt. 56 (2004)
2. Department of Health, District of Columbia, Environmental Health Administration, DC
Underground Storage Tanks Management Website (2005)
3. Department of Health, District of Columbia, LUST Cases for FOIA (April, 2004) (on file with
author)
4. Correspondence from District of Columbia Department of Health to Linda Fennell,
Environmental Justice Organizer for the Sierra Club regarding the former Shell retail facility
at 4107 Alabama Ave., SE, LUST Case ID 90035
5. Environmental Protection Agency, Chillum Gasoline Release Website
6. Department of Health, District of Columbia, Press Release: Department of Health Releases
Environmental Test Results Related to Gasoline Storage Tank Spill in Fort Davis
Community (2001)
7. Environmental Protection Agency, Fact Sheet: EPA Issues Order to Chevron Inc. (2002)
8.
DELAWARE
1. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, 2002 Watershed Assessment
Report (305(b)) (2002)
33. 2. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, First Report to the Governor
and the General Assembly Regarding Progress of the Delaware Source Water Assessment
and Protection Program (2004)
3. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and Delaware Health and
Social Services, The Impact of Known and Suspected Contaminant Sources on Select
Public Drinking Water Supplies in Delaware (2002)
FLORIDA
1. Department of Environmental Protection, 2000 Florida Water Quality Assessment: 305(b)
Report (2000)
2. Department of Environmental Protection, Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida:
2004 305(b) Report and 303(d) List Update (2004)
GEORGIA
1. Department of Natural Resources, Water Quality in Georgia 2000-2001 (2001)
IOWA
1. Department of Natural Resources, Iowa’s Groundwater Basics: Groundwater Use in Iowa
(2003)
2. Department of Natural Resources, Methyl tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Occurrence in Iowa
(2000)
3. Department of Natural Resources, Water Quality in Iowa During 1998 and 1999 (2000)
ILLINOIS
1. Department of Natural Resources, Critical Trends Assessment Project Summary Report
(1994)
2. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Illinois Groundwater Protection Program: Biennial
Comprehensive Status and Self-Assessment Report (2004)
3. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Illinois Water Quality Report 2004 (2004)
4. Illinois Water Supply, Illinois State Water Survey (2005)
INDIANA
1. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Indiana Integrated Water Monitoring
and Assessment Report 2002 (2002)
2. National Ground Water Association, Ground Water’s Role in Indiana’s Economic Vitality
(2004)
KANSAS
1. Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2004 Kansas Water Quality Assessment
(305(b) Report) (2004)
2. Kansas Department of Health and Environment, KDHE Responds to Concerns Over MTBE
(2000)
3. National Ground Water Association, Ground Water’s Role in Kansas’s Economic Vitality
(2004)
34. KENTUCKY
1. Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet, 2004 Kentucky Report to Congress
on Water Quality (2004)
MARYLAND
1. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 2000 Maryland Section 305(b) Water Quality
Report (2000)
MASSACHUSETTS
1. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Industrial Waste Report No. 18 (2002)
2. National Groundwater Association, Ground Water’s Role in Massachusetts’s Economic
Vitality (2004)
3. Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, MTBE in Ground and Surface
Waters of the NESCAUM Region Attachment II (1999)
4. Paul Squillace, et al., United States Geological Survey, A Preliminary Assessment of the
Occurrence and Possible Sources of MTBE in Ground Water of the United States, 1993-94,
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-456 (1995)
5. Tom Walsh, The Patriot Ledger, U.S. Geological Survey Maps Seeping Underground Gas
Tanks, Well Water in 15 Towns At Risk of Toxic Leaks (2000).
6. United States Geological Survey, Public-Water Supplies in Massachusetts and Rhode
Island: Investigation of Processes Affecting Source-Water Quality (1997)
MAINE
1. Maine Department of Environmental Protection, 2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring
and Assessment Report (2002)
2. Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Historical Oil Contamination Travel
Distances in Ground Water at Sensitive Geological Sites in Maine (2002)
3. Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Siting of New Underground Oil &
Hazardous Substance Storage Facilities in Relation to Drinking Water Supplies &
Significant Ground Water Resources (2001)
MICHIGAN
1. Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University, Drinking Water in Michigan—Where
do we get it? (Updated 2003)
2. Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University, Michigan’s Drinking Water
Resources (Updated 2003)
3. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2002 Michigan DEQ Environmental Quality
Report (2002)
4. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Remediation and Redevelopment Division,
Site Funding Needs Environment and Redevelopment (2003)
5. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, RPD Operational Memo. #2 (2004)
6. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Water Withdrawals for major Water Uses in
Michigan 2001 (2001)
MINNESOTA
1. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Profile: Groundwater (2004)
2. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Baseline Water Quality of Minnesota’s Principal
Aquifers –Region 6, Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (1999)
35. 3. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) In Minnesota’s
Ground Water (1999)
MISSOURI
1. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Missouri Water Quality Report 2002 (2002)
2. National Ground Water Association, Ground Water’s Role in Missouri’s Economic Vitality
(2004)
MONTANA
1. Montana Natural Resource Information System, Montana Ground Water Atlas (no date
given)
NEBRASKA
1. National Ground Water Association, Ground Water’s Role in Nebraska’s Economic Vitality
(2004)
2. Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, 2004 Nebraska Groundwater Quality
Monitoring Report (2004)
NEW HAMPSHIRE
1. New Hampshire Attorney General, New Hampshire Attorney General Responses to
Questions on MTBE (2003)
2. New Hampshire, 2000 Section 305(b) Water Quality Report (2000)
3. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, 2004 Annual Report (2004)
4. Peter W. Heed, New Hampshire Attorney General, New Hampshire Sues Major Oil
Companies Over MTBE Pollution (2003)
NEW JERSEY
1. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, New Jersey 2004 Integrated Water
Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (305(b) and 303(d)) (2004)
2. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, New Jersey Source Water
Assessment Program Statewide Summary (2004)
NEW MEXICO
1. New Mexico Environment Department, Source Water Assessment and Protection Program
(2000)
2. New Mexico Environment Department, Water Quality and water Pollution Control in New
Mexico ~ 2000 (2000)
NEW YORK
1. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Water Quality
2000 (2000)
2. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Water Quality
2002 (2002)
3. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Remedial Programs Annual
Report for State Fiscal Year 2002-03 (2003)
36. NORTH CAROLINA
1. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, [Draft] North Carolina
Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d)
Report) (2004)
OHIO
1. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2002 305(b) Report Ohio’s Ground Water Quality
(2003).
2. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio’s Ground Water Quality 2000 305(b) Report
(2000)
3. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Susceptibility Analysis and Proposed Confidence
Report Language for the City of Cincinnati-Bolton Wellfield (2004)
4. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Susceptibility Analysis and Proposed Consumer
Confidence Report Language for the City of Dayton Miami and Mad River Wellfields (2004)
5. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Susceptibility Analysis and Proposed Consumer
Confidence Report Language for the City of Fairfield (2004)
6. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Susceptibility Analysis and Proposed Consumer
Confidence Report Language for the City of Hamilton North and South Wellfields (2004)
PENNSYLVANIA
1. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection, 2002
Pennsylvania Water Quality Assessment 305(b) Report (2002)
2. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Insurance Department, 2003 Annual Report Pennsylvania
Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Fund (2003)
RHODE ISLAND
1. State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, 2004 Section 305(b) State of the State’s
Waters Report (2004)
SOUTH CAROLINA
1. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, State of South Carolina
Integrated Report for 2004 Part II: Assessment and Reporting (2004)
2. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, South Carolina Risk-
Based Corrective Action for Petroleum Releases (2001)
3. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Underground Storage
Tank Quarterly Financial Report July 1, 2004 – December 31, 2004 Second Quarter (2004)
SOUTH DAKOTA
1. South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, The 2000 South Dakota
Report to Congress 305(b) Water Quality Assessment (2000)
2. South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, The 2002 South Dakota
Report to Congress 305(b) Water Quality Assessment (2002)
TENNESSEE
1. National Ground Water Association, Ground Water’s Role in Tennessee’s Economic Vitality
(2004)
37. 2. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, The Tennessee Petroleum
Underground Storage Tank Advisory Committee on The Petroleum Underground Storage
Tank Fund (2004).
3. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Important Information About the
2004 UST Law Change (2004)
4. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Tennessee Ground Water 305b
Water Quality Report (2002)
TEXAS
1. National Ground Water Association, Ground Water’s Role in Texas’s Economic Vitality
(2004)
2. Texas Groundwater Protection Committee, Joint Groundwater Monitoring and
Contamination Report – 2003, SRF-056/03 (2004)
3. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, DRAFT 2002 Texas Water Quality
Inventory-Groundwater Assessment (2002)
4. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Texas Water Quality Inventory, 2000
Volume 1 (2002)
VIRGINIA
1. National Ground Water Association, Ground Water’s Role in Virginia’s Economic Vitality
(2004)
2. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 2002 305(b) Water Quality Assessment
Report (2004)
3. Virginia Department of Health, Virginia Source Water Assessment Program (1999)
VERMONT
1. Vermont Petroleum Cleanup Fund Advisory Committee, Sixteenth Annual Report on the
Status of the Petroleum Cleanup Fund (2004)
2. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, State of Vermont 2004 Water Quality
Assessment Report (305B Report) (2004)
WASHINGTON
1. James Hagengruber, spokesman-Review, BNSF Shutters Depot, County Wants Leaky
Containment Barriers Fixed (Feb. 25, 2005)
2. Karen Dorn Steele, The Spokesman-Review, Departed Industries Left Land Poisoned (Mar.
6, 2005)
3. National Ground Water Association, Ground Water’s Role in Washington’s Economic
Vitality (2004)
4. Revised Code of Washington, Sections 90.76.005 and 90.76.040 (2004)
5. Washington Administrative Code, Sections 173-360-500 and 510.
6. Washington Department of Ecology, 2000 Washington State Water Quality Assessment
Section 305(b) Report (2000)
7. Washington Department of Ecology, Occurrence of Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) in
Groundwater at Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites in Washington (2000)
8. Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Health, Report on
Groundwater Contamination that Affects Drinking Water in Washington State (1999)
38. WEST VIRGINIA
1. National Ground Water Association, Ground Water’s Role in West Virginia’s Economic
Vitality (2004)
2. State of West Virginia Offices of the Insurance Commissioner, May 2004 West Virginia
Informational Letter No. 147 (2004)
3. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Groundwater Programs and
Activities Biennial Report to the West Virginia 2004 Legislature (2004)
WISCONSIN
1. Jim Krohelski, United States Geological Survey, Uncovering the Quality and Quantity Issues
of Wisconsin’s Buried Treasure (2001)
2. United States Geological Survey, Water Use in Wisconsin, 2000, Open File Report 02-356
(2000)
3. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2004 Groundwater Coordinating Council
Report to the Legislature (2004)
4. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Water Quality Report to Congress
2002 (2002)
5. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Water Quality Report to Congress
2004 (2004)