Detailed Information on the
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Program Assessment

Backlog characterization study and potential refinement of LUST efficiency measure.

Seek out regular independent evaluations and a systematic process to review the program's strategic planning.

In response to initial findings that the program needed better long-term outcome goals with adequate baselines and targets, the program has been participating in an Office of Pesticide

Programs initiative on performance indicators. The program has proposed new measures for this reassessment.

Measure: Number of cleanups that meet state risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater migration.

Explanation:The number of cleanups completed tracks the program's progress in achieving its long-term goal of reducing the backlog of cleanups not meeting state-set and risk-based health and/or environmental standards. A cleanup is only considered completed when the contamination no longer exceeds state risk-based standards for human exposure and ground water migration, thus ensuring protection of human health and the environment. Completing cleanups is the ultimate goal of the EPA's LUST program, since completing cleanups ensures human health and the environment are protected. As of March 31, 2008, the LUST program had nearly 107,000 confirmed releases that have not yet been cleaned up (the backlog). While EPA and states have been making good progress in reducing the backlog - reducing the backlog every year since 1999 - annual cleanups completed continues to decline. Various factors have contributed to this decline, including a greater percentage of complicated sites (e.g., such as those with groundwater contamination) in the backlog, and public sector resource limitations.

Measure: Number of cleanups that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater migration on Indian country.

Explanation:This measure is the same as the national measure, but focuses on releases in Indian country. The cleanup backlog in Indian country was 352, as of March 31, 2008. While EPA met its cleanup goals in Indian country in three of the past five years, this was largely due to an investment in relatively simple cleanups that had been held up for administrative reasons. Maintaining cleanup rates in Indian country will be increasingly difficult due to a greater proportion of complicated sites in the backlog.

Measure: Increase the number of cleanups that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater migration.

Explanation:The number of cleanups completed tracks the program's progress in reducing the backlog of cleanups not meeting state-set and risk-based health and/or environmental standards.

Measure: Increase the number of cleanups that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater migration on Indian country.

Explanation:Tracks EPA's performance of directly cleaning up sites, rather than tracking EPA's oversight of state cleanup programs.

Measure: Cleanups Complete (3-year rolling average) per total cleanup dollars

Explanation: This efficiency measure compares the total cost of LUST site cleanups to the number of sites cleaned up. Total costs include Federal, State and private costs. A three year rolling average of cleanups complete is used in order to account for the fluctuations in annual cleanups due to their increasing complexity. The measure provides an indicator on how monies are leveraged to accomplish cleanups and it is most useful to consider how the measure changes across time. EPA continues to discuss this measure with state programs and believes that its efforts to better characterize the cleanup backlog by early 2009 will provide insight towards making changes to this measure, if needed, by June 2009.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The statute clearly defines the purpose of the program and establishes the use of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund. Subtitle I requires EPA to regulate underground storage tanks (USTs) storing petroleum or certain hazardous substances. Resources from the LUST Trust Fund are used for oversight of cleanups by responsible parties and to pay for cleanups at sites where the owner is unknown, unwilling, or unable to respond, or which require emergency action.

Evidence: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Subtitle I, Section 9003h.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: The program provides assistance to clean up releases of petroleum products from federally regulated underground storage tanks (USTs).

Evidence: Semi-annual Activity Reports. As of FY2002, there were 423,000 confirmed releases from USTs of which 277,000 have been cleaned up to state-set risk-based health and/or environmental standards that are protective of human health and the environment.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The program does not duplicate other federal programs or other efforts (e.g., private parties, non-profits, etc.).

Evidence: RCRA, Subtitle I

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: Congress established a regulatory program and authorized EPA to provide states funds from the LUST Trust Fund through the use of cooperative agreements. No more efficient mechanism is obvious. The program is extemely well leveraged; for every Federal dollar appropriated, states collect and spend approximately $20 for cleanups.

Evidence: RCA, Subtitle I; 40 CFR Part 280 regulations

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: States use most of the federal funds to pay for staff to oversee the cleanups; the cleanups themselves are paid by responsible parties or state trust funds established to pay for cleanup of petroleum releases from USTs. EPA provides coordination, information and in some cases, as on tribal lands, direct cleanup of sites.

Evidence: LUST Trust Fund Spending Report (available on the OUST website); Annual Survey of State Funds (conducted by the State of Vermont and available on the ASTSWMO website)

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The LUST program has two long-term performance goals that reflect the purpose of the program which is to protect human health and the environment by cleaning up releases to soil and groundwater from leaking underground storage tanks. ' Reduce the number of cleanups that exceed state risk- based standards for human exposure and groundwater migration by 91,500 by 2008. This measure focuses on the LUST program's sole mission, which is to cleanup LUST sites and is in-line with their revised annual GPRA goal. This measure tracks EPA's performance overseeing cleanups performed largely by states.' Reduce the number of cleanups that exceed state risk-based standards for human exposure in Indian Country by 150 by 2008. This measure tracks EPA's performance of directly cleaning up sites, rather than tracking EPA's oversight of state cleanup programs as is covered in the first measure.

Evidence: EPA's Congressional Budget Justification and Annual Reports. Section III-63 (LUST/UST [LUST portion only]), 1st paragraph. OUST Semi-Annual Activities Report (states' data on the number of confirmed releases, cleanups initiated, and cleanups completed) www.epa.gov/oust

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: EPA's long-term goal for site cleanups that exceed state risk-based standards requires that the program meet their revised annual GPRA goal of cleaning up 18,300 LUST sites per year. The complexity of cleanups have increased and the program has been averaging between 18,000 and 19,000 cleanups the past few years. The program's goal to complete 150 cleanups in Indian Country from 2003 to 2008 is ambitious considering the program completed 165 cleanups in Indian Country over the previous 5 years and is facing more complex and more costly cleanups.

Evidence: Agency Strategic Plan Email from Richard Mattick, EPA LUST Program: The number of cleanups completed in Indian Country for the last five years is as follows: FY 1999 - 51; FY 2000 - 24; FY 2001 - 30; FY 2002 - 41; FY 2003 - 19.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The program's annual performance measure is 18,300 completed cleanups. This annual goal tracks the program's progress in achieving its long-term goal of 91,500 cleanup completes over a 5 year period. The program has an annual goal of completing 30 cleanups in Indian Country per year which places the program on a track to achieve its long-term goal. The LUST program is developing a new measure of national program efficiency, "Cleanups Complete per Total Cleanup Costs"

Evidence: Annual Plans, Congressional Justifications, Goal 3 documents, and OUST Semi-annual activities reports. Section III-41, Section III-71, Section III-63, UST/LUST, LUST Trust Fund Spending Report

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: EPA's annual goal for site cleanups that exceed state risk-based standards is 18,300 LUST sites per year. This is a ambitious goal because the complexity of cleanups have increased and the program has been averaging between 18,000 and 19,000 cleanups the past few years. The program has achieved 30 cleanups per year three times in the past 5 years and nearly reached the target in FY 2003. Therefore 30 cleanups per year in Indian Country is ambitious. The program is developing baselines and targets for its new efficiency measure and should have those ready by the time of the OMB Budget Submission.

Evidence: Memo (september 2002) from Cliff Rothesntein to EPA Regional Division Directors announcing the national goals for the LUST program; memo can be found on OUST website. Email from Richard Mattick, EPA LUST Program: The number of cleanups completed in Indian Country for the last five years is as follows: FY 1999 - 51; FY 2000 - 24; FY 2001 - 30; FY 2002 - 41; FY 2003 - 19.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: States report to EPA, on a semi-annual basis, data on the number of confirmed releases, number of cleanups initiated, and the number of cleanups completed that meet state-set and risk-based health and/or environmental standards that are protective of human health and the environment.

Evidence: OUST Semi-annual activities report. www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/camarchy.htm and www.epa.gov/swerust1/cat/ca_031_2.pdf

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Although a few independent evaluations have been conducted by the EPA IG and GAO focusing on specific aspects of the LUST program, no process is in place to include the LUST program as part of any regular and independent evaluation. The program performs many types of evaluations; however, they are not independent. In response to IG audits of the LUST program, OUST made necessary changes and provided additional guidance to states. OUST has been working with the regions to improve cleanup performance by the states. OUST analyzed the cleanup performance of each state and sent regional and state performance profiles to the regions in FY 2003.

Evidence: December 31, 1996 Memorandum to the RPM "LUST Trust Fund Cost Recovery Policy" Regional and state performance profiles - FY 2003. April 21, 2004, FY 2003 Annual Planning Process for UST program Memorandum from OUST Director to UST/LUST Regions, Ocotber 30, 2002. GAO - May 2001 "Improved Inspections and Enforcement would better ensure the safety of Underground Storage Tanks"

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The budget request explicitly outlines the annual and long-term goals and shows the program's progress towards achieving those goals. Since most of the LUST appropriation is for administrative costs of State programs, funding increases or decreases would not have a direct effect on the goals of the program. For instance, a state may have no more state cleanup money to complete cleanups, even if there is federal administrative money provided to oversee cleanups.

Evidence: Agency Strategic Plan, Annual Plan and Annual Performance Report.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: OUST has started an initiative to better characterize its existing backlog of cleanups that have yet to be completed. From this analysis, the program will address state cleanup completed performance, impacts on drinking water systems (and the number of people served by these systems), and impacts on different populations (infants, school-age children, environmental justice communities). Based on the results of these studies, OUST may propose different strategies and priorities for acheiving completing these cleanups.

Evidence: Draft workplan for soliciting proposals under the GSA schedule contracts to do these studies.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: EPA collects state mid-year and end-of-year data on the number of confirmed releases, cleanups initiated, and cleanups completed that have met state-set risk-based human health and/or environmental standards that are protective of human health and the environment to identify trends, problems, and progress. Part of the LUST Trust Fund allocation formula is based on each state's performance.

Evidence: The program reports state data on its website. The LUST Trust Fund Allocation Formula.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: LUST program data are included in EPA's OCFO Annual Accountability Report to help allocate resources. Measures are used to distribute funds to states.

Evidence: OCFO Annual Accountability Report.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Cooperative Agreements funds are awarded (obligated by EPA) within 60 days after Congress approves the Agency's Operating Plan. Statute established the uses of the LUST Trust Fund. Agency grant guidance and cooperative agreeements clearly state authorized uses. EPA Regional offices review state's uses during mid-year and end-of-year reviews.

Evidence: EPA obligation reports for LUST account. EPA grant guidance, state cooperative agreements, regional mid-year and end-of-year reviews of state programs.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: Resources are distributed to states on the basis of need, ability to use, and past performance. States that are able to turn resources into completed cleanups are rewarded. The LUST program has promoted cost-effective methods (e.g., expedited site assessments, risk-based decision-making, pay-for-performance contracting, and multi-site cleanup agreements) which EPA believes has made cleanups more efficient. By instituting performance-based contracting cleanups in eleven states were completed more quickly at a savings of 40-60% from typical state cleanup costs.

Evidence: LUST Trust Fund Allocation formula OUST Semi-annual activities report

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: OUST participates fully in OSWER's One Cleanup Program. OUST regularly participates and collaborates with states through its Annual Conference and State Fund Administrators Conference. OUST also provides a great deal of assistance to states by giving grants to associations representing states such as ASTSWMO (Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials) and meets on a regular basis with the Tanks Subcommitee of ASTSWMO.

Evidence: Agendas for the Annual Conference and the State Fund Administrators Conference. Workplans for grants to ASTSWMO supporting the Tank Subcommittee.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The program is included in EPA's Planning and Budgeting Architecture and is visible in all budget documents. LUST Trust Fund cooperative agreements are signed by both grantee and EPA and include specific dollar amounts and usage requirements of the recipient. EPA has encouraged and assisted states in the development and implementation of Risk Based Decision Making (RBDM) and the use of Performance Based Contracting to clean up releases. Both approaches result in the most effective and efficient use of cleanup dollars. All work assignments use Independent Government Estimates (IGEs) to obtain the best price for the work to be done. All invoices are carefully reviewed to ensure charges are appropriate.

Evidence: Agency planning, budgeting, and performance reporting documents. Not reported as part of material weakness reports.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: OUST has an annual review process, Regional Strategic Overviews, with the regional offices to identify progress, management and other issues, and potential solutions. Regional offices review state performance and management issues during md-year and end-of-year reviews.

Evidence: Annual Regional Strategic Overview Process, Regional mid-year and end-of-year review of state programs.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: States provide EPA with their workplans on what they intend to do and accomplish under the cooperative agreements. Regions conduct mid-year and end-of-year review of state programs.

Evidence: End of Year LUST Trust Fund Spending Report.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: Performance data is reported by the states to EPA on a semi-annual basis. Spending data is reported by the states on an annual basis.

Evidence: State data is reported on the EPA website.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The program met an earlier long-term goal ahead of schedule in 2003 and revised it's goal. In order to meet the new long-term goal, the program must achieve its new annual goal of 18,300 cleanups per year as it takes on more complex and costly cleanups. The program's goal to complete 150 new cleanups in Indian Country by 2008 is a new and ambitious goal as the program faces cleanups that are more complex and costly. The program completed 165 cleanups in Indian Country over the previous 5 years.

Evidence: OUST Semi-annual activities report. Email from Richard Mattick, EPA LUST Program: The number of cleanups completed in Indian Country for the last five years is as follows: FY 1999 - 51; FY 2000 - 24; FY 2001 - 30; FY 2002 - 41; FY 2003 - 19.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The LUST program is developing baselines and targets for its new measure of national program efficiency, "Cleanups Complete per Total Cleanup Costs" and should have those ready by the time of the OMB Budget Submission. EPA has exceeded its targeted number of cleanups completed six of the last nine years. Overall, the Agency is ahead of its scheduled progress. The increasing complexity of cleanups has hindered the program's progress, and as a result, the program has not met it's annual goal for each of the past three years. The program achieved 30 cleanups in Indian Country per year three of the past 5 years and nearly reached the target in FY 2000. 30 cleanups per year in Indian Country is an ambitious new goal for the program.

Evidence: OUST Semi-annual activities report. Email from Richard Mattick, EPA LUST Program: The number of cleanups completed in Indian Country for the last five years is as follows: FY 1999 - 51; FY 2000 - 24; FY 2001 - 30; FY 2002 - 41; FY 2003 - 19.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The LUST program promotes cost-effective methods (e.g., expedited site assessments, risk-based decision-making, pay-for-performance contracting, and multi-site cleanup agreements). By instituting performance-based contracting cleanups in eleven states were completed more quickly at a savings of 40-60% from typical state cleanup costs.The LUST program is developing a new measure of national program efficiency, "Cleanups Complete per Total Cleanup Costs" and should have a baseline and targets ready by the time of the OMB Budget Submission.

Evidence: OUST Semi-annual activities report. www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/camarchy.htm and www.epa.gov/swerust1/cat/ca_031_2.pdf

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: Direct comparison with other programs is difficult since the LUST Trust Fund program is designed and implemented differently than other programs dealing with hazardous waste site cleanup programs like those run by EPA, DOE and DOD.

Evidence:  

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: There has not been a comprehensive, independent, and quality evaluation of this program.

Evidence: