Semiannual Report OfUST Performance Measures Mid Fiscal Year 2018 (October 1, 2017 - March 31, 2018) Where does EPA get the performance data? Twice each year, EPA collects data from states and territories regarding underground storage tank (UST) performance measures and makes the data publicly available. EPA directly provides data on work in Indian country, since the Agency implements the program for those sites. These data include information such as the number of active and closed tanks, releases confirmed, cleanups initiated and completed, facilities in compliance with UST requirements, and inspections. EPA compiles the data and presents it in table format for all states, territories, and Indian country. What are the UST performance measures? The most current definitions for the UST performance measures are available on EPA's website www.epa.gov/ust/ust-performance-measures under Definitions. What is in the mid fiscal year (FY) 2018 report? UST Corrective Action Measures For Mid FY 2018 Alphabetical By State Within Region National Totals UST National Backlog Graph UST Compliance Measures For Mid FY 2018 States With More Stringent SOC Requirements Inspection/Delivery Prohibition Actions For Mid FY 2018 What are the UST program's measures and national performance at mid FY 2018? UST Program Measures National Performance Active USTs regulated by EPA's UST program 553,069 at approximately 200,000 sites USTs properly closed since 1984 inception of the UST program 1,862,849 On-site inspections at federally-regulated UST facilities between October 2017 and March 2018 38,781 total • 38,733 conducted by states, territories, and third-party inspectors • 48 conducted by EPA and credentialed tribal inspectors in Indian country Significant operational compliance rate between April 2017 and March 2018 70.3% Confirmed releases 2,829 (includes 5 in Indian country) • 540,979 cumulative Cleanups completed 3,967 (includes 5 in Indian country) • 473,923 cumulative Releases remaining to be cleaned up 67,056 Page 1 5 6 7 9 11 v»EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Washington, D.C. 20460 www.epa.gov/ust May 2018 ------- Where can I find performance data from previous years? EPA's website www.epa.gov/ust/ust-performance-measures provides the most current report, as well as historical reports beginning with FY 1988, the first year EPA reported UST data. Reports are listed beginning with the most recent first. For more information, contact Susan Burnell at burnell.susan@epa.gov or 202-564-0766 of EPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks. v»EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Washington, D.C. 20460 www.epa.gov/ust May 2018 ------- UST Corrective Action Measures for Mid-Year FY 2018 (Data through March 31, 2018) Region / State Active Tanks Closed Tanks Confirmed Releases Cleanups Initiated Cleanups Completed Cleanups Remaining Actions This Year Cumulative Actions This Year Cumulative ONE CT 5,712 27,889 56 3,426 3,346 29 2,419 1,007 MA 8,693 26,943 28 6,597 6,567 57 6,081 516 ME 2,437 13,924 40 2,955 2,925 38 2,920 35 NH 2,707 12,613 8 2,687 2,687 13 2,091 596 Rl 1,380 8,899 17 1,439 1,439 11 1,285 154 VT 1,797 6,408 1 2,172 2,170 13 1,563 609 Subtotal 22,726 96,676 150 19,276 19,134 161 16,359 2,917 TWO NJ 13,199 61,197 452 17,659 15,169 215 12,227 5,432 NY 22,221 107,891 97 30,050 30,001 135 29,128 922 PR1 4,482 5,813 DNA 1,075 842 DNA 519 556 VI 135 288 1 37 37 0 29 8 Subtotal 40,037 175,189 550 48,821 46,049 350 41,903 6,918 THREE DC 601 3,455 6 964 949 4 868 96 DE 1,164 7,547 20 2,887 2,843 23 2,808 79 MD 7,292 36,765 54 12,533 12,359 67 12,343 190 PA 22,309 67,611 118 17,426 17,375 124 15,755 1,671 VA 18,040 63,269 54 12,456 12,356 59 12,178 278 WV 4,237 21,407 18 3,692 3,608 46 3,136 556 Subtotal 53,643 200,054 270 49,958 49,490 323 47,088 2,870 Definition of confirmed releases, cleanups initiated, and cleanups completed are on EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/pmdefinitions.pdf 1 DNA = Data Not Available. Puerto Rico was unable to report mid-year FY18 data. 1 ------- UST Corrective Action Measures for Mid-Year FY 2018 (Data through March 31, 2018) Region / State Active Tanks Closed Tanks Confirmed Releases Cleanups Initiated Cleanups Completed Cleanups Remaining Actions This Year Cumulative Actions This Year Cumulative FOUR AL 16,376 31,066 27 12,092 11,960 77 11,055 1,037 FL 22,586 112,848 100 27,283 21,123 434 17,664 9,619 GA 29,276 51,596 123 14,288 14,098 146 13,330 958 KY 9,530 41,011 52 16,990 16,980 74 16,322 668 MS 8,123 24,048 70 8,026 7,834 61 7,586 440 NC 24,504 71,469 76 26,498 23,877 185 22,741 3,757 SC 11,400 34,145 63 10,164 9,939 45 7,888 2,276 TN 16,145 41,267 94 15,381 15,381 123 15,216 165 Subtotal 137,940 407,450 605 130,722 121,192 1,145 111,802 18,920 FIVE IL 18,790 64,658 125 25,347 24,371 173 19,803 5,544 IN 13,329 43,464 82 10,155 9,566 102 8,713 1,442 Ml 17,641 71,943 107 23,182 22,728 137 15,156 8,026 MN 12,744 33,656 55 11,765 11,711 75 11,469 296 OH 21,210 48,941 178 32,013 31,570 241 30,392 1,621 Wl 13,570 70,516 29 19,605 19,381 73 18,713 892 Subtotal 97,284 333,178 576 122,067 119,327 801 104,246 17,821 Definition of confirmed releases, cleanups initiated, and cleanups completed are on EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/pmdefinitions.pdf 2 ------- UST Corrective Action Measures for Mid-Year FY 2018 (Data through March 31, 2018) Region / State Active Tanks Closed Tanks Confirmed Releases Cleanups Initiated Cleanups Completed Cleanups Remaining Actions This Year Cumulative Actions This Year Cumulative SIX AR 8,649 21,978 12 1,829 1,556 11 1,547 282 LA 10,573 36,226 49 5,437 5,437 77 4,810 627 NM 3,583 13,074 6 2,658 2,357 6 1,824 834 OK 9,269 29,195 43 5,382 5,382 41 5,037 345 TX 49,955 124,103 116 28,069 27,245 151 26,670 1,399 Subtotal 82,029 224,576 226 43,375 41,977 286 39,888 3,487 SEVEN IA 6,566 23,830 15 6,232 6,109 46 5,642 590 KS 6,471 21,494 16 5,294 5,210 29 3,983 1,311 MO 8,739 32,775 45 7,248 7,247 61 6,498 750 NE 6,348 15,447 35 6,640 6,012 133 5,769 871 Subtotal 28,124 93,546 111 25,414 24,578 269 21,892 3,522 EIGHT CO 7,160 23,668 96 8,595 8,186 111 8,098 497 MT 3,144 11,924 10 3,086 2,968 16 2,359 727 ND 2,241 7,674 1 894 874 1 856 38 SD 3,058 7,233 14 2,804 2,658 14 2,688 116 UT 3,643 14,068 34 5,068 5,003 64 4,777 291 WY 1,625 8,266 5 2,693 2,677 17 2,026 667 Subtotal 20,871 72,833 160 23,140 22,366 223 20,804 2,336 Definition of confirmed releases, cleanups initiated, and cleanups completed are on EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/pmdefinitions.pdf 3 ------- UST Corrective Action Measures for Mid-Year FY 2018 (Data through March 31, 2018) Region / State Active Tanks Closed Tanks Confirmed Releases Cleanups Initiated Cleanups Completed Cleanups Remaining Actions This Year Cumulative Actions This Year Cumulative NINE AS 3 65 0 8 8 1 8 0 AZ 6,137 22,564 61 9,069 8,323 69 8,493 576 CA 36,254 133,669 38 44,250 43,136 236 40,899 3,351 GU 238 495 1 142 142 1 121 21 HI 1,517 5,628 12 2,145 2,089 4 1,996 149 MP 64 72 0 15 15 0 14 1 NV 3,769 7,669 6 2,575 2,575 13 2,436 139 Subtotal 47,982 170,162 118 58,204 56,288 324 53,967 4,237 TEN AK 944 6,837 8 2,471 2,438 11 2,175 296 ID 3,408 11,455 7 1,519 1,493 7 1,457 62 OR 5,472 26,866 24 7,626 7,433 25 6,804 822 WA 9,959 37,632 19 6,968 6,590 37 4,383 2,585 Subtotal 19,783 82,790 58 18,584 17,954 80 14,819 3,765 Definition of confirmed releases, cleanups initiated, and cleanups completed are on EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/pmdefinitions.pdf 4 ------- UST Corrective Action Measures for Mid-Year FY 2018 (Data through March 31, 2018) Active Tanks Confirmed Releases Cleanups Initiated Cleanups Completed Cleanups Remaining Region / State Closed Tanks Actions This Year Cumulative Actions This Year Cumulative REGIONAL CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR INDIAN COUNTRY REGION 1 13 6 0 1 1 0 1 0 REGION 2 164 28 0 7 7 1 7 0 REGION 3 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 REGION 4 68 77 0 16 16 0 10 6 REGION 5 444 1,063 1 254 228 0 182 72 REGION 6 387 319 0 69 69 0 66 3 REGION 7 80 99 0 22 22 0 13 9 REGION 8 522 2,148 2 553 544 3 438 115 REGION 9 567 1,489 0 301 298 1 252 49 REGION 10 405 1,166 2 195 194 0 186 9 SUBTOTAL 2,650 6,395 5 1,418 1,379 5 1,155 263 Active Tanks Closed Tanks Confirmed Releases Cleanups Initiated Cleanups Completed Cleanups Remaining Actions This Year Cumulative Actions This Year Cumulative | NATIONAL TOTAL 553,069 1,862,849 2,829 540,979 519,734 3,967 473,923 67,056 Definitions of confirmed releases, cleanups initiated, and cleanups completed are on EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/pmdefinitions.pdf 2 N/A = Not Applicable. There are no tribal USTs in EPA Region 3. 5 ------- UST National Backlog: FY 1989 Through Mid-Year FY 2018 "D 0) 4-» _aj a E Years 6 ------- UST Compliance Measures for Mid-Year FY 2018 (April 1, 2017 - March 31, 2018) Region / State % in Significant Operational Compliance with Release Prevention Regulations % in Significant Operational Compliance with Release Detection Regulations % of UST Facilities in SOC w/UST Release Detection and Release Prevention ONE CT1 91% 90% 85% MA 68% 55% 42% ME 92% 84% 74% NH 59% 54% 35% RI1 66% 49% 42% VT1 84% 83% 81% SUBTOTAL 76% 69% 58% TWO NJ 96% 96% 93% NY 84% 74% 69% PF^ DNA DNA DNA VI 100% 79% 79% SUBTOTAL 89% 82% 78% THREE DC 98% 91% 89% DE 99% 98% 98% MD 86% 91% 80% PA 82% 84% 72% VA 86% 76% 69% WV 90% 86% 80% SUBTOTAL 85% 83% 73% Region / State % in Significant Operational Compliance with Release Prevention Regulations % in Significant Operational Compliance with Release Detection Regulations % of UST Facilities in SOC w/UST Release Detection and Release Prevention FOUR AL 88% 76% 69% FL 80% 77% 66% GA 69% 63% 54% KY 78% 81% 66% MS 80% 77% 68% NC 70% 63% 54% SC 80% 78% 66% TN 91% 88% 75% SUBTOTAL 78% 73% 63% FIVE IL1 77% 70% 64% IN 85% 86% 82% Ml1 86% 64% 59% MN 86% 85% 81% OH 89% 73% 70% Wl1 86% 71% 65% SUBTOTAL 85% 74% 69% SIX AR 77% 77% 66% LA 86% 85% 78% NM 86% 89% 78% OK 83% 61% 57% TX 94% 92% 88% SUBTOTAL 90% 86% 80% These compliance rates indicate the percent of recently-inspected facilities in significant operational compliance (SOC) with federal UST requirements from 4/1/17 through 3/31/18. According to EPA guidelines, states are allowed to report based on requirements more stringent than the federal SOC requirements. States identified with footnote1 indicated they had done so, as described on pages 9 and 10. Furthermore, states have different approaches to targeting inspections. For example, some states focus inspections on suspected non- compliant facilities, while other states conduct random inspections. 1 States reporting based on requirements more stringent than the federal SOC requirements. 2 DNA = Data Not Available. Puerto Rico was unable to report mid-year FY18 data. 7 ------- UST Compliance Measures for Mid-Year FY 2018 (April 1, 2017 - March 31, 2018) Region / State % in Significant Operational Compliance with Release Prevention Regulations % in Significant Operational Compliance with Release Detection Regulations % of UST Facilities in SOC w/UST Release Detection and Release Prevention SEVEN IA 82% 71% 62% KS 56% 88% 50% MO1 89% 97% 87% NE1 78% 71% 64% SUBTOTAL 77% 83% 67% EIGHT CO 87% 83% 80% MT 95% 94% 90% ND 91% 93% 86% SD 78% 82% 69% UT 92% 87% 83% WY 95% 98% 94% SUBTOTAL 89% 88% 82% NINE AS 100% 67% 67% AZ 79% 75% 69% CA 81% 70% 61% GU 100% 100% 100% HI 98% 93% 89% MP 96% 96% 96% NV 91% 84% 77% SUBTOTAL 82% 72% 64% % in % in % of UST Significant Significant Facilities in Operational Operational SOC w/UST Region / State Compliance Compliance Release with Release with Release Detection and Prevention Detection Release Regulations Regulations Prevention TEN AK 81% 82% 75% ID1 91% 81% 73% OR 94% 92% 87% WA 92% 89% 84% SUBTOTAL 92% 88% 82% INDIAN COUNTRY REGION 1 DNAa DNA" DNAa REGION 2 63% 63% 63% REGION 3 N/A4 N/A4 N/A4 REGION 4 100% 77% 77% REGION 5 81% 74% 72% REGION 6 90% 95% 85% REGION 7 0% 0% 0% REGION 8 69% 81% 60% REGION 9 89% 86% 84% REGION 10 82% 78% 73% SUBTOTAL 81% 81% 74% NATIONAL TOTAL TOTAL 83.5% 78.0% 70.3% These compliance rates indicate the percentage of recently-inspected facilities in significant operational compliance (SOC) with federal UST requirements from 4/1/17 through 3/31/18. According to EPA guidelines, states are allowed to report based on requirements more stringent than the federal SOC requirements. States identified with footnotel indicated they had done so, as described on pages 9 and 10. Furthermore, states have different approaches to targeting inspections. For example, some states focus inspections on suspected non- compliant facilities, while other states conduct random inspections. 1 States reporting based on requirements more stringent than the federal SOC requirements. 3 DNA = Data Not Available because no inspections were conducted within the last 12 months. 4 N/A = Not Applicable. There are no tribal USTs in EPA Region 3. 8 ------- States With Requirements More Stringent Than The Federal Significant Operational Compliance Requirements CONNECTICUT Release Prevention: Operation and Maintenance of Cathodic Protection • Lining not allowed. Release Detection: Testing • Tanks and piping require weekly and monthly monitoring for releases and records must be available (for 2 of the most recent consecutive months and for 8 of the last 12 months). • Statistical Inventory Reconciliation (SIR) not allowed as a stand-alone method. IDAHO Release Prevention: Operation and Maintenance of Cathodic Protection • Three 60-day rectifier inspection checks are required. • Two three-year system checks are required for impressed current and galvanic. Release Detection: Testing • Records required for the past 12 months. Other • Percent of UST facilities in compliance with both release detection and release prevention also factors in financial responsibility and EPAct requirements, such as operator training and secondary containment. ILLINOIS Release Detection: Testing • Owner/operator must produce records within 30 minutes of arrival of inspector. MICHIGAN Release Detection: Required Methods • Owners/operators must have inventory control plus another method of release detection. MISSOURI Release Prevention: Cathodic Protection • All metal components in contact with any electrolyte must be cathodically protected. NEBRASKA Release Prevention: Cathodic Protection • All metal components in contact with any electrolyte must be cathodically protected. Release Prevention: Reporting • Owner/operator must submit monthly inventory monitoring reports to the state. Release Prevention: Temporarily Closed Tanks • Owner/operator must permanently close USTs that have been in temporary closed status for more than one year. RHODE ISLAND Release Prevention: Operation and Maintenance • All tanks and piping are required to be tightness tested after a repair. No exemptions. Release Prevention: Operation and Maintenance of Cathodic Protection • Impressed current cathodic protection systems are required to be tested every 2 years. Release Detection: Monitoring and Testing • Records required for the past 36 months. • Inventory control is required for all tanks (single-walled and double-walled). • Tightness testing schedule is different than the federal requirement; it depends on the type of tank. o Tank tightness must be performed on all single walled tanks. o Tightness tests must be performed every 5 years after the installation of the ATG until the tank has been installed for 20 years and every 2 years thereafter. 9 ------- o Single-walled USTs installed for a period of 30 years have to be tightness tested annually beginning in 2015. o UST systems upgraded with interior lining and/or cathodic protections are not required to have an ATG for 10 years after the upgrade. Tank tightness testing must be conducted annually during these 10 years. After 10 years, an ATG is required and tank tightness testing must be performed every 5 years until the tank has been installed for 20 years and then every 2 years thereafter. The results of all tightness tests shall be maintained for 3 years beyond the life of the facility, o Tightness testing of UST and piping interstitial spaces is required when a system has been installed for a period of 20 years, and every 2 years thereafter. • Groundwater or vapor monitoring not accepted as a method of leak detection. • SIR not accepted. VERMONT Release Prevention: Operation and Maintenance of Cathodic Protection • Lining not allowed unless with impressed current. Release Detection: Method Presence and Performance Requirements • Weekly monitoring required for tank and piping. Records must be available for the 2 most recent consecutive months and for 8 of the last 12 months. Release Detection: Testing • Inventory control /Tank Tightness Testing (TTT) not allowed as a release detection method after 6/30/98. • Manual Tank Gauge (MTG) allowed alone up to 550 gallons; 551-1,000 gallons, MTG with annual TTT. WISCONSIN Release Prevention: Operation and Maintenance of Cathodic Protection • Require annual cathodic protection test. Release Prevention: Spill Prevention • Require USTs to be equipped with overfill prevention equipment that will operate as follows (NFPA 30-2.6.1.4 - 2000 and 2003 version): o Automatically shut off the flow of liquid into the tank when the tank is no more than 95% full; o Alert the transfer operator when the tank is no more than 90% full by restricting the flow of liquid into the tank or triggering the high-level alarm; and, o Other methods approved by the authority having jurisdiction. Release Detection: Testing • Require NFPA 30A09.2.1 (2000 and 2003 versions). Accurate daily inventory records shall be maintained and reconciled for all liquid fuel storage tanks for indication of possible leakage from tanks or piping. The records shall be kept on the premises or shall be made available to the authority having jurisdiction for the inspection within 24 hours of a written or verbal request. The records shall include, as a minimum and by product, daily reconciliation between sales, use, receipts, and inventory on hand. If there is more than one storage system serving an individual pump or dispensing device for any product, the reconciliation shall be maintained separately for each system. Release Detection: Deferment • No exclusion or deferment for "remote" emergency generator tanks. Other • Require annual permit to operate that includes verification of financial responsibility. 10 ------- Inspection/Delivery Prohibition Actions for Mid-Year FY 2018 (October 1, 2017 - March 31, 2018) Number of On- Number of Region / State Site Inspections Delivery Prohibition Conducted Actions ONE CT 255 23 MA 333 0 ME 277 0 NH 81 0 Rl 97 0 VT 76 33 SUBTOTAL 1,119 56 TWO NJ 462 62 NY 1,223 1 PR1 DNA DNA VI 17 0 SUBTOTAL 1,702 63 THREE DC 27 0 DE 55 1 MD 396 5 PA 1,556 17 VA 728 4 WV 267 2 SUBTOTAL 3,029 29 Number of On> Number of Region / State Site Inspections Delivery Prohibition Conducted Actions FOUR AL 1,262 26 FL 1,757 0 GA 1,661 0 KY 806 48 MS 513 119 NC 1,679 124 SC 1,901 242 TN 968 25 SUBTOTAL 10,547 584 FIVE IL 1,272 435 IN 426 0 Ml 938 46 MN 207 6 OH 1,272 0 Wl 1,172 52 SUBTOTAL 5,287 539 SIX AR 701 8 LA 812 21 NM 287 0 OK 1,399 38 TX 2,965 337 SUBTOTAL 6,164 404 States use different approaches to delivery prohibition. For example, certain states issue a notice of intent before actually issuing a delivery prohibition (i.e., some states forgo delivery prohibition issuance for facilities that come into compliance). In addition, some states prohibit deliveries primarily for registration violations. 1 DNA = Data Not Available. Puerto Rico was unable to report mid-year FY18 data. 11 ------- Inspection/Delivery Prohibition Actions for Mid-Year FY 2018 (October 1, 2017 - March 31, 2018) Number of On- Number of Region / State Site Inspections Delivery Prohibition Conducted Actions SEVEN IA 246 10 KS 535 8 MO 587 0 NE 653 0 SUBTOTAL 2,021 18 EIGHT CO 195 14 MT 207 9 ND 10 0 SD 171 0 UT 286 0 WY 105 1 SUBTOTAL 974 24 NINE AS 3 0 AZ 279 5 CA 6,041 96 GU 2 0 HI 32 0 MP 6 0 NV 518 8 SUBTOTAL 6,881 109 Number of Oft Number of Region / State Site Inspections Delivery Prohibition Conducted Actions TEN AK 63 2 ID 189 0 OR 205 7 WA 552 2 SUBTOTAL 1,009 11 INDIAN COUNTRY REGION 1 0 0 REGION 2 0 0 REGION 3 N/A'" N/A'" REGION 4 3 0 REGION 5 10 0 REGION 6 11 0 REGION 7 0 0 REGION 8 1 0 REGION 9 18 0 REGION 10 5 0 SUBTOTAL 48 0 NATIONAL TOTAL TOTAL 38,781 1,837 States use different approaches to delivery prohibition. For example, certain states issue a notice of intent before actually issuing a delivery prohibition (i.e., some states forgo delivery prohibition issuance for facilities that come into compliance). In addition, some states prohibit deliveries primarily for registration violations. 2 N/A = Not Applicable. There are no tribal USTs in EPA Region 3. 12 ------- |