Abstract
Purpose. There are over 2 million underground storage tanks (USTs) across the nation that store hazardous materials and hazardous waste with potential for system failure and environmental contamination. The purpose of this study was to identify differences in UST policy among the 50 states and the impacts of the policy and implementation differences on UST policy compliance. Methodology. Using secondary data and supplemental interviews, a comparative study was conducted of the 50 states to determine policy differences and implementation differences of UST policy. The goal was to find common variables and significant differences in policy and implementation approaches to UST regulation among the 50 states. This exploratory study examined states with UST programs, policies, and implementation processes, as well as those that lack such programs. The study reviewed how states measure success in accordance with standing Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) policy and examined multiple variables in states' implementation of UST policy. Findings. The research identified state types and archetypes that demonstrated a decline in overall UST operational compliance. There are several issues with existing UST policy: (a) overall complexity of UST policy; (b) failure of federal EPA to adequately communicate with states; (c) lack of clarity of priorities, expectations, and program evaluation tools; (d) lack of funding; (e) enforcement disparities; (f) delinquency of inspection frequency; and (g) owner/operator education. Conclusions. There is a need for a shift back to cooperative federalism wherein states could actively diffuse policy innovation and practice to achieve greater success in minimizing groundwater contamination and preserving natural resources. Other needs are an increase in inspection frequency, annual training for all states, and increased and equal enforcement capabilities. Recommendations. This research identified a few practices in some states associated with high compliance rates: establishing more stringent programs, increasing inspection frequency, and providing state oversight of inspections and/or direct state inspections. Further research into the variables impacting state implementation could generate a more comprehensive list of best practices.