United States tiouo Waste Ana tr/\ o i o-n-so-
Environmental Protection Emergency Response February 1993
Report to House
Appropriations Committee
on the Leaking Underground
Storage Tanks Program
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
REPORT TO HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMKTTEE ON
THE LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TAP-IKS PROGRAM
PREPARED BY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
THE OFFICE OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
February 1993
-------
Contents
Executive Summary
1. IntroductionTo USTs And EPA's Regulatory Program . . ...... ........ .....
The Causes Of Releases ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ......... ; ..... ^
Portraying The Status Of Corrective Action ............ ........ . ......
The Technical Requirements Of The UST Program ..... . .- ...... ---- ..... 3
Leak Prevention .......... ...... ...... ......... .......... ^
Corrective Action . ....... ......... ... * .......... . . . . ......
The Financial Responsibility Requirements Of The UST Program ......... ....... j
State Program Approval Requirements Of The UST Program ............. ......
OUSTs Approach To Implementing The UST Program - ---- ............ ^
Establishing Compliance Monitoring And Enforcement Programs ---- . ....... ^
Federal Release Detection Initiative ..... ...... ........ ...... J
Streamlined Enforcement . . . .............. .............. '
Providing Federal Funds To States ---- .. ---- < ..... ......
Developing State Assurance Programs For Owners And Operators ........ ... o
Promoting Innovative Technologies ......... ...........
' ' .... ..... »
2. Costs of Cleanup ...................... ; *
.8
Initial Estimates Of Costs ............. > ............. ....... ' ' ' 9
Factors Influencing Cost Data ........ ............ ...... ....... ' ° ' 9
Examples Of Costs ---- .......... .............. ...... * " ' '.'. " 10.
Efforts To Control Costs . . ................... ........ ' ' ' ' . . 1 1
Streamlining Corrective Action ............ .........< ...... ^
Streamlining Site Data ...... ............ ....... ' ..... . .
Streamlining Corrective Action Procedures . . . ...... . ...... ...... ^
Benefits of Streamluimg ...... ..... .... ........ . . . . ..........
;. . . t ..... 13
3. Conclusions ..... = ............. ...... ..... ...........
Exhibits
i
Exhibit 1 Program Trends in the Number of Confirmed Releases, Cleanups
Initiated, and Cleanups Completed
Exhibit 2 Growth Rate of Confirmed Releases, Cleanups Initiated, and Cleanups
Completed
Exhibits UST State Program Approval Status _ ^nnm
Exhibit 4 i- Cumulative Appropriations to EPA versus Cumulative Money
Collected in the LUST Trust Fund
Exhibit 5 Time Required to Complete Various Stages of Minnesota s UST
Corrective Action Process
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides an overview of the regulatory program including key aspects of
implementation, cleanup costs and EPA's efforts to control them, and program needs and EPA's plans
to address them.
Overview of Underground Storage Tanks and Nature of the Problem
As of 1992, about 1.6 million petroleum underground storage tanlcs (USTs) and 37,300
hazardous substance USTs are subject to the federal regulations. Many USTs are used for retail
purposes or for private use. Large petroleum companies, mid-size marketers, and small "Mom and
Pop" gasoline service stations and convenience stores own motor fuel tanks. Other facilities that use
USTs include public facilities and service sectors such as airports, schools!, and transit authorities.
When petroleum or hazardous substance tanks leak, the products they release can contaminate
surface and ground water, cause fires and explosions, and expose people lo substances causing
adverse health effects (e.g., benzene, a carcinogen). Corrosion of tanks and piping, improper system
installation, spills and overfills during product delivery, and piping failures can cause releases.
Confirmed releases are being reported to implementing agencies at a rate of about 1,000 per
week; at the state level, individual site managers are overseeing up to 400 cases at a time. The
number of releases is expected to level off at-about 320,000 releases during fiscal year 1995. (EPA
estimates that about twenty percent of the regulated universe of 1.6 million USTs is leaking.) With
current resources, states and responsible parties are initiating cleanups at about 36,000 sites per year
and completing cleanups at about 16,000 sites per year.
State or local agency cleanup program staff oversee increasing caseloads of active cleanups,
usually conducted by responsible parties. (Responsible parties conduct approximately 97 percent of
all leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cleanups.) State personnel lace increasing backlogs of
sites awaiting a response and additional demands for guidance and oversight.
The Federal Regulations
The regulations have three major components: Technical requirements for new and existing
tanks and piping, state program approval (SPA) requirements, and financial responsibility
requirements for UST owners and operators. . ''
On September 23, 1988, EPA published its final technical and state approval regulations for
USTs containing regulated substances. EPA designed the technical regulations to reduce the chance
of releases from UST systems, to increase the likelihood of finding releases quickly when they do
occur, and to secure prompt cleanup. The state program approval requirements specify program
components states must have to obtain state program approval to enable them to operate in lieu of the
federal program. As of December 1992, EPA approved 10 state programs. Twenty-two additional
states submitted completed or nearly complete SPA applications. Forty-seven states and territories
have technical regulations for USTs. -
The financial responsibility regulations, published on October 26,11988, require thai UST
owners or operators demonstrate the ability to pay the costs of corrective action and compensation .-i
third parties for injuries or damages resulting from the release of petroleum from USTs.
-------
OUST's Approach to Implementing the UST Program
In managing the national program, the Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) has
adopted a decentralized model that empowers state and local programs. Under this model, the state
operates under a signed agreement with EPA to implement and manage provisions of the national
UST program at the state level. The national program provides technical suppOrt arid assistance to
states in streamlining their cleanup and prevention programs. This arrangement allows states to run
programs that are tailored to the needs and demands of their own regulated communities, while EPA
offers implementation support to states, including financial support.
The LUST Trust Fund was created to help pay for the cleanup of petroleum releases from
USTs where this cleanup cannot or will not be accomplished by the owner or operator or to oversee
responsible party cleanups. The Trust Fund has collected about $900 million as of the end of Fiscal
Year 1992. Approximately $400 million has been appropriated to EPA through Fiscal Year 1993.
Costs of UST Cleanups and Efforts to Control Costs
Costs of remediating or cleaning up releases can vary greatly and can be influenced by several
factors including the volume of the release, the extent of contamination, geologic characteristics, level
of cleanup required,' and reporting requirements of the states. Prompt responses to releases can help
to reduce cleanup costs. In cases where groundwater is affected, the costs of cleaning up releases are
increased significantly." " ,
Sample cost data from states are provided to offer a snapshot of the actual costs being
incurred for cleaning up UST releases. Actual costs of cleanup are variable and still somewhat
unpredictable. Costs of remediating LUSTs can generally be grouped into two cost classes-sites with
soil contamination and sites with groundwater contamination. The costs for remediating sites with
soil contamination generally vary between $10,000 and $125,000. Costs for remediating sites with
groundwater contamination can range from $100,000 to over $1 million depending on the extent of
contamination. ,
Because of the high costs of cleanup, limited state and federal funds, and concern about small
owners and operators having the funds to pay for cleanup, it is essential to identify opportunities for
reducing costs and.streamlinmg corrective action processes. One of OUST's top priorities is assisting
in the streamlining of corrective action programs and promoting innovative site investigation and
cleanup technologies.
A few state programs have worked aggressively at streamlining for several years and have
demonstrated that it is possible to provide effective oversight at a large number of sites while reduoivj
paperwork. Some programs are making promising revisions to their corrective aqtion processes thai-
allow simple cleanups at low-risk sites to proceed more quickly with better guidance and reduced
oversight. Many states' have reaped benefits from communicating and working more effectively «. nh
their "suppliers and customers" - contractors, consultants, tank owners and operators, and the gcno* 1
public. HoweVer,-^even in the most advanced programs, additional improvements are possible and
necessary in order to meet the program's goals with the resources that are likely to be available.
-------
REPORT TO HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMiMFTTEE ON
THE LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS PROGRAM
" i ~
This report responds directly to the Committee's request to provide information on the overall
underground storage tank (UST) program with emphases on the extent of jthe leaking underground
storage tank (LUST) problem, the status of EPA's efforts, and the costs involved in remediating the
problem. It provides an overview of the regulatory program including key aspects of implementation,
cleanup costs and EPA's efforts to control them. Finally, the report discusses program needs and
EPA's plans to address them. I
INTRODUCTION TO USTs AND EPA's REGULATORY PROGRAM
,!'''
As of 1992, about 1.6 million petroleum USTs and 37,300 hazardous substance USTs are
subject to the federal regulations. Many USTs are used for retail purposes or for private use. Motor
fuel tanks used for retail purposes are owned by large petroleum companies, mid-size marketers, and
small "Mom and Pop" gasoline service stations and convenience stores. Other facilities that use
USTs (but do not sell petroleum products) include public facilities and service sectors such as
airports, schools, and transit authorities. The large number and wide variety of facilities with USTs
make the regulation of USTs an especially challenging task. !
When petroleum or hazardous substance tanks leak, the products they release can contaminate
surface and ground water, cause fires and explosions, and expose people to substances causing
adverse health effects (e.g., benzene, a carcinogen). | . .
For regulatory purposes, EPA defines an UST as any tank, including underground piping
connected to the tank, that contains a regulated substance and the volume jof which is at least 10
percent underground. "The regulations apply to USTs which are storing pibtroleum products and
hazardous substances (excluding any substance regulated as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)). The following are not covered by the
regulations: Farm and residential tanks of 1,100 gallons or less capacity used for storing motor fuel
for noncommercial purposes; tanks used for storing heating oil for consumptive use on the premises
where stored; tanks stored on or above the floor of underground areas (e.g., basements, tunnels);
septic tanks; systems for collecting stormwater or wastewater; flow-through process tanks; emergency
spill and overfill tanks that are expeditiously emptied after use; and tanks '.holding 110 gallons or less.
The Causes Of Releases
According to a study conducted for EPA in 1987, the four major causes of UST releases are
corrosion of tanks and piping, improper system installation, spills and ove|rfills during product
delivery, and piping failures. Before the regulations were promulgated in! 1988, most installed ,
underground storage tanks and piping were constructed of bare steel. Whfen it is buried in the
ground, unprotected steel can.be destroyed by external and internal corrosion, resulting in leaks.
Leaks are also often the result of installation mistakes, including improperly.anchoring the tank whiJi
causes the tank to shift or rupture, or inadequately paving over the tank's surface leading to damage
from vehicular traffic.
-------
Spills can occur during product delivery if the delivery truck's hose is disconnected from the
it is shut off or drained. Overfills occur when a tank's capacity is exceeded. Most leaks,
S^gS^ The walls of pipes are smaller and less sturdy than ate the walls
^Lilteltolheflald. Pipes suffer much more than do tanks from excesswe
surface loads, the stress of underground movement, corrosion, and improper installation.
Portraying The Status Of Corrective Action
Exhibit 1 shows the cumulative number of confirmed releases, cleanups initiated, and
cleanups completed from fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 1992. As of fourth quarter-fiscaj year
1992 almost 184,000 releases were confirmed, 129,000 cleanups were initiated, and 55,000 cleanups
were completed by responsible parties or state and local implementing agencies. While the program
See^successful at Wtiating cleanups at sites with confirmed releases (70 percenO the number o
confirmed releases is growing at a rapid rate and creating a backlog of sites that need to be addressed.
iZugh a greater percentage of cleanups has been completed over the last several years (30 percent
of confirmed releases), the.total universe of sites continues to grow thereby also contributing to the
backlog of sites which require further remediation. Exhibit 2 illustrates me growth m the cumulative
number of confirmed releases, cleanups initiated, and cleanups completed from fiscal year 1988
through fiscal year 1992.
Releases have been reported at an average rate of about 1,000 per week, over the last two
years. The number of confirmed releases is expected to grow at a rate of about 50 000 releases per
year until it levels off at about 320,000 releases during fiscal year 1995. (EPA estimates .that about
twenty percent of the regulated universe of 1.6 million USTs is leaking.) The rate of confirmed
releases is expected to slow after December 22, 1993, the date by which all UST owners and
operators must have installed release detection systems. .
The states and responsible parties are currently initiating cleanups at about36,000 sites per
year and completing cleanups at about 16,000 sites per year. State or local agency cleanup^ program
staff oversee increasing caseloads of active cleanups, usually conducted by responsible parties
(Responsible parties conduct approximately 97 percent of all LUST cleanups.) State personnel fa.,
increasing backlogs of sites awaiting a response and additional demands for guidance and overset
Delays in approving site cleanup work can substantially increase the costs of cleanups, since
' contamination may spread in the interim. Added delays can also disrupt businesses for longer th.u,
necessary, making cleanups more burdensome for many owners and operators, especially small
businesses. .
The Technical Requirements Of The UST Program
On September 23, 1988, EPA published its final technical and state program approval
regulations fotUSTs containing regulated substances. EPA's Office of Underground Storage I ,
(OUST) manageslhe program to implement the regulations. The regulations have three major
components- Technical requirements for new and existing tanks and piping, financial respons.h
requirements for UST owners and operators, and state program approval requirements.
-------
EPA designed the technical regulations for USTs to reduce the ctlance of releases from UST
systems, to increase the likelihood of finding releases quickly when they do occur, and to secure
prompt cleanup. OUSTs philosophy is that good tank management practices are the best way to
prevent leaks and to detect leaks early and initiate cleanup before they spread and cause extensive
damage. Exhibit 2 also shows that an increasing number of confirmed releases (i.e., releases from
LUSTs that have been reported to and confirmed by the state or local implementing agency) have
been reported. j
Leak Prevention |
i '
EPA promulgated requirements in four important categories for nianaging UST systems
designed to prevent releases: (1) Tank design and installation, (2) release detection, (3) corrosion
protection, and (4) spill and overfill control. All systems installed after December 22, 1988 must
meet federal requirements immediately. However, because of implementation concerns stemming
from the large number of UST owners and operators, EPA phased in requirements for release
detection on UST systems existing at the time the regulations were promulgated. The requirements
are phased in according to the age of the tank; older tanks, which are more likely to leak, are
required to have release detection systems first. !
By December 22,1993, all owners must utilize an accepted method of release detection on all
existing systems. Additionally, owners of existing tank systems have until December 22, 1998 to
upgrade then- tanks .by installing internal linings and/or cathodic protection, or replace them with new
tanks made of approved materials such as fiberglass-reinforced plastic. These existing tank systems
must also be retrofitted with spill and overfill devices. j
Prior to promulgation of the federal regulations for USTs, the majority of tanks were made of
bare steel and were not equipped with release detection devices. Since promulgation of the
regulations, approximately 480,000 USTs have been closed. Many of these closures represent the
retirement of existing unprotected tank systems. i
.1
Corrective Action
Owners and operators of UST systems containing petroleum or hazardous substances must
respond to confirmed releases. This, requirement includes notifying the appropriate agencies of the
release within a specified period of time; taking immediate action to prevent any further release (e.g .
removing product from the UST system); monitoring and preventing the spread of contamination int..
the soil and/or groundwater; assembling detailed information about the site and the nature of the
release; removing free product to the maximum extent practicable; investigating soil and groumlu.itcr
contamination; and, in appropriate cases, outlining and implementing a detailed corrective action plan
for remediation. |
The Financial Responsibility Requirements Of The UST Program
The financial responsibility regulations, published on October 26, 1988, require that UST
owners or operators demonstrate the ability to pay the costs of corrective ajction and compensati. >n
-------
third parties for injuries or damages resulting from the release of petroleum from USTs. EPA
requires all owners or operators of petroleum USTs to maintain an annual aggregate of financial
assurance of $1 million or $2 million, depending on the number of USTs owned. EPA adopted a
phased-in schedule that requires large owners and operators with greater financial resources to comply
with the requirements before smaller businesses and municipalities. In general, small owners and
operators are defined as marketers with fewer than 12 tanks and large owners and operators are
defined as marketers with greater than 13 tanks. Options available to owners and operators include:
Purchasing commercial environmental impairment liability insurance; demonstrating self-insurance;
obtaining guarantees, surety bonds, or letters of credit; placing the required amount into a trust fund
administered by a third party; or relying on coverage provided by a state assurance fund.
The experience of state and local agencies with UST programs shows that large businesses
that own USTs are generally willing and have already begun to comply with UST regulations.
However, small owners, with more limited resources, often need financial assistance to comply. The
cost of obtaining financial assurance coverage is not very high, but the costs that these firms must
incur to be eligible for financial assurance (e.g., costs for installing release detection devices,
replacing or upgrading tanks) are substantial relative to the sales, profits, and assets of these smaller
firms. .
Forty-three states have developed state assurance funds to reduce the economic hardship of
compliance with the financial responsibility requirements and to help pay for the costs of cleanup.
Twenty-nine state assurance funds have been-approved by EPA to serve as financial responsibility
mechanisms. In some cases these funds may only supply a portion of the financial assurance
required. For example, some state funds cover corrective action but not third-party liability costs. In
these cases, state funds may need to be used in combination with other mechanisms to meet the
requirements of the regulations.
/
State Program Approval Requirements Of The UST Program
A crucial component of the federal UST program is the approval of state programs. The
large size of the regulated universe necessitated that EPA work with states to encourage the
development of state and local UST programs. The national UST program.is primarily a network of
local and state programs, with EPA providing leadership and assistance and, when necessary,
enforcement support. Once state programs are approved, they operate in lieu of the federal program.
thus eliminating duplication of regulatory effort. To obtain state program approval (SPA), states must
have programs at least as broad in scope as the federal program, have technical requirements that are
"no less stringent" than the federal requirements, and provide adequate enforcement of compliance.
Forty-seven states and territories have technical regulations for USTs. In general, states have
greater flexibility in designing then* programs than that allowed under the federal statute. For
example, many statesunlike EPAhave the authority to regulate distributors of petroleum products
and can prohibit them from delivering product to unregistered or unlicensed tanks. As of December
1992, EPA approved 10 state programs. Twenty-two additional states submitted completed or nearly
complete SPA applications. Exhibit 3 displays the status of state program approval. .
-------
I OUST's Approach To Implementing The UST Program ,
In managing die national UST program, OUST has adopted a decentralized model that
empowers state and local programs. Under this model, the state operates under a signed agreement
with EPA to implement and manage provisions of the national UST program at the state level EPA
regional offices serve as liaisons between EPA headquarters and states. Ifhe regions identify, analyze,
and address appropriate state needs. The national UST program provides! technical support and
assistance to states hi streamlining their cleanup and prevention programs! This arrangement allows
states to run programs that are tailored to the needs and demands of their jown regulated communities,
while EPA continues to offer implementation support to states, including financial support.
In implementing the national UST program, OUST provides support to states in establishing
compliance monitoring and enforcement programs, funding state program development, paying for
cleanups that cannot be paid for by a responsible party, developing mechanisms to assist owners and
operators in meeting the financial responsibility requirements, and helpinf ^improve the cleanup
process. It is essential for the UST program to focus on prevention activities to prevent future
releases from occurring and to detect ongoing releases as early as possibhs. Detecting releases at an
early stage can minimize the spread of contamination, allow for earlier initiation and completion of
cleanups, and reduce the cost of cleanups. !
Establishing Compliance Monitoring'And Enforcement Programs
' " """'.., j - t:
Because states and local implementing agencies have the lead in enforcing against suspected
violators of the UST regulations, OUST initially focused on developing adequate state enforcement
capability. EPA conducts some federal enforcement actions to supplementfstate activity. Because the
UST regulated community is large, diverse, and includes numerous small businesses, OUST also
believed that innovative outreach materials should be used to promote compliance by the regulated
community. OUST has developed a variety of products (e.g., brochures, videotapes, guidance
manuals, and tool kits) for a variety of audiences (e.g., owners and operators, state program staff
contractors, and consultants) on a variety of topics (e.g., tank installation,!closure, release detection
and corrective action). !
Federal Release Detection Initiative. In June 1990, OUST initialed a federal release
detection enforcement initiative to provide assistance to states and to emphasize the seriousness and
importance of the release detection requirements. States have successfully used mailings to leverage
their resources and make initial determinations regarding compliance with the release detection
requirements. The mailings remind the owners and operators of the release detection requirements.
request that they complete a self-certification form stating that they are in (iompliance, and ask that
they submit evidence to demonstrate compliance. The mailings enable state regulators to more ea>.i v
detect non-compliers.
- '. 'I.
Streamlined Enforcement. While frequent inspections and formal enforcement actions
against violators.are. effective in encouraging compliance among the regulated community, succesMu!
exercise of formal enforcement authority requires more staff time than marly developing state
programs have available. OUST, therefore, is exploring the possibility of adapting expedited or
streamlined enforcement concepts to the UST enforcement program as a supplement to more.
traditional procedures. . \ .
-------
One example of an expedited enforcement technique adapted by OUST is die field citation, a
"traffic ticket"-stvled settlement that is issued on-site by inspectors and that generally carries a
nenaUv This Sc^eoften achieves a higher rate of compliance using fewer resources than do
more traditional enforcement methods. To assist states in developing expedited enforcement
programs, OUST has developed guidance manuals that outline the steps and procedures of
implementing a field citation program.
OUST pioneered the use of field citations by federal inspectors in order to assist^ states In
zing their enforcement resources. Federal inspectors in Regions 1, 4, 6, 8, and 10 have
enecuvely used field citations as a tool to address certain technical violations that states were not
actively enforcing because of resource constraints or limitations in authorities.
Providing Federal Funds To States
EPA provides funds to states in two forms: UST Program Grants and Leaking Underground
, T^ o!uST) Trust Fund Cooperative Agreements, UST grant money, which is> appropr^
wrth EPA
Specify the actions states agree to take in return for receiving these monies. The actions that
S geneSfy Set include identifying suspected releases, developing and enforcing correeuv.
action orders overseeing responsible party cleanups, and conducting cojective actions All states h
one?FlorlS'h^vfsigned cooperative agreements. Florida has its own $160 million cleanup tund.
Developing State Assurance Programs For Owners And Operators
OUST's early efforts regarding implementation of the financial responsibility requirements
USTs under Subtitle I included estimating the costs and benefits of the financial responsibility
regulations, assessing the viability of alternative financial assurance mechanisms,
ut
-------
dissolved product) would be required at only a fifth of all sites and would cost an average of
$168,750. The costs revealed by this model appear now to be below market costs of actual cleanups.
This may be due to the assumption that only one-fifth of the sites would require extensive
groundwater remediation, the most expensive component of remediation. !
Factors Influencing Cost Data
'.- "'" «.-;-._ i,-.^" ^sg1 . '
OUST does not require the states to submit cost date to EPA because OUST wants the states
to spend their limited resources on designing corrective action programs'that are the most efficient for
local needs and conditions and on overseeing or conducting site cleanups. | The Agency does not want
the states to divert funds away from cleanup to cost tracking systems. Furthermore, 97 percent of the
cleanups are conducted by responsible-parties, not by the state programs, mailing data collection
difficult. However, states with assurance funds have started to collect cost data because these states
are responsible for tracking their own funds "and are concerned about the costs of cleanups.
For the purpose of this report, OUST collected limited datafon average costs from a few
states. The states with assurance funds are cautious about releasing cost data because they are
concerned that owners/operators and contractors will obtain state data on maximum allowable costs
and will charge the fund these maximum costs, even if the actual cleanup costs were less. Because of
this concern, we have not identified states by name. It was difficult to obtain comparable data on
UST cleanup costs because the data came from several states, each with its own method of tracking
costs.
Other factors that make drawing comparisons among the states difficult Ire as follows.
-!'- =
I
* Selectivity bias. Sites for which cost data are available may represent only the highest
priority sites, or they may only represent sites that could be cleaned up relatively
quickly. ,
! '' ' '
Unclosed site bias. Some sites may not have been fully addressed, and cost data may
fail to include all past and future remediation costs.
' ' .' ' "3? \
Unclear deductible status. State assurance fund cost data may include only costs
above deductible amounts.
Notwithstanding, sample cost data from states and other sources do offer a snapshot of the actual
costs being incurred for cleaning up UST releases.
Examples Of Costs
Based on survey data submitted by the American Petroleum Institute (API) from 23 sites in 12
states, OUSTfbund cleanup costs to average about $370,000, with 23 percent of the total costs being
related to the site assessment phase and 62 percent being related to removing floating and dissolved
contamination and cleaning up soil. The remaining 15 percent of the costs were distributed among
closure, post-closure monitoring, and contractor oversight. Although the average cost of addressing
these sites appears high, the API sample consisted of expensive releases that were cleaned up prior i.-
-------
i and the development of state programs. The majority of the sites
i*« a«/1 hofl fmMin/lufQtar /vmf-aminaHnn
recent technology improvements am* *"» u*»&«/pi«v»«fc v» au»iw £»V6».~~~<
were cleaned up in the late 1980's and had groundwater contamination.
Results from a survey conducted by the Petroleum Marketers Association of America found
per-site costs for performing cleanups in 1991 averaging slightly over $57,000. A 1991 study
conducted by the University of Tennessee cited average costs for different cleanup scenarios:
$35,000 for simple soil contamination; $110,000 for complex soil contamination; $340,000 for simple
groundwater contamination; and $500,000 for complex groundwater contamination. In addition, the
University of Tennessee cited the average cost for an environmental assessment at $15,000.
In one northeastern state, average cleanup costs over the last couple of years from the state
fund were $60,000 per site. In one western state, data for 20 sites reported to have been completed
(but some of which may require additional work) indicated average costs of about $126,000. Almost
all of these cleanups involved very extensive soil removal and treatment.
In one southern state, the average allowable cost per closed claim (based on data from 153
sites) is almost $51,000. However, these costs refer only to allowable claim amount and, therefore,
do not reflect the total amount of funds spent at a site. In addition, the data indicated that additional
work may be required. Groundwater treatment costs will probably account for the majority of the
remaining costs.
As these sample data show, actual costs of cleanup are variable and still somewhat
unpredictable. In addition, average cleanup costs are misleading; the costs of cleanup are probably
more appropriately considered within a range of costs. Costs of remediating LUSTs can generally he
grouped into two cost classes-sites with soil contamination and sites with grouhdwater contamination.
The costs for remediating sites with soil contamination generally vary between $10,000 and $125,000.
Costs for remediating sites with groundwater contamination can range from $100,000 to over $1
million depending on the extent of contamination. For example, if a sole-source drinking water
supply is contaminated, the cleanup would be very extensive and quite costly.
t
Efforts To Control Costs
Because of the high costs of cleanup, limited state and federal funds, and concern about small
owners and operators having the funds to pay for cleanup, it is essential to identify opportunities tor
reducing costs and streamlining corrective action processes. One of OUST's top priorities is assisting
in the streamlining of corrective action programs and promoting innovative site investigation and
cleanup technologies. The long-term results should be faster, more protective, and lower cost
cleanups, as well as reduced cleanup backlogs and lessened adverse economic impacts. To
demonstrate the Agency's commitment towards these goals, OUST created a financial incentive tor
states in the national UST program to initiate and complete more cleanups. EPA rewards states th.n
have a higher percentage of cleanups initiated and cleanups completed with additional Trust Fund
money. -- -
10
-------
r^^^
w,th cleanup contractors to reduce the costs of cleaninTu^ LUSTs F g' neS°tiati"g
Promoting Innovative Technologies
-------
waiting for the results of laboratory analysis. (Laboratory resuUs are costly an4 cantaketwo weeks
to four months to obtain.) EPA's Region 4 office just completed a major initiative to educate state
staff and contractors in all eight of its states on expedited site assessment technologies. Region 4
estimates that about 600 people received the training.
As training and demonstration projects progress, improved technologies are gaining, wider _
acceptance. New Jersey has proposed a rule change that would allow site assessments based on field
mSirements at selected sites. An estimated two-thirds of the states^smg mnovative^
technologies at least on a pilot or field-testing basis. EPA will continue^ provide assistance to
stimulate widespread use of these cost- and time-saving technologies.
COSTS OF CLEANUP
EPA and the states are concerned about the costs of cleaning upreleases from USTs. This
section identifier some of the factors that affect cleanup costs, presents E|\'s estimates of costs of
Sup providesExamples of cleanup costs based on data from statef an|other sources, and outlines
some of EPA's efforts to reduce costs associated with cleanups.
Costs of remediating or cleaning up releases can vary greatly and can be influenced by several
factors Promptrrponse to releases cari help to reduce cleanup costs. In cases where groundwater ,s
affS, Ae^sts of cleaning up releases are-increased significantly. Factors that influence cost
include: - .-.? ,
Volume of release; "3
Extent of soil and groundwater contamination;
Geologic and hydrogeolbgic characteristics;
Amount of time elapsed before initiating cleanup;
Level of competition provided by the procurement process;
Site assessment and cleanup technology chosen;
Extent of sampling required;
Levels of cleanup required; .
Burden of state procedures for qualifying for and obtaining funds from state assurance
programs; and
Reporting requirements of the state.
Initial Estimates Of Costs . -.-.,.
At the beginning of the UST program, at a time when few UST cleanups had been
undertaken EPA estimated corrective action costs for planning purposes and for inclusion in the
ReSw Impact Analysis for its technical standards. EPA estimated that a release of a typ.cal s,/c
S S $70,000 to address. CThis estimate is a weighted average based on a combma,on., ,
costs per cleanup activity and the likelihood that a given activity would be required.) The
made *e following assumptions: A site assessment and contaminated soil J^jSLTu ,
at every site at a cost of $20,000; the removal of a floating plume (i.e free product^
only half of all sites and would cost about $33,000; and removal of a dispersed plume (,. e .
-------
I
Streamlining Corrective Action
Streamlining Site Data
11
-------
The Texas Water Commission is testing an automated corrective action tracking and expert
advisor system that accepts site data from computer disk files. This system will both eliminate the
need for owners, operators, consultants, and contractors to submit data to the state in a paper format
and ensure that the data submitted are in the approved format. This system should reduce the amount
of time that state site managers need to spend reviewing and approving site investigation and
corrective action plans; therefore, it should expedite the number of cleanups being implemented.
New Mexico requires that the data needed for ranking a site be submitted within 7 days of
discovery, as opposed to the federal reporting requirement of 45 days for submitting data on initial
site characterization. This enables the state to speed up the process of ranking a site and initiating site
cleanup.
North Carolina decreased the number of days owners/operators wait for payment from the
State Fund from 98 days to 54 days, and the state intends to reduce this time to 30 days. The state
streamlined the process by developing standard forms and a fee schedule of reimbursable cleanup
activities and costs. Then, it conducted workshops across the state to train contractors in the new
payment procedures. State officials note that North Carolina has paid more cleanup costs in 1992
than hi the previous two years. Faster reimbursements are providing an incentive for timely
cleanups. North Carolina is currently working on site assessment and corrective action guidance as
well.
Streamlining Corrective Action Procedures
Some states (e.g., Connecticut, Delaware, Kansas) have streamlined their processes by
producing maps showing groundwater use and sensitivity. The cleanup regulations and guidance* t.-
these states are keyed to the mapped groundwater classification zones. This approach helps states
make quick, site-specific decisions, and reduces reporting burdens by using existing data (i.e., m.ips
that can be accessed very quickly. .
New Mexico sets priorities for free-product removal actions based on the extent of the tree-'
product contamination. ("Free product" is the term .for petroleum that is on the surface of the water
or between the particles of the soil and is generally accessible for removal or treatment.) New
Mexico limits free-product removal actions to sites where the free-product accumulation is thicker
than one inch. When free product is less than one inch thick, however, New Mexico requires th.n t
be addressed as part of an overall groundwater corrective action plan. The state established this
policy after it determined that its subsoils have a high clay content that tends to limit the migrati.
free product. The state also determined that common free-product removal technologies would r
highly effective at such sites and could even cause the spread of contamination to the subsoil.
Therefore, the state decided that remediation for sites wirn less than one inch of free product reqt
a comprehensive corrective action plan, that was more practicable, protective, and cost effective
r
n
r- :
Connecticut requires site-specific corrective action plans for only those sites for which it
issued a notice of violation for groundwater contamination. Sites with groundwater contaminatu -
more complicated to remediate than sites with soil contamination and require more extensive an.: .
to determine the appropriate remediation approach. Soil cleanups tend to be more routine; if th..
initiated immediately, they can reduce the likelihood that contamination will spread to ground*.
12
-------
Ohio has proposed a rule change that would allow a monitoring-only alternative for sites
where migration of the contaminant is unlikely, but the contamination could move and become a
threat to human health and the environment. For example, a monitoring only option could be used if
the groundwater is not suitable now or in the foreseeable future for drinking or human contact. This
option protects human health and the environment and allows state officials to focus On higher priority
sites.
As sites are submitted, the Kansas Trust Fund program either lists them as high ranking sites
or groups them into packages of 10 or more lower ranking sites. (Sites that meet the conditions listed
in the federal technical regulations for conducting site investigations are pilaced on the list of high
ranking sites.) Kansas immediately initiates site investigations and/or remediations at its high ranking
sites.. Monitoring occurs on two to three groups.of sites per month on the lower ranking sites. This
ranking allows Kansas to focus its resources on sites that are actually presenting a risk, to consistently
reduce the backlog of lower risk sites, and to maintain cost controls by working on a volume basis.
The Missouri program developed guidance documents that explained state requirements and
provided standard forms to submit the required site data. Since the guidance was distributed, average
contractor costs of producing tank closure reports have dropped from $3000 to $300.
After four years of streamlining, the Tennessee UST program has, reduced the average time
for contractors to design a site cleanup from almost two years to four months. The increased quality
and timeliness of contractor submissions has resulted in a savings to the slate of approximately 9,000
hours or 4.3 full-time positions per year. Otiier improvements have included improving
communication with field office staff, developing unproved guidance for corrective action plans,
standardizing correspondence, and reducing reporting requirements on lov/-risk sites.
Benefits Of Streamlining
These early successes have confirmed that EPA's approach to addressing the cleanup backlog
can work. A few state programs have worked aggressively at streamlining for several years and have
demonstrated that it is possible to provide effective oversight at a large number of sites while reducing
paperwork. Some programs are making promising revisions to their correjctive action processes that
allow simple cleanups at low-risk sites to proceed more quickly with better guidance and reduced
oversight. Many states have reaped benefits from communicating and working more effectively with
their "suppliers and customers"-contractors, consultants, tank owners and; operators, and the general
public. However, even in the most advanced programs, additional improvements are possible and
necessary hi order to meet the program's goals with the resources that are ilikely to be .available.
CONCLUSIONS
As discussed earlier in this document, on a national basis, confirmed releases are being
reported to implementing agencies at a rate of about 1,000 per week; at the state level, individual site
managers are overseeing up to 400 cases at a time. The number of confirmed releases is expected t. >
level off at about 320,000 releases during fiscal year 1995. (EPA estimates that'about twenty percent
of the regulated universe of 1.6 million USTs is leaking.) The rate of confirmed releases is expects
».*" ' ,' .
13 ' " ' : -
-------
to slow after December 22,1993, the date by which all UST owners and operators must have
installed release detection systems. With current resources, states and responsible parties are
initiating cleanups at about 36,000 sites per year and completing cleanups at about 16,000 sites per
year.
Although streamlining efforts have been effective at improving corrective action processes and
increasing the number of cleanups underway, it will be increasingly difficult to keep up with the
growth of confirmed releases. Cleanups are expected to become more difficult as states start
remediating the more complicated and expensive groundwater sites. The majority of cleanups that
have already been completed are sites at which the soil (and not the groundwater) had been
contaminated. Cleanups at soil-contaminated sites are easier, less time consuming, and less costly to
complete than cleanups at groundwater-contaminated sites.
Because contamination may spread in the interim, delays in approving site cleanup work can
substantially increase the costs of cleanups. 'Added delays can also disrupt businesses for longer than
necessary, making cleanups more burdensome for many owners-and operators, especially small
businesses. "' - -
To address soine of these concerns, one of OUST's top priorities will continue to be
streamlining corrective action processes and promoting innovative site investigation and cleanup
technologies. OUST will continue both to encourage state managers and staff to use Total Quality
Management (TQM) techniques to help them identify delays and opportunities for improvement as
well as to provide assistance to states as they modify then- procedures or seek ways to improve
performance in the field. The UST program will continue to promote the, use of innovative site
assessment and cleanup technologies hi cooperative efforts with contractors, consultants, tank owners
and operators, and state and local implementing agencies. The UST program will continue to provide
financial incentives for states to reduce administrative delays hi completing cleanups.
It is also essential for the UST program to focus on prevention activities to prevent future
releases from occurring and to detect ongoing releases as early as possible. Detecting releases at an
early stage can minimize the spread of contamination, allow for early initiation and completion of
cleanups, and reduce the costs of cleanups. Consequently, enforcement of the technical requirements
of the prevention program will continue to be a priority for the UST pratram.. Enforcement efforts
will include: Developing a federal field citation capability hi each region; focusing federal
enforcement on states with low enforcement activity; providing training and conducting joint
inspections to upgrade state inspector capability; and encouraging states to use non-traditional, low-
cost compliance tools such as field citations, compliance mailings, and making release detection
compliance a condition of receiving state funds for cleanup.
Because a crucial component of the federal UST program 5s the approval of state programs.
EPA's regions will continue to provide assistance to strengthen state programs, help streamline the
state program approval (SPA) process, and facilitate amending state regulations. The Agency will
continue to use Trust Fund monies as an incentive for obtaining SPA by awarding states that have
obtained (or are cKse to obtaining) state program approval. The majority of the states are expected to
have then- programs approved by the end of Fiscal Year 1995. -
14
-------
Exhibit 1
Program Trends in the Number of Confirmed Releases,
Cleanups Initiated, and Cleanups Completed
\ - *« 'py v* f "
250,000
CO
Q. 200,000
CO
Q) 150,000
o
CD
JD
100,000 -
50,000 -
1990
1991
Fiscal Year
1992
Confirmed Releases Cleanups Initiated | Cleanups Completed
Percentages shown indicate the number of cleanups initiated and completed relative to the number of confirmed releases.
Cleanups completed are a subset of cleanups initiated. All numbers are cumulative to date.
-------
Exhibit 2
Growth Rate of Confirmed Releases, Cleanups Initiated,
; and Cleanups Completed
200,000
i i i i i
I II III IV I
HI IV I .11 Ml IV I II HI IV I I' "."I IV
1988
1991
1989 1990
Fiscal Year
Confirmed Releases Cleanups Initiated Cleanups Completed
B .--A-- >
, .llll,,...V,,ii,|.i,-i,-.i-,u.! a suhsel ol cleanups miliated. All numbers are cumulative to date.
1992
-------
Exhibits
UST State Program Approval Status
(December 10, 1992)
CZJ-oc
Approval Status
- Final (10 slates)
K&8$3 - Tentative ( 0 states)
I:':I-!;:;.:I- Draft (22 stales)
» -« -^. «* <« V«i* »< »» >ubmi
-------
Exhibit 4
Cumulative Appropriations to EPA Versus Cumulative Money
Collected in the LUST Trust Fund
$1,200 '
--$1,000
c
:§ $800
C $600 -
Si $400 -
"
O $200
$0
89
90
Cumulative Appropriations
to EPA
91 92
Fiscal Year
Cumulative Trust Fund Monies
Collected by Treasury
piojccted1
-------
600 r-
ExhibitS
Tims Required to Complete Various Stages of
Minnesota's UST Corrective Action Process
Standard Letter Soil Treatment2 Ground Water Corrective Closure3
Pump & Treat2 Action Design2
Cleanup Events
1988
1989
1990
1991
1 Sent to owners/operators to require initiation of cleanup.
2 insufficient sample size to determine median duration in 1991
3 Closure indicates that no further act.on is currently required at the site. Low 1991 median partially attributable to high percentage
ul soil-only sites.
-------
------- |