Corrective Action: Specific examples of funded projects are: (1) Review of site characterization reports; (2) Review of corrective action plans; (3) Conduct enforcement actions; (4) Provide assistance to Tribes to help develop and implement the LUST program; and (5) Conduct cleanups and provide oversight of responsible party cleanups.
The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health and the environment. Since 1970, EPA has been working for a cleaner, healthier environment for the American people.
|Recipient||Amount||Start Date||End Date|
|Environmental Quality, Arizona Dept Of||$ 2,153,230||   ||2020-07-01||2025-06-30|
|Health, Hawaii Department Of||$ 905,024||   ||2019-10-01||2024-09-30|
|Navajo Nation Tribal Government, The||$ 875,000||   ||2019-10-01||2024-09-30|
|Environmental Quality, Louisiana Department Of||$ 945,000||   ||2017-08-23||2024-08-22|
|Environmental Quality, Texas Commission On||$ 2,155,000||   ||2017-08-23||2024-08-22|
|Department Of Conservation & Natural Resources||$ 1,510,755||   ||2019-07-01||2024-06-30|
|Water Resources Control Board, California||$ 5,260,000||   ||2019-07-01||2024-06-30|
|Montana Department Of Environmental Quality||$ 580,000||   ||2021-10-01||2023-09-30|
|North Dakota Department Of Environmental Quality||$ 312,000||   ||2021-10-01||2023-09-30|
|Environmental Quality, Wyoming Department Of||$ 505,000||   ||2021-10-01||2023-09-30|
For FY 2007, 49 States, six territories and approximately 10 Indian Tribes submitted assistance agreement applications and the same number of awards were granted in FY 2007. In FY 2007, EPA met and exceeded its FY 2007 national goal of 13,000 LUST cleanups completed. States, Territories, Tribes and Intertribal Consortia completed 13,862 LUST cleanups completed.
Uses and Use Restrictions
States and Tribes may use financial assistance under this program for eligible and allowable costs incurred under cooperative agreements for corrective action, as described in the Section 54 Funding Priority.
This financial assistance program is not eligible for inclusion in Performance Partnership Grants under 40 CFR 35.133.
EPA will award cooperative agreements for corrective action activities.
Corrective Action: The applicable provisions in OSWER Directive 9650.10A, "LUST Trust Fund Cooperative Agreement Guidelines" apply to states receiving funds under this program.
FY 2006 Emergency Supplemental funding for the 2005 Gulf of Mexico Hurricanes was available only for Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama (Texas and Florida declined the funding) for activities that were related to the consequences of hurricanes, such as addressing the most immediate underground storage tank needs in areas affected by the 2005 Gulf of Mexico hurricanes, including site assessments of leaking underground storage tanks to identify problems and initiate appropriate corrective action.
See the Office of Underground Storage Tanks Program Guidance for FY 2006 Gulf of Mexico Hurricane Supplemental Funding for Cooperative Agreements Awarded under the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program.
Cooperative agreements are only available to States and Territories that have UST programs.
Additionally, these cooperative agreements are only available to Federally-recognized Tribes and Intertribal Consortia that must meet the requirements, as described in the Federal Register Notice, Vol.
67181-67183, "Update to EPA Policy on Certain Grants to Intertribal Consortia."
States, Territories, Tribes and Intertribal Consortia and the communities and industries affected by leaks from underground storage tanks.
The EPA Regional Offices maintain the credentials/documentation for State and Territorial programs and federally-recognized Tribes and Intertribal Consortia. Costs will be determined in accordance with OMB Circular No. A-87 for State and local governments.
Aplication and Award Process
This program is eligible for coverage under E.O.
12372, "Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs." An applicant should consult the office or official designated as the single point of contact in his or her State for more information on the process the State requires to be followed in applying for assistance, if the State has selected the program for review.
Tribes and Intertribal Consortia are not required to follow intergovernmental review procedures.
States and Tribes apply for funds through EPA regional offices under this CFDA.
These funds are awarded non-competitively. Applications will be subjected to administrative evaluation to determine the adequacy of application in relation to assistance agreement regulations and to technical and program evaluation to determine the merit and relevance of the project. The Agency will advise the applicant if funding is being considered. A final work plan will be negotiated with the applicant. A cooperative agreement must be signed between EPA and the State or Territory or EPA and the Tribe or Intertribal Consortia. These grants are non-discretionary. EPA awards the cooperative agreement to states through a previously established allocation process, issued under national guidance rather than through competition. For the Emergency Supplemental funding for the 2005 Gulf of Mexico Hurricanes, EPA used a separate allocation process to distribute the funds to Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. See EPA Order 5700.5, Section 6(c)(1).
Proposals generally must be received prior to May 15 for funding in the applicable fiscal year.
Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1976 (SWDA), as amended, Section 9003(h), Public Law 105-276; Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, Public Law 109-234.
Range of Approval/Disapproval Time
From 3 to 4 months.
Disputes will be resolved under 40 CFR 30.63 or 40 CFR 31.70, as applicable.
Contact the appropriate Regional Office. See http://www.epa.gov/OUST/regions/index.htm.
Formula and Matching Requirements
Corrective Action: LUST corrective action funding awarded under Section 9003(h)(7) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is subject to an allocation process developed by the Agency. By guidance, the Agency has established a process for allocating funds to states under Section 9003(h)(7) based on the cumulative numbers of confirmed UST releases, cleanups initiated, cleanups completed, the percentage of the population using groundwater for drinking water, and the number of states with approved UST programs. This program allocates funding to Tribes and Intertribal Consortia non-competitively based on their programmatic needs and national guidance. States must provide a 10 percent cost share for cooperative agreements awarded under Section 9003(h)(7). There is no matching requirement for corrective action cooperative agreements for Tribes or Intertribal Consortia awarded pursuant to Public Law 105-276. Cooperative agreements EPA awards under Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and Pandemic Influenza, 2006, Section 402 of the H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress) (the Gulf of Mexico Hurricanes Supplemental) and the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006, H.R. 4939 (Public Law 109-234) (the Gulf of Mexico 2nd Hurricanes Supplemental) to Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama were subject to a separate allocation formula for EPA Regions 4 and 6. Activities related to the consequences of hurricanes included addressing the most immediate underground storage tank needs in areas affected by the 2005 Gulf of Mexico hurricanes, such as site assessments of leaking underground storage tanks to identify problems and initiate appropriate corrective action. See the Office of Underground Storage Tanks Program Guidance for FY 2006 Gulf of Mexico Hurricane Supplemental Funding for Cooperative Agreements Awarded under the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program.
Length and Time Phasing of Assistance
The terms of the grant shall be determined at the time of the grant award by the specific EPA Regional Office. For the Gulf of Mexico 1st Hurricanes Supplemental, grants were awarded on either single-year or two-year bases. The Gulf of Mexico 2nd Hurricanes Supplemental is for "necessary expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes of the 2005 season." Congress intended for these funds "to remain available (for award) until September 30, 2007."
Post Assistance Requirements
Reporting requirements are identified at 40 CFR Parts 30 and 31.
EPA Regional Offices may include additional information regarding the content and frequency of reporting requirements in the terms and conditions of the agreements.
For the Emergency Supplemental funding for the 2005 Gulf of Mexico Hurricanes cooperative agreements, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama shall provide EPA with specific storm-damage related information, as specified in the terms and conditions of the agreements.
Grants and cooperative agreements are subject to inspections and audits by the Comptroller General of the United States, the EPA Office of Inspector General, other EPA staff, or any authorized representative of the Federal government. Reviews by the EPA Project Officer and the Grants Specialist may occur each year. In accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular No. A-133 (Revised, June 27, 2003), "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Nonprofit Organizations," nonfederal entities that expend $500,000 or more in a year in Federal awards shall have a single or a program-specific audit conducted for that year. Nonfederal entities that expend less than $500,000 a year in Federal awards are exempt from Federal audit requirements for that year, except as noted in OMB Circular No. A-133.
The record retention requirements of 40 CFR Part 31 (governmental units) are applicable depending upon the identity of the recipient. Financial records, including all documents to support entries on accounting records and to substantiate changes to each grant must be kept available to personnel authorized to examine EPA grant accounts. All records must be maintained until expiration of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report. If questions still remain, such as those raised as a result of audit, related records should be retained until the matter is completely resolved.
FY 07 $57,661,000; FY 08 est. $62,207,000 and FY 09 est. $58,207,000.
Range and Average of Financial Assistance
For the LUST corrective action funding, in FY 07, and FY08, Range for Territories and States: $43,000 - $3,400,000; Territory Average $45,000; State Average: $910,000. Range for Tribes and Intertribal Consortia: $22,000 - $140,000; Average: $48,000.
Regulations, Guidelines, and Literature
40 CFR Part 31; Guidelines: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Trust Fund. Cooperative Agreement Guidelines. Office of Underground Storage Tanks Program Guidance for FY 2006 Gulf of Mexico Hurricane Supplemental Funding for Cooperative Agreements Awarded under the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program. Energy Policy Act of 2005 Grant Guidelines, http://www.epa.gov/swerust1/index.htm. Costs will be determined in accordance with OMB Circular No. A-87 (2 CFR Part 225) for State and local governments and Indian Tribes and OMB Circular A-122 (2 CFR Part 230) for Intertribal Consortia that follow the assistance regulations for nonprofit organizations. Contact Regional LUST Program Manager for documents.
Regional or Local Office
See Appendix IV Of the Catalog for list of Underground Storage Tanks Regional Program Manager addresses.
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/oustcont.htm; Fax: (703) 603-0175; E-mail: email@example.com.
Criteria for Selecting Proposals
This program allocates funding to States and Tribes non-competitively under the allocation system referenced in Section 101, under a separate system for supplemental funding for damage caused by the 2005 Gulf of Mexico Hurricanes. Guidelines for LUST cooperative agreements for corrective action are found in OSWER Directive 9650-10A, and at OUST's website http://www.epa.gov/swerust1/directiv/d965010a.htm.
Pedagogy of the Oppressed, a 1970s book by author Paulo Freire, envisions a world not as a given reality, but as “a problem to be worked on and solved.” That mentality is often applied to the greatest social entrepreneurs.