Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
States with Biggest Cleanup Backlog & Population Using Groundwater (GW) for Drinking Water
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
State
FL
CA
MI
IL
NC
TX
PA
NJ
WI
SC
Backlog in
Cleanups
17,544
15,049
9,039
8,591
6,927
4,577
4,456
3,825
3,641
3,515
% of
Population
Using GW
93%
46%
46%
33%
50%
45%
41%
53%
70%
45%
# of People
Drinking
Groundwater
16,144,565
16,331,679
4,651,805
4,220,926
4,253,528
10,210,470
5,111,392
4,627,804
3,845,300
1,884,933
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
State
OH
IN
MD
GA
AZ
KY
NY
NE
KS
IA
Backlog in
Cleanups
3,463
3,449
3,280
2,924
2,597
2,522
2,297
2,262
2,082
2,039
% of
Population
Using GW
46%
64%
31%
41%
60%
25%
35%
87%
50%
78%
# of People
Drinking
Groundwater
5,305,522
3,967,094
1,711,882
3,655,365
3,457,788
1,040,626
6,652,572
1,521,823
1,378,693
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).
# of Backlogged Cleanups
> 3,000
> 1,000 - < 2,999
Source: EPA, FY 2004 Semi-Annual Endof-Year Activity Report (2004).
Surplus Funds
$1,500,000
New Revenue
$1,000,000
Revenue from
Interest on
Surplus
Amount
Requested
FY 2006
$500,000
$0
Available Funding
Requested Funding
Source: U.S. Department of Treasury, Budget for FY 2006, Appendix for the EPA (2005).
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
FL
CA
MI
IL
NC
TX
PA
NJ
WI
SC
TOTAL
Cleanup
Backlog
% of
Population
Drinking
Groundwater
17,544
15,049
9,039
8,591
6,927
4,577
4,456
3,825
3,641
3,515
Backlog
104,079
93%
46%
46%
33%
50%
45%
41%
53%
70%
45%
State Population
206,598,754
Ave. Backlog
5,204
# of People
Drinking
Groundwater
State
Cleanup
Backlog
% of
Population
Drinking
Groundwater
11 OH
16,144,565
3,463
12 IN
16,331,679
3,449
13 MD
4,651,805
3,280
14 GA
4,220,926
2,924
15 AZ
4,253,528
2,597
16 KY
10,210,470
2,522
17 NY
5,111,392
2,297
18 NE
4,627,804
2,262
19 KS
3,845,300
2,082
20 IA
1,884,933
2,039
Pop. Drinking Groundwater
102,281,194
Ave. Addl. Releases Reported Annually
# of People
Drinking
Groundwater
46%
64%
31%
41%
60%
25%
35%
87%
50%
78%
5,305,522
3,967,094
1,711,882
3,655,365
3,457,788
1,040,626
6,652,572
1,521,823
1,378,693
2,307,426
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).
State
1
2
3
4
5
MI
CA
WI
TN
CT
NC
7
8
9
10
MA
CO
PA
VA
Cleanup
Backlog
Funding
-$1,700
-$1,029
-$152
-$95
-$53
-$28
-$4
-$20
-$14
-$10
-$8
Rank
9,039
15,049
3,641
1,221
857
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
6,927
1,294
998
4,456
910
-$3,123.48
57,264
State
OH
AL
WV
VT
DE
AK
WY
RI
MT
KS
Cleanup
Backlog
Funding
-$5
-$5
-$1.10
-$0.5
-$0.30
$0
$0.00
$0.50
$0.51
$3
3,463
1,657
1,214
797
297
885
1,132
260
1,085
2,082
Dollar figures in millions. All figures from 2004 except Wisconsins 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.
State
FL
WY
KS
MI
IN
WV
VT
SC
Below
Average
-40%
-28%
-17%
-15%
-14%
-14%
-13%
-12%
Cleaned
Up
31%
43%
54%
56%
57%
57%
58%
59%
Rank
8
10
10
10
10
14
14
14
State
NJ
AK
IL
NH
LA
NE
MT
NM
Below
Average
-12%
-10%
-10%
-10%
-10%
-9%
-9%
-9%
Cleaned
Up
59%
61%
61%
61%
61%
62%
62%
62%
Rank*
17
17
19
20
20
22
23
24
Source: EPA, FY2004 Semi-Annual End-of-year Activity Report (2004). *Rankings demonstrate ties between states.
State
CT
IA
CA
WA
PA
AZ
DC
NC
Below
Average
-7%
-7%
-6%
-4%
-4%
-3%
-2%
-1%
Cleaned
Up
64%
64%
65%
67%
67%
68%
69%
70%
5
Benzene
Toluene
MTBE
Cadmium
Xylenes
Naphthalene
1,2
Dichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene
Dibromide
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls
(PCBs)
Lead
Health Effects
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.
Adversely effects developing children, and
suspected of damaging the reproductive,
respiratory, nervous and immune (i.e. increase risk
of infectious disease and cancer) systems.
Suspected of causing cancer, damaging the
nervous and respiratory systems and harming the
ability of the kidneys to clean dangerous impurities
in the blood.
Causes cancer and adversely effects developing
children and the reproductive system. Suspected
of adversely affecting the nervous, endocrine and
immune systems.
Suspected of adversely effecting developing
children, damaging the reproductive, immune and
respiratory systems.
Recognized cause of cancer, suspected of
adversely effecting developing children, and of
damaging the nervous, cardiovascular and
respiratory systems.
Recognized cause of cancer and suspected of
causing adverse development and reproductive
effects and of harming the cardiovascular, nervous
and respiratory systems.
Recognized cause of cancer and suspected of
adversely effecting developing children and
reproductive system and of damaging the nervous
and respiratory systems.
Known to cause cancer and adverse effects on
developing children and reproductive systems.
Known to cause cancer and adversely effect
developing children. Suspected of harming the
endocrine, immune and nervous systems.
Recognized cause of cancer and adverse effects
on developing children. Suspected of harming the
nervous, reproductive and endocrine, respiratory
and immune systems.
HealthBased
Drinking
Water Goal
Pollutant
Class
VOC
1 ppm
VOC
13 ppb4, 5
Oxygenate
5 ppb4
Heavy
Metal
10 ppm
VOC
1.7 ppb4,6
PAH2
VOC1
From
Gasoline
and other
petroleum
substances
Gasoline
and other
petroleum
substances
Gasoline
Used motor
oil & other
waste oils
Gasoline
and other
petroleum
substances
Gasoline
and other
petroleum
substances
Mobility
in Soil
High
High with
other
chemicals
in gas
High with
other
chemicals
in gas
High in
acidic
conditions
Moderate
High in
sandy soils
Leaded
Gasoline7
Very High
to High
Gasoline
and other
petroleum
substances
Moderate
0.7 ppm
VOC
SOC8
Leaded
Gasoline7
High
SOC8
Used Oil
Low
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
20 Million People Drink From More Than 100,000 Small Groundwater Systems
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
Kids and Other Vulnerable Individuals Drink Water from Small Systems That Use Groundwater
More than 4 million kids and other individuals at day care 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
Campgrounds & RV Parks
Churches
TOTAL
8,758,812
4,009,839
658,840
1,313,052
Restaurants
Nursing Homes
Medical Facilities
2,410,487
13,910
352,684
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.
USTs and Their Facilities Could Endanger Children and Other Vulnerable People
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
# of TSW
Pop. Served
by TWS
# of
NTNCWS
123
906
602
442
3,698
1,061
3,360
215
3,660
663
3
1,033
3,715
2,984
639
110
83
482
2,509
863
8,930
6,963
169
1,040
11,170
97,647
120,126
22,521
1,301,671
153,454
2,980,181
57,634
304,865
127,661
1,125
125,873
413,000
327,229
78,653
4,481
9,374
115,804
93,757
209,476
1,187,331
252,602
28,006
138,894
46
0
216
57
1,018
133
641
86
1,119
291
14
265
446
693
133
67
80
234
495
229
1,718
672
126
227
21,182
0
100,317
13,528
359,096
34,884
121,664
24,840
286,055
80,240
7,437
68,195
142,655
158,102
35,715
23,602
21,620
88,070
142,171
67,650
344,654
49,514
89,416
76,360
92,093
14,683,286
18,764
5,155,317
Pop. Served by
NTNCWS
Systems
110,857
State
# of TSW
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
1,011
584
273
1,012
2,955
506
5,742
5,373
215
3,545
302
1,390
7,017
300
577
243
503
1,378
439
718
1,911
1,498
644
9,704
Pop. Served
by TWS
140,745
22,241
55,792
181,949
346,484
74,256
853,533
542,400
16,910
533,921
34,172
233,477
922,336
48,875
54,837
42,949
61,504
245,171
79,371
523,079
443,920
283,735
47,313
731,781
# of
NTNCWS
215
189
91
421
1,009
149
693
655
22
1,116
123
332
1,251
70
248
25
58
748
52
1
772
287
182
1,049
Pop. Served
by NTNCWS
38,504
26,219
28,497
77,505
274,758
38,101
248,223
198,136
2,349
276,441
20,419
67,531
480,328
25,246
71,239
3,072
11,010
253,468
20,969
25
312,422
70,009
39,318
214,561
Population Served
19,838,603
Source: EPA, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Ground Water Rule, Proposed Rule 65 Fed. Reg.30194 (2000).
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 Denvers 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 schools drinking water supply and threatened a senior centers 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 Maines 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 Hampshires 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)
MTBE contaminated more than 200 residential drinking water supplies in rural New York. (1998)
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)
NY
OR
PA
Level
10,300
> 10,000
68,000
2,000,000
170,000
100,000
300,000
300
State
IA
ID
KS
LA
ME
MD
MI
MN
Level
99,400
50,000
500,000
25,000
1,000,000
500,000
344,000
73,000
State
MT
NC
NE
NH
NJ
NM
NV
NY
Level
19,8000
> 10,000
38,610
180,000/170,000
> 10,000
450,000
220,000
4,400,000
State
OH
OR
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
Level
265,000
250,000
2,200,000
2,500,000
200
200
9,131,994
101,000
State
VA
VT
WA
WV
WI
WY
Level
1,240,000
536,000
7,150
5,000
4,000
4,300
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).
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 protections or they inspect only a small number of tanks.
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.
11
Chart 1
Rank
1
FL
2
CA
3
MI
4
IL
5
NC
6
TX
7
PA
8
NJ
9
WI
10
SC
11
OH
12
IN
13
MD
14
GA
15
AZ
16
KY
17
NY
18
NE
19
KS
20
IA
21
WA
22
AL
23
OR
24
MO
25
MA
26
TN
27
WV
28
MN
TOTAL
Cleanup
Backlog
17,544
15,049
9,039
8,591
6,927
4,577
4,456
3,825
3,641
3,515
3,463
3,449
3,280
2,924
2,597
2,522
2,297
2,262
2,082
2,039
2,002
1,657
1,526
1,456
1,294
1,221
1,214
1,199
129,340
% of Pop. Relying on
Ground Water as a
Drinking Water
Rank
93
46
46
33
50
45
41
53
70
45
46
64
31
41
60
25
35
87
50
78
61
52
44
54
46
47
43
80
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
State
WY
MT
LA
CO
NM
VA
AK
CT
NH
VT
PR
OK
UT
HI
AR
MS
DE
NV
RI
SD
DC
ID
ME
ND
Cleanup
Backlog
1,132
1,085
1,015
998
913
910
885
857
837
797
597
502
498
366
332
301
297
275
260
247
243
168
134
43
% of Pop. Relying
on Ground Water as
a Drinking Water
59
53
61
22
90
34
64
54
62
65
28
34
57
97
53
92
66
31
27
70
0
96
60
57
Chart 2
State
% of Pop. Drinking
Groundwater
Population
Pop. Drinking
Groundwater
Pop. Drinking
Surface Water
AK
AL
AR
AZ
CA
CO
CT
DC
DE
FL
GA
HI
IA
ID
IL
IN
KS
KY
LA
MA
MD
ME
MI
MN
MO
MS
MT
NC
ND
NE
NH
NJ
NM
NV
NY
OH
OK
OR
PA
PR
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
64%
52%
53%
60%
46%
22%
54%
0%
66%
93%
41%
97%
78%
96%
33%
64%
50%
25%
61%
46%
31%
60%
46%
80%
54%
92%
53%
50%
57%
87%
62%
53%
90%
31%
35%
46%
34%
44%
41%
28%
27%
45%
70%
47%
45%
655,435
4,530,182
2,752,629
5,743,834
35,893,799
4,601,403
3,503,604
553,523
830,364
17,397,161
8,829,383
1,262,840
2,954,451
1,393,262
12,713,634
6,237,569
2,735,502
4,145,922
4,515,770
6,416,505
5,558,058
1,317,253
10,112,620
5,100,958
5,754,618
2,902,966
926,865
8,541,221
634,366
1,747,214
1,299,500
8,698,879
1,903,289
2,334,771
19,227,088
11,459,011
3,523,553
3,594,586
12,406,292
3,894,855
1,080,632
4,198,068
770,883
5,900,962
22,490,022
416,856.66
2,351,164.46
1,461,646.00
3,457,788.07
16,331,678.55
1,016,910.06
1,895,449.76
0.00
548,870.60
16,144,565.41
3,655,364.56
1,218,640.60
2,304,471.78
1,340,318.04
4,220,926.49
3,967,093.88
1,378,693.01
1,040,626.42
2,750,103.93
2,932,342.79
1,711,881.86
795,620.81
4,651,805.20
4,070,564.48
3,095,984.48
2,673,631.69
494,945.91
4,253,528.06
360,954.25
1,521,823.39
801,791.50
4,627,803.63
1,711,056.81
719,109.47
6,652,572.45
5,305,522.09
1,194,484.47
1,567,239
5,111,392
1,082,770
286,367
1,884,932.53
538,076.33
2,773,452.14
10,210,469.99
238,578.34
2,179,017.54
1,290,983.00
2,286,045.93
19,562,120.46
3,584,492.94
1,608,154.24
553,523.00
281,493.40
1,252,595.59
5,174,018.44
44,199.40
649,979.22
52,943.96
8,492,707.51
2,270,475.12
1,356,808.99
3,105,295.58
1,765,666.07
3,484,162.22
3,846,176.14
521,632.19
5,460,814.80
1,030,393.52
2,658,633.52
229,334.31
431,919.09
4,287,692.94
273,411.75
225,390.61
497,708.50
4,071,075.37
192,232.19
1,615,661.53
12,574,515.55
6,153,488.91
2,329,068.53
2,027,347
7,294,900
2,812,085
794,265
2,313,135.47
232,806.67
3,127,509.86
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
State
% of Pop. Drinking
Groundwater
UT
VA
VT
WA
WI
WV
WY
57%
34%
65%
61%
70%
43%
59%
Population
Pop. Drinking
Groundwater
Pop. Drinking
Surface Water
2,389,039
7,459,827
621,394
6,203,788
5,509,026
1,815,354
506,529
1,361,752.23
2,543,801.01
403,906.10
3,771,903
3,845,300
786,048.28
296,319.47
1,027,286.77
4,916,025.99
217,487.90
2,431,885
1,663,726
1,029,305.72
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 3
State
FL
WY
KS
MI
IN
WV
VT
SC
NJ
AK
IL
NH
LA
NE
MT
NM
CT
IA
CA
WA
PA
AZ
DC
NC
GA
MD
AR
MO
OR
MA
RI
HI
WI
KY
TX
CO
AL
OH
DE
MN
OK
ID
UT
NY
NV
SD
Percent of Sites
Cleaned Up
Percent of Sites
Cleaned Up
-40%
-28%
-17%
-15%
-14%
-14%
-13%
-12%
-12%
-10%
-10%
-10%
-10%
-9%
-9%
-9%
-7%
-7%
-6%
-4%
-4%
-3%
-2%
-1%
2%
2%
2%
5%
7%
7%
8%
9%
9%
9%
10%
13%
14%
14%
16%
16%
16%
16%
17%
17%
18%
18%
31%
43%
54%
56%
57%
57%
58%
59%
59%
61%
61%
61%
61%
62%
62%
62%
64%
64%
65%
67%
67%
68%
69%
70%
73%
73%
73%
76%
78%
78%
79%
80%
80%
80%
81%
84%
85%
85%
87%
87%
87%
87%
88%
88%
89%
89%
Confirmed
Releases
25,359
1,979
4,560
20,511
8,032
2,828
1,904
8,541
9,383
2,280
22,218
2,166
2,633
5,922
2,854
2,433
2,408
5,741
42,825
6,026
13,609
8,137
788
23,233
10,636
12,216
1,243
6,075
6,794
6,009
1,218
1,803
18,136
12,865
23,771
6,368
10,763
23,367
2,220
9,390
3,946
1,321
4,058
19,621
2,400
2,323
Number of
Cleanups
7,815
847
2,478
11,472
4,583
1,614
1,107
5,026
5,558
1,395
13,627
1,329
1,618
3,660
1,769
1,520
1,551
3,702
27,776
4,024
9,153
5,540
545
16,306
7,712
8,936
911
4,619
5,268
4,715
958
1,437
14,495
10,343
19,194
5,370
9,106
19,904
1,923
8,191
3,444
1,153
3,560
17,324
2,125
2,076
Chart 3
State
Percent of Sites
Cleaned Up
Percent of Sites
Cleaned Up
19%
20%
23%
24%
24%
90%
91%
94%
95%
95%
71%
TN
VA
ME
ND
MS
Total
Confirmed
Releases
12,512
10,181
2,129
811
6,456
446,178
Number of
Cleanups
11,291
9,271
1,995
768
6,155
316,780
Chart 4
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
8
10
10
10
10
State
FL
WY
KS
MI
IN
WV
VT
SC
NJ
AK
IL
NH
LA
State % vs.
Nat'l
Average
-40%
-28%
-17%
-15%
-14%
-14%
-13%
-12%
-12%
-10%
-10%
-10%
-10%
%
Cleaned
Up
31%
43%
54%
56%
57%
57%
58%
59%
59%
61%
61%
61%
61%
Confirmed
Releases
Total
Cleanups
25359
1979
4560
20511
8032
2828
1904
8541
9383
2280
22218
2166
2633
7815
847
2478
11472
4583
1614
1107
5026
5558
1395
13627
1329
1618
Rank
14
14
14
17
17
19
20
20
22
23
24
State
NE
MT
NM
CT
IA
CA
WA
PA
AZ
DC
NC
State % vs.
Nat'l
Average
-9%
-9%
-9%
-7%
-7%
-6%
-4%
-4%
-3%
-2%
-1%
%
Cleaned
Up
62%
62%
62%
64%
64%
65%
67%
67%
68%
69%
70%
Confirmed
Releases
Total
Cleanups
5922
2854
2433
2408
5741
42825
6026
13609
8137
788
23233
3660
1769
1520
1551
3702
27776
4024
9153
5540
545
16306
Chart 5
Rank
Funding
Deficit
(millions)
Total Approx.
Current
Balance ('03-04)
(millions)
Outstanding
Claims ('03'04) (millions)
Rank
State
Funding
Deficit
(millions)
Total Approx.
Current
Balance ('0304) (millions)
Outstanding
Claims ('03'04) (millions)
1
2
3
4
5
MI
-$1,700.00
$0
$170.00
25
MS
$5.65
$5.90
$0.25
CA
WI
CT
TN
NC
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MA
CO
PA
VA
OH
AL
WV
VT
AK
WY
DE
RI
MT
KS
NV
SC
KY
SD
-$1,029.00
-$151.80
-$53.00
-$95.60
-$27.52
-$4.15
-$20.00
-$14.30
-$10.00
-$7.59
-$5.12
-$4.60
-$1.10
-$0.49
$0
$0.00
$0.15
$0.50
$0.51
$2.70
$3.00
$3.29
$4.30
$5.15
$171.00
G
$13.2
$5.00
$8
J
0.68
K
1.3
A
NA
$1.53
$204
$1.01
$29.91
$0.90
$0.20
$4.89
$0
$98.41
$0.50
$1.50
$1.21
$2.70
$5
$29.67
$22
$5.30
$1,200
$4.43
$58
$20
$28.20
$5.45
$20
$15.83
$214
$9
$35.03
$5.50
$1.30
$5.38
NA
NA
$0.35
$1.00
$0.70
$0
$2.00
$26.38
$18.10
$0.15
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
ME
MD
NH
ND
MN
AR
OK
LA
IL
NM
NE
37
WA
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
IN
ID
MO
GA
NJ
IA
TX
FL
AZ
NY
UT
$5.98
$6.17
$6.23
$6.67
$7.60
$9.38
$10.14
$13.03
$14.20
$16.37
$22.00
$25.30
-$0.46
$23.50
$39.00
$47.27
$54.20
$70.00
$100.00
$131.40
$272.00
NA
NA
NA
$5.98
$6.17
$9.14
$7.68
$19.60
$15.15
$10.70
$15.09
$22.00
$19.77
$24.40
E
29.3
F
0.31
$31.00
$39
$48
$68.40
$80.00
$100
$181
$273
$25.00
$20.00
$8.70
$0.00
$0.00
$2.91
I
1.01
$12.00
$5.77
$0.56
$2.06
$7.80
D
3.4
$2.40
$4
$0.77
$7.50
$0
$1.13
$14
$10.00
0
$49.50
$1
NA
NA
NA
TOTAL
-$2,069.35
$1,630
$1,966.67
Chart 5
Chart 6
State
AK
AL
AR
AZ
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
IA
ID
IL
IN
KS
KY
LA
MA
MD
ME
MI
MN
MO
MS
MT
Total Approx.
Current
Balance ('0304) (millions)
Outstanding
Claims ('03'04) (millions)
$0
$0.90
$15.15
$25.00
$171.00
$1.53
$5.00
$0.50
$273
$68.40
$100
$39
$22.00
$31.00
$2.70
$22
$15.09
A
NA
$6.17
$5.98
$0
$19.60
$48
$5.90
$1.21
NA
$5.50
$5.77
NA
$1,200
$15.83
$58
$0.35
$1
$14
0
$0
$7.80
$7.50
$0
$18.10
$2.06
$20
$0.00
$0.00
$170.00
$12.00
$1.13
$0.25
$0.70
$1,630
$1,966.67
State
NC
ND
NE
NH
NJ
NM
NV
NY
OH
OK
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VA
VT
WA
WI
WV
WY
Funding
Deficit
(millions)
-$27.52
-$4.15
$6.67
$22.00
$6.23
$70.00
$16.37
$3.00
NA
-$5.12
$10.14
-$10.00
$0.50
$3.29
$5.15
-$95.60
$131.40
NA
-$7.59
-$0.49
$25.30
-$0.46
-$151.80
-$1.10
$0.00
Total Approx.
Current Balance
('03-04)
(millions)
J
0.68
K
1.3
$7.68
$24.40
$9.14
$80.00
$19.77
$5
$20.00
$29.91
$10.70
$204
$1.50
$29.67
$5.30
$8
$181
$8.70
$1.01
$4.89
E
29.3
F
0.31
G
$13.2
$0.20
$98.41
Outstanding
Claims ('03'04) (millions)
$28.20
$5.45
I
1.01
$2.40
$2.91
$10.00
D
3.4
$2.00
NA
$35.03
$0.56
$214
$1.00
$26.38
$0.15
$20
$49.50
NA
$9
$5.38
$4
$0.77
$4.43
$1.30
NA
Chart 6
Chart 7
State
Threat to GW
State
Threat to GW
AK
AL
AR
AS
AZ
CA
CNMI
CO
CT
DC
DE
FL
GA
GU
HI
IA
ID
IL
IN
KS
KY
LA
MA
MD
ME
MI
MN
MO
Y
Y
Y
MS
MT
NC
ND
NE
NH
NJ
NM
NV
NY
OH
OK
OR
PA
PR
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VA
VI
VT
WA
WI
WV
WY
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Sources: EPA, National Water Quality Inventory Report (2000) and State
reports on file with the author.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Karst (Available at http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/karst/) (Last checked on April 8, 2005).
Alaska
Alabama
Arkansas
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
North Carolina
Nebraska
New Hampshire
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
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 States 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)
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, Moroccos
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 Dont 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 DEPs 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 ODell, 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)
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, GAO02-712T (2002)
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)
ALABAMA
1.
2.
3.
ARKANSAS
1.
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, 2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring
and Assessment Report (2002)
ARIZONA
1.
2.
3.
4.
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Draft Arizonas Integrated 305(b) and 303(d)
Listing Report (2004)
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Impacts to Groundwater Resources in
Arizona From Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTS) (2003)
Arizona Office of the Auditor General, Performance Audit of the Department of
Environmental Quality: Waste Programs Division (2004)
United States Geological Survey, Water-Use Trends in the Desert Southwest1950-2000
(2004)
CALIFORNIA
1.
Department of Water Resources, Californias 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 Waters Role in Californias 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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
DELAWARE
1.
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, 2002 Watershed Assessment
Report (305(b)) (2002)
2.
3.
FLORIDA
1.
2.
GEORGIA
1.
IOWA
1.
2.
3.
ILLINOIS
1.
2.
3.
4.
INDIANA
1.
2.
KANSAS
1.
2.
3.
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)
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)
Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2004 Kansas Water Quality Assessment
(305(b) Report) (2004)
Kansas Department of Health and Environment, KDHE Responds to Concerns Over MTBE
(2000)
National Ground Water Association, Ground Waters Role in Kansass Economic Vitality
(2004)
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 Waters Role in Massachusettss 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.
2.
3.
MICHIGAN
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
MINNESOTA
1.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Profile: Groundwater (2004)
2.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Baseline Water Quality of Minnesotas Principal
Aquifers Region 6, Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (1999)
3.
MISSOURI
1.
2.
MONTANA
1.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Missouri Water Quality Report 2002 (2002)
National Ground Water Association, Ground Waters Role in Missouris Economic Vitality
(2004)
Montana Natural Resource Information System, Montana Ground Water Atlas (no date
given)
NEBRASKA
1.
National Ground Water Association, Ground Waters Role in Nebraskas 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)
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2002 305(b) Report Ohios Ground Water Quality
(2003).
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohios Ground Water Quality 2000 305(b) Report
(2000)
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Susceptibility Analysis and Proposed Confidence
Report Language for the City of Cincinnati-Bolton Wellfield (2004)
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Susceptibility Analysis and Proposed Consumer
Confidence Report Language for the City of Dayton Miami and Mad River Wellfields (2004)
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Susceptibility Analysis and Proposed Consumer
Confidence Report Language for the City of Fairfield (2004)
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 States
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 RiskBased 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 Waters Role in Tennessees Economic Vitality
(2004)
2.
3.
4.
TEXAS
1.
2.
3.
4.
VIRGINIA
1.
2.
3.
VERMONT
1.
2.
National Ground Water Association, Ground Waters Role in Texass Economic Vitality
(2004)
Texas Groundwater Protection Committee, Joint Groundwater Monitoring and
Contamination Report 2003, SRF-056/03 (2004)
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, DRAFT 2002 Texas Water Quality
Inventory-Groundwater Assessment (2002)
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Texas Water Quality Inventory, 2000
Volume 1 (2002)
National Ground Water Association, Ground Waters Role in Virginias Economic Vitality
(2004)
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 2002 305(b) Water Quality Assessment
Report (2004)
Virginia Department of Health, Virginia Source Water Assessment Program (1999)
Vermont Petroleum Cleanup Fund Advisory Committee, Sixteenth Annual Report on the
Status of the Petroleum Cleanup Fund (2004)
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 Waters Role in Washingtons 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)
WEST VIRGINIA
1.
National Ground Water Association, Ground Waters Role in West Virginias 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 Wisconsins 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)