&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
The National LUST Cleanup Backlog:
A Study of Opportunities
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
FOREWORD
The Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) undertook this
analysis to characterize the backlog of underground storage tank (UST) releases that have not finished cleanup. Using this
report, EPA intends to enter into discussion with the states about specific strategies that could help reduce the backlog. The
purpose of this document is to establish a common basis of understanding about the different types of releases within the
backlog. The study presents a substantial amount of data analysis because the national program does not routinely collect
this level of data. The national chapter includes a cumulative analysis and discussion of the data from the 14 states that
participated in the study. Following the national chapter are 14 state chapters, explaining each state program and the detailed
characteristics of the state's backlog. Each state chapter has its own Executive Summary.
The national and state chapters present information and data findings characterizing the attributes of releases within the
backlog (e.g., age, priority, and stage of cleanup). Classification of release attributes provides information that will allow
state programs to focus on specific areas of the backlog that might benefit from backlog reduction efforts, such as unassessed
releases or high priority releases. Along with each data finding, EPA identifies potential opportunities to help reduce the
backlog. These opportunities come from successful backlog reduction efforts in the 14 states and other national initiatives
that help drive backlog reduction. EPA offers these potential opportunities not as recommendations but as a starting point
for discussion about strategies that might prove effective at reducing the backlog in some states. EPA recognizes that state
programs vary and not every strategy or opportunity will apply to every state program. This report provides the basis for
detailed discussion about where to focus limited resources with the ultimate goal of furthering national cleanup progress.
This study was done by EPA in cooperation with 14 state UST programs. The findings, opportunities, and next steps discussed
in the study refer consistently to EPA and states. That being said, EPA wishes to express that addressing leaking underground
storage tanks (LUSTs) in Indian country is also a high priority for the program. While this study does not specifically address
Indian country, many of the potential opportunities discussed in this report might also apply to releases in Indian country.
EPA intends to take the lessons learned in this state-focused study and work with our tribal partners to implement backlog
reduction strategies.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
EPA is grateful for the cooperation, time, and effort the 14 states contributed to this study. The UST staff of California, Florida,
Illinois, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Texas, and Washington State provided data and expertise about their state programs without which this study could not have
been accomplished.
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword ii
Table of Contents iii
List of Acronyms vi
National Chapter
Executive Summary ES-1
Introduction 1
LUST Cleanup Backlog Study-Phase 1 3
LUST Cleanup Backlog Study-Phase 2 3
Analysis and Discussion 8
Analysis Factor: Age of Releases 8
Analysis Factor: Stage of Cleanup 12
Analysis Factor: Media Contaminated 15
Analysis Factor: State Program Resources 20
Analysis Factor: Release Prioritization 28
Additional Analyses 31
Additional Proposed Reasons for the Backlog Not Analyzed in this Study 41
Potential Opportunities to Reduce the Backlog 42
Accelerating Corrective Action 42
Pursuing Targeted Initiatives 44
Improving Program Implementation 45
Next Steps 47
Conclusion... ...49
State Chapters
California
Florida
Illinois
Michigan
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Texas
Washington State
Appendix A: Data Compilation and Analytic Methodology.
Appendix B: Phase 1 Report
.. CA-1
...FL-1
....IL-1
.. Ml-l
. MT-1
..NE-1
. NH-1
...NJ-1
.. NY-1
..NC-1
.. PA-1
.. SC-1
...TX-1
.WA-1
....A-l
...B-l
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
List of Figures in the National Chapter
Figure 1. National LUST Cleanup Backlog, FY 1989 - FY 2009 2
Figure 2. LUST Cleanups Completed Nationally, FY 2000 - FY 2009 2
Figure 3. LUST Confirmed Releases Nationally, FY 2000 - FY 2009 2
Figure 4. Rank of State LUST Cleanup Backlogs, by 2006 and 2009 End of Year
Reporting 4
Figure 5. Contribution of 14 Participating States to the National LUST Backlog in
2006 4
Figure 6. Map Highlighting States Participating in Phase 2 of the LUST Cleanup
Backlog Study 5
Figure 7. FY 2009 Change in State LUST Cleanup Backlogs, from Largest
Reduction to Largest Increase 5
Figure 8. Percentage of Confirmed LUST Releases That Remain Open or Have
Been Closed in 14 States 8
Figure 9. Age Distribution of Open LUST Releases in 14 States 9
Figure 10. Percentage of Open and Closed LUST Releases, by Participating State 9
Figure 11. Age Distribution of Open LUST Releases, by Participating State 10
Figure 12. Age Distribution of Closed LUST Releases in 14 Participating States 10
Figure 13. Age Distribution of Closed LUST Releases, by Participating State 11
Figure 14. Age of Closed LUST Releases in 14 States at Time of Closure, by Year.... 11
Figure 15. Distribution of Open LUST Releases in 13 States by Stage of Cleanup .... 13
Figure 16. Distribution of Open LUST Releases by Stage of Cleanup, by
Participating State 13
Figure 17. Distribution of Open LUST Releases 10 Years Old or Older in 13 States,
by Stage of Cleanup 14
Figure 18. Age Distribution of Open LUST Releases in 13 States by Stage of
Cleanup 14
Figure 19. Distribution of Open LUST Releases in 11 States by Media
Contaminated 16
Figure 20. Distribution of Open LUST Releases by Media Contaminated, by State.. 16
Figure 21. Distribution of Open LUST Releases per Year in 11 States, by Known
Media Type (1990-2008) 17
Figure 22. LUST Cleanups Completed Nationally, FY 1990 - FY 2009 17
Figure 23.
Figure 24.
Figure 25.
Figure 26.
Figure 27.
Figure 28.
Figure 29.
Figure 30.
Distribution of Closed Releases per Year in 11 States, by Known
Media Type (FY 1990-2008) 18
Distribution of LUST Releases with Contaminated Groundwater and
Soil by Stage of Cleanup in UStates 18
Distribution of LUST Releases with Contaminated Groundwater and
Soil, by Stage of Cleanup and State 19
Median Age of Open LUST Releases with Groundwater and Soil
Impacts, by Participating State 19
Age of State Fund Eligible Cleanups, by Stage of Cleanup, by State 22
Age of State-Funded Cleanups, by Stage of Cleanup, by State 22
State Fund Eligibility in FL, NC, NH, SC, and TX 22
Percentage of LUST Releases to be Financed with State Funds, 11
States...
23
Figure 31. Age of Privately-Financed Cleanups by Stage of Cleanup, by State 24
Figure 32. Percentage of Pre-1994 LUST Releases with Unknown FR in 11
Participating States 25
Figure 33. Pre-1994 LUST Releases with Unknown FR in 11 Participating States,
by Stage of Cleanup 25
Pre-1994 LUST Releases with Unknown FR, by Participating State 25
Figure 34.
Figure 35.
Average State Fund Spending at Active and Closed LUST Cleanups, by
State ... ... 26
Figure 36. Average Cost per Completed LUST Cleanup 26
Figure 37. Average Caseloads of Oversight Staff in States with State Cleanup
Funds 27
Figure 38. Priority Ranking of LUST Releases Among Eight Participating States
with Priority Data, by State 29
Figure 39. Stage of Cleanup of High Priority LUST Releases in Eight Participating
States 29
Figure 40. Age Distribution of High Priority LUST Releases in the Confirmed
Release or Site Assessment Stages in Eight Participating States 29
Figure 41. LUST Release Priority Among Eight States with Priority Data 30
Figure 42. Open LUST Releases Above and Below the Cleanup Threshold for
Three States with Statutory Priority 30
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Figure 43. Use of MNA/Passive Remediation vs. Active Remediation at LUST
Releases in the Remediation Stage, by State 32
Figure 44. Age Distribution of LUST Releases Undergoing MNA/Passive
Remediation, by State 32
Figure 45. Presence of Free Product at Open LUST Releases in California 33
Figure 46. Age of Open LUST Releases with Free Product Present in California 33
Figure 47. Presence of Free Product at Open LUST Releases in South Carolina,
by Stage of Cleanup 34
Figure 48. Age of Open LUST Releases with Free Product Present in South
Carolina 34
Figure 49. Recalcitrance of RPs of Open LUST Releases in New Jersey and Texas.... 34
Figure 50. Use of IC/ECs at LUST Releases, by State -1994 to 2008 36
Figure 51. Number of LUST Releases with Single Party Affiliation, in 12
Participating States 38
Figure 52. Open LUST Releases in 12 States by Type of AP/RP 38
Figure 53. Percent of Open LUST Releases Located Within One Mile of Five or
More Releases, by Participating State 39
Figure 54. LUST Cleanups in Florida and Along the Tamiami Scenic Highway
Route in Florida ... ... 39
List of Tables in the National Chapter
Table 1. Net Backlog Reduction Nationally, FY 2000 - FY 2009 2
Table 2. State Methods of Financing LUST Cleanups 21
Table 3. Types of LUST Release Prioritization by State 28
Table 4. Example of Tiered Approach to RBDM 35
Table 5. Affiliated or Potentially Responsible Parties with Ten or More Releases,
by State 38
Table 6. LUST Release Attributes and Their Value to Managers 40
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ANCOVA Analysis of Covariance
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
AP Affiliated Party
ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
ASTSWMO Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act
CHAID Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection
CRT Classification and Regression Tree
DOD United States Department of Defense
EDB Ethylene Dibromide
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Expedited Site Assessment
FR Financial Responsibility
FY Fiscal Year
IC/ECs Institutional/Engineering Controls
LSP Licensed Site Professional
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MNA Monitored Natural Attenuation
MSA Multi-Site Agreement
MT DEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality
MTBE Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
NC DOT North Carolina Department of Transportation
NH DES New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
NY DEC New York Department of Environmental Conservation
OUST Office of Underground Storage Tanks
PA DEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
PFP Pay for Performance
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
PVI Petroleum Vapor Intrusion
QUEST Quick, Unbiased, Efficient Statistical Test
RBCA Risk-Based Corrective Action
RBDM Risk-Based Decision-Making
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RP Responsible Party
UST Underground Storage Tank
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Leaks from underground storage tanks (USTs) represent a threat to America's finite
groundwater and land resources. Even a small amount of petroleum released
from a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) can contaminate groundwater, the
drinking water source for nearly half of all Americans. From the beginning of the
UST program to September 2009, more than 488,000 releases were confirmed from
federally-regulated USTs nationwide.1 Cleaning up LUST releases is a joint federal
and state responsibility under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). The states are the primary implementers of the UST program, and they
have made significant progress addressing these releases. The numbers show the
tremendous effort and achievement states made since the beginning of the program.
By the end of fiscal year (FY) 2009, states completed 388,331 national LUST backlog
cleanups. This substantial number represents closure of 80 percent of the national
total of confirmed releases. In addressing these releases, individual states developed
approaches to assist with the reduction of the backlog. These approaches can
assist states in addressing the remaining national cleanup backlog of 100,165 open
confirmed releases (as of FY 2009).2 To further address the LUST cleanup backlog
and examine potential opportunities to foster backlog reduction, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invited 14 states to participate in a national
backlog characterization study. These 14 states include the ten states with the largest
backlog numbers for FY 2006, when the selection process began, plus an additional
four states to represent the remaining EPA regions.
EPA defines the LUST cleanup backlog as those releases that have not reached
"cleanup completed" status. Many of the releases in the backlog are currently being
addressed but have not completed cleanup; nationally, 95 percent of releases are
reported to have initiated site assessment or cleanup activities. However, the LUST
cleanup backlog also includes a significant number of legacy releases that are in a
long-term cleanup process or are awaiting cleanup. Many releases have been in
cleanup for several years, often because they are complex and difficult cleanups.
Other releases might be close to closure but have not reached closure status because
of a state's need to address higher priority releases first.
The ten states with the largest backlogs accounted for 61 percent of the national LUST
cleanup backlog.3 The remaining four states added five percent. Collectively, these
states represented a significant portion of the remaining national backlog. These 14
states provided EPA with the data from their LUST cleanup programs for this study. EPA
analyzed the data to better understand trends and patterns within the LUST cleanup
backlog. The report includes analyses from both a national perspective based on the
aggregate data collected from the 14 states and a state-by-state perspective based
on the individual state information. In both the national and state chapters, EPA
identifies data findings and then highlights potential backlog reduction opportunities
associated with those findings. EPA will use this study to lay the groundwork for
discussions with all states and other stakeholders on how to continue reduction of
the national LUST cleanup backlog, develop targeted backlog reduction strategies,
and further cleanup progress.
While analyzing state data, EPA discovered the availability and quality of data varied
across the states. Recognizing that state databases were not purposefully designed
to support this study, EPA and the states agree that a one-time data collection might
not entirely reflect the ongoing work at all the releases in the LUST cleanup backlog.
In order to depict the available data as accurately as possible, EPA worked closely
with the 14 states to ensure that the correct data elements were selected for analysis
based on each state-specific program and accurately discussed any data limitations or
caveats within the context of the report. EPA analyzed the following areas using the
data from the 14 participating states, as available.
1 The count of releases includes multiple releases at individual facilities.
2 EPA, Semi-Annual Report of UST Performance Measures End of Fiscal Year 2009.
September 30, 2009. www.epa.gov/oust/cat/ca 09 34.pdf.
3 EPA used the 2006 End of Year Report to determine the top ten backlog states and the
associated percentages. EPA, Semi-Annual Report of UST Performance Measures End of
Fiscal Year 2006. November 14, 2006. www.epa.gov/oust/cat/ca 06 34.pdf.
SEPTEMBER 2011
ES-1
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Age of Release
The 14 states in the study had closed 71 percent of their combined backlog at the time
of data collection. Although this was below the national total of 80 percent, closing
173,208 releases is a significant accomplishment. For the more than 70,000 open
releases in the 14 states, EPA looked at the age distribution to better understand the
prevalence and characteristics of old releases in the LUST cleanup backlog. Nearly
half of open releases
Figure ES-1. Age Distribution of Open LUST Releases in 14 States
were 15 years old or
older (Figure ES-1 to
the right). Although
the time to closure will
vary depending on the
circumstances of each
particular release, EPA
believes it is important
for the states to
explore opportunities
to accelerate cleanups
at older releases and
work toward bringing
old releases to closure.
dj
Q.
O
50-
40-
2o-
,,,-10,043 10'595
10 14% 15%
Release Age in Years
0-4.9
5-9.9
10 -14.9
20+
Release Age
Figure ES-2. Distribution of Open LUST Releases in 13
States by Stage of Cleanup
18,452
27% O Confirmed Release
L~] Site Assessment
Q Remediation
Stage of Cleanup
EPA assessed cleanup progress
at open releases to further
understand the factors that
impact LUST cleanups. Analysis
showed that work had started
at the majority of the backlog
releases in the participating
states. Twenty-seven percent
of releases had not started
assessment (Figure ES-3 above,
right). Fewer than 50 percent had begun remediation. The analysis also found that
many of the releases in the early stages of cleanup were old (Figure ES-3 above,
right). EPA will work with the states to look for opportunities to move cleanups
toward closure.
Figure ES-3. Age Distribution of Open LUST Releases in 13 States by Stage of Cleanup4
50- Confirmed Site
Release Assessment Remediation
«- y,
O ro
4-J
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Cleanup Financing
Cleanup financing and state program staffing to oversee LUST cleanups are
fundamental resources that affect a state's ability to address its backlog. EPA analyzed
available financing data from the 14 participating states, including the type of financial
responsibility (FR) mechanism in use for releases in the backlog, cleanup costs where
available, and state resources for cleanup oversight. Data and discussions with state
staff indicated the following:
Insufficient state fund financing leads to the indefinite postponement of many
state-financed cleanups;
Many releases in states with UST cleanup funds were considered ineligible for
state fund financing;
Many old privately-financed cleanups remain in the early stages of cleanup;
On average, states were spending more money per ongoing cleanup than was
spent to complete earlier, closed cleanups; and
State fund staff caseloads had doubled since 1998 and included a greater
proportion of complex groundwater cleanups (Figure ES-5 below).
Large staff workloads and funding limitations affect the reduction of the backlog. EPA
believes reducing cleanup costs, streamlining cleanup oversight, using alternative
and/or integrated sources of financing, and positioning responsible parties (RPs) to
act more promptly provide further opportunities to strengthen resources available to
reduce state backlogs.
Figure ES-5. Average Caseloads of Oversight Staff in States with State Cleanup Funds
250
207
Release Priority
EPA recognizes state programs do not have sufficient staff and financial resources to
advance all LUST releases through the cleanup process simultaneously. Several states
have implemented prioritization systems to direct their limited funding and staff
oversight resources to the highest priority sites first. Of the eight states in this study
using LUST-specific priority systems, open releases exist in all priority categories,
including high priority (Figure ES-6 below). One of the significant findings of the study is
that 956 high priority releases had not started site assessment and, more importantly,
60 percent of these high priority releases were 10 years old or older (Figure ES-7
below). This is an area of the study where EPA spent substantial time responding to
state concerns that this number was potentially inflated due to data quality issues.
EPA revised the original number to
account for specific data quality Figure ES-6. LUST Release Priority Among Eight
comments, but the revised data States with Priority Data
continued to show high priority
releases that had not started site
assessment. EPA intends to work
with the states to address any data
quality issues concerning high
priority releases and to ensure
risks to human health and the
environment from high priority
releases are addressed as quickly
as possible.
Figure ES-7. Age Distribution of High Priority LUST Releases in the Confirmed Release Stage
in Eight Participating States
Release Age in Years
0-4.9
D 5-9.9
10-14.9
15-19.9
20 +
I Unknown
Confirmed Release
(956 releases)
11,648
26%
High
Q Medium
| Low
I Unknown
SEPTEMBER 2011
ES-3
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Multi-Site Approaches
Data analysis shows there were parties responsible
for or affiliated with multiple releases. In most cases,
the parties were private entities, but there were also
federal, state, and local government parties (Figure
ES-8 to the right). EPA believes that, in some cases,
states might achieve economies of scale by developing
multi-site cleanup approaches with parties responsible
for or affiliated with multiple releases.
In addition to multi-site agreements, state programs
have successfully moved multiple cleanups forward
by focusing attention on area-wide planning and
corridor work in specific geographic areas. Analysis
of the available data indicates 56 percent of releases
were located within clusters of five or more other
releases. In some cases, states found efficiencies by
approaching the assessment and cleanup needs of
an area impacted by LUSTs rather than focusing on
individual sites.
Figure ES-8. Open LUST
Releases in 12 States by Type
of RP6
860 3,326
2%
502
1%-
42,217
90%
Private
Federal government
State government
Local government
Data Management
Analysis found states participating in this study had not consistently maintained
electronic data on all important release attributes. EPA believes accurate and
complete data on a state's backlog will improve the ability of state program managers
to efficiently manage their cleanups.
SUMMARY
Many interrelated factors affect the pace of cleanup, including the availability
and mechanisms of funding, statutory requirements, and program structure. The
prevalence of groundwater contamination also impacts the cleanup of releases in
the LUST backlog. EPA is aware state cleanup programs face obstacles to reducing
their backlogs. States lack resources to fully address all these expensive cleanups
in the near term and the recent economic downturn has also had an impact on
states' ability to make progress on cleanups. State cleanup funds and staff are often
stretched thin, and cleanup costs are increasing. Furthermore, although many states
are responsible for financing the majority of their current and future cleanups, the
data indicate many cleanups are left with uncertain financing.
State programs use various strategies to address limited resources, such as prioritizing
releases to focus on the worst sites first. These practices have positive benefits:
6 The 12,632 releases without affiliated party (AP)/RP data listed are not included in this
graphic.
they address the highest risks to human health and the environment and protect
state environmental resources. However, they also can contribute to the backlog,
especially where statutory requirements and large staff caseloads prevent some
state programs from completing easier, lower priority closures. Leaving unaddressed
contamination over a long time can lead to potentially more complex and expensive
cleanups in the future.
It is important to understand that in writing this report, EPA is in no way advocating
that a state compromise protection of human health or the environment or meeting
its cleanup standards in order to generate more backlog reduction. EPA's definition
of "cleanup completed" is met when the state determines that no further actions
are currently necessary to protect human health and the environment.7 Protecting
human health and groundwater resources is the core mission of the UST program.
States set cleanup standards as appropriate for the conditions within each state. EPA's
goal, however, is to encourage efficiency and effectiveness in completing cleanups.
In addition to the findings, this report identifies potential backlog reduction
opportunities. These opportunities are related to three main categories:
accelerating corrective action, pursuing targeted initiatives, and improving program
implementation. These opportunities represent a starting point for the development
of backlog reduction strategies. Many state programs use backlog reduction
strategies, and most of the potential opportunities described in this report are based
on these state backlog reduction strategies or national tools that are already available
to state programs. State backlog reduction efforts include: data and file reviews
and the use of temporary staff (e.g., interns or contractors) to close out releases,
expedited site assessments, multi-site agreements to encourage RP activity, utilization
of pay-for-performance (PFP) and other incentives for contractors to reach closure,
enforcement against recalcitrant parties, and examining other sources of funding such
as public or private partnerships including referring eligible releases to brownfields
programs or other programs like state voluntary cleanup programs. EPA wants to
highlight these efforts, encourage sharing of best practices, and continue to build on
states' successes. The potential opportunities identified throughout this study are
not intended as specific recommendations. They are meant to open dialogue with
states and other stakeholders on all opportunities to reduce the national cleanup
backlog and to serve as the basis for the backlog reduction strategies that EPA intends
to develop jointly with our state partners.
Next steps for EPA include working with the states to identify and implement
backlog reduction strategies, exploring further questions about the existing backlog,
examining funding issues for LUST cleanups, looking at cleanup goals and milestones,
and supporting the states in improving LUST program management.
7 An implicit part of this determination is that the cleanup meets risk-based standards for
human exposure and groundwater migration. EPA, UST And LUST Performance Measures
Definitions. www.epa.gov/oust/cat/PMDefinitions.pdf
ES-4
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
INTRODUCTION
Cleanup of leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) is regulated under Subtitle I
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). One of the primary goals of
the RCRA statute is to protect America's resources. Leaks from underground storage
tanks (USTs) represent a threat to America's groundwater and land resources. Even
a small amount of petroleum released from an LIST can contaminate groundwater,
the drinking water source for nearly half of all Americans. In surveys of state water
programs, 39 states and territories identified USTs as a major source of groundwater
contamination.8 As the reliance on our resources increases due to the rise in
population and use, there is a correspondingly greater need to protect our finite
natural resources.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) undertook this study to lay
the groundwork for discussion about the remaining LUST cleanups in the program.
The report presents findings based on the data collected from the states participating
in the study and then introduces potential opportunities for backlog reduction based
on state backlog reduction efforts and tools available within the national program.
All parties, including EPA and the states, have limited resources. Therefore, it is
useful to collect and highlight more detailed opportunities about greater efficiencies
gained, leveraging resources and state program successes. These opportunities are
not recommendations for specific states but serve as examples of options for states
to consider. State programs differ and the impact of issues faced by each state might
differ. In addition, states have varying requirements that will determine the effective
approaches in each state. EPA and the states will have to work jointly to determine
the best approaches for backlog reduction for states and the national program. This
report is the foundation for these discussions.
EPA'sUST program is primarily implemented by states and territories. Subtitle I of RCRA
allows state UST programs approved by EPA to operate in lieu of the federal program.
States implement the release prevention, detection, and cleanup requirements
promulgated by EPA. State cleanup programs have a great deal of flexibility in how to
pursue and complete LUST cleanups. On a semi-annual basis, EPA compiles national
LUST cleanup measures provided by state cleanup programs to track the national
progress in cleaning up releases. The states have made significant progress cleaning
up LUST releases. From the beginning of the UST program to September 2009, states
confirmed 488,496 releases from federally-regulated USTs nationwide, and the states
EPA, National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report, pp. 50-52.
www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/chp6.pdf.
completed cleanups at 388,331 releases (80 percent of the national total).9 However,
LUST releases that had not been cleaned up (open releases) remained in every state.
This group of open releases is commonly referred to as the LUST cleanup backlog.
The backlog is a function of the number of confirmed releases and the number of
cleanups completed each year. EPA recognizes the term backlog can be misleading
if it is interpreted to mean that nothing has been done at these releases. This
interpretation is not supported by EPA or the performance data collected nationally
by EPA. Based on EPA's2009 semi-annual report of UST performance measures, most
of the releases in the national backlog were in assessment or remediation at the
time data were collected for this study. In fact, assessment or cleanup was reported
to have started at 463,000 releases nationally (95 percent of the national backlog).
Many states regulate additional releases beyond the scope of federally-regulated
releases (e.g., above ground storage tanks), but this report only covers the backlog of
open releases at federally-regulated USTs.
Although states had made great progress in cleaning up LUST releases, the backlog
remained sizable at the time this study began. For the first several years of the UST
program, many more releases were discovered than were cleaned up, often because
older releases were being discovered and reported to the states and EPA along with
new releases. This led to an increase in the number of LUST cleanups through the
early 1990s. The national backlog reached a high of 172,363 open releases in fiscal
year (FY) 1995 and steadily decreased to 100,165 releases at the end of FY 2009
(Figure 1, page 2). Collectively, as the states completed cleanups at a faster pace
than new releases were discovered the LUST cleanup backlog has reduced in size, but
the annual net reduction of the LUST cleanup backlog has declined since 2000.10 The
annual number of closures decreased almost every year since FY 2000 (Figure 2, page
2), while the annual number of newly confirmed releases decreased sharply between
FY 2000 and FY 2001 and trended downward more gradually from FY 2002 to FY 2009
but remained above 7,000 (Figure 3, page 2). The annual net backlog reduction since
2000 ranged from 8,688 to 4,460 (Table 1, page 2).
9 EPA, Semi-Annual Report of UST Performance Measures End of Fiscal Year 2009.
September 30, 2009. For detailed definitions of UST Performance Measures, see:
www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/PMDefinitions.pdf. Fiscal year 2009 performance measures
were the most recent data at the time of this analysis.
10 New releases include newly discovered releases. States often do not have information
on when the release actually occurred, so a release that is new to the program might
have occurred years ago.
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Figure 1. National LUST Cleanup Backlog, FY 1989 - FY 2009
200,000
00
_o
u
re
00
"re
c
o
V
re
Z
"in"
01
re
01
01
oc
c
01
Q.
O
^
O
01
.a
E
3
^
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
Fiscal Year
Source: EPA End of Year UST Performance Measures report, available online at: www.epa.gov/oust/cat/camarchv.htm.
Figure 2. LUST Cleanups Completed Nationally, FY 2000 - FY 2009
18,000 n
g g
35
c re
sz
E in
i_ 01
^ in
c re
o ^!
u 01
tc
16,000 -
14,000 -
12,000
10,000
8,000
Fiscal Year
Source: EPA End of Year UST Performance Measures report, available online at:
www.epa.gov/oust/cat/camarchv.htm.
Table 1. Net Backlog Reduction Nationally, FY 2000 - FY 200911
2000
Net Backlog Reduction
4,460
2001
8,041
2002
5,247
2003
8,688
2004
6,506
2005
2006
6,132
2007
6,292
2008
5,404
2009
5,776
Figure 3. LUST Confirmed Releases Nationally, FY 2000 - FY 2009
25,000
i/> c 20,000
Q. o
i v
to 5 15,000
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
In addition, even though states report work starting at almost 95 percent of the
releases nationally, this study reveals many releases remaining in the backlog take
a long time to reach closure. Characteristically, these releases were very old, and
most affect groundwater. Many of the releases impacting groundwater have been
in cleanup for several years, often because they are complex and difficult cleanups.
Some of the releases might have been close to closure but resources were shifted to
address higher priority releases. At other releases, work had stalled due to funding
or statutory limitations. This report seeks to highlight different characteristics of
releases in the LUST cleanup backlog and develop a basis for discussion about what
can potentially be done to improve backlog reduction for the releases in each subset.
Preventing releases will also play a role in backlog reduction, and EPA expects the
number of new releases to stay low over time, given ongoing release prevention
efforts.
Many interrelated factors contribute to the large size of the backlog and the length of
time to address it, including the characteristics of the sites remaining in the backlog
as well as the characteristics of individual state LUST cleanup programs. In fact,
features of individual state programs will likely prove to be a key factor in backlog
reduction. Until 2006, EPA had not performed an in-depth analysis of the national
LUST cleanup backlog, limiting what was known about the national cleanup backlog
and the declining pace of cleanups. At that time, EPA began a multi-phased effort to
more accurately characterize the backlog, better understand the potential reasons for
the decline in the annual number of cleanups completed, and identify opportunities
to mitigate this decline.
It is important to understand that in writing this report, EPA is in no way advocating
that a state compromise protection of human health or the environment or meeting
its cleanup standards in order to generate more backlog reduction. EPA's definition
of "cleanup completed" is met when the state determines that no further actions
are currently necessary to protect human health and the environment.12 Protecting
human health and groundwater resources is the core mission of the UST program.
States set cleanup standards as appropriate for the conditions within each state. EPA's
goal is, however, to encourage efficiency and effectiveness in completing cleanups.
12 An implicit part of this determination is that the cleanup meets risk-based standards for
human exposure and groundwater migration. EPA, UST And LUST Performance Measures
Definitions. www.epa.gov/oust/cat/PMDefinitions.pdf
LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG STUDY - PHASE 1
Phase 1 of the national backlog study analyzed November 2006 data compiled from
45 participating states and territories to develop a general characterization of the
national backlog.13 Where available, data included the age, media contaminated, and
geographic location of releases in these states. The scope of this examination was
limited, but the results of the Phase 1 backlog study indicated that, as of 2006, in the
104,884 open releases of those 45 states:14
64% of releases were concentrated in ten states;
54% were 10 years old or older;
59% impacted groundwater resources;15
16% impacted soil only, 40% of which had been in the backlog for 10 years or
more;
4% impacted media other than groundwater or soil;
21% lacked documentation of the media contaminated; and
There was an estimated $2.3 billion cleanup budget shortfall for the 24 states
with relevant data that could be analyzed.16
LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG STUDY - PHASE 2
The Phase 1 backlog study provided a glimpse into possible reasons for the decline
in the reduction of the cleanup backlog and formed the basis for further inquiry into
the existing national backlog. EPA began Phase 2 of the backlog study in 2008. It
was divided into three steps: identification of participating states; data identification,
compilation, and standardization; and data analysis. This report describes the findings
from the Phase 2 data analysis and introduces opportunities for discussion among
EPA and states on ways to further reduce the cleanup backlog. Relevant issues and
data from Phase 1 are also noted in this report.
13 A more complete discussion of the Phase 1 effort and results can be found in Appendix
B.
14 The 45 states analyzed in Phase 1 accounted for 104,884 releases out of a national total
for FY 2006 of 113,915 releases.
15 Because 21 percent of releases in Phase 1 lacked documentation of the media
contaminated, this percentage likely underestimates the number of releases actually
impacting groundwater. Of the releases with media contamination data in Phase 1, 75
percent impacted groundwater.
16 Estimate based on the number of unfinanced cleanups in each state and each state's
average cleanup cost at closure.
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Identification of Participating States
Using EPA's 2006 End of Year LIST Performance Measures
report, EPA identified the states with the top ten largest
contributions to the national backlog and, therefore,
the highest number of opportunities for cleanups. By
partnering with the top ten states, EPA analyzed 61
percent of releases in the FY 2006 national LUST cleanup
backlog (Figures 4 and 5 to the right).17 Partnering with
an additional state from each of the four EPA regions not
represented by the top ten states provided coverage of
all EPA regions and included an additional 5 percent of
the FY 2006 national cleanup backlog. The final group
of participants included 14 states from across all ten
EPA regions (Figure 6, page 5). Figure 4 also shows the
number of releases in the backlog remained relatively
proportionate between 2006 and 2009. In using 2009
data from these 14 states, EPA continued to capture data
on the majority of the LUST cleanup backlog.
Figure 4. Rank of State LUST Cleanup Backlogs, by 2006 and 2009 End of Year Reporting
in
re
_OJ
c
0)
O '
o
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Figure 6. Map Highlighting States Participating in Phase 2 of the LUST Cleanup Backlog Study
LEGEND
Q EPA Region Number
^^» Participating states are shown in full color,
^^ non-participating states are shaded
Percent of 2006
State National Backlog Rank
CA
FL
IL
Ml
MT
NC
NE
NH
NJ
NY
PA
SC
TX
WA
12
13
7
8
1
6
2
1
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
4
3
25
5
16
32
6
10
7
9
8
17
Source: 2006 End of Year UST Performance Measures report,
available online at: www.epa.gov/oust/cat/ca 06 34.pdf.
Figure 7. FY 2009 Change in State LUST Cleanup Backlogs, from Largest Reduction to Largest Increase
00
-70%
States with a reduction in backlog
Phase 2 Participating State
Non-participating State
=> o - g i=
States and Territories
Source: EPA End of Year UST Performance Measures report, available online at: www.epa.gov/oust/cat/camarchv.htm.
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Data Identification, Compilation, and
Standardization
EPA solicited comments from state program staff on the potential reasons for their
backlogs. State program staff proposed a number of possible reasons for their
backlogs and the factors affecting the pace of cleanup. EPA compiled these proposed
reasons, complemented the list with the results from the Phase 1 study, and used
the combined list to help identify attributes of interest for analysis. EPA did not have
the data to evaluate whether every reason listed below actually affected the pace of
cleanups but wanted to list all of the reasons given by the states.
States with more stringent cleanup standards have longer cleanup times and
more expensive cleanups.
The backlog is composed of many old releases with groundwater impacts that
take longer to clean up.
Low priority cleanups, often with soil-only contamination, are sometimes
deferred indefinitely.
Some old releases are not being actively addressed.
Current open cleanups of older complex releases are more costly than cleanups
completed in the past.
Some state programs are underfunded and/or understaffed and cannot move
all cleanups forward.
The use of separate organizations for LUST cleanup and enforcement dilutes
attention to cleanup.
The type and implementation of financial responsibility (FR) mechanisms affect
the pace of cleanups.
Cleanups where property transactions occur might receive staff priority before
other cleanups.
Older releases involve contaminants that require more time and resources to
fully remediate.
Cleanups relying on monitored natural attenuation take a long time to close.
Small businesses take longer than large businesses to clean up releases.
States are burdened with addressing a large number of abandoned "orphan"
releases.
Releases remain in the backlog due to a lack of economic incentives for
responsible parties (RPs) to close the releases and redevelop the sites.
Recalcitrant RPs delay cleanups.
Releases at active facilities take longer to clean up.
In some states, releases that are cleaned up based upon a health and
environmental threat priority system do not begin remediation until approved
by the state.
State statutory requirements that restrict the use of funds to a prioritization
system can limit the number of cleanups that are actively addressed.
For the Phase 2 analysis, EPA relied on detailed data from participating states'
databases. EPA attempted to examine the listed proposed reasons as part of the
backlog analysis effort. EPA assumed that many factors, including the type of FR
mechanism, use of institutional or engineering controls, treatment technologies,
and release priority could influence the pace of cleanup. EPA developed the list of
attributes necessary to examine these factors in more detail and distributed it to
participating states to aid in their data assembly efforts. In April 2008, EPA contacted
state program managers to compile information on state program characteristics
as well as a list of all the LUST-related data fields managed by each state program.
Once the states shared lists of their data fields with EPA, EPA assessed each data
field for accuracy, completeness, relation to attributes of interest in the analysis,
and electronic availability. In November 2008, EPA held conference calls with staff
at each state agency to discuss data quality and to identify final lists of data fields
for compilation and analysis. Between November 2008 and July 2009, state staff
provided EPA with data drawn from state databases, reports, and other sources in
a variety of formats, including text, database, Excel, and PDF files. EPA organized,
standardized, and compiled these data into databases for analysis. All data analyzed
in this report were collected during this timeframe, except where noted (e.g., Phase
1 data). In many cases, the states did not have available data allowing for release-
specific analysis of every proposed reason given above.
EPA compiled the data from the states into two major classifications: release attributes
and program attributes. Examples of release attributes include the type of media
contaminated, contaminants present, and the presence of free product. Examples
of program attributes include cleanup standards, release prioritization systems, and
other program structure elements. See Appendix A for a more detailed discussion of
data identification, collection, standardization, and categorization.
Data Analysis
From the inception of the Phase 2 study, EPA intended to perform extensive analyses
covering a large number of factors impacting state LUST cleanup backlogs. EPA
expected that information on basic release characteristics, remedial technologies,
spending on cleanups, current cleanup status, and other relevant data would be
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
stored in state databases. However, data quality and availability ultimately limited
the scope of the analysis. For example, while state program managers mentioned
that limited funding and the increasing cost of cleaning up releases are important
factors affecting their state backlogs, a lack of detailed data on cleanup costs and
funding availability limited the extent to which analysis could be performed.
Despite these limitations, EPA successfully employed statistical methods to analyze
the available data and characterize the backlog in each state; see Appendix A for the
description of the statistical methods used. Open releases were analyzed based on
release age (i.e., the number of years since the release was confirmed) and stage of
cleanup (i.e., how much progress had been made toward remediation or closure).
Using the release age and stage of cleanup, EPA studied the additional characteristics
of the releases that tend to persist in the backlog and have seen little progress toward
cleanup completion (i.e., closure). EPA then identified findings for each area of
analysis.
Findings and Opportunities Leading to Next
Steps
Throughout both the state and national chapters of the Phase 2 study, EPA identified
both findings and potential opportunities to further reduce the backlog, understanding
that states face limitations when implementing their LUST programs. The most
common issues states face are resource and staffing constraints. Other factors also
play a role in how states implement their programs, including state statutes, program
structure, and management practices. Discussion of opportunities and strategies
might encourage states to take a broader look at what could be done to improve
cleanup progress. EPA will use the results of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 backlog studies
to develop backlog reduction strategies in cooperation with the states. Several states
have backlog reduction strategies as an ongoing part of their programs, and their
experiences in this area will benefit the national discussion. No single strategy will
work for all states or all releases, but multiple strategies can be combined and tailored
to address state-specific circumstances. Successful backlog reduction strategies will
require aggressive implementation over the course of years to come. EPA plans to
engage all states in further discussion of these kinds of strategies and share best
practices nationwide.
The detailed results from this study are presented in the following Analysis and
Discussion section. EPA will use the findings from this study to help understand the
dominant backlog attributes among states and the characteristics that contribute to
the persistence of the LUST cleanup backlog. EPA and state partners will work to
identify and define clear roles for states and EPA and continue to work together to
foster the closure of LUST releases.
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the Phase 2 analysis show that many interrelated factors contribute to the persistence of the national LUST
cleanup backlog. Most LUST releases contaminate groundwater resources and require significant time and money to reach
closure. Although this basic characteristic of LUST contamination is a major driver of the persistence of the backlog, states also
face a variety of issues in addressing LUST releases. The limited availability of financing for LUST cleanups severely impacts
state programs' ability to move all cleanups toward remediation and closure. The recent economic downturn has impacted
the states' ability to implement their programs. In addition, state statutes, program structures, and management affect how
they address their backlog. These influential factors are discussed in this section, along with the aggregate data findings from
the 14 participating states. EPA also introduces potential opportunities that states could use to reduce certain areas of their
LUST cleanup backlogs. These potential opportunities are discussed in greater detail later in this report. EPA presents these
opportunities to foster discussions with the states and other stakeholders on possible approaches to addressing the LUST
cleanup backlog and improving cleanup progress. Many of these opportunities are derived from state activities that support
state backlog reduction efforts.
ANALYSIS FACTOR: AGE OF RELEASES
Age of Releases: Findings (14 States)
71% of LUST releases were closed.
71% of open releases were 10 years old
or older.
48% of open releases were 15 years old
or older.
14% of open releases were 20 years old
or older.
Figure 8. Percentage of Confirmed LUST
Releases That Remain Open or Have Been
Closed in 14 States19
The 14 states in the study have made significant strides in addressing their
backlogs. Together, they closed 173,208 releases (71 percent of their
combined backlog). Of the remaining open releases in their backlogs, many
were relatively old. Results from the Phase 1 study indicated that, in 2006,
more than half of releases in the national LUST cleanup backlog were 10
years old or older; therefore, the Phase 2 study was designed to focus on
characteristics of old releases.20 Time to closure will vary depending on the
circumstances of each particular release. However, if this pace continues,
the national LUST cleanup backlog will persist for many years. To better
understand the prevalence of old releases in the LUST cleanup backlog, the
Phase 2 study used the more detailed data provided by the states in 2009
to look at the age distribution of open releases. EPA calculated the age of a
release as the amount of time between the date the release was confirmed
and either 1) the date of closure (for closed releases) or 2) the date that the state provided its data to EPA for the study (for
open releases). Based on the analysis of the Phase 2 data, 71,814 releases remained open in their LUST cleanup backlogs
(Figure 8 above). Of those releases, 71 percent (50,014 releases) were 10 years old or older (Figures, page 9). In addition, 48
percent of releases (33,505 releases) were 15 years old or older.
Closed
173,208
71%
19 The number of open and closed releases in each state calculated in this study varies from the number of releases reported in EPA's
semi-annual UST performance measures reports. For more information, see the Data Sources Section of Appendix A.
20 A more complete discussion of the Phase 1 effort and results can be found in Appendix B.
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Age of Releases: Discussion
The 14 states had closed 173,208 releases and 71,814 open
releases remained in their LUST cleanup backlogs (Figure 8)
at the time data were compiled. Consistent with EPA policy,
closed releases include those where a confirmed release
does not actually require remediation but is counted as both
a release and a completed cleanup. Although the 14 states
closed 71 percent of releases overall, the percent of closed
releases varied significantly by state. For example, Florida
closed approximately half of its confirmed releases, whereas
New York closed 91 percent of its confirmed releases (Figure
10 below). This range in the number of closures can indicate
a state program's success at completing cleanups but could
also be partially attributed to the way that a state tracks and
defines closed releases.
Figure 9. Age Distribution of Open LUST Releases in 14 States
in
OJ
0)
DC
c
0)
Q.
O
C
0)
u
50-
40-
30-
Release Age in Years Data Limitation
23,763
20-
£ 10
10,043
14%
0-
0-4.9
5-9.9
10-14.9
15-19.9
20+
Release date data were not available
for 1,162 open releases (2 percent of
backlog). Therefore, 1,162 releases
are not included in any graphics that
depict release age. In addition, there
is variability in the closure data. For
example, New York's efforts to avoid
duplication in its database might have
overstated its number of closures.
Release Age
Figure 10. Percentage of Open and Closed LUST Releases, by Participating State
100 -
0 -
State:
Total Number of Releases:
| Closed
Open
NY
26,683
TX
25,610
PA
15,230
NC CA NE WA SC NH IL MT
24,812 38,266 6,122 6,414 9,264 2,298 22,899 3,211
NJ Ml FL
10,791 21,792 31,630
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Figure 11. Age Distribution of Open LUST Releases, by Participating State
50-
40-
30-
1/1 20-
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
distribution of closed releases by age among the states might also be related to state
policies toward release prioritization and closure, which will be discussed later in this
report.
Note that closures reported each year include completed remedial work in addition
to newly discovered, easily closed releases. In most cases, the data available for this
study do not document whether a closed release actually required remediation. EPA
performed an analysis of the age of releases at the time of closure from 1998 to 2008.
The data show that closure for younger releases (less than 5 years old) dropped over
time from 60 percent in 1998 to approximately 40 percent in recent years (Figure 14
below). Conversely, a larger percentage of releases closed in recent years were 10
Figure 13. Age Distribution of Closed LUST Releases, by Participating State
years old or older at closure than those releases closed before 2001. The presence of
a larger percentage of closures in the late 1990s and early 2000s that were less than
10 years old is expected due to the age of the program. In addition, approximately
half of all releases 5 years old or less were closed in one year or less. These closed
releases were expected to include primarily releases that were confirmed but did
not require remediation and easier-to-remediate sites. The data show that state
programs continue to achieve closures in a relatively short period of time for some
releases while slowly gaining closures at older releases.
40-
20-
jy o
L
L L L L L
Release Age in Years
0-4.9
5-9.9
10-14.9
15-19.9
20+
CA
FL
Ml
MT
NC
NE
S i°°
o
O 80
u. . . L _ ^ ..
NH
NJ
NY PA SC
Release Age by State
TX
WA
Figure 14. Age of Closed LUST Releases in 14 States at Time of Closure, by Year
Release Age
Unknown
DO-0.9 years
1-4.9 years
D 5- 9.9 years
D 10 +years
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Closure Year
SEPTEMBER 2011
11
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Stage of Cleanup: Findings (13 States)
45% had begun remediation.
28% had begun site assessments but not
remediation.
27% were confirmed but had not begun
site assessments.
50% of releases 10 years old or older had
not begun remediation.
Factors Contributing to the Age of the Cleanup Backlog
The LUST cleanup backlog consists of newly confirmed releases added to the backlog each year, along with the persistent older
releases. As discussed in the Introduction, EPA collected several proposed reasons for the ongoing LUST cleanup backlog.
Many of the reasons were factors that contribute to the older age of releases. EPA sought to evaluate the relationship between
the age of releases and these other release attributes to determine what role each attribute plays in the LUST cleanup backlog.
Many interrelated factors influence the age of a state's backlog, such as how far along in the cleanup process releases tend
to be, whether a release contaminates soil or groundwater, the type of financing mechanisms in place for a cleanup, and the
priority level assigned to a release by a state. The following Analysis Factor sections discuss these relationships and associated
opportunities. EPA believes it is important for the states to explore opportunities to accelerate cleanups at older releases and
work toward bringing old releases to closure.
ANALYSIS FACTOR: STAGE OF CLEANUP
To further understand the factors driving the age of releases in the LUST cleanup backlog, EPA assessed cleanup progress at
open releases. This analysis shows the backlog was mainly composed of releases that were being addressed, although 27
percent had not started assessment or remediation. However, the analysis also found releases were taking a long time to
move through the stages of cleanup and many releases were in the early stages of cleanup. Data findings showed releases
stalled in the cleanup process.
Data Limitation
Approaches to cleanup progress differ among the states. Some state programs initiate cleanup and then proceed through
the entire cleanup process until closure. Other state programs address immediate threats and then use their resources
to address other releases. Because addressing an immediate threat might involve remedial action, some of these
releases were counted in the Remediation stage even though comprehensive site assessments had not been completed.
In contrast, some releases were included in the Site Assessment stage because they re-entered site assessment after
starting remediation when the state found additional contamination or pathways needing assessment. In this analysis,
whether a release was placed in site assessment or remediation depended upon how the state tracks the data.
Data were not available to categorize open releases in New York by stage of cleanup, so these releases were excluded from
this discussion and accompanying graphics. Data were not available to distinguish between releases in the Confirmed
Release and Site Assessment stages in Washington State. Washington State staff reported that assessment activities had
occurred at most releases, so these releases were categorized as Site Assessment stage releases. Similarly, data were not
available to distinguish between the Site Assessment and Remediation stages in Michigan. The Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality reported that remedial activities had occurred at most releases with site assessments, so these
releases were categorized as Remediation stage releases. Montana stated its data likely underestimate the numbers of
releases in assessment and remediation.
12
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Stage of Cleanup: Discussion
All open releases were classified into one of
three stages of cleanup: Confirmed Release
(comprehensive site assessment not yet
underway), Site Assessment (comprehensive site
assessment underway), and Remediation (remedial
activities underway).21 EPA acknowledges that, in
practice, cleanups often follow a more iterative
process where assessment and remediation
happen simultaneously. In some states, not all
releases enter an official remediation stage if the
contamination is addressed during site assessment
and is then closed after monitoring. New Jersey,
for example, estimates that 25 to 35 percent of its
releases, including groundwater releases, will not
have a formal remedial workplan. Discussions with
state program staff ensured stage classification was
as accurate as possible based on state data and
practices.
Figure 15. Distribution of Open
LUST Releases in 13 States by
Stage of Cleanup
19,658
28%
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Remediation
Based on the submitted data, many releases remained in the early stages of the
cleanup process. Among the 13 states in this analysis, remedial activities had
begun at only 45 percent of open releases, leaving 38,110 open releases in the Site
Assessment stage or earlier in the process (Figure 15, to the left). This percentage
is probably an underestimate of releases with remedial activities. State programs
track cleanup progress differently, and not all programs document the initiation of
remedial activities as a distinct milestone.22
The 13 states analyzed had wide-ranging stage-of-cleanup distributions. For example,
only 21 percent of releases in South Carolina were in the Remediation stage, whereas
83 percent of releases in New Hampshire had entered the Remediation stage (Figure
16 below). However, the actual remedial activity at a release in the Remediation stage
varied among the states, and not all releases in the Remediation stage were actively
addressed. For example, a significant percentage of releases in the Remediation
stage in New Hampshire were undergoing passive remediation and will take a long
time to reach closure.23
The overall range of distributions across the stages of cleanup was partly due
to differences in states' approaches to cleanup. Several state programs address
releases based on priority where lower priority releases are deferred until the higher
priority releases are addressed. South Carolina, Florida, and North Carolina have
Figure 16. Distribution of Open LUST Releases by Stage of Cleanup, by Participating State
100 -
83%
17%
0 -
State: NH
Total Number of Releases: 745
74%
26%
70%
16%
14%
67%
33%
61%
31%
45%
19%
36%
WA
2,003
MT
1,189
Ml
9,169
PA
3,084
FL
16,121
44%
55%
40%
18%
42%
38%
31%
31%
31%
68%
22%
49%
26%
44%
30%
21%
63%
16%
Q Remediation
Q Site Assessment
Q Confirmed Release
*categories with less
than 1% are not labeled
CA
10,274
TX
2,968
NC
6,343
NJ
4,268
IL
8,479
NE
1,771
SC
2,942
21 It should be noted that not all states use these three categories to track cleanup
progress and that states vary in how they track project status in their databases.
22 Stage of cleanup is based on state-specific classifications. The methods for tracking the
cleanup progress of a LUST release differ among states. See Appendix A for additional
information.
23 For more information, see the New Hampshire state chapter.
SEPTEMBER 2011
13
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
statutes that direct them to only fund work at the highest priority releases and are
prohibited from starting work at lower priority releases until the higher priority ones
are addressed. Based on South Carolina's 2009 data, 41 percent of the releases in site
assessment were awaiting funding to proceed with work.24 Florida's percentage was
even higher due to recent funding cuts resulting in 86 percent of its releases awaiting
funding to begin cleanup. Other differences in approach include cases where states
conduct early remediation activities to address risks and then move on to other
releases, whereas other states complete closure at a release before addressing the
next release. Variations in data tracking can also influence the distribution. The
small percentages of releases in the Confirmed Release stage in California and New
Jersey were due to those state programs counting all confirmed releases as having
assessments underway even if a full site assessment had not begun. Whereas with
New Hampshire, all releases have the initial site assessment completed within a year
of reporting. The overall distribution pattern was generally indicative of the type of
work needed to complete closures. Strategies to address the type of work will vary
by state. For example, states having programs with a large percentage of releases not
in remediation might focus on completing site assessments.
Figure 17. Distribution of Open
LUST Releases 10 Years Old or Older
in 13 States, by Stage of Cleanup
24,430
50%
Data findings supported the statement that the
LUST cleanup backlog had many old releases and
that many of these old releases were in the early
stages of cleanup. Data showed 50 percent of
the releases 10 years old or older were still in
the Confirmed Release or Site Assessment stage
at the time of data collection (Figure 17 to the
right). The delay in action on so many releases
is an ongoing cause of the backlog. For example,
of the 18,645 releases in the Confirmed Release
stage for which age could be calculated, 69
percent (12,929 releases) were 10 years old or
older (Figure 18 above, right). In addition, 26
percent of all releases that were 10 years old or
older had not begun site assessments (Figure
17). Although some states have said the data
underestimate progress of releases into site assessment or remediation for their
state, a significant percentage of releases in the backlog had not started remediation.
This pattern suggests many releases were stalled. Outside of resource limitations or
statutory provisions, site assessment activities can typically begin soon after a release
24 The South Carolina legislature, with support from the petroleum industry, recently
provided additional funding for LUST cleanups in 2010 that will result in an additional
$36 million over the next few years and allow South Carolina to address a significant
percentage of its backlog. See the South Carolina state chapter for more information.
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Remediation
Figure 18. Age Distribution of Open LUST Releases in 13 States by Stage of Cleanup25
50-
ffi 40-
<+- U1
O fU
c ID 30-
^ £ 20-
° 10-
0-
Confirmed
Release
6,996
38%
3,440
19%
3,919
21%
2,158
12% I
Site
Assessment
4,662 4,795
3,656 3'970 24% 25%
19% 21
Remediation
11,431
37%
1,842
985
10%
Release Age in Years
0-4.9
5-9.9
10 - 14.9
15 - 19.9
20+
Release Age in Years
0-4.9
5-9.9
10 - 14.9
15 - 19.9
20+
Release Age in Years
0-4.9
5-9.9
10- 14.9
15- 19.9
20+
is identified and can often be completed in a relatively short timeframe. However,
resource, staff, and statutory provisions are often the limiting factors. The finding
that a significant number of releases had not begun the often lengthy remedial
process indicates potential opportunities for states and EPA to promote or require
quick action to complete site assessments, as resources are available.
There were a total of 30,782 releases in the Remediation stage for which age could
be calculated (Figure 18). Of that total, 80 percent (24,430 releases) were 10 years
old or older, including 19 percent (5,728 releases) that were 20 years old or older
(Figure 18). Half of all releases included in all stages of cleanup that were 10 years
old or older were in the Remediation stage (Figure 17). With most available data,
EPA could not discern when remedial activities were initiated, so it is not clear how
many releases are in long-term remediation, which ones have stalled, and which ones
have just started remediation (i.e., a 15 year old release in the Remediation stage
might have only just entered the Remediation stage). However, if many of these
releases had been in the Remediation stage for a long period of time, states might
explore opportunities to optimize remediation. Systematic review and optimization
of remedial designs could assist states in making progress toward closure and reduce
overall remediation time. EPA recognizes there are resource implications in such
periodic reviews. Such costs need to be balanced against other program priorities.
In the long term, however, establishing processes that enhance efficiency and cost-
effectiveness should save program resources.
25 This graphic does not include 1,151 releases for which age could not be calculated
(97 in the Confirmed Release stage, 590 in the Site Assessment stage, and 464 in the
Remediation stage).
14
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Stage of Cleanup: Potential Opportunities
To reduce the national LUST cleanup backlog, EPA and the states need to look for opportunities to address old releases that have
not begun cleanup as well as those releases in long-term remediation. EPA identified the following potential opportunities to
move releases through the stages of cleanup toward closure. Some states already employ some or all of these opportunities
and have found them successful in moving releases forward. These potential opportunities discussed here and later in this
report are not an exhaustive list; other productive opportunities could certainly be explored as well.
Promote expedited site assessments.
Consider the use of a systematic process to explore opportunities to accelerate cleanups and reach closure, such as:
o periodic review of release-specific treatment technologies to optimize cleanups;
o review of site-specific cleanup standards; and
o use of institutional/engineering controls (IC/ECs).
Consider creating incentives for contractors to complete cleanups (e.g., pay-for-performance (PFP) contracts).
Emphasize enforcement where cleanups have stalled.
ANALYSIS FACTOR: MEDIA CONTAMINATED
Groundwater is an important natural resource at risk from petroleum contamination. In general, remediation of groundwater
contamination is more technically complex, takes longer, and is more expensive than remediation of soil contamination.
Therefore, larger numbers of releases affecting groundwater is a likely cause of the persistence of the LUST cleanup backlog.
In fact, the data show that most LUST releases contaminate groundwater resources.
Releases that contaminate soil only are of concern because they represent a potential threat to groundwater resources and
contaminate properties in neighborhoods and communities where they can result in direct exposure to contamination (e.g.,
utility workers, children playing in the dirt, or vapors intruding in the home). Although contaminated soil can typically be
cleaned up faster than contaminated groundwater, many old releases with soil-only impacts are still unaddressed or are in the
early stages of cleanup.
Media Contaminated: Findings (11 States)
78% of releases impacted groundwater
resources.
19% impacted soil only.
3% impacted other media only (e.g.,
surface water).
Data Limitation
Releases in three states were not included in the analysis of the type of media contaminated. Data for releases in
Nebraska were not available; data for releases in New York were not considered accurate by the state; and data were
missing for 96 percent of releases in Illinois. In addition, the type of media contaminated were not specified for 8,507
of the 59,106 releases in the 11 states for which data were available. Therefore, percentages reported in this section
were calculated based on the 50,599 releases with a known type of media contaminated. Because data accuracy for the
type of media contaminated depends on the frequency of updates to each state database, the information presented in
this section might not be an accurate reflection of current conditions. For example, Montana and Florida commented
that many of the releases listed as impacting soil only also probably impact groundwater. Montana stated its data likely
underestimate the numbers of releases in assessment and remediation.
SEPTEMBER 2011
15
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Media Contaminated: Discussion
Media Contaminated
The Phase 1 backlog study indicated that the Figure 19. Distribution of Open
majority of the LUST cleanup backlog consists LUST Releases in 11 States by
of releases with groundwater contamination.
However, a significant number of old releases
contaminating soil only also remain open. To
expand on these findings, the Phase 2 backlog
study identified and characterized old releases
in relation to contaminated media. This national
analysis classified media contamination into
three categories: groundwater contamination,
soil-only contamination, and "other" media
contamination, which includes vapor and surface
water contamination.26
39,642
78%
Evaluating the petroleum vapor intrusion (PVI)
pathway is becoming increasingly important to
states and the national program. There was not a
Groundwater
Soil
Other
great deal of release-specific data on vapor to analyze for this study. EPA is currently
developing additional guidance specifically to address PVI at Subtitle I UST sites.
The results from the Phase 2 analysis show that releases contaminating groundwater
constituted most of the LUST cleanup backlog. Among open releases from the 11 states
with available data on media contaminated (50,599 releases), 78 percent (39,642
releases) impacted groundwater resources, 19 percent (9,571 releases) impacted soil
only, and 3 percent (1,386 releases) impact other media types only, such as surface
water (Figure 19 to the left). This distribution was similar to that found in the Phase 1
study, where groundwater, soil, and other media contamination were found to make
up 75, 20, and 5 percent of releases with known media contamination, respectively.
The percentages for the type of media impacted differed among the 11 states, but
groundwater contamination was always more prevalent than soil contamination.
For example, releases impacting groundwater comprised nearly 100 percent of
the backlog in Michigan and New Hampshire, while Florida and Pennsylvania had
significantly higher occurrences of releases that contaminate soil only (Figure 20
below). However, Florida program staff informed EPA that most releases listed as
contaminating soil only were also believed to have contaminated groundwater
resources due to the shallow nature of groundwater throughout Florida. In addition,
Figure 20. Distribution of Open LUST Releases by Media Contaminated, by State
100 -
CD
ao
ro
0 -
Q Groundwater
Soil
n Other
"categories with less than 5% are not labeled
State: PA FL WA CA NC MT NJ TX SC NH Ml
Total Number of Releases: 3,084 16,121 2,003 10,274 6,343 1,189 4,268 2,968 2,942 745 9,169
26 Groundwater contamination can include releases with other types of media
contamination as well. For a detailed description of media contamination classifications,
see Appendix A.
16
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Figure 21. Distribution of Open LUST Releases per Year in 11 States, by Known Media Type (1990 - 2008)
on 100% -
o
ro 80%
CO
ro
c 60%
ro
40%
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998 2000
Year
2002
2004
Other
Soil
Groundwater
2006
2008
Figure 22. LUST Cleanups Completed Nationally, FY 1990 - FY 2009
35,000
30,000
_>-
M "ro 25,000
Q- o
£ | 20,000
_0) ^-
u "P
i_ ^ 15,000
00 _0)
-1 E 10,000
o
u
5,000
0
Fiscal Year
Florida had 4,509 releases for which the media contaminated
were either unknown or not tracked in its database. Most of
these releases are believed to impact groundwater, according
to Florida staff.
According to the states, one of the most predominant reasons
for the national LUST cleanup backlog was that the backlog
has more releases with groundwater impacts now than in the
past. Although it is true that the current backlog included a
higher percentage of releases with groundwater impacts, this
study reveals groundwater contamination has always been
the largest part of the backlog (Figure 21 above). Releases
that impact groundwater made up 78 percent of the cleanup
backlog as of FY 2008, up from 67 percent in FY 1990. Because
of the difficulty associated with remediating groundwater
contamination, the presence of so many releases impacting
groundwater suggests that releases in the backlog will require
significantly more time and money on average per closure
than cleanups completed in the past. This pattern is likely
contributing to the reduction in annual cleanups completed
in recent years; approximately 25,000 releases were closed
per year in the late 1990s, whereas, on average, fewer than
14,000 releases were closed per year from FY 2006 to 2009
(Figure 22 to the left).
SEPTEMBER 2011
17
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Figure 23. Distribution of Closed Releases per Year in 11 States, by Known Media Type (FY 1990 - 2008)
o; ^
Q. c
c
20%
0% f
1990
Other
Soil
Groundwater
1992
1994
1996
1998
Year
2000
2002
Figure 24. Distribution of LUST Releases with Contaminated Groundwater and Soil by Stage
of Cleanup in 11 States
S,903
2,795
3,732
38,621
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Remediation
Closed
48,159
Groundwater
Soil
Historically, the LUST cleanup backlog had a larger percentage of releases impacting
soil than the current percentage found in the backlog (Figure 21, page 17). Even
though the majority of releases in the backlog contaminated groundwater, there
were more than 9,000 releases documented as contaminating soil only (Figure 19
page 16). The presence of so many soil cleanups refutes the theory that all soil
cleanups have been addressed. Soil-only cleanups are generally easier to complete
than groundwater cleanups, and early in the program most of the 11 state programs
closed releases with soil-only impacts at a much higher rate annually than they closed
releases with groundwater contamination. According to the Phase 2 data collected
from state programs in 2009, soil releases accounted for 87 percent of closures in FY
1990 (Figure 23 above). In contrast, soil releases accounted for 35 percent of closures
in FY 2008.
Overall, state programs have closed more than three-fourths (84 percent) of
cumulative releases impacting soil while closing only 49 percent of cumulative releases
2004
2006
2008
impacting groundwater (Figure 24 to the left). All the 11 states in the media analysis
had each closed at least half of the releases impacting soil only and more than half
of the states had closed at least 86 percent (Figure 25, page 19). In Michigan, New
Hampshire, and Texas, nearly all releases impacting soil were closed, while half of the
releases impacting soil in Florida remained open. Note that for Michigan and New
Hampshire, the total number of releases contaminating soil only was significantly
lower compared to those contaminating groundwater. Many of soil-only releases
were discovered during tank removal and assessment activities and did not require
remediation beyond source removal. In these situations, source removal was easily
performed in tandem with the tank removal.
There was a noticeable difference between the stage of cleanup data for open
releases impacting groundwater and those impacting soil only. Over half of the
open releases impacting groundwater were in the Remediation stage (Figure 24).
In contrast, remediation had not begun for most open releases impacting soil only.
In many cases, states might not address these soil-only releases because they are
considered lower priority.
The distributions of groundwater and soil contamination among the stages of cleanup
varied among the 11 states. Within all 11 states, more than half of releases affecting
groundwater had either been closed or were in the Remediation stage (Figure 25).
South Carolina and New Jersey had the largest percentages of releases affecting
groundwater that had not begun remediation: 40 and 42 percent, respectively.
However, New Jersey indicated that approximately 25 to 35 percent of releases with
groundwater contamination never reach the official Remediation stage because the
contamination is addressed through excavation, vacuum extraction technologies, or
chemical injection that occur concurrently with groundwater and soil delineation
18
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Figure 25. Distribution of LUST Releases with Contaminated Groundwater and Soil, by Stage of Cleanup and State27
Groundwater
100 -
0 -
^ Confirmed Release
| Site Assessment
^ Remediation
^ Closed
*categories with less than 5% are not labeled
State: TX CA MT PA SC NC FL WA NJ NH Ml
Total Number of Releases: 12,181 16,087 1,795 1,300 5,365 8,328 13,555 2,340 5,249 1,100 10,963
Soil
100 -
0 -
State:
Total Number of Releases:
TX
11,582
NH
135
CA
16,888
NJ
5,492
SC
909
WA
4,056
Figure 26. Median Age of Open LUST Releases with Groundwater and Soil Impacts, by
Participating State
20 n
ill
Media Type
I Groundwater
Soil
FL Ml MT NC NH NJ PA SC TX WA
efforts during the Site Assessment stage. New Hampshire (56 percent), Michigan (56
percent), and Washington State (46 percent) had the largest percentages of releases
affecting groundwater in the Remediation stage.
There was also a noticeable difference between the age of open releases impacting
groundwater and those impacting soil only. Among the 11 states analyzed, the
median age of open releases impacting groundwater was higher than the median
age of releases impacting soil only (Figure 26 to the left). As easy-to-remediate
releases are closed, state programs are left with higher numbers of complicated and
time-consuming cleanups, thus, partially explaining the older median age of backlog
releases impacting groundwater.
27 Michigan's program has only one open soil release recorded.
SEPTEMBER 2011
19
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Media Contaminated: Potential Opportunities
Much of the cleanup backlog involves groundwater contamination that can take a long time to clean up. EPA supports efforts
to address more groundwater cleanups and complete cleanups in less time. Some states already use these types of efforts to
ensure that releases move toward closure as efficiently as resources permit. Although factors such as a low priority ranking
and resources might cause soil cleanups to be deferred, EPA identified the need to work with the states and find opportunities
to reduce the backlog of soil-only releases because the Agency believes states should continue to make progress toward
closure for all cleanups. EPA recognizes that states need to take release priority into account and continues to support
a focus on higher priority releases. However, EPA encourages states to look for opportunities to make progress at lower
priority releases when feasible. EPA encourages states to look for additional opportunities to increase efficiency in cleaning
up groundwater and soil-only contamination such as those described below.
Systematically evaluate cleanup progress at old releases with groundwater impacts and consider alternative cleanup
technologies or other strategies to reduce time to closure.
Use targeted backlog reduction efforts to close old releases with soil contamination needing minimal effort.
Use expedited site assessment to identify releases that can be targeted for closure or moved more quickly into
remediation as resources permit.
Explore opportunities to use other sources of public and private funding, such as petroleum brownfields grants, to
move relatively low risk releases toward closure.
State Program Resources: Findings (14 states)
Insufficient state fund financing leads to
the indefinite postponement of many
state-financed cleanups.
Many releases in states with UST cleanup
funds were considered ineligible for state
fund financing.
Many old privately-financed cleanups
remained in the early stages of cleanup.
On average, states were spending
more money per ongoing cleanup than
was spent to complete earlier, closed
cleanups.
State fund staff caseloads have doubled
since 1998 and included a greater
proportion of complex groundwater
cleanups.
ANALYSIS FACTOR: STATE PROGRAM RESOURCES
Cleanup financing and state program staffing to oversee LUST cleanups are fundamental resources affecting a state's ability
to address its backlog. In all states, whether public or private funds are used, state staff oversee the technical aspects of the
cleanups to ensure both the cleanup process and cleanup outcomes protect human health and the environment. Where state
dollars finance cleanups, state programs must also have sufficient financial resources to pay for cleanups as well as adequate
staff to oversee those expenditures. In this section, EPA analyzed available financing data from the 14 participating states,
including the type of FR mechanism in use for releases in the backlog, cleanup costs where available, and state resources
for cleanup oversight. In addition, to supplement the limited data available from the participating states, data from the
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) state fund surveys were also analyzed.
State Program Resources: Cleanup Financing Discussion
The availability of ready financing for cleanups is a key factor in reducing the backlog. Federal law requires all UST owners
and operators to have financial assurance mechanisms in place to pay for cleanup costs and third-party damages in case of
a release. Owners and operators can comply with this requirement via coverage from a state cleanup fund or via a private
financial mechanism, which is typically private insurance. The intent of this requirement is to ensure financing is readily
available to clean up releases soon after they are discovered. State data on the type of financial assurance mechanism
used were insufficient to compare state fund cleanup financing to private cleanup financing mechanisms. In practice, the
persistence of backlogged sites regardless of whether the cleanup relies on a state fund or private financial assurance
mechanisms indicates there are gaps in financial assurance leaving many releases without ready financing.
20
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Table 2. State Methods of Financing LUST Cleanups
State UST Cleanup Fund Finances Cleanup of
All Eligible Releases28
California, Illinois, Montana, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina
Cleanups Financed by Sunsetted State Fund
and Private Financing for
Post-Sunset Cleanups
Florida, Texas
All UST Cleanups Rely On Unique Private and
State Financing Policies
New York, Washington State
All Current UST Cleanups Rely
On Private Financing
Michigan, New Jersey
Thirty-six states have a state fund to fulfill the UST owner/operator federal FR
requirement. Eight of the 14 states in this study have state cleanup funds that finance
both past and newly-reported releases: California, Illinois, Montana, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina (Table 2). None of these
state funds have sufficient resources to address all confirmed releases simultaneously.
The Florida and Texas state funds "sunsetted," meaning they continue to finance
older cleanups but stopped financing cleanups of new releases as of 10 years ago.
New York and Washington State have unique cleanup financing structures that rely
heavily on private mechanisms. LUST cleanups in Michigan and New Jersey rely solely
on private FR mechanisms.29 Michigan has a causal liability law that results in many
cleanups becoming the financial responsibility of the state as "orphan" releases (as
described in more detail in the Michigan chapter of this report). All states in the
study have some way to finance cleanups of at least some orphan releases where
the RP is unknown or unable to undertake a cleanup. Orphan sites can be financed
as part of a petroleum brownfields effort (sometimes including funding from other
federal agencies), with LUST Trust Fund monies, or special state funds for orphan
sites. Across many states, though, financing set aside to specifically address orphan
releases is typically very limited.
Unique combinations of state and private cleanup financing were found in New
York and Washington State. New York's cleanup fund is an option invoked by the
state when a site RP does not act. New York's database did not track the type of
mechanism used to finance cleanups outside its state fund, but given that New York's
state fund financed only 11 percent of its backlogged cleanups, it is reasonable to
assume reductions in New York's backlog depend mostly on private financing. In
Washington State, the Pollution Liability Insurance Agency re-insures private UST
insurers for cleanup costs above $75,000 in order to make private insurance more
28 Each state sets its own eligibility requirements for its state UST cleanup fund. Fund
eligibility requirements vary significantly among states. EPA determines whether a
state fund can fulfill the federal FR requirements on behalf of the state's UST owner/
operators.
29 Michigan's state fund that formerly met the FR requirement became insolvent in 1995.
Tank owners must now rely on private FR mechanisms to meet the FR requirement.
affordable. However, data provided by Washington State did not include the type of
FR mechanism UST owner/operators use.
Data Limitation
State database recordkeeping is typically minimal where UST facilities rely
on private FR mechanisms. In three states, the specific type of private FR
mechanism for a release is tracked, but analyses could not be performed due
to incompleteness of data. The type of data available for this study includes a
release's eligibility for state funding and whether or not state funds have been
spent on a cleanup.
State Cleanup Funds Financing
State funds are the most common FR compliance mechanism and method of
financing cleanups. EPA analyzed state fund data from the 11 states in this study that
used state funds for at least a portion of their program (California, Florida, Illinois,
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, and Texas). Each state sets its own state fund eligibility requirements, and
these requirements vary significantly among the states. There are several states
where fund eligibility requirements appear to leave many cleanups with uncertain
financing.30 State-funded or fund-eligible cleanups in each of the ten states with
available state fund and stage of cleanup data tended to be old, and many of the
releases had not entered the Remediation stage (Figures 27 and 28, page 22).31
Programs in five of these states tracked data based on which releases were state
fund eligible. The other six state programs tracked data based on which cleanups
had received state funds. Within the five states that tracked state fund eligibility, 61
percent of releases (17,736 releases) were eligible, an additional 9 percent (2,772
30 Florida, Montana, and Nebraska are the only states in the study that record the type of
FR mechanism for releases not financed by the state fund.
31 New York's database did not include stage of cleanup data.
SEPTEMBER 2011
21
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Figure 27. Age of State Fund Eligible Cleanups, by Stage of Cleanup, by State32
5,971
A
3,868 lgo4
0)
CCL
Remediation
FL NC NH SC
Circles are centered on the median age of each stage and are scaled to the number of releases.
Figure 28. Age of State-Funded Cleanups, by Stage of Cleanup, by State
TX
CA
IL
MT
NE
O Confirmed Release
O Site Assessment
O Remediation
PA
Figure 29. State Fund Eligibility in FL, NC,
NH, SC, and TX
Open Releases
inFL,NC, NH,SC,andTX
(29,119 releases)
State Fund Eligibility
n Eligible
Q Not Covered by the Fund
Q] Unknown
32 New Hampshire did not have data available to distinguish between releases in the Confirmed Release and Site Assessment stages.
According to New Hampshire program staff, site assessments have been completed for all releases.
22
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Figure 30. Percentage of LUST Releases to be Financed with State Funds, 11 States33
100 -
01
BO
ro
0 -
State:
Total Number of Releases:
NC
6,343
SC
2,942
NH
745
NY
2,458
IL
8,479
CA
10,274
MT
1,189
NE
1,771
| Eligible Q Not Covered | Unknown
'categories with less than 10% are not labeled
States that Track State Fund Eligibility
releases) were ineligible, and eligibility of an additional 30 percent (8,611 releases)
were unknown (Figure 29, page 22).34
Some states in the study determine release eligibility only after a release is reported
or a claim is made to the state fund (e.g., California). This approach leaves it too
late for an owner/operator to finance remediation through a private FR mechanism
such as insurance. Other states make LIST eligibility determinations prior to a release
but, in many cases, do not track the private mechanism used to finance cleanups not
covered by the state fund. In the following states, EPA noted a lack of data on the
type of financing for cleanup of releases: New York, 89 percent of releases; North
Carolina, 75 percent of releases; Illinois, 73 percent of releases; California, 65 percent
of releases; and Pennsylvania, 54 percent of releases (Figure 30 above).35
33 Releases classified as "unknown" might be eligible for state funding. "Other" indicates
those releases that will not be financed by a state fund. These releases might or might
not have a private FR mechanism. Detailed discussion of state financing is included in
the state summary chapters.
34 Ineligible releases include those that are not covered by the scope of the state fund
as well as any releases where the state made an ineligibility determination based on
compliance or other state provision.
35 Illinois program staff stated they expect most remaining cleanups to be financed by the
state fund.
| State Funded Q Other Q Unknown
'categories with less than 10% are not labeled
States that Track Funding Type
Many state funds are currently facing significant financial difficulties. The ASTSWMO's
2009 State Fund Survey and its Pulse of the Nation 2008 report portray the challenges
states face in meeting state fund obligations by showing the decrease in state funds'
capacity.36 In addition, EPA's Phase 1 data from 2006 indicate a funding gap in 24
states that rely on state funds to finance cleanups. These 24 states reported 38,780
incomplete cleanups as of November 2006, of which only one-third (13,254 cleanups)
were receiving state financing. This left an estimated 25,526 releases not yet financed
by state cleanup funds requiring an estimated additional $2.3 billion to close the
releases, based on each state's average cleanup cost at closure.37 Challenging state
budget and economic trends since 2006 make it unlikely this gap has narrowed.
In response to the lack of resources, states studied in Phase 2 enacted policies
restricting the number of claims filed so that reimbursement will align with available
fund resources. Although these policies allow state programs to manage their
backlogs in the face of limited resources, they also perpetuate the cleanup backlog.
LUST programs in several states sought to increase fees and appropriations through
their state legislatures, but proposed fee increases tend to face significant political
36 These publications are available online at: www.astswmo.org/Pages/Policies and
Publications/Tanks.htm.
37 See Appendix B for additional discussion.
SEPTEMBER 2011
23
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Figure 31. Age of Privately-Financed Cleanups by Stage of Cleanup, by State
O
(U
Dl
<
20
15
^ 10
1,340
1,485
244
2,895
86
100
O
O Confirmed Release
O Site Assessment
O Remediation
307
1,187
388
230 281
O O
33
FL
MT
NJ
TX
opposition. Furthermore, budgeting challenges arising from a stressed economy
have resulted in state budget officers and legislators having to reallocate monies that
otherwise would flow to a state fund.
Private Cleanup Financing
Of the 14 states in this study, seven rely on private financing for some or all of
their LUST cleanups: Florida, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and
Washington State. As discussed in the state fund eligibility section, most states that
rely on private FR mechanisms to finance LUST cleanups do not track the type of
private FR mechanism in place to finance these cleanups. Florida, Montana, and
Nebraska were the only states in the study that used their databases to record the
type of FR mechanism for releases not financed by the state funds, and all releases in
New Jersey and Washington State were expected to be privately financed. The age
and stage of privately-financed cleanups in five states are shown in Figure 31 above.38
For states and releases where private financing fulfills the FR requirement, EPA
expected to find few relatively young releases in the first two stages of cleanup.
Private financing is not limited by state budgets, and insurance companies likely have
a vested interest in cleaning up releases quickly. This expected pattern was found
in Florida and Texas where the state funds are designated for older releases, and
newer releases must have private financing (Figure 31). In the other states, many old,
privately-financed cleanups lingered on in the Confirmed Release or Site Assessment
stages. In some cases, limited state oversight staff might be one cause of the older
age of releases. If RPs were required to clean up releases without having dedicated
financing in place, bankruptcy or abandonment might seem a better option to them
than paying for a cleanup. Such unfinanced cleanups become an additional burden
to the states either as orphan releases or as enforcement cases. Many states only
38 Michigan and New York could not be included in the graphic due to data limitations. See
the state chapters for additional discussion.
WA
use enforcement actions to compel cleanups on a limited basis. While enforcement
can be resource intensive to pursue, it leverages the resources for cleanup from those
responsible for the contamination. Greater emphasis on enforcement might foster
additional cleanups. The experiences of some state programs (e.g., South Carolina)
and the national program with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
show that increased state activity can encourage RPs to move forward with cleanup.
Washington State noted that a large number of its releases occurred prior to the
federal or state requirements for financial responsibility and, therefore, an RP's
existing insurance policy will not cover a prior release.
Releases Without State Fund or Private Financing
All USTs had to meet federal FR requirements by February 1994.39 Prior to 1994, many
releases might not have had FR because the requirement was phased in starting in
1990. Of the releases confirmed prior to 1994, 13,140 releases (19 percent of the
total backlog in the 14 states) do not have an FR mechanism specified in the state
databases, nor were they all required to have FR under federal law because they were
confirmed prior to 1994 (Figure 32, page 25). Of these releases, 4,666 (36 percent)
had not been assessed and had the greatest likelihood to be orphan cleanups with no
financially viable RP or dedicated state funding. Site assessment or remedial activities
had begun at 8,474 (64 percent) of the 13,140 open, pre-1994 releases with unknown
FR mechanisms (Figure 33, page 25).
More than half of the 13,140 pre-1994 releases with unknown FR mechanisms were
in Illinois, California, and North Carolina (Figure 34, page 25). Programs in these
three states use state funds to finance most cleanups, so these releases could be
state funded. Nevertheless, a significant portion of the pre-1994 releases could end
up becoming orphan releases, especially given their age. Orphan releases usually
39 The only exception to this date was for USTs located on tribal lands. They were not
required to have FR until December 1998. They are not examined in this analysis.
24
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Figure 32. Percentage of Pre-1994
LUST Releases with Unknown FR in 11
Participating States40
13,140
19%
Figure 33. Pre-1994 LUST Releases with
Unknown FR in 11 Participating States, by
Stage of Cleanup
Pre-1994 Release with Unknown FR
Pre-1994 Releases with Known FR and
Post-1994 Releases
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
| Remediation
Figure 34. Pre-1994 LUST Releases with Unknown FR, by Participating State
2,647
3,000 2,603
20%
2,500
20%
OJ
ec
3
FL IL
Ml
MT NC
State
NE NJ PA SC WA
end up being financed by the states. A review of paper case files might also yield
information about the FR mechanisms not available in the state databases.
The concern about orphan releases extends beyond the pre-1994 releases previously
discussed. Releases at sites without financial responsibility coverage can become an
orphan if the RP is unknown or unable to undertake the cleanup. Two states in this
study, Michigan and Nebraska, reported large numbers of releases that are known
40 The 1,162 releases without valid release dates were not included in this analysis and are
not included in this graphic.
or probable orphan cleanups. In Michigan, an owner/operator of a LUST system is
responsible for paying the cost of cleanup if he or she is responsible for any activity
causing a release, or if he or she became the owner/operator after March 6, 1996,
and did not provide a Baseline Environmental Assessment within a prescribed period
of time. The current facility owner might not be responsible for an older release that
occurred prior to their purchase, occupancy, or foreclosure, and the state has the
burden of proof in establishing liability. Consequently, Michigan estimates it might
have more than 4,500 orphan cleanups to finance at public expense because of the
difficulty of determining the RP at the time of the release. New York is an example
of a state that dedicates its state fund to cover RPs that are not only unknown or
unable to undertake cleanups but also unwilling because New York has an active cost
recovery program. Unwilling RPs are those RPs that are recalcitrant and refuse to
follow an order to take action mandated by the state at a LUST site. Other states,
such as Washington State, might have limited funding for orphan releases. In general,
however, states have few additional resources to finance the cleanup of orphan
releases.
Although federal LUSTTrust Fund appropriations can be used to finance direct cleanup
costs for releases where the RP is unknown, unable, or unwilling to address the
release, sufficient LUST Trust monies are not available to address all eligible sites. In
many states, there are many old unfinanced cleanups whose orphan status has never
been determined because the states lack the requisite administrative resources. As
these releases remain inactive, more time passes and the likelihood decreases of
identifying viable RPs to finance their cleanups. As these releases age, states might
become responsible for many more orphan cleanups than currently expected. Thus,
a state's ability to maintain contact with RPs to prevent orphan releases becomes an
important part of reducing future state spending on LUST cleanups.
State Program Resources: Cleanup Costs
Groundwater cleanups that are relatively expensive make up most of the current
LUST cleanup backlog and strain state financial resources. Three states in the study,
Illinois, Montana, and South Carolina, track state fund expenditures at the release
level. Cleanup funds in these states were already spending more on average on their
cleanups in the Remediation stage than the average spent for closed sites (Figure 35,
page 26). Because the open releases were still in remediation, they will continue to
incur costs and average cleanup costs will continue to rise.
Data on the cost at closure include closed releases for which minimal state fund
dollars were spent, driving down the average cost. Based on conversations with state
program staff, the presence of large numbers of difficult-to-remediate and costly
releases in state backlogs is the likely cause for the higher average cleanup costs
of open releases. Analysis of ASTSWMO's 2009 State Fund Survey data shows that
SEPTEMBER 2011
25
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
cleanup costs are increasing (Figure 36, right, fitted line in orange).41 For that survey,
states reported the average cost per release at completed cleanups, calculated from
the total spent by state funds on completed cleanups of federally-regulated USTs
divided by the total number of funded cleanups completed. These amounts did
not include any deductible amounts paid by tank owners. In 2011, both ASTSWMO
and Illinois commented that the high costs of cleanup are driven by older long-term
cleanups. Illinois stated it has data showing the cleanup of new releases that are
quickly closed is less costly than the older, complex cleanups remaining in the backlog.
Unfortunately, EPA did not get a chance to analyze the data on this issue within the
context of this study, but a comparison of cleanup costs of new releases versus costs
of older, complex cleanups could be an area of future interest.
Figure 35. Average State Fund Spending at Active and Closed LUST Cleanups, by State41
o. $300,000
$250,000
Figure 36. Average Cost per Completed LUST Cleanup4
c
CD
CD
Q.
M
c
T3
0)
Q_
00
y
2
Q_
0)
CuO
OJ
>
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
in
IL MT SC
Remediation Closed
41 The ASTWSMO state fund surveys are available online at: www.astswmo.org/Pages/
Policies and Publications/Tanks.htm.
42 Analysis does not account for inflation.
CD
O
O
13
ro
CD
CD
CD
CL
0
O
CD
0)
OJ
>
*
$78,482 / $^^-^5,375 $89*087
J^7?12S
$48,706
State Program Resources: State Resources for
Cleanup Oversight
Even if funding is available, cleanup of releases cannot move forward without state
oversight of the cleanups. State limitations on the number of state program staff for
cleanup oversight can slow state backlog reduction. High caseloads delay cleanup
decision-making and allow cleanup progress to stall, often indefinitely, slowing
reduction of the cleanup backlog. According to the ASTSWMO 2009 State Fund
Survey, the number of sites that state staff are responsible for has increased, on
average, from 100 sites in the late 1990s to over 200 sites per project manager in
2009 (Figure 37, page 27, fitted line in orange). A large state staff workload can delay
the speed of cleanup work, and the trend data demonstrate that increased workloads
could impact the reduction of the backlog. Appendix A includes the staff caseload
data collected for Phase 2.
Administrative streamlining and focusing staff and contractor attention closely on
contamination reduction at sites can reduce staff workload and improve cleanup
progress. South Carolina and Texas have tried two different approaches to reduce
staff workload. South Carolina has minimized administrative workloads and focused
staff attention on cleanup results by using pay-for-performance (PFP) cleanup
43 Data obtained from the ASTSWMO state fund surveys:
www.astswmo.org/Pages/Policies and Publications/Tanks.htm.
26
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Figure 37.
Average Caseloads of Oversight Staff in States with State Cleanup
Funds44
CD
in
co
_CD
CD
a:
250
200
-
0 CD 150
c *=
I ~
-3 w
^- s_
CD CD
O) Q-
E
100
50
contracting. PFP gives contractors discretion to select and manage the treatment
technology, thereby minimizing this aspect of state staff workload. Payment of the
contractor occurs as the contractor reaches a series of contamination-reduction
milestones. Under PFP contracts, cleanup contractors and staff focus their efforts
closely on cleanup progress. Texas has privatized technical oversight of some of
its privately-financed LUST cleanups using Licensed Site Professionals (LSPs). The
rationale behind the use of contracted support staff is it can allow state programs
to increase output without incurring long-term staffing obligations, letting programs
address more releases than might be possible otherwise.
State Program Resources: Potential Opportunities
There are potential opportunities for reducing cleanup costs and strengthening
resources available to reduce state backlogs, such as streamlining cleanup oversight,
providing supplemental financing for state funds, and positioning RPs to act more
promptly. Specifically, such opportunities include:
Detecting, reporting, and intercepting releases before groundwater is impacted
can reduce overall cleanup costs.
Linking contractor payment to cleanup progress and using competitive bidding
to set cleanup prices can streamline cleanup oversight and accelerate cleanups
at lower cost.
Using and combining alternative funding sources, such as public-private
partnerships or petroleum brownfields grants, can streamline cleanup oversight
and accelerate cleanups at lower cost.
Long-term financing, such as claims financing programs, loan funds, or bonds,
as well as subrogation of privately insured state fund costs can supplement
state fund revenue.
Using low interest, revolving state loan funds, such as New Hampshire's cleanup
revolving loan fund, could finance cleanups not covered by any FR mechanism.
44 Data obtained from the ASTSWMO state fund surveys:
www.astswmo.org/Pages/Policies and Publications/Tanks.htm.
SEPTEMBER 2011
27
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Release Prioritization: Findings (8 States)
Eight of the 14 states in this study
prioritize cleanups.
74% of releases in states with priority
systems were considered high or medium
priority.
o 3,266 high priority releases have not
begun remediation, 64 percent of
which were 10 years old or older.
o 956 high priority releases had not
started site assessment, 60 percent of
which were 10 years old or older.
26% of releases in states with priority
systems were considered low priority.
ANALYSIS FACTOR: RELEASE PRIORITIZATION
Ideally, state programs have sufficient staff and financial resources to advance all LUST releases through the cleanup process,
including the resources needed for staff oversight, enforcement activities, and direct financing of release cleanups. Since
most states do not have the resources to fully cover these activities, several states have implemented prioritization systems to
direct their limited funding and staff oversight resources to the highest priority sites first. Eight of the states in this study use
priority systems (Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, Texas, Florida, Nebraska, North Carolina, and South Carolina).45 Releases
are usually prioritized once sufficient site-specific data are collected, although this is often before a full site assessment is
initiated. Risk-based prioritization is a sound policy that can assist managers in the triage of large cleanup backlogs. However,
the progress on cleanups completed is influenced by the prioritization of releases because states focus on higher risk releases.
High priority releases are often more time consuming and costly, consuming most of a state's LUST program resources. As a
result, low priority releases can linger indefinitely in the backlog.
Release Prioritization: Discussion
State programs vary in their use of prioritization systems. Not all programs use them, and some state programs with these
systems follow their priority rankings as a matter of policy but can choose to make exceptions at their discretion (Table 3).
For example, if there is a pending property transaction, a state caseworker might shift his or her focus to that cleanup to
ensure it is addressed and advances revitalization goals. For other states, however, the role of cleanup prioritization goes
beyond department policy and is written into the state statutes. Some states use their prioritization systems to identify high
risk releases and carry the cleanup through to completion. Other states use their prioritization systems to identify releases
with the maximum risks to human health and the environment and then focus on risk reduction, addressing the main risks at
as many releases as possible with less emphasis on completing cleanups. Some of these states reprioritize releases as work
progresses, thereby increasing the number of open lower priority releases.
State programs generally base release priority on the extent
of contamination and the risk posed to human health and the
environment. Several state programs calculate an individual risk
score for every open release and prioritize available resources
based on site risk and other factors. Other programs group
releases into discrete priority classes (e.g., high, medium, and
low or scores of 1-5) and use resources for the higher priority
cleanups. For the purposes of this study, all prioritized releases
for the eight states were converted to a high/medium/low rank
with assistance from the respective state program staffs (Figure
38, page 29).
Table 3. Types of LUST Release Prioritization by State
States with
Policy Priority
Michigan
Montana
Nebraska
New Jersey
Texas
States with
Statutory Priority
Florida
North Carolina
South Carolina
States with No Formal
LUST Prioritization
California
Illinois
New Hampshire
New York
Pennsylvania
Washington State
45 Some states use a single ranking system for all contaminated sites (i.e., Superfund, RCRA Subtitle C, state voluntary cleanup
programs, and LUSTs) or rank risk based on all contamination at a site, not solely contaminants from a LUST release. States that use
this approach to prioritization are not discussed in this report because the approach does not easily identify differences between
LUST-specific priorities.
28
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Figure 38. Priority Ranking of LUST Releases Among Eight Participating States with Priority Data, by State46
100 -
0 -
State:
Total Number of Releases:
Figure 39. Stage of Cleanup of High Priority LUST Releases in Eight
Participating States
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Remediation
Policy Priority
Statutory Priority
fj High Q Medium Q Low Q Unknown
"categories with less than 5% are not labeled
In general, higher priority releases involve extensive groundwater contamination or
direct risks to public drinking water, whereas lower priority releases are more likely to
consist of smaller groundwater plumes or soil contamination only, especially in areas
where drinking water comes from sources other than local groundwater. Therefore,
the higher priority cleanups tend be more difficult, longer term, and higher cost, and
the lower priority cleanups tend to be less complex, relatively quick to close, and
lower cost.
High and medium priority releases constituted more than half of the releases in the
backlogs in the eight states and require nearly all of the state programs' attention and
resources. Sixty-two percent of the high priority releases (5,364 releases) were in the
Remediation stage (Figure 39 above, right). Although the state programs focus their
resources on high priority releases, approximately 38 percent of high priority releases
(3,266 releases) had not begun remediation, 64 percent of which were 10 years old
or older (Figures 39 and Figure 40 to the right). This finding suggests even with a
"worst first" approach, not all high priority releases were addressed quickly. More
46 States are grouped by the type of priority system, either policy or statutory. Releases
in states that use different ranking categories from high, medium, or low priority were
assigned to these categories to enable cross-state comparisons. EPA categorized these
releases based on action thresholds and discussions with state program staff. In Texas,
the priority system was not used between 2003 and 2009. The state had just re-opened
the priority system when the data were compiled for this study. Therefore, there is a
significant percentage of releases in Texas that were not prioritized. See the Texas state
chapter for more information.
critically, data indicate that 11 percent of high priority releases (956 releases) had not
started assessment (Figure 39). However, snapshots of data do not always give an
accurate picture of what is really happening in a state. For example, a year prior to
the state's data submission, Montana revised its priority system to include releases
with unknown receptors as high priority releases. This change allows Montana to
address these releases with unknown risk much sooner than they otherwise would
have been addressed. However, it had the result of increasing the number of older
Figure 40. Age Distribution of High Priority LUST Releases in the Confirmed Release or Site
Assessment Stages in Eight Participating States
Release Age in Years
0-4.9
5-9.9
10-14.9
15-19.9
20 +
Unknown
Confirmed Release
(956 releases)
Site Assessment
(2,310 releases)
SEPTEMBER 2011
29
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
high priority releases that had not started site
assessment. As of the date of data collection,
Montana had 45 unassessed high priority releases
5 years old or older. EPA will work with states to
develop strategies to move all releases toward
closure and to ensure that there are no immediate
risks to human health and the environment from
the higher priority releases.
The continued presence of these high priority
releases limits the allocation of resources to lower
priority, easier-to-close releases. Among the
eight states in this study that prioritize cleanups,
approximately 11,648 releases (26 percent) were
low priority (Figure 41 to the right). These 11,648
releases likely involved less extensive contamination
or had already undergone initial remedial work and
the overall risk has been reduced.
Figure 41. LUST Release Priority
Among Eight States with Priority
Data
Figure 42. Open LUST Releases Above and Below the Cleanup Threshold for Three States
with Statutory Priority
High
Q Medium
| Low
I Unknown
Three states in this study enforce a defined priority threshold below which no state
resources can be expended. These states have a statutory requirement to allocate
state funds only to releases above the threshold risk score and are prohibited from
dedicating resources to releases below the threshold unless resources have already
been made available to address all releases above the threshold. These states are:
Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina. For North Carolina and South Carolina,
at the time of data collection, more than 50 percent of releases were not receiving
state funding because of this threshold despite being otherwise eligible.47 In Florida,
budget cuts led to approximately 86 percent of its releases not receiving state
resources (13,901 releases out of 16,121 total releases) (Figure 42 above right). In
some cases, funding decisions are not made based on risk and it is possible that some
of the releases that fall below the funding threshold are also high priority releases.
The threshold policy can slow down privately-financed cleanups in addition to state-
funded cleanups, as the restriction on state resource expenditures applies not only
to state funds used directly on site but also to staff resources, including the review of
documents related to privately-financed cleanups. Combined with limited budgets,
the statutory priority system requires state programs to leave some cleanups inactive
until resources become available. State backlogs are impacted by the indefinite
47 The South Carolina legislature, with support from the petroleum industry, recently
provided additional funding for LUST cleanups in 2010 that will result in an additional
$36 million over the next few years and allow South Carolina to address a significant
percentage of its backlog. See the South Carolina state chapter for more information.
Active
Inactive
13,901
Florida
North
Carolina
South
Carolina
deferral of the cleanup of large numbers of releases below the funding threshold.
Many of these cleanups are low priority cleanups that could be completed quickly
and cost-efficiently if funding and staff resources were available. However, under
their current policy and statutory framework, state programs in this situation will
remain unable to move any releases below the funding threshold forward unless
additional funding is added to state cleanup funds, as in the case of South Carolina,
or the policies or statutes are changed to allow the state programs to do so.
Negative ramifications can result from deferring cleanups at releases over a period
of many years. A simplified example focusing on the type of media impacted by a
release illustrates the challenge faced by state programs trying to effectively manage
their backlogs. A release with groundwater impacts would, in most cases, pose a
higher risk than a release with soil-only contamination and would, therefore, be
prioritized first for state resources. Extensive staff oversight and cleanup funding
for complex remedial technologies would be expended at the groundwater cleanup,
likely over the course of many years. Meanwhile, soil contamination requiring only
minor excavation would have to be put on hold for all higher risk cleanups to be
sufficiently managed before state resources became available. As the soil cleanup
stalls in the state's backlog, the contamination could spread to the groundwater, the
RP might not remain viable, or other known factors could change. By the time the
state program turns its attention to the soil cleanup years later, conditions might have
changed so significantly it could actually require substantially more staff time and
effort and state funds to address the cleanup than if the cleanup action had been
pursued at the time the release was confirmed.
Prioritization systems exist because state programs do not have the resources to
currently address all releases in their cleanup backlogs. Both high and low priority
releases can be affected by a lack of funding. Data from the eight states in this study
that use priority systems support the assertion that low priority releases remain
in the backlog. Most of the low priority releases contaminate soil only and might
30
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
require few resources to remediate, but states will remain unable to address them
unless additional resources, and in some cases legislative permission, is obtained. In
addition, high priority releases remain in the early stages of cleanup, and many are 10
years old or older. These findings indirectly support the claims that many old releases
are not actively addressed and that some state programs are underfunded and/or
understaffed and cannot move all cleanups forward.
Release Prioritization: Potential Opportunities
EPA's analysis of LUST priority data identified areas within the national cleanup
backlog where EPA and the states can look for opportunities to address remaining
releases. EPA needs to work with the states to ensure the risks to human health and
the environment from high priority releases still in the beginning stages of cleanup
are addressed as quickly as possible. EPA believes that progress toward closure
should continue in these areas for all cleanups:
Continue efforts to address high risk releases.
Use enforcement actions to initiate the cleanup of stalled high priority releases,
where appropriate.
Identify funding sources to address low priority releases, for example public-
private partnerships or petroleum brownfields grants.
Conduct removal actions (including source removal) to the extent possible
during assessment activities in order to prevent soil contamination from
remaining in place due to a low priority score.
Encourage or enforce (where appropriate) cleanup of low priority releases to
ensure they do not remain in the backlog due to a low priority score.
Ascertain priority status of releases listed as "unknown."
ADDITIONAL ANALYSES
Remedial Technologies
EPA was particularly interested in analyzing the types of remedial technologies
employed at LUST cleanups and the average remedial time needed to achieve closure.
Optimizing the remediation of LUST releases is a key to minimizing cleanup costs,
reducing the time to closure, and ultimately reducing the backlog, regardless of the
source of cleanup financing. Unfortunately, information was largely unavailable for
this analysis.
Use of Natural Attenuation Remedies (4 States)
EPA analyzed the use of monitored natural attenuation (MNA) in the LUST program,
anticipating that use of MNA or a variation of natural attenuation might impact the
LUST cleanup backlog. MNA refers to the reliance on natural attenuation processes
within the context of a carefully controlled and monitored cleanup approach to
achieve site-specific remediation objectives. Long-term performance monitoring is
a fundamental component of a MNA remedy. EPA guidance states that MNA is an
appropriate remediation method only where its use will be protective of human health
and the environment and it will be capable of achieving site-specific remediation
objectives within a timeframe that is reasonable compared to other alternatives.48
As with other remedial technologies, there were limited data available for this
analysis. New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina, and Texas tracked the use of
MNA in their databases, although their use of the term MNA covers more than EPA's
defined MNA approach. Some states, particularly New Hampshire and Texas, use
passive remediation instead of formal MNA in cases where there is no immediate risk
to human health or the environment. For these types of releases, New Hampshire
addresses the source and then monitors the release until it meets the state's
groundwater standard.49 Although the use of natural attenuation without meeting
formal MNA requirements certainly reduces remedial costs, this method might not
result in closure within a comparable timeframe to more active technologies. The
advantage for the states is that limited resources are re-directed toward higher
priority releases once a state program has conducted limited sampling to ensure the
contamination is not moving off site. For the purposes of this discussion, the use
of the term MNA refers to a formal, monitored natural attenuation remedy while
48 For more information regarding the appropriate use of MNA, see www.epa.gov/
swerustl/pubs/tums.htm and EPA Directive Number 9200.4-17P, Use of Monitored
Natural Attenuation atSuperfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage
Tank Sites, available online at: www.epa.gov/oust/directiv/d9200417.htm.
49 See the New Hampshire state chapter for more information.
SEPTEMBER 2011
31
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
passive remediation refers to a less formal natural attenuation remedy where some
monitoring might or might not be in use. The less formal natural attenuation remedy
implies that a prescriptive process for monitoring the effectiveness of the remedy is
not applied.
The databases from the four states showed that the percentage of releases in
the Remediation stage using either MNA or passive remediation ranged from
approximately 13 percent in Michigan to 75 percent in New Hampshire (Figure 43
below). Michigan's percentage is potentially a high estimate because, with the
available data, EPA could not distinguish releases with a final remedy selected from
those that were still in the remedy selection process. New Hampshire personnel
recently commented that the 75 percent of releases identified in the Remediation
stage includes two different categories of remediation; in 44 percent the groundwater
is being monitored long term (passive remediation) and the remaining 31 percent are
lower priority releases that have had some initial source control activities and have
infrequent groundwater monitoring while waiting for additional funding to begin the
necessary remedial activities for closure. EPA acknowledges that states must balance
resources and state priorities. New Hampshire once used a more formal MNA process
until it made a strategic decision to use monitoring funds to address additional higher
priority releases. In contrast, South Carolina uses MNA frequently. In fact, the South
Carolina data included here only cover the releases addressed strictly using MNA. At
the time of data collection, South Carolina had closed 10 percent of its releases using
Figure 43. Use of MNA/Passive Remediation vs. Active Remediation at LUST Releases in the
Remediation Stage, by State
MNA/Passive Remediation Used
Active Remediation Used
100
0)
M
(D
4-*
c
0)
y
0)
Q.
0 -
State:
Total Number of Releases:
Number of Releases Using Passive Remediation:
Number of Releases Using Active Remediation:
Ml
6,174
782
5,392
sc
619
206
413
MNA as the selected remediation remedy. South Carolina closes many more releases
using MNA after initially remediating releases with other active technologies. South
Carolina stages releases using MNA as a remediation remedy by evaluating them for
an 18-month period after which a release either continues in MNA or might be placed
into active remediation.50
Based on the state databases, nearly half of the releases (47 percent) in MNA/
passive remediation were 15 years old or older (Figure 44 below). Available data
from most states did not indicate when remediation began; therefore, the duration
of MNA/passive remediation as a chosen remedy cannot be calculated. The age of
the release does not necessarily correspond to the length of time in MNA/passive
remediation. Given the age distribution of the backlog in these four states, it is likely
the states chose MNA/passive remediation as the remedy for some of these releases
recently even though almost half were 15 years old or older. Due to the length of
time required for a release to naturally attenuate, closure of these releases will not
likely be achieved in the near future.
Figure 44. Age Distribution of LUST Releases Undergoing MNA/Passive Remediation, by
State
50-
40-
30-
m OL
l/l OJ
_
o m
OJ LO
IS O
c v
oj ro
OJ OJ
°- E
20-
Ml
(782 releases)
Release Age in Years
0-4.9
5-9.9
10-14.9
| 15-19.9
20 +
NH SC TX
(459 releases) (206 releases) (712 releases)
Release Age by State
50 See individual state chapters for more information on use of MNA.
32
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Presence of Free Product (2 States)
Removal of free product (a regulated substance that is present as a non-aqueous
phase liquid) continues to be a national priority for LUST cleanups. Federal regulations
require owners and operators to remove free product to the maximum extent
practicable, as determined by the implementing agency, and submit a free product
removal report within 45 days after confirming a release.51 Federal regulations do
not set a time constraint for completion of free product removal, and discussions
with state program managers suggest complete removal (if possible) can take a great
deal of time.52
The presence of free product is often factored into the initial prioritization of releases
and can increase the priority score or rank of releases when identified. Although
the presence of free product is a concern to both federal and state LUST program
managers, only two states (California and South Carolina) participating in this
study use state databases to track and update those releases where free product is
currently present. California's database also documents whether free product has
been removed from a site.
Contractors in California submit electronic sampling data to California's GeoTracker
system, including the date of sampling and depth to free product. California's backlog
included 1,382 releases (13 percent of all open releases) where free product has been
reported (Figure 45 top right). Free product continued to be present on site at 537
releases. Free product had been removed from the remaining 845 releases where it
was known to exist. Data were only available for a portion of releases in California.
Approximately 38 percent of releases (3,877) show no data on the presence or
absence of free product. The other 5,015 releases reported having no free product
ever present.
Of the 537 open releases in California with free product present, 72 percent (389
releases) were 10 years old or older, which included 145 releases that were 20 years
old or older (Figure 46 bottom right). The persistence of free product at old releases
indicates either owners or operators were not actively pursuing the cleanup of free
product or some attributes of the sites are making free product removal especially
difficult.
Figure 45. Presence of Free Product at Open LUST Releases in California
537
5% 845
5,015
49%
Free Product Present
Free Product Removed
No Data
No Free Product Ever Present
3,877
Figure 46. Age of Open LUST Releases with Free Product Present in California
0-4.9 Years
-9.9 Years
10-14.9 Years
15-19.9 Years
EH More Than 20 Years
I Unknown Age
22%
51 See Title 40 Part 280.64 for detailed requirements.
52 See How To Effectively Recover Free Product At Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites:
A Guide For State Regulators for additional information: www.epa.gov/oust/pubs/fprg.
htm.
SEPTEMBER 2011
33
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
South Carolina uses its database to track the Figure 47. Presence of Free Product
current depth of free product at each release. at °Pen LUST Releases in South
The state incorporates this information into Carolina, by Stage of Cleanup
its risk ranking system.53 Of the 2,942 releases
in the South Carolina backlog, the priority
codes indicate that, at the time the data were
provided to EPA, free product was present at
18 percent of releases (535 releases; Figure 47
to the right). According to the data, 45 percent
of the releases with free product are in Class
IE and 2BA (248 releases), with the majority
in Class 2BA (240 releases). The definition of a
Class 2BA release is that free product is thicker
than 1 foot. High priority releases are those
determined to pose an emergency or significant
near-term threat (RBCA Class 1 and 2). South
Carolina addresses releases based on priority
and had started site assessment or remediation
at all Class 1 and almost every Class 2 release.54
Of the 535 open releases in South Carolina with
free product present, 82 percent (438 releases) were 10 years old or older (Figure 48
below). Many of the older releases in South Carolina date back to the state's amnesty
program. These remaining releases should be addressed using South Carolina's
additional funding.55
Figure 48. Age of Open LUST Releases with Free
States should continue to Product Present in South Carolina
encourage the removal of
free product to the extent
practicable. States might also
consider whether enforcement
actions at old releases with
persistent free product might
| IE- Free Product on Surface Water
| 2BA- Free Product > 1 Foot
D 3BA- Free Product > 0.01 Foot
D 4BA- Free Product Sheen in Well
0 - 4.9 Years
5 - 9.9 Years
10 -14.9 Years
15 -19.9 Years
More Than 20 Years
53 South Carolina prioritizes categories based on the current and projected degree of risk to
human health and the environment. The presence and depth of free product are factors
within the ranking system. South Carolina considers releases with free product on
surface water (Class 1 risk rank) and releases with free product greater than 1 foot (Class
2 risk rank) to be high priority.
54 In some cases Class 2 releases were listed as inactive.
55 For more information, see the South Carolina state chapter.
be appropriate to help ensure the recovery of free product contamination and move
cleanups toward closure.
Use of Enforcement Actions (2 States)
Federal regulation requires RPs to clean up releases regardless of whether state funding
is available. Enforcement actions can be a useful tool to compel recalcitrant RPs to
proceed with cleanups and ensure this federal regulation is met. For the purposes
of this report, recalcitrance was based on the state's definition and designation in its
database. In cases where an RP is recalcitrant, a cleanup might remain unaddressed
until the RP is located and compelled to perform the cleanup. However, a state might
not enforce this requirement either due to a lack of resources to issue orders or
because the state's priority-based regulations require the focus to be on the highest
risk sites. Several states informed EPA they do not enforce all cleanups because
their state cleanup funds are insufficient to reimburse the associated claims. In fact,
to manage the amount of claims filed, some states restrict RPs from conducting a
cleanup until the state agency directs them to do so. This issue is specific to state-
funded cleanups and, therefore, should not prohibit the enforcement of RP-financed
cleanups, except in cases where resources for state oversight is also an issue. In
addition to the backlog reduction effort, EPA is working with states to improve fund
soundness so state funds can meet their financial obligations.
Only two states in this study, New Jersey and Texas, tracked whether an RP is
recalcitrant in state databases.56 Recalcitrant RPs were responsible for 27 percent
of the New Jersey backlog and 16 percent of the Texas backlog (Figure 49 below).
However, according to the Texas data, the state used enforcement actions at only
42 open releases and 195 closed releases. Although other participating states
do not track recalcitrance or use of enforcement, several states reported the
Figure 49. Recalcitrance of RPs of Open LUST Releases in New Jersey and Texas
Not Recalcitrant
4,268
73%
/ \
Not Recalcitrant
2,492
84%
NJ
TX
56 Texas program staff considers an RP recalcitrant if a release is at least 1.5 years old and
no correspondence has been received from the RP for 15 months. New Jersey program
staff considers an RP recalcitrant if a report is overdue.
34
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
usefulness of such actions and an interest in increasing their enforcement capacity.
State programs reported that once certain releases were targeted for cleanup with
ARRA funds by the state, the RPs decided to take action themselves. More frequent
and conspicuous enforcement could yield more closures at stalled releases as well
as spur other recalcitrant RPs to resume cleanup activities and further reduce the
cleanup backlog.
Cleanup Standards
States set cleanup standards in accordance with federal regulations and these
standards must be protective of human health and the environment. Cleanup
standards drive the cleanup process because the standards must be met before
a release can be considered for closure. Before this report was written, and in
comments on this report, many states postulated that cleanup standards are one
of the primary drivers for the backlog. Given this situation, EPA was very interested
in collecting data on state cleanup standards. Unfortunately, the data needed to
evaluate and compare the pace of release-specific remediation with state cleanup
standards were not available for this study. However, the report will briefly discuss
the general approaches used by states to set cleanup standards. In writing this report,
EPA is in no way advocating that a state compromise protection of human health or
the environment or meeting its cleanup standards in order to generate more backlog
reduction. EPA's definition of "cleanup completed" is met when the state determines
that no further actions are currently necessary to protect human health and the
environment.57 Protecting human health and groundwater resources is the core
mission of the UST program, and states set cleanup standards as appropriate for the
conditions within each state.
State use of cleanup standards is complex. States develop cleanup standards on a
spectrum that runs from establishing baseline cleanup numbers for contaminants
regardless of exposure scenarios to setting individual cleanup numbers based on site-
specific risk assessment. Most state programs develop baseline cleanup standards
based on generalized site characteristics, such as industrial or residential settings
or the presence of drinking water sources. In some cases, states adopt standards
that are equivalent to federal maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) even though
these MCLs were not designed as cleanup standards but as the federal maximum
allowable concentration limits of contaminants in surface or groundwater used in the
drinking water supply, as designated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Other states
choose to establish more protective cleanup standards in order to achieve state-
specific goals, such as protection of drinking water resources. There are variations
57 An implicit part of this determination is that the cleanup meets risk-based standards for
human exposure and groundwater migration. EPA, UST And LUST Performance Measures
Definitions. www.epa.gov/oust/cat/PMDefinitions.pdf
in implementation as well. For example, New Hampshire commented that different
states apply measurement of baseline cleanup standards to different locations within
the plume ranging from the property boundary to throughout the entire plume.
Using baseline cleanup standards without taking into account site-specific exposure
pathways might increase the time required to close releases due to additional cleanup
and monitoring required for the releases to meet the cleanup standards. EPA was
interested in analyzing this issue, but, as stated earlier, the data were not available.
Many states rely on site-specific risk assessment to develop site-specific cleanup
standards. Beginning in the 1990s, many states adopted EPA-supported risk-based
decision-making (RBDM) and/or the associated risk-based corrective action (RBCA)
policies for LUST cleanups. The use of RBDM can expedite the corrective action
process. RBDM is a process where the risks posed by a release to human health
and the environment drive the decisions for the LUST cleanup. At LUST sites,
RBDM utilizes risk and exposure assessment methodology to help state programs
make determinations about the extent and urgency of corrective action and about
the scope and intensity of their oversight of releases requiring corrective action by
UST owners and operators. RBDM allows state programs to focus on reducing risks
from contamination and to appropriately modify baseline cleanup standards based
on site-specific conditions. Under RBDM, cleanups can be deemed complete even
if contamination is present above state baseline standards, provided that risk to
receptors has been sufficiently reduced to be protective of human health and the
environment. Due to the length of time required to remediate groundwater, RBDM
is particularly useful at groundwater cleanups that do not impact drinking water
resources or create other exposure concerns.58 Many states have adopted a tiered
approach to LUST cleanups such as the one described in Table 4. This approach allows
an owner/operator or state to choose the level of cleanup required for the release.
Tiered approaches provide flexibility in determining appropriate cleanup levels while
still ensuring protection of human health and the environment.
Table 4. Example of Tiered Approach to RBDM59
Baseline cleanup levels
Site-specific cleanup
levels based on physical
characteristics
Site-specific cleanup levels
based on quantitative risk
analysis
58 See OSWER Directive 9610.17 Use Of Risk-Based Decision-Making In UST Corrective
Action Programs for more information. Available online at: www.epa.gov/OUST/directiv/
od961017.htm.
59 This example is based on the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency model.
SEPTEMBER 2011
35
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Use of Institutional and Engineering Controls
(4 States)
State programs often pair site-specific cleanup standards with the use of institutional/
engineering controls (IC/ECs). IC/ECs provide a structured format to effectively
manage exposure associated with releases while protecting human health and the
environment.60 The associated reduction in corrective action oversight translates
directly to reduced cleanup costs for state funds but might also lead to an expansion
in a state's long-term obligations to monitor IC/ECs and ensure that they remain
effective. Information on the cost of maintaining those controls is not readily available
for LUST releases.
Institutional controls provide a legal mechanism that restricts land and resource use
to protect human health and the environment. For example, a restriction on drinking
water well installation might be incorporated into a property's deed. In addition to
institutional controls, engineering controls can also prevent exposure to remaining
contamination by providing a physical barrier between the contamination and people
or the environment. A state program's capacity to monitor and maintain applicable
controls is essential to the successful use of institutional or engineering controls.
Among the states analyzed, only Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, and New Jersey
provided release-level data on IC/EC use.61 Illinois, North Carolina, Michigan, and
New Jersey have implemented IC/ECs at 49, 36,13, and 16 percent of releases closed
between 2002 and 2008, respectively (Figure 50 to the right).
Figure 50. Use of IC/ECs at LUST Releases, by State - 1994 to 20086
T3
01
_o
u
010101010101000000000
1-Hi-Hi-Hi-Hi-Hi-HrMrMrMrMrMrMrMrMrM
O 60%
= 40%
20% -
60% -
40% -
20% -
Closed with IC/ECs
Closed without IC/ECs
ro
U
60% -
40% -
20% -
100% -
>, 80%
01
01
Year
60 Refer to the March 17, 2009, OSWER Cross-Program Revitalization Measures Report for
definitions and examples of how this is currently reported for EPA. Available online at:
www.epa.gov/landrevitalization/download/cprm report 031709.pdf.
61 California's program provided data on the use of institutional controls, but releases
closed with institutional controls accounted for a very low percentage of all closed
releases each year in the state. This might be due to data completeness limitations, so
these data were not analyzed in the study.
62 Data for New Jersey include only institutional controls. Additional cleanups might have
been completed with engineering controls.
36
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Multi-Site Approaches
One goal of this study is to open and expand the dialogue on alternative ways to address the LUST cleanup backlog. Several
states have implemented initiatives that might be well suited to other states. For example, some states have found success
bundling sites into multi-site cleanup agreements under a single RP. Another initiative used by state programs identified
multiple cleanup opportunities for releases in close geographic proximity. While a traditional multi-site agreement (MSA)
might not work in this circumstance because different RPs are involved, state programs have successfully moved multiple
cleanups forward by focusing their attention on area-wide planning and corridor work in a specific geographic area.
Releases per Responsible/Affiliated Party (12 States)
Both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 analyses confirm that individual parties are potentially responsible for or affiliated with multiple
releases within the backlog. The results indicate economies of scale might be achieved by developing multi-site cleanup
approaches with parties responsible for or, potentially, those affiliated with large numbers of releases.
The Phase 1 study identified 10,000 releases in 15 states located at facilities associated with major oil companies or national
and regional convenience stores. However, the data were drawn from the names of sites and facilities where releases occurred
and did not necessarily indicate the party potentially responsible for the cleanup of each release. In the Phase 2 study, EPA
looked at state data to identify PRPs of ten or more sites within each state to promote opportunities for strategic backlog
reduction efforts with parties responsible for or affiliated with larger numbers of releases. It is important to note, however,
that parties listed within the database might or might not be the liable RP; they might be affiliated parties (APs), such as the
corporation associated with the franchise name. State-specific data identified individual parties associated with each release,
and the state chapters document whether any specific individual party was associated with more than ten releases within
each state (see individual state chapters for an analysis of the data from each of the 12 states).
Two states, Pennsylvania and Washington State, have entered into MSAs with major corporations to close significant numbers
of releases. Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) started using this approach in 2001. PA DEP
entered into MSAs with BP Amoco and a joint MSA with Motiva Enterprises LLC, Jiffy Lube International, and the Pennzoil-
Quaker State Company. Data were unavailable for the individual releases but were provided for the site-level cleanup status.
The MSA with BP Amoco includes 234 sites, 130 of which (55 percent) have been closed. The MSA with Motiva includes 96
sites, 59 of which (61 percent) have been closed. The majority of the remaining sites in both MSAs are in the Remediation
stage. PA DEP credits MSAs with accelerating cleanups.63 Washington State's Department of Ecology began a MSA with Shell
more recently in 2008 to address 86 releases in the next ten years. Shell benefits from the agreement by having dedicated
state staff to ensure consistency in addressing the Shell releases covered under the MSA.
At the national level, EPA took a broader look at APs. EPA compiled state RP data for releases in 12 participating states and
standardized entries to identify APs who were affiliated with releases in multiple states. EPA's analysis identified 24 entities
affiliated with 20 percent (9,608 releases) of the 46,895 open releases for which AP/RP data were available (Figure 51, page
38). Each of these parties was affiliated with 100 or more open releases, and all of the parties were private companies, with
the exception of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). Again, it is important to note that these parties might or might not be
Multi-Site Approaches: Findings
Individual potentially responsible parties
(PRP) with multiple releases are found in
every state.
56% of releases were located within one
mile of five or more releases.
Data Limitation
The majority of records in the data provided
by California's program list a name of an
individual contact person, so the state was
excluded from the cross-state comparison of
AP/RP data. For more information on RPs in
California, see the California state chapter.
RP data were not available for releases in
Washington State. Of 59,537 open releases
analyzed after the removal of California
and Washington State releases, 21 percent
(12,632 releases) of the AP/RP data fields
were either blank or marked as "unknown."
The majority of the releases without AP/RP
data are located in Florida and New Jersey.
All releases with unknown AP/RPs were
excluded from statistics presented in this
study.
63 For more information on PA DEP's MSAs, see:
http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/communitv/waste management/14069.
SEPTEMBER 2011
37
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
the liable RP. However, they might have a vested interest in seeing releases cleaned
up where the company or entity's name is posted.
Figure 51. Number of LUST Releases with Single Party Affiliation, in 12 Participating States64
9,608 \
20% "~~^ X
arties)/ \
(24 p,
r^
\ / 37'
\ / 8(
^- -^ (26,816
Number of Open Releases
with which a Single Party
is Affiliated
Fewer than 100
100 or more
Figure 52. Open LUST Releases in 12
States by Type of AP/RP65
Data analysis attributes the remaining 80 percent of releases to more than 26,000
parties. EPA might want to better understand
the incentives or obstacles faced by tank
owners who have very few releases oronlyone
release. EPA can work with state programs to
find out more about what these tank owners
need to address their releases, and then EPA
and the states can consider strategies to move
these releases toward closure.
While private entities are affiliated with the
majority of open releases, releases at local,
state, and federal government facilities
account for 10 percent (4,688 releases) of
the 46,905 releases for which the type of RP
could be determined (Figure 52 to the right).
These releases include state departments of
transportation, federal military facilities, and
municipal facilities. Overall, local government
entities are responsible for the majority
of these releases. However, DOD alone is
associated with 346 releases in the 12 states
where RP data were available and is the largest federal government agency RP.66 North
Private
Federal government
State government
Local government
Carolina reported a successful collaboration with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NC DOT) to address NC DOT releases along right-of-ways.67
While some states have effectively used MSAs, this approach might not be appropriate
in every state, particularly in states with statutory mandates to address releases in
order of priority ranking. Major corporations have also been divesting their service
stations in many states in the past several years so there are fewer cases where large
numbers of releases fall under the responsibility of one entity. Nevertheless, every
state in the study with available AP/RP data showed multiple entities associated with
ten or more releases (Table 5). States can consider whether MSAs would be a useful
tool in starting work in cases where RPs have multiple releases in the early stages of
cleanup or cleanups that have stalled.
Table 5. Affiliated or Potentially Responsible Parties with Ten or More Releases, by State68
Number of Affiliated/Potentially Percent
Responsible Parties with of State's
State Ten or More Releases Backlog
California
Florida
Illinois
Michigan
Montana
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Hampshire
New York
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Texas
88
101
55
69
12
7
17
5
12
31
21
32
27
19
22
18
18
20
6
34
11
11
11
35
23
20
Number of
Releases
1,967
3,546
1,508
1,676
243
99
1,430
79
264
707
1,069
689
584
64 The 12,632 releases without AP/RP data listed are not included in this graphic.
65 The 12,632 releases without AP/RP data listed are not included in this graphic.
66 As discussed in the data limitations section, this number does not include data from
California which has a substantial number of DOD facilities.
67 For more information, see the North Carolina state chapter.
68 Data for Washington State were unavailable for this analysis.
38
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Figure 53. Percent of Open LUST Releases Located Within One Mile of Five or More Releases, by Participating State
100%
State:
Total Number of Releases:
CA
10,274
FL
16,121
IL
8,479
Ml
9,169
MT
1,189
NIC
6,343
NE
1,771
NH
745
NJ
4,268
Geographic Clusters (13 States)
Another multi-site approach for states to consider is addressing releases based on
geographic proximity. This approach does not rely on MSAs but instead approaches
cleanup in specific, targeted areas. Geographic proximity can call attention to
releases in areas of interest, such as those of redevelopment (e.g., enterprise zones),
environmental justice, or ecological sensitivity. Highlighting geographic clusters of
releases and working with state and local governments in an area-wide planning
context and in corridor initiatives can facilitate remediation of multiple releases.
Approaching the assessment and cleanup needs of an area impacted by LUSTs
can be more effective than focusing on individual sites in isolation of the adjacent
or surrounding areas. Analysis of the available data indicated clusters of releases,
defined by releases located within one mile of five or more other releases, existed in
all 14 states (Figure 53 above).
Several states in the backlog study already have area-wide planning efforts underway.
These releases present opportunities to consolidate resources and address multiple
releases. New Jersey, New York, and New Hampshire use area-wide planning
approaches. New Jersey and New York created Brownfield Opportunity Areas
to enhance revitalization of areas and communities affected by the presence of
brownfields.69 The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES)
provides an example for states in the context of funding area-wide planning efforts.
The Department encouraged the state regional planning commissions to work with
local governments to apply for petroleum brownfields assessment grants. Then NH
DES secured a petroleum brownfields cleanup revolving loan fund grant to support
cleanup and reuse of these low priority releases. NH DES estimated approximately
69 See New York Department of Environmental Conservation fact sheet: www.dec.nv.gov/
chemical/8650.html.
NY
2,458
PA
3,084
SC
2,942
TX WA
2,968 2,003
10 percent of its LUST releases
were addressed through this
process.
States are also taking a corridor
approach to cleanup. Releases
in corridors are clustered
primarily along interstates or
main thoroughfares. Florida has
a public-private revitalization
effort along the 70-mile
Tamiami Scenic Highway route
that could involve as many as
100 releases (Figure 54 to the
right).70 California has a multi-
agency revitalization effort
along 1-710 that will result in
the cleanup and reuse of LUST
releases in this environmental
justice area and will also focus
on compliance and prevention
measures at active facilities in
the same corridor.
Considering geographically-
clustered releases can pave the
Number of other open
releases within a 1-mile
radius of each open release
D<5
5 +
Figure 54. LUST Cleanups in Florida and Along the
Tamiami Scenic Highway Route in Florida
Number of open
releases within a
one-mile radius
70 See Florida Department of Environmental Protection fact sheet: www.eli.org/pdf/
tamiamitrailfactsheetl02709.pdf.
SEPTEMBER 2011
39
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
way for new community-based revitalization efforts, utilize economies of scale such
as reduced equipment costs, and present opportunities to develop multi-site cleanup
strategies, especially at locations with commingled contamination. However, EPA
recognizes that state and local regulations might present implementation challenges.
The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MT DEQ) completed a successful
pilot at geographically-clustered releases. MT DEQ had to work through many
administrative, legal, and fiscal challenges to complete the project but believes the
pilot shows the approach is worth the effort in terms of future benefit and cost savings
to the program. EPA encourages states to look for opportunities to use resource
consolidation and area-wide planning/corridor approaches. EPA also realizes this
approach is be best geared to address targeted groups of releases as opposed to
a state-wide opportunity for every cluster of releases. EPA intends to work with
state programs to continue further geospatial analyses on clusters of open releases
in relation to RPs, highway corridors, local geologic and hydrogeologic settings,
groundwater resources, and communities with environmental justice concerns.
These analyses might reveal additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
Data Management
A lack of accurate and complete data limited EPA's ability to identify other
opportunities to expedite reduction of the LUST cleanup backlog in this analysis.
More importantly, EPA suspects it also affects the ability of state program managers
to efficiently manage their cleanups. As a result of incomplete database tracking,
state program managers must undertake large-scale paper file review efforts to get
an accurate handle on their state backlogs and the data necessary to plan for future
obligations. Data management challenges contribute to the backlog because state
programs were not able to gather and analyze important information efficiently or to
respond effectively to changing conditions. Table 6 presents examples of important
LUST release data that could be useful to include in state databases. Tracking
these data or comparable data elements in state databases would allow for a more
thorough assessment of state backlogs and enhance state program management.
EPA recognizes comprehensive data management in any organization is always a
formidable challenge. However, accurate data can optimize remediation strategies
and reduce costs.
Table 6. LUST Release Attributes and Their Value to Managers
Release Attribute
Affiliated Party
Value to State Program Management
Provides potential opportunities to seek interest in multi-site
work with affiliated parties.
Applicable Site Cleanup
Standards
Allows evaluation and comparison of the pace of release-
specific remediation with state cleanup standards.
Contaminant Levels
Allows tracking of remedial progress, evaluation of cleanup
technology in use, and informs risk-based approaches.
FR Mechanism
Documents type and availability of financing for cleanup.
Institutional/Engineering
Controls
Tracks contamination left in place at the completion of
removal or remedial actions and facilitates tracking of long-
term management obligations.
Life Cycle Costs of
Remediation Technologies
For states with state funds, allows states to determine long-
term costs of remediation.
Media Contaminated
Informs risk and release priority.
Pending Closure
Facilitates tracking releases close to closure.
Presence of Free Product
Helps to track compliance with federal and state cleanup
regulations.
Highlights releases with potential for concern.
Release Date
Establishes timeline for release.
Provides context for identifying RP.
Tracks age as a milestone to measure the speed of cleanups.
Remedial Technologies
Documents the technologies in use to allow program
managers to easily assess whether the technologies are
appropriate, including MNA.
Facilitates optimization reviews.
Responsible Party (RP)
Tracks the liable party and facilitates contacting RP to pursue
cleanup of the release.
Facilitates identification of RPs with multiple releases.
RP Recalcitrance/Last
Date of Communication
Highlights inaction by RPs.
Facilitates use of enforcement actions.
Source Removal Date
Provides milestone to measure speed of cleanup and allows
tracking of remedial progress.
Establishes timelines for moving releases through the cleanup
pipeline (i.e., assessment, remediation, and closure).
Provides information to forecast the type of work remaining
to close releases.
Identifies releases where cleanup activities are stalled or have
not begun.
Stage of Cleanup
40
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
ADDITIONAL PROPOSED REASONS FOR
THE BACKLOG NOT ANALYZED IN THIS
STUDY
In the Introduction, EPA identified additional proposed reasons for the persistence
of the LUST cleanup backlog. However, these proposed reasons could not be fully
evaluated with the data available for this study. These unexamined reasons include:
States with more stringent cleanup standards have longer cleanup times.
The use of separate organizations for LUST cleanup and enforcement dilutes
attention to cleanup.
The type and implementation of a private financial mechanism affects the pace
of cleanups.
Cleanups where property transactions occur receive staff priority before other
cleanups.
Older releases involve contaminants that require more time and resources to
fully remediate.
Small businesses take longer than large businesses to clean up releases.
Releases remain in the backlog due to a lack of economic incentive for RPs to
close the releases and redevelop the sites.
Releases at active facilities take longer to clean up.
Throughout this study, EPA introduced potential opportunities to address select areas
of the backlog. These opportunities are not intended as recommendations but are
meant to open a dialogue with the states and other stakeholders on all opportunities
to reduce the national cleanup backlog and serve as the basis for backlog reduction
strategies. EPA intends to develop these strategies jointly with the states. The
opportunities raised in this study are examined in more detail in the next section.
SEPTEMBER 2011
41
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE THE BACKLOG
Over the course of the program, EPA and the states developed tools and processes
to advance the cleanup of releases and reduce the LUST cleanup backlog. In this
report, EPA identified several potential opportunities states can and have explored
in the development of their own backlog reduction strategies. Many of these
potential opportunities come from state activities that successfully moved releases
toward closure or are tools already being used within the program. Examples of
successfully employed backlog reduction tactics include systematic reviews of old
case files in Illinois; multi-site cleanup agreements in Pennsylvania and Washington
State; efforts to identify easy-to-close cleanups in Montana and North Carolina; the
use of integrated funding from different sources, such as the petroleum brownfields
program in New Hampshire; and the use of privatized cleanup oversight in New Jersey
and Texas. Additional discussion of states' backlog reduction efforts can be found in
each state chapter.
EPA is not recommending the implementation of every opportunity described in this
report. In some cases, a state program might already pursue similar opportunities
as a function of its ongoing activities. Other state programs might not be able to
implement certain opportunities because of statutes, prioritization systems, or
programmatic limitations. EPA believes, however, that presenting these potential
opportunities will help states with the examination of their backlogs and identify
promising options to reduce the LUST cleanup backlog. EPA intends to use these
potential opportunities as starting points to develop more detailed strategies jointly
with the states. The strategies could involve the creation of program metrics, targeted
resources for specific cleanup actions, clarification and development of guidance,
and/or revised policies. The development of these strategies might entail targeted
data collection, review of particular case files, and further analysis of problem areas.
The potential opportunities identified by EPA in this study fall into three general
categories and are discussed below:
Accelerating Corrective Action;
Pursuing Targeted Initiatives; and
Improving Program Implementation.
ACCELERATING CORRECTIVE ACTION
Expedite Site Assessments
One of the major difficulties in reducing the backlog is that corrective action often
takes a long time to complete. EPA is committed to helping state and local agencies
make cleanups faster, more effective, and less expensive. An apparent bottleneck
in this process is the Site Assessment stage. Site assessment is a crucial early stage
leading to an understanding of the nature of a release (e.g., its source and extent) and
a site's characteristics. Conventional site assessments involve a significant amount
of data analysis and interpretation, which is often completed off site, can require
multiple phases, and can take a long time to complete. Using an expedited site
assessment (ESA) process can improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of site
characterization. The ESA process is a framework to rapidly characterize LUST releases
for corrective action decisions. An ESA is typically conducted in a single mobilization
and completed in a matter of days through the use of field-generated data and on-
site interpretation, flexible sampling and analysis, and the presence of senior staff
empowered to redirect the investigation in response to new data. EPA created its
March 1997 guidance manual Expedited Site Assessment Tools For Underground
Storage Tank Sites: A Guide For Regulators to help state regulators understand and
implement the ESA process, and it is available at: www.epa.gov/swerustl/pubs/sam.
htm. Additional information is available at: www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/sitechar.htm.
Optimize Remedial Design
The selection of the remedial technology to clean up a release can have a significant
effect on the time to complete closure for long-term cleanups. Thus, state program
managers should revisit the remedy decision periodically and consider options to
optimize the remedy. The key to the optimal design of a remediation system is a
comprehensive site characterization, especially for complex, long-term cleanups.
Consideration of remedial design should guide the site characterization process from
the outset. In addition, EPA believes it is important to consider periodic revaluation
of cleanup progress to determine whether the cleanup technology remains the most
appropriate.
An appropriate technology is one that will meet remedial objectives within a reasonable
timeframe and makes the site protective of human health and the environment.
Remedial technology optimization uses defined approaches to improve effectiveness
and efficiency in reaching the objectives of an environmental remedy. Optimization
approaches might include: third-party site-wide optimization evaluations conducted
42
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
by expert teams; the use of mathematical tools to determine optimal operating
parameters or monitoring networks; or the consideration of innovative technologies.
During the remedy selection or optimization processes, managers should consider
the use of alternative cleanup remedy options as well as traditional remedy
approaches, such as pump-and-treat systems for groundwater contamination and
excavation and disposal for soil contamination. Examples of alternative cleanup
technologies include: soil vapor extraction, air sparging, biosparging, landfarming,
biopiles, bioventing, low-temperature thermal desorption, in situ groundwater
bioremediation, dual-phase extraction, enhanced aerobic bioremediation, and
chemical oxidation. When possible, remedial designs should consider ways to lessen
the environmental footprint of a cleanup, making it a "greener" cleanup.71 Managers
can also consider employing innovative technologies. In many cases, EPA does
not have data demonstrating cost-effectiveness of innovative technologies (e.g.,
co-solvents, surfactant-enhanced remediation, and soil washing) for typical LUST
sites. However, these technologies might have positive results and be appropriate
for select circumstances. Additional resources on remedy optimization, alternative
technologies, and innovative technologies include:
How To Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies For Underground Storage
Tank Sites: A Guide For Corrective Action Plan Reviewers. October 1994 - May
1995. www.epa.gov/OUST/pubs/tums.htm.
OSWER Directive 9380.0-25: Promotion of Innovative Technologies in Waste
Management Programs. April 1996. www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/itpolmem.pdf.
Green Remediation Best Management Practices: Sites with Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Systems. June 2011. www.clu-in.org/greenremediation/docs/ust
gr fact sheet.pdf.
U.S. EPA Technology Innovation and Field Services Division, Contamination Site
Cleanup Information on Remediation Optimization, Clu-in website, www.clu-in.
org/techfocus/default.focus/sec/Remediation Optimization/cat/Overview.
Apply Risk-Based Decision-Making (RBDM)
EPA encourages the use of RBDM during the corrective action process for LUST
releases. RBDM is a process during which decisions are made about sites according
to the actual risk each release poses to human health and the environment. EPA
believes RBDM is an effective tool that can facilitate efforts to move all cleanups
forward expeditiously while still ensuring protection of human health and the
environment.
71 For additional information about EPA's Principles for Greener Cleanups, see: www.epa.
gov/oswer/greencleanups/principles.html.
State staff may utilize RBDM throughout the corrective action process, including site
classification and prioritization, establishment of cleanup goals, and determination
of the level of cleanup oversight. In March 1995, OUST developed a comprehensive
policy that explains the use of risk-based approaches at LUST sites: OSWER Directive
9610.17 Use Of Risk-Based Decision-Making In UST Corrective Action Programs,
available at: www.epa.gov/OUST/directiv/od961017.htm.
Under RBDM, the use of IC/ECs can help reduce the time to closure by mitigating
risk and adjusting cleanup goals. EPA recognizes state program managers might face
difficulties in implementing and monitoring IC/ECs due to site-specific characteristics
but believes these controls can be valuable components of efficient corrective action.
EPA has produced several resources for state managers, including:
Institutional Controls: A Site Manager's Guide to Identifying, Evaluating and
Selecting Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action
Cleanups. February 2005. www.epa.gov/superfund/policv/ic/guide/citguide.pdf.
This guidance provides decision makers with an overview of the types of
institutional controls that are commonly available, including their relative
strengths and weaknesses, and provides a discussion of the key factors to
consider when evaluating and selecting institutional controls.
Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and
Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites, November 2010.
www.epa.gov/superfund/policv/ic/pdfs/PIME-IC-Guidance-lnterim.pdf.
The purpose of this guidance is to provide site managers of contaminated
sites, site attorneys, and other interested parties with information and
recommendations that should be useful for planning, implementing, maintaining,
and enforcing institutional controls for Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund); brownfields; federal
facility; UST; and RCRA site cleanups. It addresses some of the common issues
that might be encountered and provides an overview of EPA's policy regarding the
roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in various aspects of planning,
implementing, maintaining, and enforcing institutional controls. A thorough
understanding of the concepts and sources in this and related documents
referenced here should help ensure that institutional controls are properly
implemented and operate effectively during their lifespan.
Institutional Controls Bibliography. December 2005. www.epa.gov/superfund/
policv/ic/guide/biblio.pdf.
This document serves as a reference for policy guidelines concerning the use of
institutional controls. The document covers 40 guidance and policy documents
and provides citations and brief synopses of the institutional control use and
policy information in each of the documents.
SEPTEMBER 2011
43
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Provide Incentives for Cleanup Contractors
In addition to the technical items discussed above, states can provide incentives for
contractors to complete work more quickly and to encourage efficiencies. Many of
these approaches use economic incentives and market forces to encourage cleanup
contractors to keep cleanup expenditures under control and meet cleanup goals as
soon as possible. Incentive approaches include charging financial penalties for down
time, requiring pre-approval of proposed cleanup plans and budgets, paying once per
cost plan, and offering bonuses for early completion to help reduce remedial costs
and expedite cleanups.
PFP contracts are another form of incentive used to reduce costs to states and
that can help accelerate cleanups. Under PFP contracts, contractors are paid a set
amount of money for reaching specific contamination reduction goals, which are
predetermined by state cleanup experts. This process helps ensure cleanups are
completed expeditiously for a pre-defined cost. Several states have successfully
used PFP contracts to address LUST releases and could also integrate early closure
incentives into PFP contracts. PFP seems to work well where site characteristics can
be confidently documented and when a competitive bidding process is used to set the
cleanup price. PFP might not be appropriate for extremely complex sites with many
unknown variables. A number of states, including South Carolina and Nebraska, are
continuing and improving their PFP practices that are yielding faster cleanups at lower
prices. Existing time-and-materials contracts can often be converted to PFP contracts;
these converted contracts could be a useful tool for cleanups that have continued
for a long period of time without attaining cleanup goals. Although commonly
used for state-lead cleanups, PFP can be used for private cleanups as well, including
cleanups where a state fund reimburses private parties. A state fund that reimburses
private parties for the costs incurred by the RPs' privately-contracted cleanup firms
can instead set PFP milestones as criteria for fund reimbursement, regardless of the
payment terms that parties might have agreed to among themselves.
EPA has published several resources for managers, including its February 2002 Pay
for Performance Toolbox (www.epa.gov/OUST/pfp/toolbox.htm). which provides
the information needed to start up or expand a PFP program for LUST cleanups.
Additional resources are available at: www.epa.gov/OUST/pfp/index.htm.
PURSUING TARGETED INITIATIVES
The Phase 2 study identified several areas where targeted initiatives could be
developed to address groups of LUST releases. EPA believes state staff could further
reduce the backlog by eliminating old, easier-to-close releases; capitalizing on
economies of scale; and pursuing partnerships with private and government entities.
Remediate Soil Contamination
Although states have historically addressed the majority of releases with soil-only
contamination, the states in this study have approximately 9,500 releases remaining
in the backlog that contaminated soil only. Soil contamination is generally easier and
less costly to remediate than groundwater contamination, so targeted and continued
efforts to address these easier-to-close releases could lead to a significant reduction
in the backlog. In addition, remediating soil contamination can ensure contaminants
do not migrate into groundwater resources and create a more complicated cleanup
scenario.
Review Case Files for Releases near Closure
Several state programs in this study reported that their backlogs include releases that
have nearly attained cleanup goals but require additional confirmation monitoring.
For example, LUST programs might require releases to meet cleanup goals for four
successive monitoring events but the goals are achieved at only three of the four
events. These releases could be closed by encouraging project managers to track
these releases and dedicating a small amount of funding to make final closure
determinations. Montana has recently designated a pending closure category in its
database to facilitate tracking releases close to closure.
Review Case Files for Old Releases with No Activity
Through discussions with staff from the various state programs in this study, it became
apparent that old releases are often not well-defined, remain unaddressed, and, in
some cases, are not assigned to a project manager. Some states have reviewed old
paper files to update databases, assign project managers, and identify releases for
closure. These efforts were conducted using a variety of resources, including state
staff, interns, and contractors. Not only are such reviews essential to ensure informed
management, but numerous closures have been achieved through these initiatives.
EPA recommends, as resources permit, that all states conduct reviews of releases in
their cleanup backlogs to ensure all releases are classified and managed effectively.
Track and Address Orphan Releases
State programs are burdened with cleaning up orphan releases and should expand
efforts to strategically address these sites. As the contracting parties, state programs
often take advantage of economies of scale, such as hiring a single contractor
to remediate multiple sites or addressing commingled LUST contamination
simultaneously, and these approaches should be considered when addressing orphan
releases. By tracking and addressing orphan releases, a state program can also more
fully understand its backlog and its obligations and manage resources accordingly.
44
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Pursue Multi-Site Agreements (MSAs)
Much of the cleanup backlog consists of releases located at facilities with common
ownership, RPs, or other APs. Several states, including Pennsylvania and Washington
State, have successfully pursued MSAs with such parties even though the states
rely on different FR mechanisms. Pennsylvania has a state fund, and Washington
State cleanups are funded through private financing, typically insurance. MSAs are
designed to ensure releases progress toward meeting cleanup goals and to streamline
project oversight while also providing current owners with a measure of control over
year-to-year costs. RPs can be engaged through incentives or enforcement actions,
and other non-responsible APs might be interested in contributing resources to
ensure facilities bearing their name are cleaned up. In addition, states and EPA can
work with government agencies to address multiple releases through MSAs or other
appropriate tools. EPA recognizes that state statutes and regulations can present
implementation challenges for both MSAs and the geographic clusters discussed in
the next paragraph, but these approaches can still result in significant cleanups.
Clean up Releases in Geographic Clusters
Significant numbers of releases in the cleanup backlog are geographically-clustered,
which offers opportunities to maximize economies of scale. EPA believes addressing
geographic clusters of releases in an area-wide planning context can facilitate the
remediation of additional releases. Geographic initiatives could include partnership
efforts with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S.
Department of Transportation to address cleanups within sustainable communities
and along "corridors." Such efforts could highlight targeted economic development
areas, enterprise zones, environmental justice areas, ecologically sensitive areas, or
other areas of special focus. In addition, addressing commingled contaminant plumes
in one cleanup action or developing intra- or interstate regional cleanup initiatives
could allow economies of scale to reduce overall cleanup costs.
IMPROVING PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION
Through the course of this study, a variety of issues have been identified across
state programs that, if improved, could potentially increase the closure rate of LUST
releases.
Increase Program Resources
According to the ASTSWMO 2009 State Fund Survey and the states in this study,
program resources are limited and cannot fully address the backlog. Pursuing budget
increases and increases to tank or petroleum fees could provide additional state
funding to better equip state programs to address the extensive contamination caused
by LUSTs. In addition, states and EPA could examine the possibility of dedicating
funding to specific problem areas to help close out lingering releases in the backlog.
For example, additional funding to address low priority releases or the presence of
free product could allow some states to address these cleanups that might otherwise
be deferred. EPA recognizes that overall budgets are currently limited. However,
the data show state UST programs will be hard-pressed to address LUST releases in a
timely manner and ensure protection of human health and the environment without
additional funding.
Improve Data Management
A lack of accurate and complete data among the states analyzed in the Phase 2 study
affects the ability of state program managers to efficiently manage their cleanups and
limits EPA's ability to fully characterize the LUST cleanup backlog in these states and
identify opportunities to reduce the backlog. An effective data management system
minimizes data handling and improves data quality, allowing project managers more
time to oversee cleanups. In other words, good data supports program management.
In addition, effective data management systems require less labor and resources
for data retrieval and analysis, thus facilitating backlog reduction efforts to target
easier-to-close releases or to identify parties responsible for releases. Centralized
and electronic data storage would ensure all state staff have access to the same
information and would prevent the loss of institutional knowledge through employee
attrition. The availability of centralized electronic data would also allow for efficient
data retrieval for reporting purposes and for the analysis of remedial technology
effectiveness.
Data management technologies are constantly improving, and many techniques are
now available to state programs that were not possible in the past. The electronic
submission of data, including sampling reports, remediation plans, and other cleanup
information through Web-based interfaces minimizes data handling. For example,
California's GeoTracker database allows contractors to submit sampling reports and
geospatial data electronically, allowing state program managers to quickly identify
releases with free product present and evaluate details on contaminants. By
properly maintaining such a function, a state can reduce its reliance on paper reports.
Web-based submission of RP documents, including technical site data as well as
administrative correspondence, would similarly allow state program managers to
quickly identify cleanups that have stalled, RPs with overdue reports, and successful
technical approaches. For example, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
regularly queries its database to identify RPs from whom they have not received
correspondence in 15 months or more. According to ASTSWMO's Pulse of the Nation
2008, Arizona and Mississippi both developed new UST databases and found that the
systems have greatly improved program management.
SEPTEMBER 2011
45
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
Monitor FR Mechanisms
This study and discussions with the states reveal the need for improved monitoring
of private FR mechanisms. Several states reported some tank owners purchase
insurance and provide certification to the states and then do not renew the policy the
following year. Improved oversight and enforcement of the FR requirements by state
LIST regulators would help ensure owners have insurance coverage for LUST releases
and could help reduce the number of orphan cleanups that must be funded by the
states.
In addition to improved monitoring of FR mechanisms, better tracking of the financing
of individual releases could improve states' management of their backlogs. Currently,
most states do not track the FR mechanism or financing associated with individual
releases. Integrating these important data into LUST databases could help state
programs track releases where private financing should be available for cleanups and
to monitor the number and type of cleanups needing state funding. Such attention
could also better discern the efficacy of different financing mechanisms.
Expand Enforcement Practices
Although data for analysis of enforcement actions were generally not available for
this study, several state program managers discussed the value of enforcement
actions in preventing recalcitrant RPs from avoiding cleanup responsibilities and for
addressing cleanups at stalled releases. EPA believes states should maximize the use
of available enforcement tools and possibly expand their enforcement capacities
where appropriate. In addition, warning RPs of impending enforcement actions
could be useful in promoting cleanup action. Knowing that cleanup will be pursued
by a state program in the near term can encourage action by an RP. For example,
under the recent LUST cleanup work in support of the ARRA, several RPs moved
forward with cleanup actions when state programs announced their intention to
begin cleanup of those releases. In these instances, threat of heightened visibility
alone might have moved otherwise stalled releases toward closure. In general, more
frequent and conspicuous enforcement should yield more closures as well as deter
other RPs from neglecting cleanup activities.
Promote Voluntary Cleanup Programs
The use of voluntary cleanup programs can help achieve additional cleanups,
particularly in states that defer low priority releases. Voluntary cleanup programs
encourage RPs to clean up their releases, regardless of the priority. In states with
active state funds, some voluntary programs allow RPs to move forward with cleanups
provided they will accept reimbursement at a later date. Several states have had
success with voluntary cleanup programs, including Nebraska and Washington State.
Further efforts to make voluntary cleanup programs more widely used by RPs and
stakeholders in real estate transactions might result in more rapid closure of a greater
number of lower priority sites.
Privatize Cleanup Oversight
The use of contracted oversight staff could allow state programs to increase output
without incurring long-term staffing obligations, letting programs address more
releases than might be possible otherwise. Some states report improved program
management through the use of state certified LSPs or local agencies contracted to
assist in administrative and technical oversight. Other states and private insurers
who supply funding for cleanups have reported concerns that privatized oversight
can result in increased costs and increased time to closure.
Implementing Additional Cost Control Measures
Although this study focused on release-level data, discussions with states and the
review of ASTSWMO state fund surveys found a variety of strategies used by states
to help minimize program costs. Cost-control measures not discussed above include:
Using standard reporting forms.
Requiring competitive bidding for contracts.
Limiting payments for site assessments.
Certifying cleanup contractors.
Requiring the use of a fee schedule.
Purchasing cleanup equipment for reuse at multiple sites.
Reducing laboratory costs.
Implementing paperless reporting.
Additional information is available at ASTSWMO's website: www.astswmo.org/
Pages/Policies and Publications/Tanks.htm.
46
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
NEXT STEPS
This report sets the foundation for further dialogue among the states and EPA on the
LUST cleanup backlog that will ultimately lead to the implementation of informed
LUST cleanup backlog reduction strategies. Working with states, tribes, and other
stakeholders, EPA will develop detailed backlog reduction strategies with timeframes
and milestones for carrying out specific policy actions and cleanup initiatives. EPA
identified the two primary areas for moving forward with LUST cleanup backlog
reduction efforts: developing backlog reduction strategies and examining funding
issues for LUST cleanups.
Developing Backlog Reduction Strategies
EPA intends to use both the state-specific and national opportunities identified in
this study as the starting points for working with states to develop more detailed and
practical strategies to accelerate LUST cleanups and reduce the backlog. EPA's goal
is to develop strategies that can address specific areas of the backlog: some will be
state-specific and others will apply to multiple states. Not every strategy will work
in every state, but the Agency hopes to cover a large part of the backlog with these
different strategies. Examples of potential strategies include: multi-site cleanup
agreements with individual RPs or types of RPs, such as government agencies, and
initiatives targeted to different types of facilities, such as abandoned gas stations or
older high priority sites. Potential EPA-supported efforts could include assisting a
state program with review of its paper files or providing on-site support from the
EPA Office of Research and Development to facilitate expedited site assessments and
closures. Developing backlog reduction strategies will rely on collaborative efforts
between and among state agencies, EPA regions, and EPA headquarters. There might
be additional strategies based on other state activities not mentioned in this report,
and EPA hopes that states will share their expertise in these areas as part of the
national discussion.
Examining Funding Issues for LUST Cleanups
Adequate funding to address the LUST cleanup backlog is one of the key issues for the
states and EPA and must be considered during the development of national backlog
reduction strategies. There are three primary strategies that can address this issue.
First, find more resources to clean up more releases. The states and/or EPA might be
able to obtain funding for specific initiatives to address particular types of releases.
Second, consider a broad range of resource options. There are other resources
available to finance cleanups. For example, some states have started to finance state
fund claims. Public-private partnerships, brownfields, and petroleum brownfields
resources can be more widely applied to low priority and orphan site cleanups. New
Hampshire has been successfully integrating various funding sources to complete
cleanups since 2000, including the use of petroleum brownfields grants. New
Hampshire states that it is not uncommon for them to use two or three different
funding sources to complete a cleanup. EPA will work with states to demonstrate
the use of public and private funding sources to facilitate assessment, cleanup, and
reuse of sites.
Third, the states and EPA need to make sure FR works as intended. FR requirements
are designed to make sure someone can pay the costs of cleaning up leaks and
compensate third parties for bodily injury and property damage caused by LUSTs.
Improved oversight of all FR mechanisms by the states and EPA will help to ensure
these mechanisms provide the necessary coverage. In general, state programs lack
readily available data on the type of financial mechanism for releases that have not
received state funding. The programs also lack data on the expenditures to date
for cleanup, making it difficult to monitor cleanup costs and financing needs. If
more states sunset their cleanup funds, the increased reliance on private financing
mechanisms will require additional monitoring, tracking, and enforcement of
RP-financed cleanups. EPA intends stronger oversight of financial responsibility
compliance and mechanisms to assure LUST cleanup financing is readily available
from state and private sources. Finally, the states and EPA need to discuss how to
fund cleanup of orphan releases.
Other Backlog Reduction Efforts
In addition, EPA identified three ancillary areas that could assist with backlog
reduction efforts.
Exploring Further Questions about the Existing Backlog
EPA could not thoroughly analyze several areas of interest using the data available for
this study and throughout the course of the study identified ways to further extend
the current analysis. Therefore, to assist with the development of specific backlog
reduction strategies, EPA will work with states to identify and compile specific
additional information needed to pursue strategies. Areas of further interest include
high priority releases in the early stages of cleanup, state practices regarding low
risk cleanups, the factors leading to rapid versus prolonged remediation of source
removal and groundwater contamination, the efficacy of enforcement actions, and
the costs of cleanups. New workgroups or task forces could be formed to support the
development of particular backlog reduction strategies.
SEPTEMBER 2011
47
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
EPA will explore the occurrence of geographically-clustered releases; these clusters
could provide opportunities to capitalize on economies of scale through consolidated
cleanup and/or enforcement efforts. Geographic clusters can be further evaluated
to determine if certain communities bear a disproportionate share of unaddressed
LUST sites and if the impacts associated with these clustered releases are dominated
by a single or a small set of RPs. EPA intends to conduct further geospatial analyses
on clusters of open releases in relation to RPs, highway corridors, local geologic
and hydrogeologic settings, groundwater resources, and/or communities with
environmental justice concerns. In addition, states could choose to expand on
these findings and incorporate additional elements of interest, such as commingled
contamination plumes. EPA believes the results will produce valuable tools for
states and EPA regions to use in targeting groups of releases for efficient cleanup and
ultimately lead to more strategic decisions for reducing the cleanup backlog.
Examining Cleanup Goals and Milestones
Using the results of this study, EPA and states will examine whether it is appropriate
and useful to modify national cleanup goals and milestones to better track the LUST
cleanup backlog. National LUST performance measures already exist for four cleanup
elements: number of confirmed releases, number of cleanups initiated, number of
cleanups completed, and number of emergency responses. EPA and the states could
examine the use of additional or alternate performance measures that could provide
a better understanding of the LUST cleanup backlog. For example, EPA has requested
state report site assessments initiated and completed as part of the implementation
of ARRA. In addition, the ASTSWMO LUST Technical Task Force has raised the option
of developing interim performance measures, potentially focusing on MNA. This
study has yielded new information that could be used to improve the tracking of the
performance measures. For example, EPA might examine in greater detail the extent
to which all state programs are using similar criteria to evaluate the milestones. EPA
would work in partnership with states to consider changes or additions that would
be mutually beneficial and more accurately reflect the status of the LUST program
without creating an undue reporting burden on states.
Supporting the States in Improving LUST Program
Management
EPA will continue to provide technical information, forums for information
exchange, and training opportunities to encourage state program development and
implementation. Sharing best practices among states is an effective way to support
backlog reduction. It could be productive to assist states in their analysis of needed
staff, database tools, and funding levels to support robust and effective programs.
A strong data management system is vital to effective program management, and
implementing agencies should be as informed as possible about their LUST cleanup
backlogs. EPA can work with states to improve the accuracy of future reporting and
is willing to engage states regarding potential support associated with designing and
implementing improvements to LUST data collection and management systems. Such
activities could include setting up electronic data submission for cleanup contractors
or converting paper files to accessible electronic data fields. Lastly, EPA and the states
should discuss if there are improvements that EPA should make in its program that
would assist the states in reducing the LUST cleanup backlog. Potential areas could
include communication, technical support and tools, distribution of resources, and
training.
48
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
CONCLUSION
Clearly, addressing the national backlog of LUST releases presents a complex
challenge to state, tribal, and federal regulators and the communities affected by
these releases. This report has documented multiple factors affecting the pace of
cleanups and analyzed many of the variables faced in addressing the backlog of
LUST releases. Some factors are extremely difficult to overcome; for example, in the
current economic climate, funding will remain tight and staff workloads will remain
high. However, the report also documents successes. While the focus of this study
is on the remaining open releases in the backlog, EPA does not want to diminish the
states' significant achievement in closing 80 percent of the national backlog. Many
states have demonstrated very successful backlog reduction efforts that might prove
promising in other states. The report identifies potential opportunities and points
toward possible future efforts to continue the reduction of the backlog.
Given the many factors affecting the LUST cleanup backlog and the variations in the
programs addressing these releases, clearly the same strategies will not work for
every situation or every program. Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet. On the
positive side, the detailed data within this report provide a clearer picture of the
release and program attributes for the remaining work than was previously available.
Just as a good site assessment enables a tank owner to design the right remedy to
move the release to a protective cleanup, so too does this analysis enable EPA and its
partners to design informed strategies to tackle the national LUST cleanup backlog.
The UST program benefits greatly from a strong and supportive partnership among
regulators at different levels of government and indeed with partners and stakeholders
across the spectrum from regulated entities to equipment manufacturers to service
providers and others. Analysis is only the beginning. The next step is to learn from
these findings and move forward together to explore and pursue these and other
opportunities. Ultimately, the goal of all parties affected by the LUST cleanup backlog
is to move sites to closure and thus, protect neighborhoods, business opportunities,
redevelopment potential, and, most importantly, our human and natural resources.
EPA encourages all interested parties to engage the UST program on these issues and
to contact EPA for updated information as it becomes available at www.epa.gov/oust
or to call the EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks at 703-603-9900.
SEPTEMBER 2011
49
-------
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG: A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
[This page has intentionally been left blank.]
50
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG
A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: CALIFORNIA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
September 2011
CA-1
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: CALIFORNIA
LIST OF ACRONYMS
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Expedited Site Assessment
FR Financial Responsibility
FY Fiscal Year
LIA Local Implementing Agency
LOP Local Oversight Program
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MNA Monitored Natural Attenuation
MSA Multi-Site Agreement
MTBE Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
NA Not Applicable
RP Responsible Party
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SWRCB California State Water Resources Control Board
DOD United States Department of Defense
UST Underground Storage Tank
CA-2
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: CALIFORNIA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Leaks from underground storage tanks (USTs) threaten America's groundwater and land resources. Even a small amount of
petroleum released from a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) can contaminate groundwater, the drinking water source
for nearly half of all Americans. In surveys of state water programs, 39 states and territories identified USTs as a major source
of groundwater contamination.1 As the reliance on our resources increases due to the rise in population and use, there is a
correspondingly greater need to protect our finite natural resources.
From the beginning of the UST program to September 2009, more than 488,000 releases were confirmed from federally-
regulated USTs nationwide. Of these confirmed releases needing cleanup, over 100,000 confirmed releases remained in
the national LUST backlog. These releases are in every state, and many are old and affect groundwater. To help address this
backlog of releases, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invited 14 states to participate in a national
backlog characterization study.
ANALYSIS OF CALIFORNIA DATA
California's State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has made significant progress toward reducing its LUST cleanup
backlog. As of February 2009, SWRCB had completed 27,992 LUST cleanups, which is 73 percent of all known releases in the
state. At the time of data collection, there were 10,274 releases remaining in its backlog.3 To most effectively reduce the
national cleanup backlog, EPA believes that states and EPA must develop backlog reduction strategies that can be effective in
states with the largest backlogs. EPA invited California to participate in its national backlog study because California has one
of the ten largest backlogs in the United States.
In this chapter, EPA characterizes California's releases that have not been cleaned up, analyzes these releases based on
categories of interest, and identifies potential opportunities for SWRCB and EPA to explore that might improve the state's
cleanup progress and reduce its backlog. Building on the potential cleanup opportunities identified in the study, EPA will
continue to work with SWRCB to develop backlog reduction strategies.
In California, as in every state, many factors affect the pace of cleaning up releases, such as the availability and mechanisms
of funding, statutory requirements, and program structure. The recent economic downturn has also had an impact on the
ability of many states to make progress on cleanups. In some cases, state workers face furloughs as well as other budget cuts
that impact their ability to address the backlog.
California LUST
Data
By the Numbers2
National Backlog Contribution
Cumulative Historical Releases
Closed Releases
Open Releases
Stage of Cleanup
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Remediation
Media Contaminated
Groundwater
27,992/73%
10,274/27%
5,656/55%
4,534/440/0
6,711/65%
1,610/16%
1,076/10%
Median Age of Open Releases
1 EPA, National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report, pp. 50-52. www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/chp6.pdf.
2 Data were provided in February 2009 by SWRCB staff and are not identical to the UST performance measures reported on EPA's
website, available online at: www.epa.gov/oust/cat/camarchv.htm. In addition, the GeoTracker database used by all LUST oversight
agencies is not up to date for all LUST releases. For more detailed information, see the Data Limitations section.
3 EPA tracks individual releases rather than sites in its performance measures. Therefore, the analyses in this report account for
numbers of releases, not sites.
4 Unknown media releases include those releases where the media is unknown as well as those releases where, based on available
data, it was not possible to identify the media contaminated.
SEPTEMBER 2011
CA-3
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: CALIFORNIA
EPA included potential cleanup opportunities in this report even though current
circumstances in California might make pursuing certain opportunities challenging or
unlikely. Also, in some cases, SWRCB is already using similar strategies as part of its
ongoing program. The findings from the analysis of SWRCB's data and the potential
cleanup opportunities are summarized below in seven study areas: stage of cleanup,
media contaminated, cleanup financing, presence of free product, oversight agency
backlogs, number of releases per responsible party (RP), and geographic clusters.
Stage Of Cleanup (see page CA-lOfor more details)
Media Contaminated (see page CA-U for more details)
California Finding
31 percent of releases are
either:
5 years old or older
and site assessment
has not started; or
10 years old or
older and still in site
assessment.
Potential Opportunity
Expedite site assessments at old releases
to identify releases that can be closed
with minimal effort or moved toward
remediation.
Implement enforcement actions at stalled
releases.
Releases
3,215
33 percent of releases are:
10 years old or older;
and
in remediation.
Use a systematic process to explore
opportunities to accelerate cleanups and reach
closure, such as:
periodic review of release-specific
treatment technologies;
review of site-specific cleanup standards,
where applicable;
consider use of institutional or
engineering controls; and
implement enforcement actions if
cleanup has stalled.
3,426
California's releases are taking a long time to move through the cleanup process, and
while most of California's releases have started site assessment, the majority of open
releases have not moved on to remediation. There are several reasons why many
releases in the backlog are old including: releases that are complex and therefore
take a long time to address; low risk releases whose cleanup is delayed for higher risk
releases; and the limited number of releases addressed to date through state funds.
EPA recognizes SWRCB's interest in addressing high risk releases. Nevertheless, EPA
believes it is important for SWRCB to explore opportunities to accelerate cleanups at
older releases and to make progress toward bringing all releases to closure.
California Finding
27 percent of releases:
contaminate
groundwater;
are in remediation;
and
are 10 years old or
older.
Potential Opportunity
Systematically evaluate cleanup progress at
old releases with groundwater impacts and
consider alternative cleanup technologies or
other strategies to reduce time to closure.
Releases
2,733
7 percent of releases:
impact soil only;
have not finished site
assessment; and
are 10 years old or
older.
Continue to use targeted backlog
reduction efforts to close old releases
with soil contamination with minimal
effort.
Encourage RPs to use expedited site
assessment to move releases more
quickly into remediation.
669
9 percent of releases
do not have the type
of media contaminated
electronically tracked in
the GeoTracker database.
Target releases with unknown media
contamination for expedited site assessments
and use this information to customize the
remedial activity and update the GeoTracker
database as necessary.
819
Releases contaminating groundwater have always been the largest part of the national
backlog and 65 percent of releases in California are documented as contaminating
groundwater. In general, groundwater contamination is more technically complex to
remediate and also takes longer to clean up than soil contamination. For old, complex
cleanups where long-term remediation is underway, EPA believes it is important
for California's oversight agencies to periodically reevaluate cleanup progress and
consider whether the cleanup technology being used is still optimal.
Even though soil contamination is typically easier to remediate than groundwater
contamination, many releases that impact only soil are still unaddressed or are in
the early stages of cleanup. These cleanups might have been deferred to address
the higher risks posed by releases with groundwater contamination. Nevertheless,
EPA believes that California's oversight agencies should continue to make progress
toward closure for all LUST releases. Better information about the type of media
contaminated at each release could help California's oversight agencies choose
optimal cleanup technologies and evaluate cleanup progress.
CA-4
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: CALIFORNIA
Cleanup Financing (see page CA-14for more details)
Presence Of Free Product (see page CA-15 for more details)
California Finding
65 percent of releases
have not received state
funds.
Potential Opportunity
Explore opportunities to address more
releases with the state fund such as:
examine cost-saving measures; and
examine other funding sources, including
public/private funding options such
as petroleum brownfields grants for
low priority releases or financing claim
payments.
Releases
6,661
21 percent of the backlog
is:
state-funded; and
in remediation.
Explore opportunities to move releases toward
closure such as:
reevaluate the current remedial plans
at state fund eligible releases in long-
term remediation to identify releases
where more cost-effective plans could be
implemented, such as using monitored
natural attenuation (MNA) or using site-
specific risk-based decision-making; and
consider closing releases using
institutional or engineering controls.
2,151
EPA and state programs are interested in exploring successful financing strategies for
completing cleanups quickly. EPA acknowledges that the recent economic downturn
has impacted cleanup financing. EPA also believes the availability of funding for
cleanup is essential to reducing the backlog, so in addition to this study, EPA is
increasing its focus on oversight of state funds as well as conducting a study of private
insurance.
All state programs are experiencing resource limitations, and progress toward backlog
reduction is dependent on their ability to apply existing resources to their backlogs. If
more cost-effective remedial plans could be implemented at state-funded cleanups in
long-term remediation, or other funding sources found for those not in remediation,
this would free up funding to address more releases. EPA was able to collect data on
releases where the RP had submitted claims and for those releases that had received
state funds. Based on the 2009 data, 35 percent of open releases had received state
funds, leaving 65 percent without having received state funds. Of the releases that
had not received state funds, 27 percent had submitted claims but not had received
payment. SWCRB should examine funding opportunities to address additional
releases such as cost saving measures or other potential funding sources such as
public/private partnerships.
California Finding
5 percent of releases have
free product present.
Potential Opportunity
Address the presence of free product at
releases.
Implement enforcement actions at stalled
releases.
Releases
537
Although federal regulations require the removal of free product to the extent
practicable, there are over 350 releases with free product that are 10 years old or
older in the backlog.5 The persistence of free product at old releases indicates that
owner/operators might not be complying with cleanup requirements and are not
effectively removing free product. Use of enforcement actions at old releases with
persistent free product could help ensure the recovery of free product contamination
and move cleanups toward closure.
Oversight Agency Backlogs (see page CA-ie for more details)
California Finding
The number of releases
and the distribution of
releases among stages of
cleanup vary among the
oversight agencies.
Potential Opportunity
Develop agency-specific strategies for moving
releases toward remediation and closure and
updating the GeoTracker database.
Releases
Variable
number of
releases6
Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), Local Oversight Program (LOP)
agencies, and Local Implementing Agencies (LIAs) such as county health agencies and
fire departments direct the investigation and cleanup of releases in California. The
state provides funding to RWQCBs and LOPs, but it does not fund or have statutory
authority over the LIAs. According to GeoTracker, California's mandated electronic
data collection system, the majority of the state's backlog is within the jurisdiction
of the RWQCBs and LOPs. Differences in the management and administration of
remedial actions might be causing differences in cleanup outcomes. Expediting site
assessment of pre-remediation releases and reviewing the treatment technologies
in place at releases in remediation might identify opportunities to move releases
toward remediation and accelerate cleanups. In addition, SWRCB can facilitate
Free product removal is addressed under Title 40 § 280.64, available online at:
www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/techrule.htmff280.64.
Opportunities marked as "variable number of releases" relate to programmatic
opportunities and affect an unknown number of releases, potentially including all open
releases.
SEPTEMBER 2011
CA-5
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: CALIFORNIA
sharing of information and best practices among the various oversight agencies to
improve overall program management.
Number Of Releases per RP (see page CA-17 for more details)
to conduct further geospatial analyses on clusters of open releases in relation to RPs,
highway corridors, local geologic and hydrogeologic settings, groundwater resources,
and/or communities with environmental justice concerns. These analyses might
reveal additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
California Finding
19 percent of releases
are associated with 88
RPs each with 10 or more
releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore possibilities for multi-site agreements 1,967
(MSAs) or enforcement actions with parties
responsible for multiple open releases.
EPA analyzed the number of releases per RP to identify the RPs that are the largest
potential contributors to the state's cleanup backlog. EPA was able to identify groups
of 10 or more releases that have a common RP identified in SWRCB's GeoTracker
database.7 In California, 88 parties are each associated with 10 or more releases and
account for 19 percent of the backlog. California's oversight agencies and EPA can
use this information to identify possible participants for multi-site strategies to clean
up groups of releases.
Geographic Clusters (see page CA-18for more details)
CONCLUSION
This chapter contains EPA's data analysis of California's LUST cleanup backlog and
identifies potential opportunities to reduce the backlog in California. EPA discusses
the findings and opportunities for California, along with those of 13 additional
states, in the national chapter of this report. EPA will work with states to develop
potential approaches and detailed strategies for reducing the backlog. Development
of strategies could involve targeted data collection, reviewing particular case files,
analyzing problem areas, and sharing best practices. Final strategies could involve
EPA actions such as using additional program metrics to show cleanup progress,
targeting resources for specific cleanup actions, clarifying and developing guidance,
and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with states, is committed to reducing the
backlog of confirmed LIST releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater, land,
and communities affected by these releases.
California Finding
64 percent of releases are
clustered within a one-
mile radius of five or more
releases.
Potential Opportunity
Target releases within close proximity for
resource consolidation opportunities.
Releases
Targeted
number of
releases8
Another multi-site approach California uses is targeting cleanup actions at
geographically-clustered releases. SWRCB has begun a corridor initiative with
EPA along Interstate 710 in Los Angeles and Long Beach to clean up and promote
the reuse of old LUST sites. This type of approach could offer opportunities for
new community-based reuse efforts, using economies of scale, and addressing
commingled contamination. EPA believes that highlighting geographic clusters of
releases and working with state and local governments in area-wide initiatives will
improve California's pace of cleaning up releases. EPA intends to work with the states
7 Approximately 700 releases from United States Department of Defense (DOD) facilities
were not included in the GeoTracker database at the time of this analysis, so federal
government RPs were under-represented in the data set. DOD releases have since been
updated in the database.
8 Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic
opportunities that will address a limited number of releases within select designated
geographic areas.
CA-6
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: CALIFORNIA
PROGRAM SUMMARY
State LUST Program Organization and Administration
California's leaking underground storage tank (LUST) program and underground storage tank (UST) Cleanup Trust Fund are
managed by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).9 The investigation and cleanup of releases is
performed under the direction of nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), 22 Local Oversight Program (LOP)
agencies, and numerous Local Implementing Agencies (LIAs) such as county health agencies and fire departments.10 The state
provides funding to the RWQCBs and LOPs, but it does not fund or have statutory authority over the LIAs. LIAs collect fees
from operating USTs and use those funds for oversight. LOPs and LIAs operate under California's Health and Safety Code while
RWQCBs operate under the state's Water Code.
Cleanup Financing
California's UST Cleanup Trust Fund was established in 1989 by the state legislature to assist eligible UST owners and operators
to meet federal and state requirements for demonstration of financial responsibility (FR) for any damages incurred as a result
of tank operations. Subaccounts of the UST Cleanup Trust Fund include the Emergency, Abandoned, and Recalcitrant Account
Program, the Orphan Site Cleanup Account Program, which sunset in January 2008, and the new Orphan Site Cleanup Fund.
The Emergency, Abandoned, and Recalcitrant Account Program primarily funds emergency corrective action while the two
orphan site programs provide financial assistance for the cleanup of brownfield sites contaminated by LUSTs.
The state fund's revenues are generated by a storage fee for every gallon of petroleum product placed into USTs. Revenues
have declined in recent years, and the latest projections indicate that the 2009 revenues will be $20 million less than the
revenues received two years ago.
To be eligible for state funds, a tank owner must be in compliance with UST permitting requirements, regulatory agency
cleanup orders, and payment of fees. Eligibility is not evaluated until a claim is filed by a responsible party (RP). In order to
first reimburse RPs who are least able to pay the costs of cleanup, the UST Cleanup Trust Fund prioritizes payment of approved
claims based on the type of RP. Highest priority is given to residential claimants (Class A), then to small businesses (Class B),
larger businesses (Class C), and finally major oil companies (Class D). Major oil companies have also received state funding
directly from the state legislature to address cleanups. There is a $5,000 deductible on claims from the UST Cleanup Trust
Fund and a $1.5 million ceiling on all claims.
California LUST
Program
At a Glance
Cleanup Rate
In fiscal year (FY) 2009, SWRCB confirmed 148
releases and completed 1,066 cleanups.11
Cleanup Financing
California's UST Cleanup Trust Fund is financed
by a storage tank fee of 1.4 cents for every
gallon of petroleum stored in an UST. The
fund covers cleanup costs for eligible releases
and reimburses claims based on the type of
claimant and the size of the business.
Cleanup Standards
Cleanup to background levels is SWRCB's
goal. Regional authorities may set their own
cleanup standards when background levels
cannot be achieved.
Priority System
There is no state-wide method of prioritizing
LUST cleanups. Implementing agencies may
use specific cleanup priority systems.
Cleanup Standards
In 1992, SWRCB adopted an overarching policy requiring cleanup to background levels when possible. However, SWRCB
does allow oversight agencies to use less-stringent, site-specific cleanup goals when background levels cannot be achieved.
Initial guidelines used by regulators state-wide at LUST sites are the Maximum Contaminant Levels for groundwater as set by
EPA and Preliminary Remediation Goals for soil as set by EPA Region 9. SWRCB requires that any alternative level of water
9 For more information on California state program management, see: www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs.
10 There are many LIAs in California, but at the time of this analysis, the GeoTracker database listed open releases from only 59 LIAs.
11 Based on FY 2009 UST Performance Measures End of Year Activity Report.
SEPTEMBER 2011
CA-7
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: CALIFORNIA
quality less stringent than background must be consistent with the maximum benefit
to the people of the state, not unreasonably affect current and anticipated beneficial
use of affected water, and not result in water quality less than that prescribed in the
water quality control plan for the basin within which the site is located.12 When less
stringent cleanup standards are used, institutional or engineering controls may be
implemented. Since 1998, fewer than five releases per year, on average, have been
closed with institutional controls in place.
Release Prioritization
SWRCB does not employ a state-wide prioritization system for addressing LUST
cleanups, as the state delegates responsibility for cleanups to the local level. Each
oversight agency may prioritize cleanups at its discretion.
State Backlog Reduction Efforts
In 2006, SWRCB implemented a five-year review program of LIST Cleanup Trust Fund-
reimbursed releases that have been open for at least five years to evaluate the annual
progress toward closure. SWRCB has eight to 10 staff assigned to this work with
assistance also provided by EPA Region 9. Based on site-specific data collected during
the review, the Trust Fund proceeds with one of the following options: (1) agrees that
the LUST cleanup continue on the current course; (2) works with the RWQCB, LOP,
or LIA to modify the course of work to move the release toward closure; (3) makes
a recommendation for closure of the release to the regulatory oversight agency; or
(4) if necessary, elevates the release to SWCRB's upper management, and eventually
to the Board itself, for closure. An effort to review cleanups not funded by the UST
Cleanup Trust Fund was launched in November 2009.
SWRCB passed a resolution in May 2009 that all cleanups, both state-funded and
privately-financed, must be reviewed by June 2010 to identify releases for closure
and additionally, the state must reduce monitoring schedules from quarterly to semi-
annually in an effort to conserve resources.13 The resolution also allows for closure
with residual contamination as long as: (1) no current adverse impacts on water
uses are present; and (2) contamination will naturally attenuate within a reasonable
timeframe. Another ongoing process for backlog reduction is the state's petition
process, whereby RPs that have completed corrective action at a release can petition
SWRCB for closure. Finally, in an effort to improve state-wide data management,
SWRCB and EPA Region 9 are encouraging LIAs and the United States Department
of Defense (DOD) to track LUST data in the GeoTracker database and to meet with
RWQCBs and LOPs to discuss backlog reduction efforts. The City of Los Angeles and
Ventura County have been especially aggressive in reviewing case files, updating
database records, and closing releases.
12 For more information, see Resolution 1992-049: www.swrcb.ca.gov/water issues/
programs/land disposal/resolution 92 49.shtml.
13 For more information, see Resolution 2009-042: www.waterboards.ca.gov/board
decisions/adopted orders/resolutions/2009/rs2009 0042.pdf.
CA-8
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: CALIFORNIA
ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNITIES
In this study, EPA analyzed California's federally-regulated releases that have not been cleaned up (open releases). EPA
conducted a multivariate analysis on all of California's data. However, this technique did not identify strong underlying patterns
in the data.14 Next, EPA divided the open releases into groups that might warrant further attention. EPA used descriptive
statistics to examine the distribution of releases by age of release and stage of cleanup and highlighted findings based on
SWRCB's data.15 EPA then identified potential opportunities for addressing particular groups of releases in the backlog. Many
releases are included in more than one opportunity. These opportunities describe actions that EPA and SWRCB might use
as a starting point for collaborative efforts to address the backlog. Although EPA's analysis covered all releases in California,
there are 390 releases that are not included in any of the subsets identified in the findings or opportunities due to the way
EPA structured the analysis. These releases might also benefit from some of the suggested opportunities and strategies.
EPA's analyses revealed seven areas of California's backlog with potential opportunities for its further reduction:
Stage of cleanup Presence of free product Geographic clusters
Media contaminated Oversight agency backlogs
Cleanup financing Number of releases per RP
LUST Data Source
Electronic data for LUST releases occurring
between January 1970 and February 2009
were compiled with SWRCB staff in 2008 and
2009.16 Data were obtained from SWRCB's
GeoTracker database and selected based on
quality and the ability to address areas of
interest in this analysis.17
Data Limitations
Although efforts are underway to improve data management, data limitations in the GeoTracker database prevented precise analysis of
the number and age of open releases in California. The total number of releases identified in the database for this analysis has 4,717
fewer releases (3,510 closed and 1,207 open releases) than were reported in EPA's 2008 UST Performance Measures report. There
are likely two primary reasons for this significant difference. First, LIAs that do not receive funding from the state have historically not
consistently used the GeoTracker database. Instead, these LIAs have tracked LUST data in local databases. At the time of this analysis,
59 LIAs were listed in the GeoTracker database. EPA Region 9 has been working with LIAs to update the database, although SWCRB has
no statutory authority requiring the LIAs' compliance. In addition, approximately 700 releases from DOD facilities were not included in
the GeoTracker database at the time of this analysis. DOD releases have since been updated in the database.
Of the releases that are included in the GeoTracker database, the release dates are missing for 22 percent of closed releases (6,098
releases) and 9 percent of open releases (971 releases). The age of release therefore could not be calculated for these 7,069 releases.
In addition, EPA Region 9 has found that many release dates in the database are inaccurate and that approximately 10 percent of
releases reported to EPA as closed in 2009 were not from federally-regulated tanks. EPA Region 9 suspects that this type of inaccuracy
has been a common occurrence in SWRCB's reporting to EPA and is looking for ways to address these reporting errors. Continued
efforts by SWRCB and EPA Region 9 to generate a comprehensive database of LUST releases in California and address concerns over the
quality of existing data records will improve SWRCB's ability to optimize management of LUST releases.
14 The analytic tree method, a multivariate technique used to identify underlying patterns among large data sets, did not reveal strong
patterns within the data. For more information on analytic trees, see Appendix A.
15 For a detailed description of release stages, see the Chapter Notes section (Stage of Cleanup Reference Table).
16 For a detailed description of the California data used in this analysis, see the Chapter Notes section.
17 This database can be queried online at: geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov.
SEPTEMBER 2011
CA-9
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: CALIFORNIA
STAGE OF CLEANUP
As of February 19, 2009, the California backlog consisted of 10,274 open releases. EPA analyzed the age of these LUST
releases and their distribution among the stages of cleanup. To facilitate analysis, EPA classified California's open releases
into three stages of cleanup: the Confirmed Release stage (releases where assessments have not begun), the Site Assessment
stage (releases where assessments have begun), and the Remediation stage (releases where remedial activities have started).18
While EPA grouped the releases into linear stages for this analysis, EPA recognizes that cleanups might not proceed in a linear
fashion. Cleanup can be an iterative process where releases go through successive rounds of site assessment and remediation.
However, in the long run, this approach might be both longer and more costly. Acquiring good site characterization up front
can accelerate the pace of cleanup and avoid the extra cost of repeated site assessment.
Since California's LUST program began, 27,992 releases have been closed in California; half of these releases were closed in
fewer than 3.9 years (Figure 1 below).19 The young median age of closed LUST releases might be attributable to the rapid
closure of relatively easy to remediate releases. Also, national program policy allows states to report confirmed releases
that require no further action at the time of confirmation as "cleanup completed." Therefore, some releases are reported as
confirmed and cleaned up simultaneously.
Figure 1. Age of Releases among Stages of Cleanup
_. 4,534 0 Confirmed Release
jjj Site Assessment
^^^. O Remediation
K 77.997 O Closed
27,992
The white dot at the center of each circle represents the median age of releases. Each circle is labeled with, and scaled to, the number of
releases within each stage. Included in the release counts and size of circles are 6,098 closed releases and 971 open releases for which
release age is unknown. These releases are not part of the median age calculation.
California has undertaken three initiatives to look for releases that could be closed with minimal effort including: a five-year
review of state fund reimbursed releases, a resolution that all releases must be reviewed by June 2010 to identify releases for
closure, and a petition process through which RPs that have completed corrective action can petition the program for closure
status.20 States might find opportunities for closure with minimal effort at lower risk releases where little or no remedial work
is required to reach closure standards or at releases that have met closure standards but have not finished closure review.
18 Releases were classified into stages based on available data and discussions with SWRCB staff. For more information, see the Chapter
Notes section.
19 Median ages of open and closed releases were calculated using available data. See data limitations discussion for more information.
20 See State Backlog Reduction Efforts in the Program Summary.
CA-10 SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: CALIFORNIA
California has many old LUST releases not in remediation. Figure 2 below shows the backlog of open releases by age and
stage of cleanup and allows for the identification of older releases by stage. Figure 2 breaks out the 3,152 older releases in
the Site Assessment stage (31 percent of the backlog) that have not entered the Remediation stage, 10 years or more after
the releases were confirmed. Figure 2 also shows the 63 older releases in the Confirmed Release stage (1 percent of the
backlog) that have not been assessed, five years or more after the releases were confirmed. California's data indicate that
these releases have not moved into remediation quickly.
Figure 2. Release Age Distribution among Stages of Cleanup
388 109
2% 611
14%
19
22%
Confirmed Release
(84 Releases)
10
12%
0-4.9 Years
5-9.9 Years
10-14.9 Years
15-19.9 Years
Over 20 Years
Unknown Age
Site Assessment
(5,656 Releases)
Remediation
(4,534 Releases)
EPA encourages states to streamline the corrective action process, improve data collection, reduce the overall cost of
remediation, and move releases more rapidly toward remediation and closure. To assist states and regulators in implementing
these objectives, EPA developed its Expedited Site Assessment (ESA) guide.21 The guide explains the overall ESA process as
well as specific site assessment tools and methods. The ESA process rapidly characterizes site conditions to make cost-
effective corrective action decisions. ESAs will help identify releases that can be closed with minimal effort or provide all
the information needed to move a release into remediation. Conducting site assessments efficiently and quickly might help
reduce the backlog by accelerating the pace of cleanup and ultimately decrease overall project costs.
California also has many old releases in the Remediation stage. Thirty-three percent of California's releases (3,426 releases)
are in the Remediation stage and are 10 years old or older (Figure 2). Because only the date that a release was confirmed
but not when it moved from one stage to the next (e.g., from assessment to remediation), EPA can calculate the overall age
of the release but not the actual time spent in the Remediation stage. It is possible that some of these releases might have
only recently begun remediation. Increasing efficiency and getting releases through the cleanup process as quickly as possible
will expedite the reduction of the backlog. SWRCB should establish a systematic process to evaluate existing releases in
remediation and optimize cleanup approaches, including choice of technology and site-specific risk-based decision-making.
This process might save SWRCB resources and bring releases to closure more quickly.
21 EPA's 1997 guidance document, Expedited Site Assessment Tools for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Regulators (EPA 510
B-97-001), is available online at: www.epa.gov/OUST/pubs/sam.htm.
California Finding
31 percent of releases are either:
5 years old or older and site assessment
has not started; or
10 years old or older and still in site
assessment.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Expedite site assessments 3,215
at old releases to identify
releases that can be closed
with minimal effort or
moved toward remediation.
Implement enforcement
actions at stalled releases.
Releases 5 years old or older
in the Confirmed Release
stage
Releases 10 years old or
older in the Site Assessment
stage
California Finding
33 percent of releases are:
10 years old or older; and
in remediation.
Potential Opportunity
63
3,152
Releases
Use a systematic process 3,426
to explore opportunities to
accelerate cleanups and reach
closure, such as:
periodic review of
release-specific treatment
technologies;
review of site-specific
cleanup standards, where
applicable;
consider use of institutional
or engineering controls; and
implement enforcement
actions if cleanup has
stalled.
SEPTEMBER 2011
CA-11
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: CALIFORNIA
California Finding
27 percent of releases:
contaminate groundwater;
are in remediation; and
are 10 years old or older.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Systematically evaluate cleanup 2,733
progress at old releases with
groundwater impacts and
consider alternative cleanup
technologies or other strategies
to reduce time to closure.
MEDIA CONTAMINATED
Groundwater is an important natural resource at risk from petroleum contamination. Releases impacting groundwater make
up the majority of California's backlog. In general, groundwater contamination takes longer and is more expensive to clean
up than soil contamination. In this study, EPA examined media as a factor contributing to the backlog. The following analysis
classified contaminated media into four categories: groundwater (6,711 open releases), soil (1,610 open releases), other
media (1,076 open releases; includes vapor and surface water), and "unknown" media, which includes releases with no media
specified (877 open releases).22 Across all media types, more than half of the open releases in the Site Assessment stage are
10 years old or older (Figure 3 below).
In California, 65 percent of open releases (6,711 releases) involve groundwater contamination and have a median age of 15.2
years (Figures). In contrast, 33 percent of closed releases (9,376 releases) involve groundwater contamination. These closed
releases have a significantly younger median age of 7.2 years compared to the median age of open releases. Of the 3,654
Remediation stage releases with groundwater impacts, 75 percent (2,733 releases) are 10 years old or older and over half of
those releases (1,861 releases) are 15 years old or older (Figure 4, page 13). The subset of older releases that contaminate
groundwater and are in remediation makes up 27 percent of California's total backlog. Groundwater contamination is typically
more complex and difficult to remediate. However, if SWRCB could identify opportunities to improve cleanup efficiencies, it
might be able to accelerate the pace of cleanups. For example, using a systematic process to evaluate cleanup progress,
current contaminant levels, and treatment technologies might move releases through cleanup and to closure faster.
Figure 3. Age of Releases, by Media Contaminated and Stage of Cleanup
20
3 10
cc.
44
0
3,013
522
551
1,284 O
O Confirmed Release
O Site Assessment
O Remediation
Closed
15,278
Groundwater
Soil
Other
Unknown
Squares indicating closed releases are not scaled to the number of releases in that stage.
The use of institutional or engineering controls can also reduce the time to closure by eliminating exposure pathways where
protective and appropriate. California's oversight agencies have only recorded an average of fewer than five releases per year
as closed with institutional controls in place, although the frequency of their use might be more common than is reflected
in the GeoTracker database. In addition, evaluation of the cleanup progress of releases with groundwater impacts might
identify releases where monitored natural attenuation (MNA) can be applied. In these cases, treatment times need to remain
reasonable compared to other methods. California's cleanup costs might be reduced by applying MNA.
22 For a detailed description of contaminated media classifications, see the Chapter Notes section.
CA-12
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: CALIFORNIA
355
10%
Releases that contaminate soil only are of concern
because they represent a potential threat to groundwater
resources and contaminate properties in neighborhoods
and communities. Although contaminated soil can typically
be cleaned up faster than contaminated groundwater,
approximately half of the 1,284 Site Assessment stage soil
cleanups in California are 10 years old or older (669 releases;
7 percent of the backlog) (Figure 3). California might defer
the cleanup of soil contamination to address higher risk
groundwater contamination. However, California's total
number of releases contaminating soil only (1,610 releases;
16 percent of the backlog) offer potential opportunities
for reducing the backlog. In general, expediting site
assessments and moving forward with remediation could
help SWRCB gather more information about difficult sites and move all releases toward closure, thereby reducing the backlog.
SWRCB should also encourage RPs and communities to look at other public/private funding options to facilitate assessment,
cleanup, and reuse at these sites. For low priority releases without a viable RP, SWRCB should encourage the use of petroleum
brownfields grants.
There are also 877 releases (9 percent of the backlog) for which the type of media contaminated is either unknown or not
effectively tracked in the GeoTracker database (Figure 3). Only 11 of these releases are in the Confirmed Release stage.
However, these releases are not recent; their median age is 7.0 years, which indicates that they are not being assessed quickly.
A total of 808 releases in the Site Assessment stage (8 percent of the backlog) and 58 releases in the Remediation stage (less
than 1 percent of the backlog) do not list the media impacted and have median ages of 9.8 and 8.6 years, respectively (Figure
3). The media impacted would likely be identified during the assessment and should therefore be known for at least some of
the 808 releases undergoing assessment as well as for the 58 releases in the Remediation stage.
Figure 4. Age of Remediation-Stage Releases with Groundwater
Impacts
75
2% 491
13%
~" 0 - 4.9 Years
5-9.9 Years
10-14.9 Years
15-19.9 Years
Over 20 Years
984-^M ^ < Unknown Age
27%
California Finding
7 percent of releases:
impact soil only;
have not finished site assessment; and
are 10 years old or older.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Continue to use targeted 669
backlog reduction efforts to
close old releases with soil
contamination with minimal
effort.
Encourage RPs to use
expedited site assessment to
move releases more quickly
into remediation.
California Finding
9 percent of releases do not have the type of
media contaminated electronically tracked in
the GeoTracker database.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Target releases with unknown 819
media contamination for
expedited site assessments and
use this information to customize
the remedial activity and update
the GeoTracker database as
necessary.
SEPTEMBER 2011
CA-13
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: CALIFORNIA
California Finding
65 percent of releases have not received state
funds.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore opportunities to address 6,661
more releases with the state fund
such as:
examine cost-saving
measures; and
examine other funding
sources, including public/
private funding options such
as petroleum brownfields
grants for low priority
releases or financing claim
payments.
CLEANUP FINANCING
EPA and state programs are interested in exploring successful financing strategies for completing cleanups quickly. EPA
acknowledges that the recent economic downturn has impacted cleanup financing. EPA also believes the availability of
funding for cleanup is essential to reducing the backlog, so in addition to this study, EPA is increasing its focus on oversight of
state funds as well as conducting a study of private insurance. To help analyze the impact of state fund issues on closure rates,
EPA evaluated California's progress for those releases with state fund claims and those that have not made claims.
California's LIST Cleanup Trust Fund functions as the FR mechanism and pays for all cleanups from tanks that are in compliance
with LIST laws and regulations. State fund eligibility is not evaluated until a claim is submitted by an RP. SWRCB prioritizes
payment of existing claims based on the type of applicant (e.g., individuals and small businesses are paid first). Depending
on fund availability, SWRCB establishes a threshold for the payment of claims and, as necessary, will suspend additional
commitments for reimbursement. Applicants to the fund are placed into classes (e.g., small businesses are in Class B) and
thresholds for payment are set by classes.
According to the GeoTracker database, 3,613 open releases (35 percent of the backlog) have received reimbursements from
the LIST Cleanup Trust Fund (Figure 5 below). The remaining 6,661 open releases (65 percent of the backlog) have not
received state funds because the RP has not submitted a claim or because the claim has not been reimbursed yet. Work has
occurred at some of these releases. According to the database, claims have been submitted for 29 percent of these releases
(1,957 releases), but as of the date the data were submitted to EPA, California had not distributed state funds on these
cleanups yet. No claims have been filed with the LIST Cleanup Trust Fund for the remaining 4,704 releases (46 percent of
the backlog). SWCRB should consider exploring opportunities to address more releases with the state cleanup fund such as
employing cost-cutting measures. For example, open-market competitive bidding for cleanup work could increase the amount
of funds available per cleanup. Another opportunity SWCRB could investigate is the availability of additional funding sources
through public/private partnerships such as petroleum brownfields grants for low priority releases without a viable RP. If
some of the releases are ineligible for the state fund, then SWCRB should consider options such as enforcement to help move
these cleanups toward remediation and closure.
Figure 5. Age of Open Releases, by Type of Financing and Stage of Cleanup
O Confirmed Release
O Site Assessment
O Remediation
Closed
22,268
State Funded
Unknown Financing
CA-14
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: CALIFORNIA
The majority of releases that have received state funding are in the Remediation stage (Figure 5). State-funded cleanups in
the Remediation stage make up 21 percent of California's backlog (2,151 releases), and the median age of these releases is
16.6 years old (Figure 5). SWCRB should explore opportunities to move these releases toward closure, thereby freeing up
resources to address additional releases. The releases in the Remediation stage might be complex and difficult to remediate,
but also might remain open for other reasons, such as very slow reduction in contamination from existing remedial systems.
If a thorough evaluation determines that active remediation is ineffective in reducing contamination, lower-cost cleanup
technologies such as MNA could be considered as an appropriate remedy. If used appropriately and results could be achieved
in a similar time frame, this could free up state funds for use at other cleanups and could increase the number of releases that
California oversight agencies are able to address and move toward closure. If additional releases could be closed through the
use of institutional or engineering controls where protective and appropriate, SWCRB could also use the resources slated for
those releases to work on reaching closure at other releases.
PRESENCE OF FREE PRODUCT
California and federal law require that an owner/operator must submit a report on free product within 45 days of release
discovery. Although federal regulations require the removal of free product, a large number of relatively old releases with free
product present remain in the California backlog. Of the 1,382 releases (13 percent of the backlog) where free product has
been reported, 39 percent (537 releases) continue to have free product present on site (Figure 6 below, left). All free product
has been recovered from the remaining 61 percent of releases (845 releases). An additional 3,877 releases (38 percent of the
backlog) do not have data available regarding the presence of free product.
Figure 6. Presence of Free Product at Open Releases
845
5,015
49%
Free Product Present
Free Product Removed
No Data
No Free Product Ever Present
3,877
Figure 7. Age of Open Releases with Free Product Present
0-4.9 Years
5-9.9 Years
10-14.9 Years
D 15-19.9 Years
CD More Than 20 Years
I Unknown Age
California Finding
21 percent of the backlog is:
state-funded; and
in remediation.
Potential Opportunity
Releases
Explore opportunities to move 2,151
releases toward closure such as:
reevaluate the current
remedial plans at state fund
eligible releases in long-
term remediation to identify
releases where more cost-
effective plans could be
implemented, such as using
MNA or using site-specific
risk-based decision making;
and
consider closing releases
using institutional or
engineering controls.
California Finding
5 percent of releases have free product
present.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Address the presence of free 537
product at releases.
Implement enforcement
actions at stalled releases.
Of the 537 releases with free product present, 72 percent (389 releases) are 10 years old or older, and 145 releases are 20
years old or older (Figure 7 above, right). Although there are no federal or state-mandated time restrictions on how long
it takes to remove the free product, the owner/operator is required to remove as much free product as practicable. The
persistence of free product at old releases indicates that owner/operators might not be complying with this requirement and
are not effectively removing free product. California should consider enforcement actions at old releases with persistent free
product to help ensure the recovery of free product contamination and move cleanups toward closure.
SEPTEMBER 2011
CA-15
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: CALIFORNIA
OVERSIGHT AGENCY BACKLOGS
EPA analyzed cleanup backlogs managed by California administrative agencies to identify patterns and opportunities for
targeted backlog reduction strategies within each agency. RWQCBs, LOPs, and LIAs manage oversight of LUST cleanups in
California, and 87 percent of the backlog (8,893 releases) falls under the jurisdiction of the RWQBCs and LOPs (Table 1 below).
Releases under RWQCBs and LOPs have a similar median age, although a larger proportion of releases within LOP jurisdiction
have begun remediation. LIAs are responsible for the remaining 13 percent of the backlog (1,359 releases), but do not receive
state funding and are not overseen by SWRCB. Only 19 percent of LIA-managed releases (252 releases) are in the Remediation
stage. The appearance of slow cleanup progress might be the result of LIAs not consistently updating the GeoTracker database.
California should consider agency-specific efforts to expedite site assessments for pre-remediation releases and to review
the treatment technologies in place which might identify opportunities to move them toward remediation and accelerate
cleanups. In addition, SWRCB can facilitate sharing of information and best practices among the various oversight agencies to
improve overall program management.
Table 1. California Backlog, by Type of Administrative Agency
California Finding
The number of releases and the distribution of
releases among stages of cleanup vary among
the oversight agencies.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Develop agency-specific Variable
strategies for moving releases number of
toward remediation and closure releases23
and updating the GeoTracker
database.
State Backlog Contribution
Cumulative Historical Releases
Closed
Open
RWQCB
42%
12,267
7,975/65%
4,292/35%
LOP
45%
17,732
13,131/74%
4,601/26%
LIA
13%
8,221
6,862/83%
1,359/17%
Unknown
<1%
46
24/52%
22/48%
Stage of Cleanup
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Remediation
Median Age of Open Releases
Median Age of Closed Releases
29/1%
2,364/55%
1,899/44%
13.8 years
5.9 years
26/
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: CALIFORNIA
NUMBER OF RELEASES PER RP
EPA analyzed the number of releases per RP to identify the RPs that are the largest potential contributors to the state's
cleanup backlog.24 A total of 88 RPs are each associated with 10 or more releases and account for 19 percent of the backlog
(1,967 releases) (Table 2 below, left). EPA could not determine the type of business associated with 71 of the RPs who are
responsible for 16 percent of the backlog (1,628 releases) because available RP data consisted primarily of the names of RP
contacts.25 Thirteen gasoline retail, distribution, and refining businesses are responsible for 3 percent of the backlog (273
releases).
In addition, 10 oversight agencies have one or more RPs that are each responsible for 20 or more releases (Table 3 below,
right). For example, there are 10 RPs with 20 or more open releases each within the Los Angeles RWQCB. Focused efforts
engaging these 88 RPs through collaboration or enforcement might expedite closure of many of these releases.
Table 2. RPs with 10 or More Open Releases
Type of RP
Unknown Type21
Number
of Number
Releases of RPs
1,628
Gasoline-Retail/
Distribution/Refining
273
Other
38
Government-State
14
Transportation
14
Total
1,967
Total
707
71
13
88
31
California Finding
19 percent of releases are associated with 88
RPs each with 10 or more releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore possibilities for multi- 1,967
site agreements (MSAs) or
enforcement actions with parties
responsible for multiple open
releases.
Table 3. RPs with 20 or More Releases under a Single Oversight Agency
RPs with 20 or
Oversight Agency More Releases
Los Angeles RWQCB
Orange County LOP
San Diego County LOP
San Mateo County LOP
Sacramento County LOP
Alameda County LOP
Santa Clara Valley Water District LIA
Central Valley RWQCB
North Coast RWQCB
Santa Clara County LOP
10
6
5
4
3
3
4
3
2
1
Number of
Releases
312
309
167
135
115
111
105
91
64
20
24 SWRCB provided RP data maintained in the GeoTracker database. These data provide the contact name for the RP, which was in
most cases the name of a person rather than an organization.
25 The missing business types for these releases may include the federal government. In addition, approximately 700 releases from
DOD facilities were not included in the GeoTracker database at the time of this analysis, so federal government RPs were under-
represented in the data set. DOD releases have since been updated in the database.
26 "Unknown Type" includes releases where the facility type could not be easily identified based on an RP's name.
SEPTEMBER 2011
CA-17
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: CALIFORNIA
California Finding
64 percent of releases are clustered within a
one-mile radius of five or more releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Target releases within close Targeted
proximity for resource number of
consolidation opportunities. releases27
GEOGRAPHIC CLUSTERS
EPA performed a geospatial analysis to look for alternative ways to address the backlog. While releases in geographic clusters
might not have the same RP, they tend to be located in densely populated areas like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Fresno, and
Sacramento, and might present opportunities to consolidate resources and coordinate efforts. Geographic proximity can call
attention to releases in areas of interest such as redevelopment, environmental justice, and ecological sensitivity.
EPA's analysis identified 6,531 releases (64 percent of open releases) Figures. Map of All Open Releases
located within a one-mile radius of five or more releases (Figure 8 to
the right). Of these releases, 3,847 (37 percent of open releases) are
located within a one-mile radius of 10 or more other open releases.
Approaching the assessment and cleanup needs of an area impacted by
LUSTs can be more effective than focusing on individual sites in isolation
from the adjacent or surrounding area. Considering geographically-
clustered releases might pave the way for new community-based
revitalization efforts, utilize economies of scale to yield benefits such
as reduced equipment costs, and present opportunities to develop
multi-site cleanup strategies, especially at locations with commingled
contamination.
Sacrament'
San Francisc
Fresn
State and local governments can utilize geographic clusters for area- LosAngele
wide planning efforts. In fact, California and EPA have begun a multi-
agency corridor initiative along Interstate 710 between Los Angeles and
Long Beach to accelerate cleanups at LUST sites and promote their reuse
and to focus on compliance and prevention measures at the active USTs
located in this corridor. EPA would like to continue to work with SWRCB to explore opportunities to promote and enhance
the understanding and use of corridors to address LUST releases. EPA encourages states to look for opportunities for resource
consolidation and area-wide planning like SWCRB's Interstate 710 Initiative but also recognizes that this approach is best
geared to address targeted groups of releases as opposed to a state-wide opportunity for every cluster of releases. EPA also
intends to conduct further geospatial analyses on clusters of releases in relation to RPs, highway corridors, local geologic and
hydrogeologic settings, groundwater resources, and/or communities with environmental justice concerns. These analyses
might reveal additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
27 Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic opportunities that will address a limited number of
releases within select designated geographic areas.
CA-18
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: CALIFORNIA
CONCLUSION
In this state chapter, EPA presented the analysis of LUST data submitted by SWRCB and highlighted information on California's
LUST program. Based on the analytic results, EPA identified potential opportunities that could be used to address specific
backlog issues in California. Over the course of the entire study, EPA also analyzed data from 13 other states. Findings and
opportunities that apply to all 14 states are discussed in the national chapter of the report. Each opportunity represents one
potential approach among many to address the backlog. Discussion of the opportunities as a whole is intended as a starting
point for further conversations among EPA, California, and the other states on strategies to reduce the backlog. EPA will work
with our partners to develop the backlog reduction strategies. Development of the strategies might include targeted data
collection, reviewing particular case files, analyzing problem areas, and sharing best practices. Final strategies could involve
actions from EPA, such as using additional program metrics, targeting resources for specific cleanup actions, clarifying and
developing guidance, and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with states, is committed to reducing the backlog of confirmed
UST releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater and land and the communities affected by these releases.
California LUST Program
Contact Information
California Environmental Protection Agency
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Water Quality
Underground Storage Tank Program
10011 Street, 15th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
P.O. Box 2231
Sacramento, CA 95812
Phone: 916-341-5752
Fax: 916-341-5808
www. water boa rd s. ca. eo v/wate r issues/
roerams/ust/
SEPTEMBER 2011
CA-19
-------
CHAPTER NOTES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER NOTES
CALIFORNIA DATA BY ATTRIBUTE
The following table provides details on the data elements of interest in this analysis. Data were provided by SWRCB staff in 2008 and 2009 for use in this analysis. Several data
elements of interest could not be addressed with the information available. All available data elements were analyzed and only those data elements that revealed informative
patterns of interest are included in the report.
Data Element
Administrative Cost
California Data
No data available.
Use in Analysis
Not Applicable (NA).
Age
Age was calculated for closed releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the closure date
and dividing by 365. Age was calculated for open releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from
the data date and dividing by 365. Any values less than -.1 were left blank. Values between -.1 and 0 were
counted as 0. All dates were rounded to one decimal point. Ages of releases with insufficient or invalid data
were left blank.
Variable in all analyses.
Cleanup Financing
Data were obtained from the "CUF_Paid_Amount" field in the GeoTracker LUST Info Summary report.
A value greater than zero in this field indicates that the release has received some state funding. These
releases were marked as "State Funded" for their cleanup financing.
Examined in the "Cleanup Financing"
section.
Cleanup Standards
No site-specific data available.
State-wide standards examined in the
national chapter.
Closure Date
Data were obtained from the "STATUS DATE" field in the GeoTracker Cleanup Sites Data Download.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Confirmed Release Date
Data were obtained from the "DISCHARGE_BEGIN_DATE" and "DISCOVERED DATE" fields in the GeoTracker
LUST Info Summary Report. If the former was null or invalid, the latter was used, if not also null or invalid.
Release dates earlier than 1970 were considered invalid.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Data Date
February 19, 2009 is used for all records. This is the date the data were downloaded.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Federally-Regulated LUST Releases
Data were obtained from the "CASE_TYPE" field in the GeoTracker LUST Info Summary report. A "LUST
Cleanup Site" entry in this field identifies the correct universe of releases for this analysis.
Identifies the appropriate universe of
releases for analysis.
Free Product
Data were obtained from the "DTFPROD" field in the GeoTracker ESI Data Downloads. Releases with positive
values between February 18, 2008, and the date of the data download (February 19, 2009) were counted
as currently having free product present. Releases with positive values prior to February 18, 2008, and no
positive values since were counted as having free product removed.
Examined in the "Presence of Free
Product" section.
Institutional and Engineering Controls
Data were obtained from the "ACTION_TYPE" field in the Geotracker Cleanup Sites Data Download. Releases
with "Deed Restriction / Land Use Covenant" entries are counted as releases with institutional controls in
place.
Discussed in the "Cleanup Standards"
section and examined in the national
chapter.
Latitude and Longitude
Data were obtained from the "LATITUDE" and "LONGITUDE" fields in the GeoTracker Cleanup Sites Data
Download. Where possible, coordinates for releases without existing latitude and longitude values were
obtained by EPA staff by geocoding address and street locations.
Used in geospatial analysis calculating the
number of open releases within a one-
mile radius of other open releases.
Lead
Data were obtained from the "LEADJDRGANIZATION" field in the GeoTracker Cleanup Sites Data Download.
Examined in the "Oversight Agency
Backlogs" section.
CA-20
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER NOTES
Data Element
Media
California Data
Data were obtained from the "MEDIA OF CONCERN" field in the GeoTracker LUST Info Summary Report (see
Media Reference Table). Releases with groundwater contamination marked (in addition to any other media)
were counted as "groundwater." Releases with only soil contamination marked were counted as "soil."
Releases with surface water contamination were counted as "other." "Unknown" releases might include
those releases for which there were no data available in the database, but for which information is available
in other files and releases for which the type of media contaminated is truly unknown.
Use in Analysis
Examined in the "Media Contaminated"
section.
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE)
No data available.
NA
Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) Data were obtained from the "METHOD" field in the GeoTracker LUST Info Summary Report.
No informative patterns were identified.
Number of Releases per RP
Calculated as the total number of open releases associated a unique RP name.
Examined in the "Number of Releases per
RP" section.
Orphan
No data available.
NA
Proximity
Geospatial analysis performed by EPA revealed the number of other open releases located within a one-mile
radius of each open release.
Examined in the "Geographic Clusters"
section.
Public Spending
Data were obtained from the "CUF_Paid_Amount" field in the GeoTracker LUST Info Summary Report. This is
an aggregate total for each release and is not examined in this analysis as it cannot be adjusted for inflation.
Data not suitable for analysis.
Release Priority
No data available.
NA
RP
Data were obtained from the "RP_NAME" field in the GeoTracker LUST Info Summary report.
Used to calculate the number of releases
associated with each unique RP.
RP Recalcitrance
No data available.
NA
Staff Workload
Status
No data available.
NA
Stage of Cleanup Data were obtained from the "STATUS" field in the GeoTracker Cleanup Sites Data Download (see Stage of Variable in all analyses.
Cleanup Reference Table).
Data were obtained from the "STATUS" field in the GeoTracker Cleanup Sites Data Download (see Stage
Reference Table).
Identifies the appropriate universe of
releases for tree analysis.
Voluntary Cleanup Program
No data available.
NA
Media Reference Table
Each release record contains a field recording multiple types of media contamination. These entries include both old and new media codes.
Media Code
(Blank)
A
AQUI
AQUI, CSS, IA
Media Type 1
Unknown
Other
Groundwater
Groundwater
1 Media Code
AQUI, IA, SOIL, SV, UE
AQUI, OTH
AQUI, OTH, SOIL
AQUI, OTH, SOIL, SURFW
Media Type 1
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
SEPTEMBER 2011
CA-21
-------
CHAPTER NOTES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: CALIFORNIA
Media Code
AQUI, OTH,SOIL, SV
AQUI, SED, UE
AQUI, SOIL
AQUI, SOIL, SURFW
AQUI, SOIL, SV
AQUI, SOIL, SV, SURFW
AQUI, SOIL, SV, SURFW, UE, WELL
AQUI, SOIL, WELL
AQUI, SURFW
AQUI, UE
AQUI, WELL
AQUI, WELL, OTH
AQUI, WELL, UE
Diesel, Gasoline
F
Gasoline
Gasoline, Fuel Oxygenates, * * TERT-BUTYL ALCOHOL (TEA), * TERT-
BUTYL ALCOHOL (TEA)
0
OTH
OTH, OTH
OTH, OTH, OTH
OTH, SOIL
OTH, SOIL, SURFW
OTH, SOIL, SV
OTH, SOIL, SV, UE
OTH, SOIL, UE
OTH, SURFW
OTH, SV
OTH, UE
OTH, WELL
Media Type 1
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Other
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
^^H Media Code
Other Solvent or Non-Petroleum Hydrocarbon
S
SOIL
SOIL, SOIL
SOIL, SV
SOIL, UE
SOIL, WELL
SURFW
U
UE
UE, OTH
UE, SOIL
W
WELL
WELL, AQUI
WELL, SURFW
Stage of Cleanup Reference
Each release is assigned a single current status.
standardized into four stages for this analysis.
Open
Open - Reopen Case
Open - Reopen Previously Closed Case
Open -Remediation
Open - Verification Monitoring
Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action
Open - Inactive
Open - Site Assessment
Referred
Completed - Case Closed
Media Type
Unknown
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Groundwater
Other
Unknown
Unknown
Other
Soil
Other
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Table
These status entries were
Confirmed Release
Confirmed Release
Confirmed Release
Remediation
Remediation
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Closed
CA-22
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG
A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
September 2011
FL-1
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AST
CTL
EPA
ESA
FAC
FDEP
FY
I RTF
LUST
MNA
MSA
RP
STCM
UST
Aboveground Storage Tank
Cleanup Target Level
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Expedited Site Assessment
Florida Administrative Code
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Fiscal Year
Inland Protection Trust Fund
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Monitored Natural Attenuation
Multi-Site Agreement
Responsible Party
Storage Tank Contamination Monitoring (Database)
Underground Storage Tank
FL-2
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Leaks from underground storage tanks (USTs) threaten America's groundwater and land resources. Even a small amount of
petroleum released from a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) can contaminate groundwater, the drinking water source
for nearly half of all Americans. In surveys of state water programs, 39 states and territories identified USTs as a major source
of groundwater contamination.2 As the reliance on our resources increases due to the rise in population and use, there is a
correspondingly greater need to protect our finite natural resources.
From the beginning of the UST program to September 2009, more than 488,000 releases were confirmed from federally-
regulated USTs nationwide. Of these confirmed releases needing cleanup, over 100,000 remained in the national LUST
backlog. These releases are in every state, and many are old and affect groundwater. To help address this backlog of releases,
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invited 14 states to participate in a national backlog characterization
study.
ANALYSIS OF FLORIDA DATA
Florida's Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has made significant progress toward reducing its LUST cleanup
backlog. As of March 2009, Florida had completed 15,509 LUST cleanups, which is 49 percent of all known releases in the
state. At the time of data collection, there were 16,121 releases remaining in its backlog, by far the highest number in any
state in the nation.3 To most effectively reduce the national cleanup backlog, EPA believes that states and EPA must develop
backlog reduction strategies that can be effective in states with the largest backlogs. EPA invited Florida to participate in its
national backlog study because Florida has the largest backlog in the United States.
In this chapter, EPA characterized Florida's releases that have not been cleaned up, analyzed the releases based on categories
of interest, and developed potential opportunities for FDEP and EPA to explore that might improve the state's cleanup
progress and reduce its backlog. Florida faces several statutory constraints that affect its ability to address all the releases
in its backlog. These constraints are tied to the amount of funding FDEP receives each year. FDEP ranks releases in priority
order and, by statute, can only work on the highest priority releases that are above the funding threshold based on the
annual appropriation. The recent economic downturn had an impact on Florida's ability to make progress on cleanups. On
May 27, 2009, the Governor of Florida signed and approved an action by the state legislature (SB 2600) to virtually eliminate
the LUST cleanup program, cutting its state fiscal year (FY) 2009 funding from $156 million to $22 million, which was only to
be used for program operations and not for cleanup. To fill the cleanup funding void, the state legislature did authorize the
1 Numbers presented in this report reflect data on individual releases provided in March 2009 by FDEP staff, while the numbers
reported by FDEP for EPA's UST performance measures are counts of facilities with open releases. Therefore, the numbers presented
in this report are not identical to the UST performance measures found on EPA's website, available at: www.epa.gov/oust/cat/
camarchv.htm.
2 EPA, National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report, pp. 50-52. www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/chp6.pdf.
3 EPA tracks individual releases rather than sites in its performance measures. Therefore, the analyses in this report account for
numbers of releases, not sites.
4 Unknown media releases include those releases where, based on available data, it was not possible to identify the media
contaminated. According to state staff, unknown releases are most likely releases with groundwater contamination.
Florida LUST Data
By the Numbers1
National Backlog Contribution
Cumulative Historical Releases
Closed Releases
Open Releases
Stage of Cleanup
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Remediation
Media Contaminated
Groundwater
15,509/49%
16,121/51%
5,874/36%
2,981/19%
7,266/45%
7,589/47%
3,868/24%
4,509/28%
Median Age of Open Releases
SEPTEMBER 2011
FL-3
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
use of $90 million for cleanup via bonds. Subsequently, the 2010-2011 budget for
LUST cleanups has been increased to $120 million. These funding actions strongly
impacted Florida's ability to achieve cleanups.
Even though statutory constraints in Florida might make pursuing certain opportunities
challenging or unlikely, EPA included potential cleanup opportunities in this report to
explore the options that might be available for releases above the threshold as well
as opportunities FDEP might pursue if the statutory restrictions were not in place or
if there were enough resources to fund most of the cleanups. FDEP is already using
some of the opportunities as part of its ongoing LUST cleanup program. Building
on the potential cleanup opportunities identified in the study, while keeping FDEP's
statutory requirements in mind, EPA will continue to work with FDEP to develop
backlog reduction strategies, as appropriate.
The findings from the analysis of FDEP's data and the potential cleanup opportunities
are summarized below in seven study areas: stage of cleanup, media contaminated,
release priority, cleanup financing, number of releases per affiliated party, geographic
clusters, and data management.
Stage Of Cleanup (seepageFL-12formore details)
Florida Finding
47 percent of releases are
either:
5 years old or older
and site assessment
has not started; or
10 years old or
older and still in site
assessment.
Potential Opportunity
Expedite site assessments at old releases
to identify releases that can be closed
with minimal effort or moved toward
remediation.
Implement enforcement actions at stalled
releases.
Releases
7,568
39 percent of releases are:
10 years old or older;
and
in remediation.
Use a systematic process to explore
opportunities to accelerate cleanups and reach
closure, such as:
periodic review of release-specific
treatment technologies;
review of site-specific cleanup standards;
encourage use of institutional or
engineering controls; and
implement enforcement actions if
cleanup has stalled.
6,314
Florida's releases are taking a long time to move through the cleanup process, and
while FDEP has restrictions on where it can spend state fund money, some of the
older releases were classified by the program as above the threshold, high priority.
There are several reasons why many releases in the backlog are old including: many
releases are complex and therefore take a long time to address; many releases impact
groundwater, and almost all drinking water comes from groundwater; the majority
of releases are state fund eligible and state funding is currently limited; and many
releases are ranked as low priority. EPA recognizes FDEP's requirement to address
high priority releases first. Nevertheless, EPA believes it is important for FDEP to
explore opportunities to accelerate cleanups at older releases in case more resources
become available and to consider potential opportunities, while maintaining
compliance with FDEP's statutory requirements. EPA encourages FDEP to continue to
work toward bringing these old, high priority releases to closure.
FL-4
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
Media Contaminated (see page FL-U for more details)
Release Priority (see page FL-16for more details)
Florida Finding
23 percent of releases:
contaminate
groundwater;
are in remediation;
and
are 10 years old or
older.
Potential Opportunity
Systematically evaluate cleanup progress at
old releases with groundwater impacts and
consider alternative cleanup technologies or
other strategies to reduce time to closure.
Releases
3,661
24 percent of releases
contaminate soil only.
Use expedited site assessments to identify
additional releases with soil contamination
that can be:
targeted for closure with minimal effort;
or
moved more quickly into remediation.
3,868
28 percent of releases are
not electronically tracked
according to the type of
media contaminated.
Target releases with unknown media
contamination for expedited site assessments
and use this information to update the release
priority as needed and to customize the
remedial activity.
4,509
Releases contaminating groundwater have always been the largest part of the national
backlog and 47 percent of releases in Florida are documented as contaminating
groundwater. According to FDEP staff, this is likely an underestimate. In general,
groundwater contamination is more technically complex to remediate and takes
longer to clean up than soil contamination. For old, complex cleanups where long-
term remediation is underway, EPA believes it is important for FDEP to periodically
reevaluate cleanup progress and reconsider whether the cleanup technology being
used is still optimal.
Even though soil contamination is typically easier to remediate than groundwater
contamination, many of Florida's old releases that impact only soil are still
unaddressed or are in the early stages of cleanup. It is likely that many of these
releases remain unaddressed because they are lower priority according to FDEP's
priority ranking system. Nevertheless, as resources become available, EPA believes
FDEP should continue to make progress toward closure for all of its LUST releases.
Better information about the type of media contaminated at each release could also
help FDEP choose optimal cleanup technologies and evaluate cleanup progress.
Florida Finding
86 percent of releases
are not being actively
addressed due to their
priority score.
Potential Opportunity
Explore options for moving releases toward
closure such as:
expediting site assessments of all
releases to ensure that all releases are
appropriately ranked; and
ensuring releases with immediate risk are
being actively worked on.
Releases
13,901
Florida has a statutory requirement to address the highest priority releases first.
To assist the prioritization of oversight and enforcement, all releases are scored
regardless of whether they are state funded or privately financed. FDEP cannot spend
resources at lower priority releases.5 Consequently, Florida's low priority releases
tend to be old and remain in the backlog. With these statutory requirements in mind,
EPA will work with FDEP to explore options and develop strategies to move releases
toward closure, such as supporting local governments and other stakeholders in using
the petroleum brownfields grants to move lower priority releases forward. EPA also
believes it is important to ensure that there are no immediate risks to human health
and the environment from the higher priority releases that have not been addressed.
At the time of data collection, the action threshold priority score was set at 45, resulting
in 73 percent of open releases scoring too low to qualify for funding. As a result of
budget cuts since these data were collected, the action threshold has subsequently been
raised to a priority score of 60 or higher, and an additional 13 percent of open releases
will be put on hold until more funds become available.
SEPTEMBER 2011
FL-5
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
Cleanup F i n a n C i n g (see page FL-I 7 for more details)
Florida Finding Potential Opportunity
50 percent of
state fund eligible
releases in
remediation are 20
years old or older.
Reevaluate the current remedial plan at all state fund
eligible releases in the Remediation stage to identify
releases where a more cost-effective plan could be
implemented, such as:
using monitored natural attenuation (MNA);
using site-specific, risk-based decision making; and
using closure with institutional or engineering
controls.
Releases
5,971
49 percent of
state fund eligible
releases either:
have not
begun site
assessment; or
have not
finished site
assessment.
Explore ways to move more state-funded cleanups
toward closure, such as:
redirecting funds saved at cleanups with improved
cost effectiveness to state fund eligible releases
where assessment has not been completed; and
encouraging the use of other sources of public and
private funding such as petroleum brownfields
grants to move low priority releases toward
closure.
5,772
EPA and state programs are interested in exploring successful financing strategies for
completing cleanups quickly. Differences in cleanup rates between those releases
covered by state funds and those releases covered by other forms of financial
responsibility could provide useful insights into what works in existing programs. EPA
believes the availability of funding for cleanup is essential to reducing the backlog.
Accordingly, in addition to this study, EPA is increasing its focus on oversight of
state funds as well as conducting a study of private insurance. Florida provides an
interesting opportunity for this insight since it has both state-funded and privately-
funded cleanups in its backlog.
The way that state funds are structured can potentially create incentives or
disincentives for prompt cleanup. In Florida, early amnesty programs provided
strong incentives to report releases, but FDEP's current budget situation does not
allow FDEP to fund all releases expeditiously. EPA will continue to work with FDEP to
explore how these incentives affect the pace of cleanup and how to effectively use
incentives to support program implementation.
All state programs are experiencing resource limitations, and progress toward backlog
reduction is dependent on their ability to apply existing resources to their backlogs. If
more cost-effective remedial plans could be implemented at state-funded cleanups or
other funding sources found for those not in remediation, this would free up funding
to address more releases.
Number of Releases per Affiliated Party
(see page FL-19for more details)
Florida Finding
22 percent of releases are
affiliated with 101 parties
that each has 10 or more
releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore possibilities for multi-site agreements 3,546
(MSAs) or enforcement actions with parties
associated with multiple open releases.
EPA analyzed the number of releases per affiliated party to identify the largest
potential contributors to the state's cleanup backlog. EPA was able to identify groups
of 10 or more releases that have common ownership or name affiliation from data
provided by FDEP on the names of facility owners, responsible parties (RPs), and
other parties associated with releases. FDEP and EPA can use these data to identify
possible participants for multi-site strategies to clean up groups of releases.
Geographic Clusters (see page FL-20for more details)
Florida Finding
75 percent of releases are
clustered within a one-
mile radius of five or more
releases.
Potential Opportunity
Target releases within close proximity for
other resource consolidation opportunities.
Releases
Targeted
number of
releases6
Another multi-site approach FDEP could support is targeting cleanup actions at
geographically-clustered releases. This approach could offer opportunities for
new community-based reuse efforts, using economies of scale, and addressing
commingled contamination. EPA believes that highlighting geographic clusters
of releases and working with state and local governments in area-wide initiatives
may increase the number of releases cleaned up in Florida. Local governments
along the Tamiami Scenic Highway are already pursuing petroleum brownfields
grants that include up to 100 sites. EPA intends to work with the states to conduct
further geospatial analyses on clusters of open releases in relation to RPs, highway
corridors, local geologic and hydrogeologic settings, groundwater resources, and/
or communities with environmental justice concerns. These analyses might reveal
additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic
opportunities that will address a limited number of releases within select designated
geographic areas.
FL-6
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
Data Management (see page FL-21 for more details)
Florida Finding
Several key data fields are
not included, consistently
maintained, or routinely
tracked in the Storage Tank
Contamination Monitoring
(STCM) database.
Potential Opportunity
Improve SCTM database to enhance program
management and backlog reduction efforts.
Releases
Variable
number of
releases7
Multiple data management limitations prevent a full assessment of Florida's backlog
and associated strategies for backlog reduction. Because of data limitations, EPA
could not analyze release-specific financial responsibility mechanisms or identify the
media contaminated for 28 percent of open releases. Additional data management
improvements could allow for easier overall program management within FDEP as
well as provide an improved tool for developing strategies to reduce the cleanup
backlog.
CONCLUSION
This chapter contains EPA's data analysis of Florida's LUST cleanup backlog and
identifies potential opportunities to reduce the backlog in Florida. EPA discusses the
findings and opportunities for Florida, along with those of 13 additional states, in the
national chapter of this report. With Florida's statutory constraints in mind, EPA will
work with Florida to develop potential approaches and detailed strategies for reducing
the backlog especially for high priority releases above the threshold and looking for
other resources to help address lower priority releases. Development of national
strategies could involve targeted data collection, reviewing particular case files,
analyzing problem areas, and sharing best practices. Final strategies could involve
EPA actions such as using additional program metrics to show cleanup progress,
targeting resources for specific cleanup actions, clarifying and developing guidance,
and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with states, is committed to reducing the
backlog of confirmed LIST releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater, land,
and communities affected by these releases.
7 Opportunities marked as "variable number of releases" relate to programmatic
opportunities and affect an unknown number of releases potentially including all open
releases.
SEPTEMBER 2011
FL-7
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
PROGRAM SUMMARY
Florida LUST Program
At a Glance
Cleanup Rate
In fiscal year (FY) 2009, FDEP confirmed 169
releases and completed 709 cleanups.8
Cleanup Financing
Of open releases, 73 percent (11,743 releases)
are eligible for state funding.
Cleanup Standards
Default cleanup target levels (CTLs) are
generally used, but RPs may develop site-
specific cleanup goals.
Priority System
All releases are prioritized based on threats to
human health and human receptors.
Average Public Spending on Cleanup
$400,0009
Releases Per Project Manager
There are, on average, 159 open releases per
project manager. On average, 47 of these
releases are above the action threshold and
are active cases. Private contractors, county
staff, and Department of Health staff provide
additional support.
State LUST Program Organization and Administration
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection's (FDEP's) Petroleum Cleanup Program provides oversight, management,
and administration of cleanups through a combination of state staff, contracted county staff, and private contractors. A total
of 14 counties and local Department of Health offices are under contract to help oversee cleanups in 20 of the 67 counties
in Florida. Private contractors also provide administrative support to FDEP. Work at state fund eligible releases is performed
by pre-approved contractors selected by the property owner, responsible party (RP), or state-lead contractors under direct
contract with FDEP.
FDEP is required by Florida statute to direct its resources only to the highest priority cleanups including the oversight and
enforcement of privately financed cleanups. Each year, a priority threshold is determined based on the state budget and
only those releases FDEP can afford to address are considered "active." Releases below the priority threshold are considered
"inactive" and cleanup activities cannot be initiated for these releases.
Cleanup Financing
Florida's Inland Protection Trust Fund (IPTF) is financed by revenues generated from an excise tax on petroleum products.
Florida has four primary state fund programs, each with its own eligibility requirements. Funding from these programs is
allocated on a release basis, resulting in the eligibility of each release being evaluated separately. Therefore, a facility with
multiple releases could receive funding from multiple programs or receive funding for only one release. Each funding program
has its own funding cap, co-pay, and deductible requirements. Seventy-three percent of releases (11,743 releases) are known
to be eligible for at least partial funding from one of these programs. Eligibility does not imply immediate funding. Releases
are ranked based on priority and only releases above the funding threshold score are funded. Lower priority releases are not
funded unless all the higher priority releases have completed cleanup and funds are available to lower the threshold priority
score. Post-1998 releases are not eligible for state funding and must be addressed using private financing.
In 1996, the Preapproval Advanced Cleanup Program was created to provide an opportunity for some cleanups to be initiated
in advance of the releases' priority rankings. Under this program, applicants bid a significant cost share for cleanup work
and, if selected, are allowed to move forward in advance of higher priority releases. Between 2002 and 2008, 11 of 12
funding rounds were cancelled due to the need to fund high priority releases. In addition, on May 27, 2009, the Governor
of Florida signed and approved an action by the state legislature (SB 2600) to virtually eliminate the leaking underground
storage tank (LUST) cleanup program. State FY 2009 funding was cut from $156 million to $22 million, which was to only be
used for program operations and not for cleanup. To fill the cleanup funding void, the state legislature did authorize the use
of $90 million for cleanup via bonds. Subsequently, the 2010-2011 budget has been increased to $120 million. These actions
strongly impacted Florida's ability to achieve cleanups.
8 Based on FY 2009 UST Performance Measures End of Year Activity report.
9 See FDEP's Petroleum Contamination Cleanup and Discharge Prevention Programs Briefing, available online at:
www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick topics/publications/pss/pcp/geninfo/2008ProgramFINAL060908.pdf.
FL-8
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
Cleanup Standards
FDEP sets default CTLs for groundwater, surface water, and soil contamination at
petroleum sites, based on a toxicity evaluation of carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic
effects as well as considerations of taste and odor.10 RPs may conduct risk assessments
to calculate site-specific cleanup goals that must also be protective against both
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects. Site-specific cleanup goals are reviewed
and approved by FDEP staff. Risk-based corrective action is allowed at state fund
eligible releases, but RPs are legally allowed to select the more stringent CTLs as the
cleanup goals. FDEP is pursuing the use of monitored natural attenuation (MNA) at
releases where the RP will not allow risk-based cleanups.
Release Prioritization
All releases are prioritized based on health risk and threats to human receptors.
Releases are scored between one and 100, with releases scored above a certain
threshold slated for active cleanup (i.e., cleanups are funded). The threshold score
to trigger active cleanup can be adjusted depending on how much money the state
has available in any given year. FDEP is required by statute to actively fund cleanups
only at eligible releases that have a priority score above the action threshold. As of
May 14, 2009, the priority score action threshold was raised from 45 to 60. Release
priority scores at all open releases are reevaluated and updated annually. Releases
not eligible for state funding are also scored in order to prioritize oversight of privately-
financed releases and enforcement efforts by FDEP District Offices at releases where
no cleanup activities have occurred.
State Backlog Reduction Efforts
FDEP has explored opportunities for backlog reduction efforts but has not yet been
able to implement backlog reduction initiatives. Due to state statutory requirements,
FDEP is not able to fund cleanups at state fund eligible releases where risk scores
are below the priority threshold score set annually by the state based on the annual
cleanup budget.11 This requirement prohibits any efforts that could target easy-to-
close releases, which might constitute up to 15 percent of the Florida backlog. When
additional funds are available, FDEP lowers the priority score threshold to address as
many releases as possible. However, these efforts do not address the lowest priority
releases, which might be the easiest to close.
10 CTLs are found in Florida Administrative Code (FAC) Chapters 62-770 and 62-777
available online at: www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick topics/rules/default.htm.
11 FDEP's Petroleum Contamination Site Priority Ranking Rule is available online at:
www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick topics/rules/documents/62-771.pdf.
SEPTEMBER 2011
FL-9
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
[This page has intentionally been left blank.
FL-10 SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNITIES
In this study, EPA analyzed Florida's federally-regulated releases that have not been cleaned up (open releases). EPA conducted
a multivariate analysis on all of Florida's data. However, this technique did not identify strong underlying patterns in the
data.12 Next, EPA divided the open releases into groups that might warrant further attention. EPA used descriptive statistics
to examine the distribution of releases by age of release and stage of cleanup and highlighted findings based on FDEP's data.14
EPA then identified potential opportunities for addressing particular groups of releases in the backlog. Many releases are
included in more than one opportunity. These opportunities describe actions that EPA and FDEP might use as a starting point
for their discussion on backlog reduction. Although EPA's analysis covered all releases in Florida, there are 226 releases that
are not included in any of the subsets identified in the findings or opportunities due to the way EPA structured the analysis.
These releases might also benefit from some of the suggested opportunities and strategies.
EPA's analyses revealed seven areas of Florida's backlog with potential opportunities for its further reduction:
LUST Data Source
Electronic data for LUST releases occurring
between January 1956 and March 2009 were
compiled with FDEP staff in 2008 and 2009.13
Data were obtained from the Florida Storage
Tank Contamination Monitoring (STCM)
database and selected based on quality and
the ability to address areas of interest in this
analysis.
Stage of cleanup
Media contaminated
Release priority
Cleanup financing
Number of releases per affiliated
party
Geographic clusters
Data management
12
The analytic tree method, a multivariate technique used to identify underlying patterns among large data sets, did not reveal strong
patterns within the data. For more information on analytic trees, see Appendix A.
13 For a detailed description of the Florida data used in this analysis, see the Chapter Notes section.
14 For a detailed description of release stages, see the Chapter Notes section (Stage of Cleanup Reference Table).
SEPTEMBER 2011
FL-11
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
STAGE OF CLEANUP
As of March 31, 2009, the Florida backlog consisted of 16,121 open releases, by far the highest number in any state in
the nation. EPA analyzed the age of these LUST releases and their distribution among the stages of cleanup. To facilitate
analysis, EPA classified Florida's open releases into three stages of cleanup: the Confirmed Release stage (releases where
assessments have not begun), the Site Assessment stage (releases where site assessments have begun), and the Remediation
stage (releases where remedial activities have started).15 While EPA grouped the releases into linear stages for this analysis,
EPA recognizes that cleanups might not proceed in a linear fashion. Cleanup can be an iterative process where releases go
through successive rounds of site assessment and remediation. However, in the long run, this approach might be both longer
and more costly. Acquiring good site characterization up front can accelerate the pace of cleanup and avoid the extra cost of
repeated site assessment.
Since Florida's underground storage tank (LIST) program began, FDEP has closed 15,509 releases, half of which were closed
in fewer than 7.8 years (Figure 1 below). The younger median age of closed LUST releases might be attributable to the rapid
closure of relatively easy to remediate releases. Also, national program policy allows states to report confirmed releases
that require no further action at the time of confirmation as "cleanup completed." Therefore, some releases are reported as
confirmed and cleaned up simultaneously.
Figure 1. Age of Releases among Stages of Cleanup
7,266
20 5,871
2,981 O Confirmed Release
^ Site Assessment
O Remediation
Si 15,509
jo Closed
₯, 10
The white dot at the center of each circle represents the median age of releases. Each circle is labeled with, and scaled to, the number of
releases within each stage. Included in the release counts and size of circles are 690 closed releases for which release age is unknown. These
releases are not part of the median age calculation.
FDEP has explored opportunities for reducing the backlog by lowering the priority score threshold whenever funding is available
in order to address as many releases as possible. This opportunity includes closing any release within the funding threshold
where little or no remedial work is required to reach closure standards or at releases that have met closure standards but
had not finished closure review. This type of focused effort is prohibited in Florida if the targeted releases scored below the
priority funding threshold. However, EPA and FDEP could explore opportunities to work within Florida's program structure
to address additional releases. Similar efforts in other states have been funded by grants from EPA or as designated state
initiatives.
15 Releases were classified into stages based on available data and discussion with FDEP staff. For more information, see the Chapter
Notes section.
FL-12 SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
Florida has many old LUST releases not in remediation. Figure 2 below shows the backlog of open releases by age and stage
of cleanup. Figure 2 includes 5,874 releases in the Confirmed Release stage (34 percent of the backlog), 5,488 of which have
not started assessment, five years or more after the releases were confirmed. The figure also shows 2,981 releases in the
Site Assessment stage (13 percent of the backlog), 2,080 of which have not entered the Remediation stage, 10 years or more
after the releases were confirmed. The subset of older releases that have not started or are still in site assessment accounts
for 47 percent of Florida's total backlog. FDEP's data indicate that releases have not moved into remediation quickly. Some of
these releases may be privately financed, in which case enforcement may be appropriate to move sites toward cleanup that
appear stalled. However, the state-funded cleanups might have been determined to be low priority during the initial release
characterization, which prohibits FDEP from moving forward with cleanup.
Figure 2. Release Age Distribution among Stages of Cleanup
386
7%
1,394
24%
2,521
43%
1,426
24%
30%
3,362
46%
2,191
30%
D 0 - 4.9 Years
| 5 - 9.9 Years
n 10-14.9 Years
D 15-19.9 Years
Over 20 Years
Confirmed Release
(5,874 Releases)
Site Assessment
(2,981 Releases)
Remediation
(7,266 Releases)
EPA encourages states to streamline the corrective action process, improve data collection, reduce the overall cost of
remediation, and move releases more rapidly toward remediation and closure. To assist states and regulators in implementing
these objectives, EPA developed its Expedited Site Assessment (ESA) guide.16 The guide explains the overall ESA process as
well as specific site assessment tools and methods. The ESA process rapidly characterizes site conditions to help support
cost-effective corrective action decisions. ESAs will help identify releases that can be closed with minimal effort or provide all
the information needed to move a release into remediation. Conducting site assessments efficiently and quickly might help
reduce the backlog by accelerating the pace of cleanup and ultimately decrease overall project costs.
Florida also has many old releases in the Remediation stage. Forty-five percent of the releases in the Florida backlog (7,266
releases) are in the Remediation stage, and their median age is 19.2 years (Figure 1 above). Of the Remediation stage releases,
87 percent (6,314 releases) are 10 years old or older and 46 percent (3,362) are over 20 years old (Figure 2 above). This group
of old releases in the Remediation stage makes up 39 percent of Florida's total backlog.
Because EPA only has the date that a release was confirmed but not when it moved from one stage to the next (e.g., from
assessment to remediation), EPA can calculate the overall age of the release but not the actual time spent in the Remediation
stage. It is possible that some of these releases might have only recently begun remediation. FDEP should consider establishing
16 EPA's 1997 guidance document, Expedited Site Assessment Tools for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Regulators (EPA 510
B-97-001) is available online at: www.epa.gov/OUST/pubs/sam.htm.
Florida Finding
47 percent of releases are either:
5 years old or older and site assessment
has not started; or
10 years old or older and still in site
assessment.
Potential Opportunity
Expedite site assessments
at old releases to identify
releases that can be closed
with minimal effort or
moved toward remediation.
Implement enforcement
actions at stalled releases.
Releases
7,568
Old releases in the
Confirmed Release stage
Above current threshold
Below current threshold
Unknown priority
Old releases in the Site
Assessment stage
Above current threshold
Below current threshold
5,488
159
5,323
6
2,080
101
1,979
Only 20 percent of releases 10 years old
and older in the Remediation stage (1,268
releases) are above the state's current
priority threshold.
SEPTEMBER 2011
FL-13
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
Florida Finding
39 percent of releases are:
10 years old or older; and
in remediation.
Potential Opportunity
Releases
Use a systematic process 6,314
to explore opportunities to
accelerate cleanups and reach
closure, such as:
periodic review of
release-specific treatment
technologies;
review of site-specific
cleanup standards;
encourage use of
institutional or engineering
controls; and
implement enforcement
actions if cleanup has
stalled.
Above current threshold 1,268
Below current threshold 5,045
Unknown priority 1
Florida Finding
23 percent of releases:
contaminate groundwater;
are in remediation; and
are 10 years old or older.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Systematically evaluate cleanup 3,661
progress at old releases with
groundwater impacts and
consider alternative cleanup
technologies or other strategies
to reduce time to closure.
Above current threshold 624
Below current threshold 3,037
a systematic process to evaluate existing releases in remediation and optimize cleanup approaches including choice of
technology and site-specific risk-based decision making. This process might save Florida resources and bring releases to
closure more quickly. This would allow Florida to move on to other releases that need attention and remove releases from
the backlog within existing budget limitations.
If releases are not moving forward because of their relatively low priority, FDEP can continue to support local government
and stakeholder's pursuit of alternative public and private funding sources such as petroleum brownfields grants to close and
reuse sites. There may be additional sources of funding targeted at low priority releases that would help reduce Florida's
backlog while allowing FDEP to continue to address the highest priority releases with state resources.
MEDIA CONTAMINATED
Groundwater is an important natural resource at risk from petroleum contamination. Old releases impacting groundwater
make up a significant percentage of Florida's backlog. Groundwater contamination generally takes longer and is typically
more expensive to clean up than soil contamination. In this study, EPA examined media as a factor contributing to the backlog.
The following analysis classified media contamination into four categories: groundwater (7,589 open releases); soil (3,868
open releases); other media, which includes surface water (155 open releases); and unknown media, which includes releases
with no media specified (4,509 open releases).17
In Florida, 47 percent of open releases (7,589 releases) are documented as involving groundwater contamination and these
have a median age of 18.9 years (Figure 3 below). Although there are 4,509 releases for which the media contaminated are
either unknown or not tracked in the STCM database, most of these releases impact groundwater as well, according to FDEP
staff (Figure 3). The age of open releases contaminating groundwater is significantly older than the 6.1-year median age at
closure for groundwater cleanups. Of the 4,257 Remediation stage releases that have documented impacts on groundwater,
86 percent (3,661 releases) are 10 years old or older (23 percent of the total backlog) (Figure 4, page 15).
Figure 3. Age of Releases, by Media Contaminated and Stage of Cleanup
4,257
1,564
O Confirmed Release
O Site Assessment
O Remediation
Closed
0
Groundwater Soil Other
Squares indicating closed releases are not scaled to the number of releases in that stage.
Unknown
17 For a detailed description of media contamination classifications, see the Chapter Notes section.
FL-14
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
Figure 4. Age Distribution of Remediation Stage Releases, by Media Contaminated
269
6% 327
2,393
56%
267
116
1,001
24%
12 37
1% 2%
290
18%
Q 0 - 4.9 Years
0 5-9.9 Years
| 10 -14.9 Years
15 -19.9 Years
I Over 20 Years
Groundwater
(4,257 Releases)
Soil
(1,408 Releases)
Other & Unknown
(1,601 Releases)
Like most state programs, FDEP does not have the resources to address all backlogged releases at once and Florida state law
requires FDEP to focus on the highest priority releases first. Of the 3,661 releases 10 years and older in the Remediation
stage, and impacting groundwater, 83 percent (3,037 releases) are low priority releases that FDEP cannot currently address
due to funding limitations. However, 17 percent of these releases (624 releases) are high priority releases that are above the
funding threshold. High priority releases that affect groundwater might be complex and difficult to remediate, but if FDEP
could identify opportunities to improve cleanup efficiencies, it might be able to accelerate the pace of cleanups. For example,
using a systematic process to evaluate cleanup progress, current contaminant levels, and treatment technologies might move
releases through cleanup and to closure faster.
The use of institutional or engineering controls can also reduce the time to closure by eliminating exposure pathways and
allow for less stringent cleanup standards where protective and appropriate. Although site owners often refuse the use of
institutional controls, continued efforts by FDEP to recommend their use might lead to more rapid closures. In addition,
evaluation of the cleanup progress of releases with groundwater impacts might identify releases where MNA can be applied.
In these cases, treatment times need to remain reasonable compared to other methods. FDEP's cleanup costs might be
reduced by applying MNA.
Releases that contaminate soil only represent a potential threat to groundwater resources and contaminate properties
in neighborhoods and communities. Although contaminated soil can typically be cleaned up faster than contaminated
groundwater, soil cleanups in Florida are often as old as groundwater cleanups (Figure 4). In many cases, FDEP defers the
cleanup of soil contamination for higher priority groundwater contamination. However, the 24 percent of open releases
(3,868 releases) that contaminate only soil in Florida offer potential opportunities for reducing the backlog. Among soil
cleanups, 20 percent (772 releases) are in the Confirmed Release stage and are 16.8 years old or older and another 12 percent
(457 releases) are in the Site Assessment stage and are 12.6 years old or older (Figure 3). Unfortunately, data are missing on
the media contaminated for 28 percent of the backlog (4,509 open releases) and, according to FDEP staff, all releases may not
have updated information on whether the releases contaminate groundwater. In general, expediting site assessments and
moving forward with remediation could help Florida gather more information about difficult sites and move releases toward
closure.
Florida Finding
24 percent of releases contaminate soil only.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Use expedited site assessments 3,868
to identify additional releases
with soil contamination that can
be:
targeted for closure with
minimal effort; or
moved more quickly into
remediation.
Above current threshold 446
Below current threshold 3,256
Unknown priority 166
Florida Finding
28 percent of releases are not electronically
tracked according to the type of media
contaminated.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Target releases with unknown 4,509
media contamination for
expedited site assessments and
use this information to update
the release priority as needed
and to customize the remedial
activity.
Above current threshold 538
Below current threshold 3,967
Unknown priority 4
SEPTEMBER 2011
FL-15
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
Florida Finding
86 percent of releases are not being actively
addressed due to their priority score.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore options for moving 13,901
releases toward closure such as:
expediting site assessments
of all releases to ensure that
all releases are appropriately
ranked; and
ensuring releases with
immediate risk are being
actively worked on.
RELEASE PRIORITY
Florida, like many state programs, employs a prioritization system to decide how to best allocate state resources for assessments
and cleanups. There might be opportunities to work within FDEP's prioritization system to increase the number of closures.
FDEP is required by statute to focus resources on unconfirmed and the highest risk releases. To assist the prioritization of
oversight and enforcement, all releases are also scored regardless of whether they are state funded or privately financed.
FDEP is prohibited from dedicating resources to low priority releases unless resources have already been made available to
address all higher priority releases.
Under state statute, FDEP cannot address a large number of low
priority releases that could potentially be closed quickly. In Florida,
releases qualify for cleanup action based on their priority score. At
the time of data collection, only 27 percent of open releases in the
Florida backlog (4,394 releases) were actively addressed, either
due to receiving a priority score above the action threshold of 45
(25 percent) or having not yet received a priority score (2 percent;
Figure 5 to the right). The remaining 73 percent of releases (11,727
releases) had been on hold because their priority scores are below
the action threshold.
Figure 5. Distribution of Releases, by Priority Score
1,863
12%
6,218
39%
2,174
13%
Priority Score
Q Unknown
n<2o
| 20-44
| 45-59
I >60
5,509
34%
As a result of budget cuts since these data were collected, the
action threshold has been raised from a priority score of 45 to
a priority score of 60 or higher, meaning that an additional 13
percent of the backlog (2,174 releases) will be put on hold until more funds become available. Only 14 percent of releases
in Florida can now be actively addressed, either due to receiving a priority score above the action threshold (12 percent)
or having not yet received a priority score (2 percent; Figure 5). A large portion of the backlog (39 percent; 6,218 releases)
has a priority score below 20 suggesting that even if the threshold were lowered, a large number of releases would remain
unaddressed. In the past, when significant budget resources have been available and the action threshold has been low, FDEP
staff responded by pushing for rapid site assessments and remedial activities at lower priority releases to ensure that work
progressed. Using this strategy, FDEP staff maximized activities at temporarily active releases before the action threshold was
raised again. The continued application of the strategy to expedite site assessments of lower-scored active releases could help
maximize the number of releases progressing toward remediation.
FL-16
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
CLEANUP FINANCING
EPA and state programs are interested in exploring successful financing strategies for completing cleanups quickly. Differences
in cleanup rates between those releases covered by state funds and those releases covered by other forms of financial
responsibility could provide useful insights into what works well in existing programs. EPA believes the availability of funding
for cleanup is essential to reducing the backlog. Accordingly, in addition to this study, EPA is increasing its focus on oversight
of state funds as well as conducting a study of private insurance. Florida's data provide an interesting opportunity to explore
these areas of interest, since Florida has both state-funded and privately-funded cleanups in its backlog. To analyze the effect
of various types of financial responsibility mechanisms on closure rates, EPA evaluated state fund eligibility and cleanup
progress for each release.
The way that state funds are structured can potentially create incentives or disincentives for prompt cleanup. For example,
a high deductible would provide a different incentive for owners than a low deductible. In Florida, early amnesty programs
provided strong incentives to report releases, but the current budget situation does not allow FDEP to fund all releases. EPA
will continue to work with FDEP to explore how incentives affect the pace of cleanup and how to use effective incentives to
support program implementation.
As shown in Figure 6 below, half of the state fund eligible releases in the Remediation stage (2,986 releases) are 20years old or
older. These releases may be complex and difficult to remediate. However, releases may be lingering for other reasons, such
as very slow reduction in contamination from the existing remedial systems. If a thorough evaluation determines that active
remediation is ineffective in reducing contamination, a less costly cleanup technology such as MNA could be considered as
an appropriate remedy.18 If used appropriately, this approach would free up state funds for use at other cleanups and could
increase the number of releases that FDEP is able to address and move toward remediation.
Figure 6. Age of Releases, by State Fund Eligibility and Stage of Cleanup
5,971
20 3,868
15
1,776
ro
01
01
oc
01
00
10 6'149
230 281 0 495
0 O
0
796
0
1,065
Q 8,865
I Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
I Remediation
Closed
State Fund Eligible
State Fund Ineligible
Eligibility Unknown
Florida Finding
50 percent of state fund eligible releases in
remediation are 20 years old or older.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Reevaluate the current remedial 5,971
plan at all state fund eligible
releases in the Remediation
stage to identify releases where a
more cost-effective plan could be
implemented, such as:
using MNA;
using site-specific, risk-
based decision making; and
using closure with
institutional or engineering
controls.
Above current threshold 1,258
Below current threshold 4,713
18 For more information regarding the appropriate use of MNA, see www.epa.gov/swerustl/pubs/tums.htm and EPA Directive Number
9200.4-17P, Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation atSuperfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank Sites,
available online at: www.epa.gov/oust/directiv/d9200417.htm.
SEPTEMBER 2011
FL-17
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
Florida Finding
49 percent of state fund eligible releases
either:
have not begun site assessment; or
have not finished site assessment.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore ways to move more 5,772
state-funded cleanups toward
closure, such as:
redirecting funds saved at
cleanups with improved
cost effectiveness to state
fund eligible releases where
assessment has not been
completed; and
encouraging the use of
other sources of public
and private funding such
as petroleum brownfields
grants to move low priority
releases toward closure.
Above current threshold 166
Belo w current threshold 5,605
Unknown priority 1
Reevaluation of the remedial plans and assessment of cleanup progress at old state fund eligible releases might identify
releases where more cost-effective plans could be implemented. If more cost-effective remedial plans could be implemented
at state-funded cleanups in remediation, or other funding sources found for those not in remediation, this would free up
funding to address more releases in the early stages of cleanup.
In contrast, the state fund ineligible releases in Florida appear to be moving through the cleanup process relatively quickly.
These releases have likely occurred since 1998 when the Florida State Fund programs stopped providing financial responsibility
coverage, which means they probably have private financial responsibility mechanisms. The median ages for state fund
ineligible releases in all stages of cleanup are all under five years old (Figure 6). Most of the privately-financed cleanups in
the Remediation stage are under 10 years old, but may still be taking longer than necessary. FDEP can consider enforcement
actions against RPs where releases are stalled. Consistent enforcement efforts could help keep privately-financed cleanups
moving steadily toward closure and out of the backlog.
In Florida, 73 percent of open releases (11,743 releases) are eligible for state funding, and within every stage of cleanup, the
median age of state fund eligible releases is greater than 15 years old (Figure 6).19 In addition, 49 percent of state fund eligible
releases (5,772 releases) remain in the Confirmed Release or Site Assessment stages. Although the high median age can be
attributed to release date eligibility requirements (e.g., FDEP's Early Detection Incentive Program, one of several state fund
programs in Florida, only covers releases reported prior to 1989), the fact that so many old releases remain in early stages of
cleanup indicates the cleanups are not being addressed (Figure 6). Since many state fund eligible releases have been around
for so long without the completion of an assessment, conditions may have changed dramatically from when these releases
were confirmed. Some old releases may be complex and difficult to assess or remediate. Others may have remained in the
backlog because of relatively low priority scores or limited state budgets. If more cost-effective remedial designs could be
implemented at state-funded cleanups in remediation, or if other funding sources could be found for those releases not yet in
remediation, such as petroleum brownfields grants for low priority releases without viable RPs, Florida would be able to finish
assessments on more releases and move them toward closure.
19 Releases with partial eligibility were considered state fund eligible.
FL-18
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
NUMBER OF RELEASES PER AFFILIATED PARTY
EPA analyzed the number of releases per affiliated party to identify entities that are the largest potential contributors to the
state's cleanup backlog.20 Even when an affiliated party is not legally liable to clean up a release, they may be interested in
helping to clean up releases associated with their name or brand.
A total of 101 affiliated parties are each associated with 10 or more releases and account for 22 percent of the Florida backlog
(3,546 releases).21 Of these parties, 61 gasoline retail, distribution, and refining businesses are affiliated with 2,189 releases
(14 percent of the backlog), and another 20 entities are affiliated with 976 releases (6 percent of the backlog) at convenience
stores. FDEP and EPA can use these data to identify possible participants for multi-site strategies to clean up these groups of
releases. Focused efforts engaging these 101 parties in collaboration or enforcement might expedite closure of many of these
releases.
Table 1. Entities Associated with 10 or More Open Releases
Type of Entity
Gasoline - Retail/Distribution/Refining
Number of Releases Number of Entities
2,189
61
Florida Finding
22 percent of releases are affiliated with 101
parties that each has 10 or more releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore possibilities for multi- 3,546
site agreements (MSAs) or
enforcement actions with parties
associated with multiple open
releases.
Above current threshold 451
Belo w current threshold 2,988
Unknown priority 107
Convenience Store Chain
976
20
Other
203
11
Unknown Type
95
Government - State
55
Government- Local
28
Total
3,546
101
20 Data provided by FDEP include the names of facility owners, RPs, and other parties, and these entities might or might not be the
legally responsible parties.
21 No federal government entities were identified among the list of affiliated parties with ten or more releases.
SEPTEMBER 2011
FL-19
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
Florida Finding
75 percent of releases are clustered within a
one-mile radius of five or more releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Target releases within close Targeted
proximity for other resource number of
consolidation opportunities. releases22
Figure 7. Map of All Open Releases
Tallahassee
Jacksonville
GEOGRAPHIC CLUSTERS
EPA performed a geospatial analysis to look for alternative ways
to address the backlog. While releases in geographic clusters
might not have the same RP, they tend to be located in densely
populated areas and might present opportunities to consolidate
resources and coordinate efforts. Geographic proximity may call
attention to releases in areas of interest such as redevelopment,
environmental justice, and ecological sensitivity.
EPA's analysis identified 12,025 releases (75 percent of open
releases) located within a one-mile radius of five or more releases
(Figure 7 to the right). Of these releases, 8,834 (55 percent of
open releases) are located within a one-mile radius of 10 or more
releases. Approaching the assessment and cleanup needs of an
area impacted by LUSTs can be more effective than focusing on
individual sites in isolation from the adjacent or surrounding area.
Considering geographically-clustered releases might pave the way
for new community-based revitalization efforts, utilize economies
of scale to yield benefits such as reduced equipment costs, and
present opportunities to develop multi-site cleanup strategies,
especially at locations with commingled contamination.
State and local governments can also utilize geographic clusters
for area-wide planning efforts. In fact, local government has a
public-private revitalization effort along the 70-mile Tamiami Trail Scenic Highway route in Florida. Approximately 100 lower
priority sites could potentially be addressed along this corridor by focusing resources and benefiting from economies of scale.23
FDEP's support of such efforts can help move lower priority sites toward closure and reuse. EPA encourages states to look for
opportunities for resource consolidation and area-wide planning like Florida's Tamiami revitalization effort, but also recognizes
that this approach is best geared to address targeted groups of releases as opposed to a state-wide opportunity for every
cluster of releases. EPA intends to conduct further geospatial analyses on clusters of open releases in relation to RPs, highway
corridors, local geologic and hydrogeologic settings, groundwater resources, and/or communities with environmental justice
concerns. These analyses might reveal additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
22 Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic opportunities that will address a limited number of
releases within select designated geographic areas.
23 Petroleum brownfields considers sites not releases. See www.eli.org/pdf/tamiamitrailfactsheetl02709.pdf for more information.
FL-20
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
DATA MANAGEMENT
Multiple database limitations prevent a full assessment of Florida's backlog and associated strategies for backlog reduction.
Comprehensive, up-to-date data can significantly improve a state's ability to manage its program and reduce its backlog.
Notably, the STCM database does not consistently track several important pieces of release-related information. For example,
4,509 open releases (28 percent of the backlog) are missing data on the media contaminated. In addition, there is no release-
specific tracking of financial responsibility mechanisms. Additional improvements to database management could allow for
easier overall program management as well as provide an improved tool for developing strategies to reduce the cleanup
backlog.
Florida Finding
Several key data fields are not included,
consistently maintained, or routinely tracked
in the STCM database.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Improve SCTM database to Variable
enhance program management number of
and backlog reduction efforts. releases24
24 Opportunities marked as "variable number of releases" relate to programmatic opportunities and affect an unknown number of
releases potentially including all open releases.
SEPTEMBER 2011
FL-21
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
CONCLUSION
Florida LUST Program
Contact Information
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection
Division of Waste Management
Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems
Twin Towers Office Building
Room 403, MS 4575
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Phone: 850-245-8839
Fax: 850-245-8831
www.deD.state.fl.us/waste/cateeories/Dss/
default.htm
In this state chapter, EPA presented the analysis of LUST data submitted by FDEP and highlighted information on Florida's
LIST program. Based on the analytic results, EPA identified potential opportunities that could be used to address specific
backlog issues within Florida. Over the course of the entire study, EPA analyzed data from 13 other states. Findings and
opportunities that apply to all 14 states are discussed in the national chapter of the report. Each opportunity represents
one potential approach among many to address the backlog. Discussion of the opportunities as a whole is intended as a
starting point for further conversations among EPA, Florida, and the other states on strategies to reduce the backlog. EPA will
work with states to develop detailed strategies for reducing the backlog. In Florida's case, strategies can focus primarily on
above threshold releases and potential opportunities for alternate sources of funding. Development of the strategies might
include targeted data collection, reviewing particular case files, analyzing problem areas, and sharing best practices. The
strategies could involve actions from EPA, such as using additional program metrics, targeting resources for specific cleanup
actions, clarifying and developing guidance, and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with states, is committed to reducing
the backlog of confirmed LIST releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater and land and the communities affected by
these contaminated releases.
FL-22
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
CHAPTER NOTES
CHAPTER NOTES
FLORIDA DATA BY ATTRIBUTE
The following table provides details on the data elements of interest in this analysis. Data were provided by FDEP staff in 2008 and 2009 for use in this analysis. Several elements
of interest could not be addressed with the information available. All available data elements were analyzed and only those data elements that revealed informative patterns
of interest are included in the report.
Data Element
Administrative Cost
Florida Data
Data were obtained from the "FY" and "Amount" data fields in "LP TA4-TA8 05072009.xls."
Use in Analysis
Included in the "Program Summary"
section and in the national chapter.
Affiliated Party
Data were obtained from six FDEP District Office reports (downloaded from FDEP's website on 6/14/2009). First, Districts'
historical owner data were merged into one; second, rules were applied to extract current owner (e.g., an owner begin
date must be earlier than confirmed release date, and an owner end date must be blank), and, when current owner was
not identified, latest owner was used instead; and third, rules were applied to rank owners based on owner role (e.g., when
the owner role/type was "RP," it was selected over another owner whose role/type was "facility owner").
Used to calculate the number of releases
associated with each unique RP.
Age
Age was calculated for closed releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the closure date and dividing by
365. Age was calculated for open releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the data date and dividing by
365. Any values less than -.1 were left blank. Values between -.1 and 0 were counted as 0. All dates were rounded to one
decimal point. Ages of releases with insufficient or invalid data were left blank.
Variable in all analyses.
Aboveground/
Underground Storage
Tank Facility
Data were obtained from the "ABOVEGROUND_TANK_COUNT" field in the "EPA Backlog Data 03312009.xls" file. Because
FDEP counts facilities with both aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and USTs toward its backlog, this data field was used to
mark releases at AST/UST facilities versus releases at UST-only facilities.
No informative patterns were identified.
Cleanup Standards
No site-specific data available.
State-wide standards examined in the
national chapter.
Closure Date
Data were obtained from the "Discharge Cleanup Status Date" field in the "cleanup.xls" file (downloaded from FDEP's
website, Discharge Cleanup Summary report, on 4/13/2009) and the "DISCHARGE_CLEANUP_STATUS_DESC" data field in
the "EPA Backlog Data 03312009.xls" file. For releases that had one of the several discharge statuses that indicated they
were closed, the "Discharge Cleanup Status Date" was used as closure date (see Stage of Cleanup Reference Table).
Included in the calculation of release age.
Confirmed Release Date Data were obtained from the "DISCHARGE_DATE" field in the "EPA Backlog Data 03312009.xls" file.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Data date
March 31, 2009, is used for all records. This is the date the "EPA Backlog Data 03312009.xls" file was received.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Facility Type
Data were obtained from the "FACILITY_TYPE_DESC" field in the "EPA Backlog Data 03312009.xls" file. The types of facilities
that FDEP tracks include: local, county, state and federal government, retail station, fuel storage, and industrial plant.
No informative patterns were identified.
FDEP District
Data were obtained from the "DISTRICT" field in the "EPA Backlog Data 03312009.xls" file.
No informative patterns were identified.
Federally-Regulated
LUST Releases
FDEP staff sent a customized data set, "EPA Backlog Data 03312009.xls," containing only federally-regulated LUST releases.
Identifies the appropriate universe of
releases for analysis.
SEPTEMBER 2011
FL-23
-------
CHAPTER NOTES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
Data Element
Finance Type
Florida Data
Data pulled from the "Financial Responsibility Mechanism," "Effective Date," and "Expiration Date" data fields in "FIRST_
Financial_Responsibility.xls." Financial Responsibility Mechanism data were considered only for releases with a confirmed
release date later than the effective date and earlier than the expiration date. Because these data were tracked at facility
level, releases at facilities with multiple releases were marked as "Unknown" unless they were state fund eligible, which
was tracked in a different data field and at release level.
Use in Analysis
No informative patterns were identified.
Free Product
No data available.
Not Applicable
Institutional and
Engineering Controls
Data were obtained from the "INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL MECHANISM," "INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL TYPE," and
"ENGINEERING CONTROL TYPE" data fields in "ICR PetroleumSites 5-5-09.xls."
Data not suitable for analysis.
Latitude and Longitude
Data were obtained from the "LAT_DD," "LAT_MM," "LAT_SS," "LONG_DD," "LONG_MM," and "LONG_SS" fields in the "EPA
Backlog Data 03312009.xls" file. Where possible, coordinates for releases without existing latitude and longitude values
were obtained by EPA staff by geocoding address and street locations.
Used in geospatial analysis calculating the
number of open releases within a one-
mile radius of other open releases.
Media
Data were obtained from the "GRND_WATER_CONTAMINATION," "SURF_WATER_CONTAMINATION," and "SOIL_
CONTAMINATION" data fields in the "EPA Backlog Data 03312009.xls" file. Releases with groundwater contamination
marked (in addition to any other media) were counted as "groundwater." Releases with only soil contamination marked
were counted as "soil." Releases with any other combination of media were counted as other. Unknown releases might
include those releases for which there were no data available in the database, but for which information was available in
other files and releases for which the type of media contaminated is truly unknown.
Examined in the "Media Contaminated"
section.
Methyl Tertiary Butyl
Ether (MBTE)
Data were obtained from the "CONTAMINATION" data field in the "ICR_PetroleumSites_5-5-09.xls" file. When a release
had an entry of "PETROLEUM (INCLUDES BTEX AND MTBE)," it was marked as having MTBE contamination.
No informative patterns were identified.
Monitored Natural
Attenuation (MNA)
No data available.
Not Applicable
Number of Releases per
Affiliated Party
Calculated as the total number of open releases associated with a unique affiliated party name.
Examined in the "Number of Releases per
Affiliated Party" section.
Orphan
Data were obtained from the "Draft Candidate Site List 03312009.xls" file. This list was at facility level; releases at these
facilities were marked as orphan releases.
No informative patterns were identified.
Program
Data were obtained from the "PROGRAM_DESC" field in the "EPA Backlog Data 03312009.xls" file.
Informative patterns were not identified.
Proximity
Geospatial analysis performed by EPA revealed the number of other open releases located within a one-mile radius of each
open release.
Examined in the "Geographic Clusters"
section.
Public Spending No release-level data were available. The cumulative amount of the "Total Amount Encumbered to Date" data field in the
"Cap_To_Date.xls" report was used to calculate public spending on releases. Because data were tracked at facility level,
only releases at facilities with one release were considered.
Release Priority-
Highest Current Score
and Previous Score
Data were obtained from the "HIGHEST_CURRENT_SCORE" and "SCORE" data fields in the "EPA Backlog Data 03312009.
xls" file. Highest current score represents the current priority of the release and previous score represents the previous
priority of the release.
Data not suitable for analysis.
Examined in the "Release Priority"
section.
RP Recalcitrance
No data available.
Not Applicable
FL-24
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
CHAPTER NOTES
Data Element
Staff Workload
Florida Data
Calculated as the total number of active releases (both pre-approval releases and non-program releases) divided by the
total number of staff across all divisions. Data were obtained from the "Number of FTE Site Managers," "Active Preapproval
Sites Per STCM," and "Active Non-Program Sites Per STCM" data fields in the "STCM Workload 05142009.xls" file. In
addition, a separate estimate was calculated using the total number of open releases divided by the total number of staff
across all divisions.
Use in Analysis
Examined in the "Program Summary"
section and in the national chapter.
Stage of Cleanup Data were obtained from the "DISCHARGE_CLEANUP_STATUS_DESC" data field in the "EPA Backlog Data 03312009.xls" file Variable in all analyses.
(see Stage of Cleanup Reference Table).
State Fund Eligibility Data were obtained from the "ELIGIBILITYJNDICATOR" field in the "EPA Backlog Data 03312009.xls" file. If a release was Examined in the "Cleanup Financing"
categorized as "Approved," "Eligible," or "Partial," it was marked as State Fund Eligible. section.
Status Data were obtained from the "DISCHARGE_CLEANUP_STATUS_DESC" field in the "EPA Backlog Data 03312009.xls" file (see Identifies the appropriate universe of
Stage of Cleanup Reference Table). releases for tree analysis.
Voluntary Cleanup
Program
No data available.
Not Applicable
SEPTEMBER 2011
FL-25
-------
CHAPTER NOTES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: FLORIDA
Stage of Cleanup Reference Table
Each release was assigned to a specific stage of cleanup for this analysis, based on the FDEP Discharge Cleanup Status.
Discharge Cleanup Status
APPROVED - NO TASK LEVEL DATA
DENIED CLEANUP ASSISTANCE
DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION RECEIVED
ELIGIBLE - NO TASK LEVEL DATA
INELIGIBLE FOR CLEANUP ASSISTANCE
PARTIAL ELIGIBILITY - NO TASK LEVEL DATA
REPORT OF DISCHARGE RECEIVED
VERIFIED CONTAMINATION, CLEANUP
REQUIRED
WITHDRAWN FROM CLEANUP PROGRAM
SITE ASSESSMENT ONGOING
REMEDIAL ACTION ONGOING
REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN ONGOING
SITE REMEDIATION ONGOING
N FA COMPLETE
NO FURTHER ACTION WITH CONDITIONS
CLEANUP NOT REQUIRED
SITE REHABILITATION COMPLETION REPORT
COMPLETE
Number of
Releases
51
2
1,012
3,424
255
405
224
487
14
2,981
6,231
1,014
21
6,983
59
4,081
4,386
Stage
Confirmed Release
Confirmed Release
Confirmed Release
Confirmed Release
Confirmed Release
Confirmed Release
Confirmed Release
Confirmed Release
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
FL-26
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG
A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
STATE SUMMARY DRAFT: ILLINOIS
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
September 2011
IL-1
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: ILLINOIS
LIST OF ACRONYMS
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Expedited Site Assessment
FY Fiscal Year
IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
LIT Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Tracking database
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MNA Monitored Natural Attenuation
MSA Multi-Site Agreement
MTBE Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
NA Not Applicable
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RP Responsible Party
TACO Tiered Approach to Corrective Action Objectives
UST Underground Storage Tank
IL-2
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: ILLINOIS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Leaks from underground storage tanks (USTs) threaten America's groundwater and land resources. Even a small amount of
petroleum released from a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) can contaminate groundwater, the drinking water source
for nearly half of all Americans. In surveys of state water programs, 39 states and territories identified USTs as a major source
of groundwater contamination.2 As the reliance on our resources increases due to the rise in population and use, there is a
correspondingly greater need to protect our finite natural resources.
From the beginning of the UST program to September 2009, more than 488,000 releases were confirmed from federally-
regulated USTs nationwide. Of these confirmed releases needing cleanup, over 100,000 remained in the national LUST
backlog. These releases are in every state, and many are old and affect groundwater. To help address this backlog of releases,
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invited 14 states to participate in a national backlog characterization
study.
ANALYSIS OF ILLINOIS DATA
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) has made significant progress toward reducing its LUST cleanup backlog.
As of March 2009, IEPA had completed 14,420 LUST cleanups, which is 63 percent of all known releases in the state. At the
time of data collection, there were 8,479 releases remaining in its backlog.3 EPA believes states and EPA must develop backlog
reduction strategies that can be effective in states with the largest backlogs. EPA invited Illinois to participate in its national
backlog study because Illinois has one of the ten largest backlogs in the United States.
In this chapter, EPA characterized the releases in Illinois that have not been cleaned up, analyzed these releases based on
categories of interest, and developed potential opportunities for IEPA and EPA to explore that might improve the state's
cleanup progress and reduce its backlog. Building on the potential cleanup opportunities identified in the study, EPA will
continue to work with IEPA to develop backlog reduction strategies.
In Illinois, as in every state, many factors affect the pace of cleaning up releases such as the availability and mechanisms of
funding, statutory requirements, and program structure. The recent economic downturn has also had an impact on the ability
of many states to make progress on cleanups.
EPA included potential cleanup opportunities in this report even though current circumstances in Illinois might make pursuing
certain opportunities challenging or unlikely. Also, in some cases, IEPA is already using similar strategies as part of its ongoing
program. The findings from the analysis of lEPA's data and the potential cleanup opportunities are summarized below in six
study areas: stage of cleanup, cleanup financing, state regional backlogs, number of releases per potentially responsible party
(PRP), geographic clusters, and data management.
Illinois LUST Data
By the Numbers1
Cumulative Historical Releases
National Backlog Contribution
Closed Releases
Open Releases
Stage of Cleanup
14,420/63%
8,479/37%
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Remediation
Media Contaminated
Median Age of Open Releases
1 Data were provided in March 2009 by IEPA staff and are not identical to the UST performance measures reported on EPA's website,
available at: www.epa.gov/oust/cat/camarchv.htm.
2 EPA, National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report, pp. 50-52. www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/chp6.pdf.
3 EPA tracks individual releases rather than sites in its performance measures. Therefore, the analyses in this report account for
numbers of releases, not sites.
SEPTEMBER 2011
IL-3
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: ILLINOIS
Stage Of Cleanup (page IL-10for more details)
Cleanup Financing (page IL-12for more details)
Illinois Finding
52 percent of releases are
either:
5 years old or older
and site assessment
has not started; or
10 years old or
older and still in site
assessment.
Potential Opportunity
Expedite site assessments at old releases
to identify releases that can be closed
with minimal effort or moved toward
remediation.
Examine other funding sources including
public/private funding options, such as
petroleum brownfields grants for low
priority releases.
Implement enforcement actions at stalled
releases.
Releases
4,420
19 percent of releases are:
10 years old or older;
and
in remediation.
Use a systematic process to explore
opportunities to accelerate cleanups and reach
closure, such as:
periodically review release-specific
treatment technologies;
review site-specific cleanup standards;
continue the use of institutional or
engineering controls; and
implement enforcement actions if
cleanup has stalled.
1,607
Illinois' releases are taking a long time to move through the cleanup process, and
Illinois has a large number of old releases in early stages of cleanup. There are several
reasons why many releases in the backlog are old including: remaining releases are
complex and therefore take a long time to address; a large number of releases have
not been assigned to a project manager; and relatively high deductibles might cause
some responsible parties (RPs) not to pursue cleanup activities unless ordered to
do so. Nevertheless, EPA believes it is important for IEPA to explore opportunities
to accelerate cleanups at older releases and to make progress toward bringing all
releases to closure.
Illinois Finding
74 percent of cleanups
have not received state
funds.
Potential Opportunity
Explore opportunities to address more
cleanups with the state fund, such as:
examine cost savings measures; and
examine other funding sources including
public/private funding options, such as
petroleum brownfields grants for low
priority sites.
The median amount of
public spending to date at
cleanups in remediation is
twice the median amount
spent at closed releases.
Evaluate the relationship between cost
increases and treatment technologies and
consider opportunities to reduce costs, such
as:
revising state fund reimbursement
practices to create incentives for the
use of the most cost-effective treatment
technologies for cleanups; and
reevaluating the current remedial plan
at old state fund eligible releases in the
Remediation stage to identify releases
where a more cost-effective plan could be
implemented, such as:
o using monitored natural attenuation;
o using site-specific risk-based decision
making; or
o using institutional or engineering
controls to achieve closure.
Releases
6,252
Variable
number of
releases4
EPA and state programs are interested in exploring successful financing strategies for
completing cleanups quickly. EPA acknowledges that the recent economic downturn
has impacted cleanup financing. EPA also believes the availability of funding for
cleanup is essential to reducing the backlog, so in addition to this study, EPA is
increasing its focus on oversight of state funds as well as conducting a study of private
insurance. Illinois' LIST Fund pays for cleanups of releases from all eligible tanks, so it
is likely that the majority of releases in Illinois are state fund eligible and to date, 24
percent of releases have received state funds. IEPA should explore opportunities to
address more releases with state funds.
The structure of state funds can potentially create incentives or disincentives for
prompt cleanup. For example, a high deductible would provide a different incentive
4 Opportunities marked as "variable number of releases" relate to programmatic
opportunities and affect an unknown number of releases, potentially including all open
releases.
IL-4
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: ILLINOIS
for owners than a low deductible. The deductible in Illinois can be as much as
$100,000 and therefore might be preventing RPs from performing cleanup activities.
EPA will continue to work with IEPA to explore how these incentives affect the pace
of cleanup and how to use effective incentives to support program implementation.
All state programs are experiencing resource limitations and progress is dependent
upon their ability to apply existing resources to their backlogs. While costs
incurred by the state fund for cleanups are higher now than in the past, there
might be opportunities to control costs through revised reimbursement practices.
Reimbursement delays cause short-term financing costs that also could contribute to
increased cleanup costs. Revised practices, such as using cost-effective technologies,
could potentially free up funding to move more releases through remediation and to
closure.
State Regional Backlogs (page IL-U for more details)
Number Of Releases per PRP (page IL-15 for more details)
Illinois Finding
42 percent of releases are
located within a single
IEPA region.
Potential Opportunity
Develop region-specific strategies for moving
releases toward remediation and closure.
Releases
Variable
number of
releases
EPA has identified differences in the distribution of the backlog among lEPA's seven
regions. Although IEPA regional staff is no longer responsible for managing LUST
cleanups, differences in management and administration of the cleanup program when
regional staff managed the program might be related to the differences in the backlog
between the IEPA regions. Other external factors such as geologic and geographic
differences might also contribute to the difference in the backlog. For example, areas
of higher population usually result in areas of larger backlogs. Property transfers
provide incentives for cleanup, particularly in urban areas. Differences in geology
and terrain can make releases in one part of the state more difficult to clean up than
releases in other parts of the state. These differences might reveal opportunities for
region-specific backlog reduction.
Illinois Finding
Releases are less likely to
have begun remediation
when the PRP is associated
with fewer than 10
releases.
Potential Opportunity
Provide information and technical
assistance to PRPs or implement
enforcement actions to spur the completion
of site assessments and move releases to
remediation and closure.
Encourage PRPs and stakeholders to
examine public and private funding options,
such as petroleum brownfields grants.
Implement enforcement actions at stalled
cleanups.
Releases
3,669
18 percent of releases
are associated with 55
PRPs that have 10 or more
releases each.
Explore possibilities for multi-site agreements
(MSAs) or enforcement actions with parties
associated with multiple releases.
1,508
EPA analyzed the number of releases per PRP to identify the PRPs that are the largest
potential contributors to the state's cleanup backlog. EPA was able to identify groups
of releases that have common ownership or name affiliation by analyzing data on
PRPs associated with releases. These PRPs might or might not be determined to be
the legally responsible parties. A large number of PRPs were identified with fewer
than 10 releases that have not completed site assessments. Most of these PRPs have
only one release and are likely to be small businesses. Implementation of additional
outreach to small businesses should be pursued to move these releases toward
remediation and closure.
In addition, 55 PRPs are each associated with 10 or more releases and account for
18 percent of the Illinois backlog. Even when a PRP is not legally liable to clean up
a release, they might be interested in helping to clean up releases associated with
their name or brand. IEPA and EPA can use this information to identify potential
participants for multi-site strategies to clean up groups of releases.
SEPTEMBER 2011
IL-5
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: ILLINOIS
Geographic Clusters (page IL-17 for more details)
Illinois Finding
66 percent of releases are
clustered within a one-
mile radius of five or more
releases.
Potential Opportunity
Target releases within close proximity for
resource consolidation opportunities.
Releases
Targeted
number of
releases5
Another multi-site approach that IEPA could use is targeting cleanup actions at
geographically-clustered releases. This approach could offer opportunities for
new community-based reuse efforts, using economies of scale, and addressing
commingled contamination. EPA believes that highlighting geographic clusters of
releases and working with state and local governments in area-wide initiatives will
improve lEPA's pace of cleaning up releases. EPA intends to work with the states to
conduct further geospatial analyses on clusters of releases in relation to RPs, highway
corridors, local geologic and hydrogeologic settings, groundwater resources, and/
or communities with environmental justice concerns. These analyses might reveal
additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
CONCLUSION
This chapter contains EPA's data analysis of Illinois' LUST cleanup backlog and identifies
potential opportunities to reduce the backlog in Illinois. EPA discusses the findings
and opportunities for Illinois, along with those of 13 additional states, in the national
chapter of this report. EPA will work with states to develop potential approaches and
detailed strategies for reducing the backlog. Development of strategies could involve
targeted data collection, reviewing particular case files, analyzing problem areas, and
sharing best practices. In addition, strategies could involve EPA actions such as using
additional program metrics to show cleanup progress, targeting resources for specific
cleanup actions, clarifying and developing guidance, and revising policies. EPA, in
partnership with states, is committed to reducing the backlog of confirmed LIST
releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater, land, and communities affected
by these releases.
Data Management (page IL-l 7 for more details)
Illinois Finding
Several key data fields are
not included, consistently
maintained, or routinely
tracked in the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank
Incident Tracking (LIT)
database.
Potential Opportunity
Improve LIT database to enhance program
management and backlog reduction efforts.
Releases
Variable
number of
releases
Multiple data management limitations prevent a full assessment of the backlog
and associated strategies for backlog reduction. Because of data limitations, EPA
could not analyze media contaminated or specific type of financial responsibility
mechanism. Additional improvements to data management could allow for easier
overall program management within IEPA as well as provide an improved tool for
developing strategies to reduce the cleanup backlog.
5 Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic
opportunities that will address a limited number of releases within select designated
geographic areas.
IL-6
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: ILLINOIS
PROGRAM SUMMARY
State LUST Program Organization and Administration
The Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Section within the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's (lEPA's) Division
of Remediation Management oversees remedial activities after a release occurs from an underground storage tank (UST).
IEPA staff review the technical adequacy and associated budgets for plans and reports associated with site classification,
site investigation, groundwater monitoring, and corrective action, including the development and evaluation of appropriate
remediation objectives for each release. Once remediation objectives and program requirements have been met for a cleanup,
IEPA issues a No Further Remediation Letter.
Cleanup Financing
Illinois' UST Fund pays for cleanups of releases from all eligible tanks. The Illinois Office of the State Fire Marshal is responsible
for determining if an UST owner or operator is eligible for payment from the UST Fund and determines the deductible amount
to be paid by the owner or operator. In order for a release to be eligible for funding, owner/operators must be private entities
that are not exempt from Illinois' per-gallon tax, the tank must not be a farm or residential heating oil tank, and the tank
must be registered and all required fees paid.7 The deductible can be as much as $100,000 and therefore might cause some
responsible parties (RPs) to not perform cleanup activities unless compelled to do so. To date, approximately 26 percent of
currently open releases (2,227 releases) have received reimbursements from the UST Fund. The financial mechanisms for the
remaining 74 percent of open releases (6,252 releases) are unknown.
IEPA is responsible for reviewing proposed budgets and payment requests to determine if cleanup costs are reasonable,
eligible, and consistent with the associated technical plan. IEPA also prepares and processes vouchers for payment claims.
The state fund reimburses RPs in the order in which claims are received, a process that currently takes an average of 20
months from the time the claim is received. Some cleanup contractors proceed with remedial activities because they know
they will eventually be reimbursed by the state.
Illinois LUST Program
At a Glance
Cleanup Rate
In fiscal year (FY) 2009, IEPA confirmed 330
releases and completed 901 cleanups.6
Cleanup Financing
Of open releases, 26 percent (2,227 releases)
have received state funding.
Cleanup Standards
The program applies a risk-based cleanup
approach.
Priority System
IEPA does not prioritize open releases.
Average Public Spending Per Cleanup
$140,0008
Releases Per Project Manager
Each project manager is on average
responsible for 122 open releases.
Administrative Spending (2008)
$4.8 million9
Cleanup Standards
Since 1997, IEPA has used site-specific, risk-based cleanup standards. The Tiered Approach to Corrective Action Objectives
(TACO) is lEPA's method for developing risk-based and site-specific remediation objectives for contaminated soil and
groundwater. A 2006 amendment to TACO requires that a Tier 2 site-specific risk level that is protective of human health be
calculated for all releases. Previously, lEPA's Bureau of Land used conservative "one-size-fits-all" remediation objectives at
nearly every cleanup. TACO also employs institutional or engineering controls to facilitate closure. Out of all 14,420 closed
releases, 25 percent (3,672 releases) were closed with institutional or engineering controls in place, including 49 percent of
6 Based on FY 2009 UST Performance Measures End of Year Activity Report.
7 For more information on release eligibility, see Illinois' Underground Storage Tank Fund Guide, available online at
www.epa.state.il.us/land/lust/ust-fund.html.
8 Calculated based on public dollars spent at closed releases.
9 This amount includes expenses for LUST "technical and administrative staff salary, fringe benefits, equipment, and overhead."
SEPTEMBER 2011
IL-7
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: ILLINOIS
all releases closed between 2002 and 2008 (2,450 releases) (Figure 1 below). Many
of these institutional controls are pre-existing groundwater ordinances that prohibit
the use of groundwater wells for potable water. Any closure within a municipality
that has such a groundwater ordinance will therefore have an institutional control in
place.
Figure 1. Number of Closures vs. Use of Institutional or Engineering Controls Over Time
1,200
1,000
.o
u
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: ILLINOIS
ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNITIES
In this study, EPA analyzed Illinois' federally-regulated releases that have not been cleaned up (open releases). EPA conducted
a multivariate analysis on lEPA's data. However, this technique did not identify strong underlying patterns in the data.11 Next,
EPA divided the open releases into groups that might warrant further attention. EPA used descriptive statistics to examine
the distribution of releases by age of release and stage of cleanup and highlighted findings based on lEPA's data.13 EPA then
identified potential opportunities for addressing particular groups of releases in the backlog. Many releases are included
in more than one opportunity. These opportunities describe actions that EPA and IEPA might use as a starting point for
collaborative efforts to address the backlog. Although EPA's analysis covered all releases in Illinois, there are 418 releases that
are not included in any of the subsets identified in the findings or opportunities due to the way EPA structured the analysis.
These releases might also benefit from some of the suggested opportunities and strategies.
EPA's analyses revealed six areas of Illinois' backlog with potential opportunities for its further reduction:
Stage of cleanup Number of releases per potentially Data management
Cleanup financing responsible party (PRP)
State regional backlogs Geographic clusters
LUST Data Source
Electronic data for LUST releases occurring
between January 1984 and February 2009
were compiled by I EPA staff in 2008 and 2009.12
Data fields were obtained from lEPA's Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Incident Tracking
(LIT) database and selected based on quality
and the ability to address areas of interest in
this analysis.
Data Limitation
During the data collection phase of this analysis, EPA discovered that the number of federally-regulated releases within
the LIT database was significantly different from the number reported by IEPA for the FY 2008 LIST Performance Measures.
Subsequent discussion with IEPA revealed that the numbers identified by EPA and used in this report are more consistent
with EPA definitions than the numbers reported by IEPA in FY 2008.
For example, the numbers reported by IEPA do not include 1,132 federally-regulated non-petroleum releases. These 1,132
releases are included in this analysis as open releases. In addition, 278 releases that had been transferred to another
division by IEPA were reported as closed to EPA, but are considered open releases for this analysis. IEPA also reported 2,443
releases from non-federally-regulated tanks as cleanups completed. These 2,443 releases were not included in this analysis.
For the purposes of this analysis EPA chose to include those releases in the database that most closely represent EPA
definitions of federally-regulated USTs and open and closed releases. However, due to the structure of the LIT database,
there might be non-regulated releases included in this report that could not be distinguished from regulated releases.
EPA is currently working with IEPA and EPA Region 5 to ensure future reporting to EPA reflects the appropriate federally-
regulated universe.
11 The analytic tree method, a multivariate technique used to identify underlying patterns among large data sets, did not reveal strong
patterns within the data. For more information on analytic trees, see Appendix A.
12 For a detailed description of the Illinois data used in this analysis, see the Chapter Notes section.
13 For a detailed description of release stages, see the Chapter Notes section (Stage of Cleanup Reference Table).
SEPTEMBER 2011
IL-9
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: ILLINOIS
Illinois Finding
52 percent of releases are either:
5 years old or older and site assessment
has not started; or
10 years old or older and still in site
assessment.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Expedite site assessments 4,420
at old releases to identify
releases that can be closed
with minimal effort or moved
toward remediation.
Examine other funding
sources including public/
private funding options, such
as petroleum brownfields
grants for low priority
releases.
Implement enforcement
actions at stalled releases.
Releases 5 years old or older
in the Confirmed Release
stage
Releases 10 years old or older
in the Site Assessment stage
3,620
800
STAGE OF CLEANUP
As of March 2, 2009, the Illinois backlog consisted of 8,479 open releases. EPA analyzed the age of LUST releases and the
distribution of releases among the stages of cleanup to identify opportunities to reduce the cleanup backlog. To facilitate
analysis, EPA classified Illinois' open releases into three stages of cleanup: the Confirmed Release stage (releases where
assessments have not begun), the Site Assessment stage (releases where assessments have begun), and the Remediation
stage (releases where remedial activities have begun).14 While EPA grouped the releases into linear stages for this analysis,
EPA recognizes cleanups might not proceed in a linear fashion. Cleanup can be an iterative process where releases go through
successive rounds of site assessment and remediation. However, ultimately, this approach might be both longer and more
costly. Acquiring good site characterization up front can accelerate the pace of cleanup and avoid the extra cost of repeated
site assessment.
Since Illinois' LUST program began, IEPA has closed 14,420 releases, half of which were closed in fewer than 2.2 years (Figure
2 below). The young median age of closed LUST releases might be attributable to the closure of relatively easy to remediate
releases. Also, national program policy allows states to report confirmed releases that require no further action at time of
confirmation as "cleanup completed." Therefore, some releases are reported as confirmed and cleaned up simultaneously.
Figure 2. Age of Releases among Stages of Cleanup
20
4,128
2,454
1,897
I 10
cc.
tv c .
O Confirmed Release
O Site Assessment
O Remediation
O Closed
14,420
The white dot at the center of each circle represents the median age of releases. Each circle is labeled with, and scaled to, the number of
releases within each stage. Included in the release counts and size of circles are 67 closed releases and 76 open releases for which release
age is unknown. These releases are not part of the median age calculation.
IEPA undertook its 731 Initiative to identify releases to be closed with minimal effort and this initiative led to the closure of
341 old releases. Additional closures are expected under this initiative. Other opportunities for closure with minimal effort
will most likely be found at less complex releases where little or no remedial work is required to reach closure standards or at
releases that have met closure standards but have not finished closure review.
Illinois has many old LUST releases not in remediation. Figure 3 on page 11 shows the backlog of open releases by age and
stage of cleanup and allows for the identification of older releases by stage. Figure 3 breaks out the 3,620 older releases in the
Confirmed Release stage (43 percent of the backlog) that have not been assessed five years or more after the releases were
14 Releases were classified into stages based on available data and discussion with IEPA staff. For more information, see the Chapter
Notes section.
IL-10
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: ILLINOIS
confirmed. It also shows the 800 older releases in the Site Assessment stage (9 percent of the backlog) that have not entered
the Remediation stage 10 years or more after the releases were confirmed. This subset of older releases in the early stages
of cleanup accounts for 52 percent of Illinois' total backlog. Illinois' data indicate that these releases have not moved into
remediation quickly. Some of these releases might be privately financed, in which case, enforcement might be appropriate
to move sites that appear stalled toward cleanup. For low priority releases without a viable RP, IEPA could investigate the
availability of additional funding sources through public/private partnerships such as petroleum brownfields grants. Expansion
of the 731 Initiative and expediting site assessments could help move releases toward remediation and closure.
Figure 3. Release Age Distribution among Stages of Cleanup
Unknown Age
54
1%
Unknown Age
2
> 5 Years
3,620
< 10 Years
1,095
58%
Confirmed Release
(4,128 Releases)
Site Assessment
(1,897 Releases)
Remediation
(2,454 Releases)
EPA encourages states to streamline the corrective action process, improve data collection, reduce the overall cost of
remediation, and move releases more rapidly toward remediation and closure. To assist states and regulators in implementing
these objectives, EPA developed its Expedited Site Assessment (ESA) guide.15 The guide explains the overall ESA process as
well as specific site assessment tools and methods. The ESA process rapidly characterizes site conditions to help support cost-
effective corrective action decisions. ESAs can identify releases that can be closed with minimal effort or will provide all the
information needed to move a release into remediation. Conducting site assessments efficiently and quickly can help reduce
the backlog by accelerating the pace of cleanup and ultimately decrease overall project costs.
Illinois has many old releases in the Remediation stage. Nineteen percent (1,607 releases) of all of Illinois' releases are in
remediation and are 10 years old or older (Figures above). This older group of releases represents 67 percent of the releases
in remediation. Because EPA only has the date that a release was confirmed but not when it moved from one stage to the
next (e.g., from assessment to remediation), EPA can calculate the overall age of the release but not the actual time spent in
the Remediation stage. It is possible that some of these releases might have only recently begun remediation. IEPA should
consider establishing a systematic process to evaluate existing releases in remediation and optimize cleanup approaches,
including choice of technology and site-specific risk-based decision making. This process might save IEPA resources and bring
releases to closure more quickly. IEPA can also continue to use institutional or engineering controls to reduce the time to
closure by eliminating exposure pathways and allow for less stringent cleanup standards where protective and appropriate.
15 EPA's 1997 guidance document, Expedited Site Assessment Tools For Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide For Regulators (EPA
510 B-97-001), is available online at: www.epa.gov/OUST/pubs/sam.htm.
Illinois Finding
19 percent of open releases are:
10 years old or older; and
in remediation.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Use a systematic process 1,607
to explore opportunities to
accelerate cleanups and reach
closure, such as:
periodically review
release-specific treatment
technologies;
review site-specific cleanup
standards;
continue the use of
institutional or engineering
controls; and
implement enforcement
actions if cleanup has stalled.
SEPTEMBER 2011
IL-11
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: ILLINOIS
Illinois Finding
74 percent of cleanups have not received state
funds.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore opportunities to address 6,252
more cleanups with the state
fund, such as:
examine cost savings
measures; and
examine other funding
sources including public/
private funding options, such
as petroleum brownfields
grants for low priority sites.
Figure 4. Use of State Funds at LUST Cleanups
Have Received
State Funds
Have Not Received
State Funds
CLEANUP FINANCING
EPA and state programs are interested in exploring successful financing strategies for completing cleanups quickly. EPA
acknowledges that the recent economic downturn has impacted cleanup financing. EPA also believes the availability of
funding for cleanup is essential to reducing the backlog, so in addition to this study, EPA is increasing its focus on oversight of
state funds as well as conducting a study of private insurance. In this study, EPA examined the number of releases that have
received state funds for cleanup and performed a comparison of cleanup costs between open and closed releases.
Illinois' LIST Fund pays for cleanups of releases from all eligible tanks. To date, 74 percent (6,252 releases) of the releases in
Illinois have not received state funds. The lack of funding likely accounts for releases being inactive and not being assigned to
a project manager (Figure 4, below left). As of late 2009, 26 percent (2,227 releases) of releases had been reimbursed from
the state fund.16 IEPA should consider exploring opportunities to address more releases with the state cleanup fund such as
employing cost-cutting measures; for example, open market competitive bidding for cleanup work to increase the amount
of funds available per cleanup. Another opportunity IEPA could investigate is the availability of additional funding sources
through public/private partnerships such as petroleum brownfields grants for low priority releases without a viable RP. In
addition, some states have started financing claims through public/private partnerships. If some of the releases are ineligible
for the state fund, then IEPA should consider options such as enforcement to help move these cleanups toward remediation
and closure.
Data on cleanup financing are available for 32 percent of closed releases (4,585 releases) and 26 percent of open releases
(2,227 releases) in Illinois.17 The median amount ($127,286) spent to date at releases in the Remediation stage is double the
median amount ($62,816) spent at closed releases, suggesting that cleaning up a release has become more expensive over
time (Figure 5, page 13). Because open cleanups will continue to incur costs and file additional state fund claims, the spending
gap between open and closed releases will widen. This finding suggests that cleaning up LUST releases is more expensive
today than in the past, possibly due to the closure of the easiest releases to remediate, leaving the releases with complex
contamination in the backlog. Data were not available to compare increased cleanup costs with the cleanup difficulty posed
by the releases.
In the past, IEPA regulated older releases under different laws which did not require contractors to submit budgets for
pre-approval. As a result, cleanups of these older releases led to excessive cleanup costs and reimbursements from the
LIST Fund. Currently, IEPA is able to pre-approve cleanup methods and monitor cleanup costs more effectively than in the
past. Contractors performing LUST cleanups submit a proposed corrective action approach and receive pre-approval for the
proposed activities and budget. If project reports indicate deviation from the pre-approved budget, IEPA communicates with
the RP to prevent excessive cleanup costs.
Consultants file claims for payment more rapidly than the state fund can reimburse them; continued work is financed by
those private consultants who feel comfortable waiting for state reimbursement. Delayed reimbursement, however, causes
short-term financing costs that also contributes to increased cleanup costs. To sustain timely state financing of LUST cleanups
and reduce its backlog, IEPA should evaluate its reimbursement practices to encourage cost-effective cleanup approaches. If
a thorough evaluation determines that active remediation is ineffective in reducing contamination, alternative or innovative
16 According to DecemberlS, 2009 written communication with IEPA staff.
17 Data were compiled from releases where reimbursement claims have been filed. Dollar amounts are adjusted for inflation.
IL-12
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: ILLINOIS
cleanup technologies such as MNA could be considered as an appropriate remedy.18 MNA should not be considered a default
or presumptive remedy at any contaminated site but if used appropriately, this approach could free up state funds for use at
other cleanups and could increase the number of releases that IEPA is able to move toward remediation and closure.
Figure 5. Public Dollars Spent to Date, by Stage of Cleanup19
$160,000
T3
C
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: ILLINOIS
Illinois Finding
42 percent of releases are located within a
single IEPA region.
Potential Opportunity
Releases
Develop region-specific Variable
strategies for moving releases number of
toward remediation and closure. releases
STATE REGIONAL BACKLOGS
EPA analyzed cleanup backlogs within lEPA's seven regions to
identify patterns and opportunities for targeted backlog reduction
strategies within each IEPA region. Staff from lEPA's regional offices
has historically managed LUST cleanups, but in the late 1990s,
IEPA headquarters began to manage all LUST cases. Currently,
regional staff performs field work when needed to support IEPA
headquarters. Significant differences in the size of the backlog
and release age among lEPA's seven regions might be related to
differences in statewide geology, population distribution, and other
factors (Figure 6 to the right and Table 1 below). Approximately
42 percent of Illinois' backlog (3,581 releases) is located within the
Maywood (MAY) region, which includes the Chicago metropolitan
area. Urban areas with greater populations can create financial
Figure 6. IEPA Regions Map
CHA - Champaign
COL-Collinsville
MAR - Marion
MAY - Maywood
PEO - Peoria
ROC- Rockford
SPR - Springfield
approach to these unique backlog characteristics could help reduce / COL
the backlog. EPA encourages IEPA to look for opportunities to
best practices among its regions and with other states.
Table 1. Illinois Backlog, by IEPA Region
ROC MAY PEO
State Backlog 7.3% 42.2% 7.5%
Contribution
Cumulative Historical 1,587 11,663 1,401
Releases
Closed Releases 967/61% 8,082/69% 761/54%
Open Releases 620/39% 3,581/31% 640/46%
share f J
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: ILLINOIS
NUMBER OF RELEASES PER PRP
EPA analyzed the number of releases per PRP to identify the PRPs that are the largest potential contributors to the state's
cleanup backlog.21 PRPs for most backlogged cleanups tend to have fewer releases, suggesting they might be located at
smaller businesses: 82 percent of releases (6,950 releases) are from PRPs associated with between one and nine releases,
many of which are in the Confirmed Release stage, and 56 percent of releases (4,748 releases) are from PRPs associated
with a single release (Figures 7 and 8 below). When PRPs are associated with fewer than 10 releases, 74 percent of releases
(5,159 releases) have not begun remediation (Figure 7). In contrast, only 23 percent of releases from PRPs associated with
10 or more releases (348 releases) have not begun remediation. The database does not list the PRP for 21 releases. IEPA
should consider providing additional guidance to PRPs on how to effectively begin and complete cleanups, exploring other
funding options to address these cleanups, and pursuing enforcement actions where necessary to move more releases toward
remediation and closure.
Figure 7. Age of Releases, by Stage of Cleanup and Number of Releases with which a PRP is Affiliated22
2,805
639
396
220
o
95
O
348
663
192
124
O
I Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
I Remediation
128
69
Illinois Finding
Releases are less likely to have begun
remediation when the PRP is associated with
fewer than 10 releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Provide information 3,669
and technical assistance
to PRPs or implement
enforcement actions to
spur the completion of site
assessments and move
releases to remediation and
closure.
Encourage PRPs and
stakeholders to examine
public and private funding
options, such as petroleum
brownfields grants.
Implement enforcement
actions at stalled cleanups.
2-3
4-6
7-9
10+
Figure 8. Distribution of Releases by the Number of Releases with which a PRP is Associated
4,748
56%
Number of Open
Releases per PRP
i
2-3
4-6
7-9
Unknown PRP
21 IEPA tracks data on PRPs, who might or might not be the legally responsible parties.
22 The 21 releases in the Confirmed Release stage for which the PRP is not yet known are not included in this figure.
SEPTEMBER 2011
IL-15
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: ILLINOIS
18 percent of releases are associated with 55
PRPs that have 10 or more releases each.
Potential Opportunity Releases I
Explore possibilities for multi- 1,508
site agreements (MSAs) or
enforcement actions with
parties associated with multiple
releases.
A total of 55 PRPs are each associated with 10 or more releases and account
for 18 percent of the Illinois backlog (1,508 releases; Table 2 to the right). Of
these, 28 gasoline retail, distribution, or refining businesses are the PRPs for
11 percent of the backlog (973 releases), and six convenience store chains
are the PRPs for 3 percent of the backlog (167 releases). Within these two
groups, the six PRPs with the largest number of releases are associated
with 7 percent of the backlog (580 releases), approximately half of which
are within the Maywood regional office, which includes the greater Chicago
metropolitan area (Table 3 below). For the PRP with the largest number
of releases, over 99 percent of releases (141 releases) are not assigned to
an IEPA district office in the LIT database. In the past, IEPA has developed
cleanup agreements with RPs with a large number of releases but it is not
currently engaged in MSAs. Even when a PRP is not legally liable for cleaning
up a release, the PRP might be interested in helping to clean up releases
associated with its name or brand. Focused efforts engaging these 55 PRPs
associated with more than 10 releases through collaborative activities or
enforcement actions might expedite the closure of many of these releases.
Table 3. PRPs with the Largest Number of Releases
ROC MAY PEO CHA SPR COL
PRPttl . i ....
PRP #2 1 88 - 1 6 12
PRP #3 - 62 9 8 10 1
PRP #4 4 52 3 7 2 9
PRP #5 2 58 5 7 - -
PRP #6 2 36 1 4 1 -
Total Releases 9 297 18 27 19 22
Table 2. PRPs with 10 or
Gasoline Retail/
Distribution/Refining
Convenience Store
Chain
Government -Local
Government Federal
Other
Government -State
Utility
Totals
MAR Unknown
141
-
9 2
1
5
30
14 174
Number
of Number
Releases of PRPs
167
102
88
71
60
47
1,508
Total
6
6
5
5
2
3
55
Releases
142
108
101
78
77
74
580
IL-16
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: ILLINOIS
GEOGRAPHIC CLUSTERS
EPA performed a geospatial analysis to look for alternative ways to address the
backlog. While releases in geographic clusters might not have the same RP, they
tend to be located in densely populated areas and might present opportunities
to consolidate resources and coordinate efforts. Geographic proximity can call
attention to releases in areas of interest such as redevelopment, environmental
justice, or ecological sensitivity.
Figure 9. Map of All Open Releases, by IEPA
Region
Chicago
Springfield
East St. Louis
State and local governments can utilize geographic clusters for area-wide
planning efforts. EPA's analysis identified 66 percent of releases (5,633 releases)
located within a one-mile radius of five or more releases (Figure 9 to the right).
Of these releases, 40 percent (3,390 releases) are located within a one-mile
radius of 10 or more releases. Approaching the assessment and cleanup
needs of an area impacted by LUSTs can be more effective than focusing on
individual sites in isolation from the adjacent or surrounding area. Considering
geographically-clustered releases might pave the way for new community-
based revitalization efforts, utilize economies of scale to yield benefits such
as reduced equipment costs, and present opportunities to develop multi-site
cleanup strategies, especially at locations with commingled contamination. EPA encourages states to look for opportunities
for resource consolidation and area-wide planning but also recognizes that this approach is best geared to address targeted
groups of releases as opposed to a state-wide opportunity for every cluster of releases. EPA intends to conduct further
geospatial analyses on clusters of releases in relation to RPs, highway corridors, local geologic and hydrogeologic settings,
groundwater resources, and/or communities with environmental justice concerns. These analyses might reveal additional
opportunities for backlog reduction.
DATA MANAGEMENT
Multiple database limitations prevent a full assessment of the backlog and associated strategies for backlog reduction. For
IEPA to be able to reduce its backlog of open LUST cleanups, it needs access to up-to-date information regarding stalled
cleanups, releases nearing cleanup completion and closure, and the types of remedial technologies that work in different
geological settings across the state. Basic data such as media contaminated, risk level, and financial responsibility mechanism
are not tracked in lEPA's LIT database. In addition, 33 percent of releases (2,821 open releases) are not assigned to a project
manager. Project managers are assigned on an as-needed basis, indicating that these releases are inactive and little or no data
are known about them. With no project managers assigned, any data on these releases will remain unknown to IEPA staff
and will remain absent from the database. Additional improvements to database management could allow for easier overall
program management as well as provide an improved tool for developing strategies to reduce the cleanup backlog.
Illinois Finding
66 percent of releases are clustered within a
one-mile radius of five or more releases.
Potential Opportunity
Target releases within close
proximity for resource
consolidation opportunities.
Releases
Targeted
Number of
Releases23
Illinois Finding
Several key data fields are not included,
consistently maintained, or routinely tracked
in the LIT database.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Improve LIT database to Variable
enhance program management number of
and backlog reduction efforts. releases
23 Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic opportunities that will address a limited number of
releases within select designated geographic areas.
SEPTEMBER 2011
IL-17
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: ILLINOIS
Illinois LUST Program
Contact Information
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Bureau of Land
Division of Remediation Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Section
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, IL
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62702
Phone: 217-782-6762
Fax: 217-524-4193
www.eDa.state.il.us/land/lust/index.html
CONCLUSION
In this state chapter, EPA presented the analysis of LUST data submitted by IEPA and highlighted information on Illinois' LUST
program. Based on the analytic results, EPA identified potential opportunities that could be used to address specific backlog
issues in Illinois. Over the course of the entire study, EPA also analyzed data from 13 other states. Findings and opportunities
that apply to all 14 states are discussed in the national chapter of the report. Each opportunity represents one potential
approach among many to address the backlog. Discussion of the opportunities as a whole is intended as a starting point
for further conversations among EPA, IEPA, and the other states on strategies to reduce the backlog. Development of the
strategies might include targeted data collection, reviewing particular case files, analyzing problem areas, and sharing best
practices. The strategies could involve actions from EPA, such as using additional program metrics, targeting resources for
specific cleanup actions, clarifying and developing guidance, and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with the states, is
committed to reducing the backlog of confirmed UST releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater, land, and the
communities affected by these releases.
IL-18
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: ILLINOIS
CHAPTER NOTES
CHAPTER NOTES
ILLINOIS DATA BY ATTRIBUTE
The following table provides details on the data elements of interest in this analysis. Data were provided by IEPA staff in 2008 and 2009 for use in this analysis. Several data
elements of interest could not be addressed with the information available. All available data elements were analyzed and only those data elements that revealed informative
patterns of interest were included in the report.
Data Element
Administrative Cost
Illinois Data
Data were obtained from the "USt_fund_administrative_expenses_summary.xls" file.
Use in Analysis
Included in the "Program
Summary" section and in the
national chapter.
Age
Cleanup Financing
Cleanup Standards
Closure Date
Confirmed Release Date
Data Date
Federally-Regulated
LUST Releases
Free Product
IEPA Region
Institutional and
Engineering Controls
Age was calculated for closed releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the closure date and dividing by 365. Age
was calculated for open releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the data date and dividing by 365. Any values
less than -.1 were left blank. Values between -.1 and 0 were counted as 0. All dates were rounded to one decimal point. Ages of
releases with insufficient or invalid data were left blank.
Data were obtained from the "Deduct_Applied" data field in table "tbIRequests" from Illinois' online database "LITData.mdb."
Releases that had at least one non-zero record in "Deduct_Applied" were marked as "State Funded" for their cleanup financing.
No site-specific data available.
Data were obtained from the "NFR_NFA" data field in the "INCIDENTS" table from Illinois' online database "LITData.mdb."
Data were obtained from the "IEMA_DATE" data field in the "INCIDENTS" table from Illinois' online database "LITData.mdb." This
date is the date on which a release was reported. Because there was no data field available for the confirmed release date, this
date was used.
March 6, 2009 is used for all records. This is the date the data were downloaded.
Data were obtained from the "NFR_NFA," "NONLUST," "pre_74," and "SEC_57_5G" data fields in table "INCIDENTS" from Illinois'
online database "LITData.mdb." Any releases that had entries in "SEC_57_5G," "NONLUST," or "pre_74" and did not have an entry
in "NFR_NFA" were marked as not federally regulated. The remaining releases were marked as federally regulated.
No data available.
Indicates the IEPA Regional Office jurisdiction in which a release falls. Data were obtained from the "REGIONNAME" field in Illinois'
online database "LITData.mdb."
Data were obtained from multiple data fields in table "INCIDENTS" from Illinois' online database "LITData.mdb." Releases that had
any of the following data fields checked were marked as having institutional or engineering controls: Barrier_0th, Barrier_0th_desc,
Barrier_Pav, Barrier_Soil, Barrier_Stru, ELUC_Eng_Bar, ELUC_GW_Use, ELUC_IC_Land_Use, ELUCJDther, ELUC_Other_Desc, ELUC_
Soil_Hand, ELUC_Worker, IC_GW_Use, IC_lndust_Com, ICJDrdinance, IC_Other, IC_Other_desc, IC_Worker. These data fields are
only populated when a release is closed.
Variable in all analyses.
Examined in the "Cleanup
Financing" section.
State-wide standards examined
in the national chapter.
Included in the calculation of
release age.
Included in the calculation of
release age.
Included in the calculation of
release age.
Identifies the appropriate
universe of releases for analysis.
Not Applicable (NA).
Examined in the "Regional
Backlogs" section.
Examined in the "Cleanup
Standards" section and in the
national chapter.
SEPTEMBER 2011
IL-19
-------
CHAPTER NOTES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: ILLINOIS
Data Element
Latitude and Longitude
Illinois Data
Data were obtained from the "LATITUDE" and "LONGITUDE" fields in the "GIS_DATA" table from Illinois' online database "LITData.
mdb." Where possible, coordinates for releases without existing latitude and longitude values were obtained by EPA staff by
geocoding address and street locations.
Use in Analysis
Used in geospatial analysis
calculating the number of open
releases within a one-mile
radius of other open releases.
Media Data were obtained from the "Event_Type" field from the "EVENTS" and "T16EVENTs" tables in Illinois' online database "LITData.
mdb." When a release had one of the groundwater reports, such as "Groundwater Monitoring Report received," or "Groundwater
Monitoring Report/Low Priority [year 1]," it was marked as having groundwater contamination. For all other releases, "unknown"
media type was used.
Methyl Tertiary Butyl
Ether (MTBE)
Monitored Natural
Attenuation (MNA)
Data were obtained from the "MTBE_40ppb" data field in table "INCIDENTS" from Illinois' online database "LITData.mdb." When a
release was marked as ="-1" in this data field, it was marked as having MTBE. Illinois started to track this data field on June 1, 2002.
Therefore, it is an incomplete data set.
No data available.
Data not suitable for analysis.
Data not suitable for analysis.
NA
Number of Releases
perPRP
Calculated as the total number of open releases associated with a unique PRP name.
Examined in the "Number of
Releases per PRP" section.
Orphan
No data available.
NA
Proximity
Geospatial analysis performed by EPA revealed the number of other open releases located within a one-mile radius of each open
release.
Examined in the "Geographic
Clusters" section.
PRP
Data were obtained from the "NAME" and "CONTACT" fields in the "PRP" table from Illinois' online database "LITData.mdb." When
PRP name was blank, PRP contact name was used.
Used to calculate the number of
releases associated with each
unique PRP.
Public Spending Data were obtained from the "Amt_Paid" data field in the "tbIRequests" table from Illinois' online database "LITData.mdb." The
reimbursement amount was adjusted for inflation using the 2008 Consumer Price Index based on the year of the date recorded in
the "Voucher_Date" data field in the "tbIRequests" table. When there was not a voucher date available, the midyear was used (for
closed releases, midyear is the halfway point between release date and closure date; for open releases, midyear is the halfway point
between release date and data date).
Release Priority
Illinois uses a "first come, first served" model and does not currently have a priority system.
Examined in the "Cleanup
Financing" section and in the
national chapter.
NA
Remediation Technology Data were obtained from the "ALT_TECH" field in Illinois' online database "LITData.mdb."
No informative patterns were
identified.
RP Recalcitrance Data were obtained from the "Event_Type" and "Event Date" fields in the "EVENTS" and "T16EVENTs" tables in Illinois' online
database "LITData.mdb." When a release had a 20-day report or a 45-day report due but did not have a record of that event actually
occurring on time, it was marked as having a recalcitrant party.
Staff Workload
Calculated from the total number of unique project managers listed in the "Project_Managers.docx" file and the total number of
open releases in Illinois.
No informative patterns were
identified.
Examined in the "Program
Summary" section and in the
national chapter.
IL-20
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: ILLINOIS
CHAPTER NOTES
Data Element
Stage of Cleanup
Voluntary Cleanup
Program
Illinois Data
Use in Analysis
Data were obtained from the "Event_Type" data field in the "EVENTS" and "TlSEVENTs" tables in Illinois' online database "LITData. Variable in all analyses.
mdb." When a release had one of the several events indicating that it was in remediation, such as "Corrective Action Plan received,"
it was marked as being in the Remediation stage; when a release had one of the several events that indicate it was in assessment,
such as "Site Investigation Plan," it was marked as being in the "Site Assessment" stage; when a release was open but did not have
any of the events indicating that it was in the Site Assessment or Remediation stages, it was marked as being in the "Confirmed
Release" stage. Closed releases were marked as "Closed" (see Stage of Cleanup Reference Table).
Status Data were obtained from the "NFR_NFA" field in the "INCIDENTS" table from Illinois' online database "LITData.mdb." Any releases Identifies the appropriate
that had a "NFR_NFA" date were marked as "Closed;" other releases were marked as "Open." universe of releases for tree
analysis.
Data were obtained from the "TRANSFER" field in the "INCIDENTS" table from Illinois' online database "LITData.mdb." "TRANSFER" No informative patterns were
is a free-text data field. A manual search was performed to extract releases with a "VSRU" comment in this data field, which indicates identified.
participation in Illinois' voluntary cleanup program.
STAGE OF CLEANUP REFERENCE TABLE
Each release was assigned to a specific stage of cleanup for this analysis, based on the most recent IEPA cleanup event. Releases for which no event was documented in the LIT
database could not be assigned to either the Remediation stage or Site Assessment stage, and were classified as Confirmed Release stage.
Event Description
No event listed in database
Deferred Remediation Election Letter received
Rescind Site Classification Deferral
Site Assessment Report received
Amended Site Classification Budget
Amended Site Classification Work Plan
Amended Site Investigation Plan
Amended Site Investigation Plan Budget
Site Classification Work Plan Budget
Site Classification Completion Report
Site Classification Completion Report Addendum
Site Classification Work Plan
Site Investigation Budget Summary Stage 1
Site Investigation Completion Report
Site Investigation Plan
Site Investigation Plan Budget
Stage of Cleanup
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
SEPTEMBER 2011
IL-21
-------
CHAPTER NOTES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: ILLINOIS
Event Description
Site Investigation Stage 1 Plan
Site Investigation Stage 2 Plan
Site Investigation Stage 3 Plan
Site Investigation Work Plan
Site Investigation Work Plan Budget
Site Investigation Plan Budget Stage 1
Site Investigation Plan Budget Stage 2
Site Investigation Plan Budget Stage 3
Site Investigation Actual Costs Stage 1
Site Investigation Actual Costs Stage 2
Site Investigation Actual Costs Stage 3
Approved Plan Letter sent
Corrective Action Completion Report received
Corrective Action Plan received
Corrective Action Plan Addendum received
Groundwater Monitoring Zone Letter sent
Groundwater Monitoring Zone Letter sent
Groundwater Monitoring Report received
Amended Corrective Action Plan Budget
Amended Corrective Action Plan
Amended LP Corrective Action Plan Budget
Corrective Action Plan Budget
Corrective Action Completion Report
Corrective Action Plan
Low Priority Corrective Action Plan Budget
Low Priority Corrective Action Plan
Groundwater Monitoring Report (Miscellaneous)
Groundwater Monitoring Report/Low Priority [year 1]
Groundwater Monitoring Report/Low Priority [year 2]
Groundwater Monitoring Report/Low Priority [year 3]
Stage of Cleanup
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
IL-22
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG
A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
September 2011
11-1
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ARC
DEQ
EPA
ESA
FY
LUST
MNA
MSA
MTBE
MUSTFA
PRP
RBCA
RP
TRP
UST
Approved Partial Closure
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Expedited Site Assessment
Fiscal Year
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Monitored Natural Attenuation
Multi-Site Agreement
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
Michigan Underground Storage Tank Financial Assurance
Potentially Responsible Party
Risk-Based Corrective Action
Responsible Party
Temporary Reimbursement Program
Underground Storage Tank
11-2
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Leaks from underground storage tanks (USTs) threaten America's groundwater and land resources. Even a small amount of
petroleum released from a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) can contaminate groundwater, the drinking water source
for nearly half of all Americans. In surveys of state water programs, 39 states and territories identified USTs as a major source
of groundwater contamination.2 As the reliance on our resources increases due to the rise in population and use, there is a
correspondingly greater need to protect our finite natural resources.
From the beginning of the UST program to September 2009, more than 488,000 releases were confirmed from federally-
regulated USTs nationwide. Of these confirmed releases needing closure, over 100,000 remained in the national LUST
backlog. These releases are in every state, and many are old and affect groundwater. To help address this backlog of releases,
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invited 14 states to participate in a national backlog characterization
study.
ANALYSIS OF MICHIGAN DATA
Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has made significant progress toward reducing its LUST cleanup
backlog. As of April 2009, DEQ had completed 12,623 LUST cleanups, which is 58 percent of all known releases in the state.
At the time of data collection, there were 9,169 releases remaining in its backlog.4 To most effectively reduce the national
cleanup backlog, EPA believes that states and EPA must develop backlog reduction strategies that can be effective in states
with the largest backlogs. EPA invited Michigan to participate in its national backlog study because Michigan has one of the
ten largest backlogs in the United States.
In this chapter, EPA characterized Michigan's releases that have not been cleaned up, analyzed these releases based on
categories of interest, and developed potential opportunities for DEQ and EPA to explore that might improve the state's
cleanup progress and reduce its backlog. Building on the potential cleanup opportunities identified in the study, EPA will
continue to work with DEQ to develop backlog reduction strategies.
In Michigan, as in every state, many factors affect the pace of cleaning up releases such as the availability and mechanisms of
funding, statutory requirements, and program structure. The recent economic downturn has also had an impact on the ability
of many states to make progress on cleanups. The LUST program in Michigan in particular has faced significant budget and
staffing shortfalls in the last several years, limiting DEQ's ability to reduce the backlog.
1 Data were provided by DEQ staff in April 2009 and are not identical to the UST performance measures reported on EPA's website,
available at: www.epa.gov/oust/cat/camarchv.htm.
2 EPA, National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report, pp. 50-52. www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/chp6.pdf.
3 DEQ's Storage Tank Information Database does not provide a method for distinguishing between releases in the Site Assessment and
Remediation stages.
4 EPA tracks individual releases rather than sites in its performance measures. Therefore, the analyses in this report account for
numbers of releases, not sites.
5 Unknown media releases include those releases where the media is unknown as well as those releases where, based on available
data, it was not possible to identify the media contaminated.
Michigan LUST
By the Numbers1
National Backlog Contribution
Cumulative Historical Releases
Closed Releases
Open Releases
Stage of Cleanup
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment/
Remediation3
Media Contaminated
Groundwater
Median Age of Open Releases
Data
12,623/58%
6,144/67%
8,816/96%
SEPTEMBER 2011
II-3
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
EPA included potential cleanup opportunities in this report even though current
circumstances in Michigan might make pursuing certain opportunities challenging or
unlikely. Also, in some cases, DEQ is already using similar strategies as part of its
ongoing program. The findings from the analysis of DEQ's data and the potential
cleanup opportunities are summarized below in nine study areas: stage of cleanup,
media contaminated, release priority, cleanup financing, state district backlogs,
presence of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) contamination, use of monitored
natural attenuation (MNA), number of releases per potentially responsible party
(PRP), and geographic clusters.
Stage Of Cleanup (see page Ml-ll for more details)
Michigan Finding
26 percent of releases:
are 5 years old or older; and
have not started site assessment.
Potential Opportunity
Use expedited site
assessments or encourage
responsible parties (RPs)
to use expedited site
assessments at old releases
to identify releases that
can be closed with minimal
effort or moved toward
remediation.
Implement enforcement
actions at stalled releases.
50 percent of releases are:
10 years old or older; and
in site assessment/remediation.
Identify opportunities to move
releases toward remediation and
to closure, such as:
expediting site assessments;
periodically reviewing
release-specific treatment
technologies;
reviewing site-specific
cleanup standards;
continuing use of
institutional or engineering
controls; and
implementing enforcement
actions if cleanup has
stalled.
Releases
2,426
4,621
Michigan's releases are taking a long time to move through the cleanup process,
and many old releases are in the early stages of cleanup. There are several reasons
why many releases in the backlog are old including: releases with no liable party to
perform the cleanup; many releases are complex and therefore take a long time to
address; and releases that remain unaddressed in the backlog for reasons such as a
low priority ranking. EPA recognizes DEQ's funding limitations and the amount of staff
effort necessary to adhere to the state's statute regarding causation. Nevertheless,
EPA believes it is important for DEQ to explore opportunities to accelerate cleanups
at older releases and to make progress toward bringing these old releases to closure.
11-4
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
Media Contaminated (see page Ml-14 for more details)
Michigan Finding
50 percent of releases:
are 10 years old or older;
are in site assessment/
remediation; and
contaminate groundwater.
Potential Opportunity
Systematically evaluate cleanup progress
at old releases with groundwater
impacts and consider alternative
cleanup technologies or other strategies
to reduce time to closure.
Releases
4,611
Releases contaminating groundwater have always been the largest part of the national
backlog and 96 percent of releases in Michigan are documented as contaminating
groundwater. In general, groundwater contamination is more technically complex
to remediate and takes longer to clean up than soil contamination. For old, complex
cleanups where long-term remediation is underway, EPA believes it is important to
have a system in place for periodic revaluation of cleanup progress and to reconsider
whether the cleanup technology being used is still the most appropriate. DEQ is
faced with a large backlog of releases, almost every one of which impact groundwater
resources. Nevertheless, EPA encourages DEQ to continue to work toward bringing
all releases to closure.
Release Priority (see page Ml-15 for more details)
Michigan Finding Potential Opportunity
16 percent of releases
are high priority
releases considered to
be an immediate risk
to human health.
Expedite site assessments and evaluate cleanup
progress of high priority releases to ensure that:
all releases are appropriately ranked;
releases with immediate risk are actively
being worked on; and
all releases make progress toward closure.
Releases
1,446
10 percent of releases
are low priority
releases, half of which
are 15 years old or
older.
Explore opportunities to expedite the remediation
and closure of low priority releases, including:
using targeted backlog reduction efforts to
close low priority releases;
using enforcement actions for stalled releases
when necessary; and
examining public and private funding options
such as petroleum brownfields grants for low
priority releases.
888
33 percent of
releases have not
been assigned a
priority classification
due to a lack of site
characterization
information.
Expedite site assessments and track information
to assign initial priority classifications for releases
with unknown priority to:
ensure that releases with immediate risk are
actively being worked on; and
identify those that could be closed with
minimal effort.
3,025
An appreciable number of releases are considered high priority by the state and still
remain open after a considerable length of time. Sixteen percent of the backlog
consists of high priority releases that are still being addressed. Some of these
are state lead cleanups; the others are led by RPs. In an effort to work within its
resource limitations for releases needing state funds for cleanup, DEQ staff work at
releases until the immediate risks are addressed and then direct resources to other
high priority releases. An additional 33 percent of releases have not been assigned
a priority due to lack of site characterization information. Some of these releases
could end up being high priority. With Michigan's budget limitations in mind, EPA
will work with DEQ to develop strategies to move all releases toward closure and to
ensure that there are no immediate risks to human health and the environment from
the high priority releases that have not been addressed.
Low priority releases and releases that have not been prioritized constitute over 40
percent of the backlog and offer opportunities for backlog reduction. Expediting
site assessments, tracking information on priority, using enforcement actions and
considering public and private funding are all options which might move releases
more quickly to remediation and closure.
SEPTEMBER 2011
II-5
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
Cleanup Financing (see page Ml-16 for more details)
Michigan Finding
PRPs are listed for 89
percent of "inactive" or
"stopped" releases in
Michigan's backlog.
Potential Opportunity
Explore options for conducting liability
determinations for all PRPs;
Conduct outreach to PRPs; or
Pursue enforcement actions where
necessary to initiate cleanup activities.
Releases
Variable
number of
releases6
Explore additional funding options to address Approximately
the large number of orphan releases in 4,500
Michigan, such as public/private partnerships. releases7
EPA and state programs are interested in exploring successful financing strategies for
completing cleanups quickly. EPA acknowledges that the recent economic downturn
has impacted cleanup financing. EPA also believes the availability of funding for
cleanup is essential to reducing the backlog, so in addition to this study, EPA is
increasing its focus on oversight of state funds as well as conducting a study of private
insurance.
Michigan's LUST program has faced budget and staffing shortfalls over the last several
years. The biggest impact to DEQ's program has been the loss of the state fund to
finance cleanups in the state. In addition, under Michigan's causation-based liability
law, a PRP is liable forthe cleanup if the PRP caused the release, or if they become the
PRP after March 6, 1996, and did not provide a Baseline Environmental Assessment
within a prescribed time. The current facility owner might not be responsible for
an older release that occurred prior to their purchase, occupancy, or foreclosure,
and the state has the burden of proof in establishing liability. Due to this causation
liability standard, DEQ's LUST program has to invest significant resources to identify
and hold a PRP liable. As releases age, it becomes more difficult to link a release with
a particular PRP. Consequently, a large number of releases are likely orphan releases
for which the financial responsibility for cleanup will likely rest with the state.
DEQ provided data on the current work status at releases ("active," "inactive," or
"stopped") to facilitate the analysis of potential orphan releases. The majority
of "inactive" or "stopped" cleanups have PRPs listed in Michigan's database. EPA
will explore options with DEQ for conducting liability determinations for PRPs.
Conducting liability determinations for all PRPs and performing outreach or pursuing
enforcement actions might help move these releases to closure. Also, DEQ might
explore alternative funding options to complete the cleanups of orphan releases.
State District Backlogs (see page Ml-18 for more details)
Michigan Finding
Release age and the distribution of
releases among stages of cleanup vary
among DEQ's eight districts.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Develop region-specific strategies Variable
for moving releases toward number of
remediation and closure. releases
EPA identified differences in the distribution of the backlog among DEQ's eight
administrative districts, including differences in release age and stage of cleanup.
Differences in the management and administration of remedial actions might be
causing some of the differences in cleanup outcomes. Other external factors such
as geologic and geographic differences might also contribute to the difference in the
backlog. For example, areas of higher population usually result in areas of larger
backlogs. Property transfers can provide incentives for cleanup, particularly in some
urban areas. Differences in geology and terrain can make releases in one part of
the state more difficult to clean up than releases in other parts of the state. These
differences might reveal opportunities for district-specific backlog reduction. DEQ
should work with its district offices to address their specific backlog issues and
facilitate the sharing of information and best practices among the districts.
Presence of MTBE Contamination
(see page Ml-19for more details)
Michigan Finding
27 percent of releases have MTBE
contamination.
Potential Opportunity
Consider reevaluating the current
remedial plan and utilizing
optimal remedial technologies for
the removal of MTBE.
Releases
2,486
MTBE can be a complicating factor at LUST releases. As with any release in
remediation, DEQ should consider having a system in place for regular revaluation
of the cleanup strategy. Although some releases could be lower risk or priority, EPA
believes it is important to respond quickly to releases with MTBE contamination to
prevent further migration of the contaminants in groundwater.
6 Opportunities marked as "variable number of releases" relate to programmatic
opportunities and affect an unknown number of releases, potentially including all open
releases.
7 Estimate provided by DEQ staff.
11-6
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
Number Of Releases per PRP (see page MI-ZO for more details) CONCLUSION
Michigan Finding
18 percent of releases are associated
with 69 PRPs each with 10 or more
releases.
Potential Opportunity
Identify PRPs and explore
possibilities for multi-site
agreements (MSAs) or
enforcement actions with parties
associated with multiple releases.
Releases
1,676
EPA analyzed the number of releases per PRP to identify the PRPs that might be the
largest potential contributors to Michigan's cleanup backlog. EPA was able to identify
groups of 10 or more releases associated with the same PRP. In Michigan, 69 PRPs are
each associated with 10 or more releases and account for 18 percent of the Michigan
backlog. DEQ and EPA can use this information to identify possible participants for
multi-site strategies to clean up groups of releases.
Geographic Clusters (see page MI-21 for more details)
This chapter contains EPA's data analysis of Michigan's LUST cleanup backlog and
identifies potential opportunities to reduce the backlog in Michigan. EPA discusses
the findings and opportunities for Michigan, along with those of 13 additional
states, in the national chapter of this report. EPA will work with states to develop
potential approaches and detailed strategies for reducing the backlog. Development
of strategies could involve targeted data collection, reviewing particular case files,
analyzing problem areas, and sharing best practices. Final strategies could involve
EPA actions such as using additional program metrics to show cleanup progress,
targeting resources for specific cleanup actions, clarifying and developing guidance,
and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with states, is committed to reducing the
backlog of confirmed LIST releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater, land,
and communities affected by these releases.
Michigan Finding
64 percent of releases are clustered
within a one-mile radius of five or more
releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Target releases within close Targeted
proximity for resource number of
consolidation opportunities. releases8
Another multi-site approach that DEQ could use is targeting cleanup actions at
geographically-clustered releases. This approach could offer opportunities for
new community-based reuse efforts, using economies of scale, and addressing
commingled contamination. EPA believes that highlighting geographic clusters of
releases and working with state and local governments in area-wide initiatives will
improve DEQ's pace of cleaning up releases. EPA intends to work with the states to
conduct further geospatial analyses on clusters of releases in relation to RPs, highway
corridors, local geologic and hydrogeologic settings, groundwater resources, and/
or communities with environmental justice concerns. These analyses might reveal
additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic
opportunities that will address a limited number of releases within select designated
geographic areas.
SEPTEMBER 2011
II-7
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
PROGRAM SUMMARY
Michigan LUST
Program
At a Glance
Cleanup Rate
In fiscal year (FY) 2009, DEQ confirmed 183
releases and completed 203 cleanups.10
Cleanup Financing
Of open releases, 53 percent (4,892 releases)
have received state funding from either the
Michigan Underground Storage Tank Financial
Assurance (MUSTFA) program or the Refined
Petroleum Temporary Reimbursement
Program (TRP) fund. Both the MUSTFA and
TRP programs have since terminated and there
is currently no state cleanup fund.
Cleanup Standards
A three-tier risk-based corrective action
(RBCA) system is in place to evaluate threats to
human health and the environment.
Priority System
DEQ prioritizes releases based on risk to
receptors and length of time until impact.
Average Public Spending on Cleanup
$400,000"
Releases Per Project Manager
Each project manager is on average
responsible for 141 open releases.
Administrative Funding
$1.7 million.11
State LUST Program Organization and Administration
Oversight of and financial assistance for the investigation and remediation of petroleum contamination resulting from leaking
underground storage tanks (LUSTs) is managed by Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ's) Remediation and
Redevelopment Division. DEQ operates on a $20 million annual budget to address "orphan" LUST releases posing the highest
risk to receptors within each district, where the liable party is unknown, deceased, or bankrupt, or to address emergency
situations where the liable party is recalcitrant.9 These releases are partially addressed with public funds to remove the
greatest risks (e.g., source area remediation or containment of contaminant plumes) but are not generally cleaned up to
closure levels due to a lack of adequate program funding. When DEQ determines that additional state investment is not
warranted due to reduced risk, these partial cleanups can be recommended for DEQ's Approved Partial Closure (ARC) status.
Approval of an ARC status means these cleanups are considered closed from the standpoint of public funds investment but
does not relieve liable parties, if they can be identified, of remaining cleanup obligations. Since no further action will be
conducted at these sites using public funds, DEQ reports these releases as closed to EPA. Should funding become available,
DEQ intends to conduct additional cleanup activities at these sites to complete the cleanups and, therefore, tracks ARC as a
separate closure category.
At the time of a release, the owner/operator is responsible for corrective action and is required to hire Qualified Underground
Storage Tank (UST) Consultants to perform corrective actions and to submit cleanup reports including Initial Assessment
Reports, Final Assessment Reports, and Closure Reports. DEQ's Remediation and Redevelopment Division is charged with
selectively auditing the various reports that are submitted and must audit closure reports when institutional controls are
sought for off-site contamination, a mixing zone determination is requested, in-situ injection is proposed as a corrective
action, or groundwater waivers are requested.
Cleanup Financing
Michigan's former state fund, the MUSTFA program, previously paid for eligible LUST cleanups but was declared insolvent in
1995 and ceased reimbursements in 2001. Eligible cleanups had to have been discovered and reported on or after July 18,
1989, occurred from a tank that was in compliance with state requirements, and reported within 24 hours after its discovery.12
Michigan no longer has a state fund. The TRP began July 20, 2006, to provide limited funding to responsible parties (RPs) for
high risk releases that had previously been approved under the MUSTFA program. All funds have since been disbursed under
TRP and it is no longer a source of cleanup financing.
9 DEQ tracks and categorizes three types of release response activities: 1) Releases where work had started but no correspondence
has been received in over a year (categorized as "Stopped"); and 2) Confirmed releases for which no additional information has ever
been received (categorized as "Inactive"). Orphan releases are likely to be in one of these two categories. The third category is
releases for which correspondence has been received within the last year (categorized as "Active").
10 Based on FY 2009 UST Performance Measures End of Year Activity Report.
11 This is based on the total amount of operational expenditures spent on projects.
12 For more information see
www. legislature.mi.gov/(S(zopgll55ihtent45acrttgql))/mileg.aspx?page=getObiect&obiectName=mcl-324-21510.
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
Since 1996, Michigan has operated with a causation-based liability law where the
owner/operator of the tank at the time of the release is considered responsible for
the cleanup, even after the property changes hands. A subsequent owner/operator
might not be liable if they provide a Baseline Environmental Assessment within a
prescribed period of time. This unique liability clause places the burden on DEQ
to prove and establish RP liability for the releases in the backlog, which further
complicates DEQ's ability to hold a RP liable for a cleanup.
DEQ staff attempt to identify past owners and establish liability, but the age of
releases and occurrence of property transactions, as well as insufficient program
funding and staffing resources, make it difficult to identify and pursue RPs. When the
causation liability law was enacted, the state recognized that it would result in higher
numbers of orphan sites. Additional funding from the General Fund was provided at
first to help identify RPs. Unfortunately, program funding has eroded over the years
to the point where there are not enough staff resources to conduct formal liability
determinations on all releases. DEQ estimates there are approximately 4,500 orphan
releases.
Cleanup Standards
DEQ's RBCA approach allows for the development of site-specific cleanup standards.
The option to use a tiered approach to address releases is available in Michigan. A
Tier 1 evaluation can be used if the liable party wishes to satisfy closure requirements
using generic cleanup criteria. Tier 2 or Tier 3 evaluation approaches can be used
to meet closure requirements using site-specific criteria or institutional controls.
Remediation of all impacted media (i.e., groundwater, soils, and sediments) must
achieve the appropriate risk-based screening levels.
The number of releases closed with institutional controls increased in the late 1990s.
Institutional controls accounted for between 10 and 18 percent of annual closures
between 2000 and 2008 (Figure 1 to the right). Nearly all of these institutional
controls were Notices of Corrective Action documented with the County Register of
Deeds.
Release Prioritization
DEQ requires that all releases be classified based on the immediacy of their threat
to human health and the environment.13 Release class ranges from Class 1, where
there is an immediate threat to the public or environment, to Class 4, where there is
no demonstrable long-term threat. Releases are classified primarily by professional
contractors' judgments rather than full risk assessments, and classification is usually
done at the time when sufficient information is available to make a classification
13 For more information, see
www.michigan.gov/documents/dea/dea-rrd-opMEM03 249985 7.pdf.
determination. DEQ revises the priority as additional information becomes available
and as corrective actions occur. In situations where public funds will be used to
address risks at tank or non-tank contamination sites, an additional prioritization
system has been developed to allow DEQ to direct its resources to those releases
that present the greatest threat and are in most urgent need of initial response
actions. At these sites, activities that are considered "low" cost (under $20,000) that,
if implemented, could achieve an APC or closure, may be assigned to a higher priority
category in order to qualify for public funding.14
State Backlog Reduction Efforts
In an effort to enforce reporting requirements and compel greater progress toward
release closure, DEQ is pursuing additional enforcement strategies including seeking
late reporting penalties for a number of cleanups where a big oil company is the RP.
DEQ identified candidate releases in 2008 and commenced litigation to seek multi-
site compliance.
Figure 1. Use of Institutional Controls over Time
1,800
1,600
1,400
£ 1,200
I/)
D 1,000
M-
^ 800
J2
| 600
z
400
200
I Institutional Controls Used Institutional Controls Not Used
14 Based on interviews with DEQ staff and the guidance document Criteria for Funding
Prioritization, FY2006-FY 2008 and Beyond, prepared by DEQ's Remediation and
Redevelopment Division.
SEPTEMBER 2011
II-9
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
[This page has intentionally been left blank.
11-10 SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNITIES
In this study, EPA analyzed Michigan's federally-regulated releases that have not been cleaned up (open releases). EPA
conducted a multivariate analysis on DEQ's data. However, this technique did not identify strong underlying patterns in the
data.15 Next, EPA divided the open releases into groups that might warrant further attention. EPA used descriptive statistics
to examine the distribution of releases by age of release and stage of cleanup and highlighted findings based on DEQ's data.17
EPA then identified potential opportunities for addressing particular groups of releases in the backlog. Many releases are
included in more than one opportunity. These opportunities describe actions that EPA and DEQ might use as a starting
point for collaborative efforts to address the backlog. Although EPA's analysis covered all releases in Michigan, there are 428
releases that are not included in any of the subsets identified in the findings or opportunities due to the way EPA structured
the analysis. These releases might also benefit from some of the suggested opportunities and strategies.
EPA's analyses revealed nine areas of Michigan's backlog with potential opportunities for its further reduction:
Stage of cleanup Presence of methyl tertiary butyl
Media contaminated ether (MTBE) contamination
Release priority Use of monitored natural
Cleanup financing attenuation (MNA)
State district backlogs
Number of releases per potentially
responsible party (PRP)
Geographic clusters
LUST Data Source
Electronic data for LUST releases occurring
between March 1970 and April 2009 were
compiled with DEQ staff in 2008 and 2009.16
Data were obtained from DEQ's Storage Tank
Information Database and selected based
on quality and the ability to address areas of
interest in this analysis.
STAGE OF CLEANUP
As of April 30, 2009, the Michigan backlog consisted of 9,169 open releases. EPA analyzed the age of these LUST releases and
their distribution among the stages of cleanup. To facilitate analysis, EPA classified Michigan's open releases into two stages
of cleanup: the Confirmed Release stage (releases where assessments have not begun) and the Site Assessment/Remediation
stage (releases where assessments or remedial activities have begun).18 While EPA grouped the releases into linear stages for
this analysis, the Agency recognizes that cleanups might not proceed in a linear fashion. Cleanup can be an iterative process
where releases go through successive rounds of site assessment and remediation. However, in the long run, this approach
might be both longer and more costly. Acquiring good site characterization up front can accelerate the pace of cleanup and
avoid the extra cost of repeated site assessment.
Since it began, the Michigan program has closed 12,623 releases, half of which were closed in fewer than 2.0 years (Figure
2, page 12). The young median age of closed LUST releases might be attributable to the rapid closure of relatively easy to
remediate releases and the former operation of a state fund. Also, national program policy allows states to report confirmed
releases that require no further action at the time of confirmation as "cleanup completed." Therefore, some releases are
reported as confirmed and cleaned up simultaneously.
15 The analytic tree method, a multivariate technique used to identify underlying patterns among large data sets, did not reveal strong
patterns within the data. For more information on analytic trees, see Appendix A.
16 For a detailed description of the Michigan data used in this analysis, see the Chapter Notes section.
17 For a detailed description of release stages, see the Chapter Notes section (Stage of Cleanup Reference Table).
18 Releases were classified into stages based on available data and discussion with DEQ staff. Data were not available to distinguish
between the Site Assessment and Remediation stages. For more information, see the Chapter Notes section.
SEPTEMBER 2011
11-11
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
Figure 2. Age of Releases among Stages of Cleanup
Figure 3. Standard Closures and APC Closures,
2004 - 2008
APC
71
6%
Michigan Finding
26 percent of releases:
are 5 years old or older; and
have not started site assessment.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Use expedited site 2,426
assessments or encourage
RPs to use expedited site
assessments at old releases
to identify releases that
can be closed with minimal
effort or moved toward
remediation.
Implement enforcement
actions at stalled releases.
20
6,144
15
3,025
-£ io
o
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
EPA encourages states to streamline the corrective action process, improve data collection, reduce the overall cost of
remediation, and move releases more rapidly toward remediation and closure. To assist states and regulators in implementing
these objectives, EPA developed its Expedited Site Assessment (ESA) guide.20 The guide explains the overall ESA process as
well as specific site assessment tools and methods. The ESA process rapidly characterizes site conditions to make cost-
effective corrective action decisions. ESAs will help identify releases that can be closed with minimal effort or provide all
the information needed to move a release into remediation. Conducting site assessments efficiently and quickly might help
reduce the backlog by accelerating the pace of cleanup and ultimately decrease overall project costs. DEQ can also encourage
RPs to use ESAs to streamline the corrective action process.
Figure 4. Release Age Distribution among Stages of Cleanup
Unknown Age
42
1%
Unknown Age
24
1%
< 5 Years
575
> 5 Years
2,426
/^T^\ 57
._mA X»
,426 / \
M%( l^\
Confirmed Release
(3,025 Releases)
Site Assessment/Remediation
(6,144 Releases)
Michigan has many old releases in the Site
Assessment/Remediation stage. Fifty percent of
Michigan's releases (4,621 releases) are in the Site
Assessment/Remediation and are 10 years old or
older (Figure 4 to the left). This older group of
releases represents 75 percent of the releases in
remediation. There are a total of 6,144 releases in
the Site Assessment/Remediation stage (67 percent
of releases) (Figure 4). Although it is not possible
with Michigan's data to distinguish between those
releases where remediation has begun and those
where it has not, it is likely that several releases in
this category have already begun remediation. In
addition, because EPA only has the date that a release was confirmed but not when it moved from one stage to the next (i.e.,
from Confirmed Release to Site Assessment/Remediation), EPA can calculate the overall age of the release but not the actual
time spent in any stage. It is possible that some of these older releases might have only recently begun remediation. DEQ
should explore opportunities to move more releases into remediation and closure. For releases that have not completed
site assessment, ESAs will help identify releases that can be closed with minimal effort or provide all the information needed
to move a release into remediation sooner. DEQ should also consider establishing a systematic process to evaluate state-
funded cleanups in remediation and optimize cleanup approaches, including choice of technology and site-specific risk-based
decision making. This process might save DEQ resources and bring releases to closure more quickly. This would allow DEQ to
move on to other releases that need attention and remove releases from the backlog within existing budget limitations. DEQ
should also consider enforcement actions against RPs that are not moving forward with cleanup.
20 EPA's 1997 guidance document, Expedited Site Assessment Tools for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Regulators (EPA 510
B-97-001), is available online at: www.epa.gov/OUST/pubs/sam.htm.
Michigan Finding
50 percent of releases are:
10 years old or older; and
in site assessment/remediation.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Identify opportunities to move 4,621
releases toward remediation and
to closure, such as:
expediting site assessments;
periodically reviewing
release-specific treatment
technologies;
reviewing site-specific
cleanup standards;
continuing use of
institutional or engineering
controls; and
implementing enforcement
actions if cleanup has
stalled.
SEPTEMBER 2011
11-13
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
MEDIA CONTAMINATED
Groundwater is an important natural resource that is at risk from petroleum contamination. Old releases impacting
groundwater make up the majority of Michigan's backlog. In general, groundwater contamination takes longer and is more
expensive to clean up than soil contamination. In this study, EPA examined media as a factor contributing to the backlog. The
following analysis classified contaminated media into three categories: groundwater (8,816 releases), soil (1 release), and
"unknown" media, which includes releases with no media specified (352 releases).21
In Michigan, 96 percent of releases (8,816 releases) involve groundwater contamination and have a median age of 14.3
years (Figure 5 below). Only one release is documented as contaminating only soil. The type of media impacted by the
remaining 4 percent of releases (352 releases) is unknown. In contrast, 48 percent of closed releases with known type
of media contamination (2,147 releases) involved groundwater contamination. These closed releases have a significantly
younger mean age of 5.1 years compared to the median age of open releases (Figures).22 Of the 6,085 groundwater cleanups
in the Site Assessment/Remediation stage, 76 percent (4,611 releases) are 10 years old or older (Figure 6 below, to the left).
This subset of older releases that contaminate groundwater and are in site assessment/remediation makes up 50 percent of
Michigan's total backlog. Groundwater contamination is typically more complex and difficult to remediate. However, if DEQ
could identify opportunities to improve cleanup efficiencies, it might be able to accelerate the pace of cleanups. For example,
using a systematic process to evaluate cleanup progress, current contaminant levels, and treatment technologies might move
releases through cleanup and to closure faster.
Michigan Finding
50 percent of releases:
are 10 years old or older;
are in site assessment/ remediation; and
contaminate groundwater.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Systematically evaluate cleanup 4,611
progress at old releases with
groundwater impacts and
consider alternative cleanup
technologies or other strategies
to reduce time to closure.
Figure 5. Age of Releases by Media Contaminated and Stage of Cleanup
20
6,085
O Confirmed Release
O Site Assessment/
Remediation
Closed
2,247
Figure 6. Age of Site Assessment/Remediation
Stage Releases with Groundwater Impacts
2,348
0
294
O
58
O
8,128
> 10 Years
4,611
76%
Groundwater Soil Unknown
Squares indicating closed releases are not scaled to the number of releases in that stage.
DEQ can continue to use institutional or engineering controls to reduce the time to closure by eliminating exposure pathways
where protective and appropriate. Institutional controls accounted for between 10 and 18 percent of DEQ annual closures
between 2000 and 2008. In addition, evaluation of the cleanup progress of releases with groundwater impacts might identify
releases where MNA can be applied. In these cases, treatment times need to remain reasonable compared to other methods.
Michigan's cleanup costs might be reduced by applying MNA.
21 For a detailed description of media contamination classifications, see the Chapter Notes section.
22 The type of media contaminated is unknown for 64 percent of closed releases (8,128 releases).
11-14
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
RELEASE PRIORITY
Many state programs employ prioritization systems to decide how to best allocate state resources for assessments and
cleanups. States approach cleanup priority differently, and there might be opportunities using Michigan's prioritization
system to increase the number of closures. DEQ follows its priority rankings as a matter of policy, but can make exceptions to
address lower priority releases on a case-by-case basis. In an effort to address their resource limitations at releases needing
state funds for cleanup, DEQ staff work at releases until the immediate risks are addressed and then move on to other high
priority releases. Release closures are thereby traded off for risk reduction at a greater number of high priority releases.
The Michigan backlog includes a significant number of old, high priority releases. This analysis identified 1,446 Class 1 releases
(16 percent of the backlog) that are considered to be an immediate risk to human health, yet have a median age of 14.7
years (Figure 7 below). Class 1 releases generally pose an immediate risk of exposure to free product. DEQ should explore
options to expedite site assessments and evaluate cleanup progress of high priority releases to ensure that all releases are
appropriately ranked. With Michigan's budget limitations in mind, EPA will work with DEQ to develop strategies to move all
releases toward closure and to ensure that there are no immediate risks to human health and the environment from the high
priority releases that have not been addressed.
Figure 7. Age of Releases by Priority Class and Stage of Cleanup2
15
in
1,446
O
4
1,465
O
10
2,345
888
O
3,025
14
O Confirmed Release
O Site Assessment/
Remediation
Closed
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Unknown
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Priority classification can change over time, meaning that the removal of immediate threats leads to reclassification and lower
prioritization of a Class 1 release as risks are addressed. Therefore, most releases are expected to be Class 4 at the time of
closure. At the time of data collection, 888 releases (10 percent of the backlog) were considered Class 4, approximately half
of which are 15 years old or older (Figure 7). DEQ should explore opportunities to expedite the remediation and closure of
these releases by using targeted backlog reduction strategies to close low priority releases with minimal effort, implementing
enforcement actions at stalled releases, and examining public and private funding options such as petroleum brownfields
grants for low priority releases with no viable RP.
23 The large number of Class 4 closures is due to the reduction in risk as a release is remediated. These 12,548 closed Class 4
releases therefore would be expected to include releases that had been categorized as Class 1, 2, or 3 prior to completing remedial
activities. Class 4 releases are generally defined as having no demonstrable long-term threats to human health, safety, or sensitive
environmental receptors.
Michigan Finding
16 percent of releases are high priority
releases considered to be an immediate risk to
human health.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Expedite site assessments and 1,446
evaluate cleanup progress of high
priority releases to ensure that:
all releases are appropriately
ranked;
releases with immediate risk
are actively being worked
on; and
all releases make progress
toward closure.
Michigan Finding
10 percent of releases are low priority
releases, half of which are 15 years old or
older.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore opportunities to expedite 888
the remediation and closure of
low priority releases, including:
using targeted backlog
reduction efforts to close
low priority releases;
using enforcement actions
for stalled releases when
necessary; and
examining public and private
funding options such as
petroleum brownfields
grants for low priority
releases.
SEPTEMBER 2011
11-15
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
Michigan Finding
33 percent of releases have not been assigned
a priority classification due to a lack of site
characterization information.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Expedite site assessments and 3,025
track information to assign initial
priority classifications for releases
with unknown priority to:
ensure that releases with
immediate risk are actively
being worked on; and
identify those that could be
closed with minimal effort.
Michigan Finding
PRPs are listed for 89 percent of "inactive" or
"stopped" releases in Michigan's backlog.
Potential Opportunity
Explore options for
conducting liability
determinations for all
PRPs,
Conduct outreach to
PRPs, or
Pursue enforcement
actions where
necessary to initiate
cleanup activities.
Releases
Variable
number of
releases25
Explore additional funding
options to address the large
number of orphan releases
in Michigan, such as public/
private partnerships.
Approximately
4,500
releases27
There are 3,025 releases (33 percent of the backlog) with a median age of 11.4 years that have not begun site assessments and
have not been assigned an initial priority classification (Figure 7). In the past, DEQ classified releases with unknown priority
as Class 2 releases. This approach was not uniformly implemented and prioritization of these releases is now classified as
unknown. Expediting site assessments and tracking information to assign initial priority classifications for these releases will
help to ensure that releases that pose immediate risks are actively being worked on and can identify releases that could be
closed with minimal effort.
CLEANUP FINANCING
EPA and state programs are interested in exploring successful financing strategies for completing cleanups quickly. EPA
acknowledges that the recent economic downturn has impacted cleanup financing. EPA also believes the availability of
funding for cleanup is essential to reducing the backlog, so in addition to this study, EPA is increasing its focus on oversight of
state funds as well as conducting a study of private insurance. Michigan's LUST program in particular has faced critical budget
and staffing shortfalls over the last several years. The biggest impact to DEQ's program has been the loss of the state fund to
finance cleanups in the state.
Under Michigan's causation-based liability law, a PRP is liable for the costs of cleanup if they caused the release or if they
became the PRP after March 6, 1996, and did not provide a Baseline Environmental Assessment within a prescribed time.24
The current facility owner might not be responsible for an older release that occurred prior to their purchase, occupancy, or
foreclosure, and the state has the burden of proving a PRP is responsible for a release. Due to the causation liability clause,
DEQ's LUST program has to invest significant resources to identify and hold the PRP liable. As releases age, it becomes more
difficult to link a release with a particular PRP. Consequently, a large number of releases are likely orphan releases for which
the financial responsibility for cleanup could likely rest with the state.
DEQ staff estimate that the number of orphan releases could be as high as 4,500 releases (49 percent of the backlog), and DEQ
is facing the burden of financing the cleanup of thousands of releases without an operating state fund. Over the past several
years, the state's LUST program has operated under an annual budget of $20 million, which DEQ uses to reduce risks at high
priority orphan releases. DEQ staff estimate the average cost of cleanup in the state at $400,000 per release. With the high
number of potential orphan releases, DEQ's LUST program could need as much as $1.8 billion to address the state-funded
portion of the backlog.26
The difficulty in identifying the PRPs for releases contributes to the delay in the reduction of the Michigan backlog. An
investigation of liability status is conducted before public money is spent on a cleanup. DEQ staff track information on PRPs
for many releases, giving the state a starting point for its PRP investigations. DEQ staff place releases into one of three activity
categories based on their level of communication with the PRP over the past year: "active" (releases for which correspondence
has been received within the last year), "inactive" (releases for which no additional information has ever been received), and
"stopped" (releases at which work has started but no correspondence has been received in the past year) (Figure 8, page 17).
24 Michigan's Storage Tank Information Database does not track the RP but it does have a field for a PRP.
25 Opportunities marked as "variable number of releases" relate to programmatic opportunities and affect an unknown number of
releases, potentially including all open releases.
26 Estimate based on an average $400,000 cost per cleanup for 4,500 orphan releases.
27 Estimate provided by DEQ staff.
11-16
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
Potential orphan releases are usually found in the latter two categories, both of which have a large number of releases that
have not yet been assessed.
Figure 8. Age of Releases by Current Work Status and Stage of Cleanup21
20
3,502
I Confirmed Release
i Site Assessment/
Remediation
Active
Inactive
Work Stopped
DEQ's LUST program faces a significant financial burden in addressing its backlog. The program has two challenges: identifying
whether a PRP or the state is responsible for each cleanup and identifying the funding source to address all orphan releases.
With regard to the first challenge, if funding were provided to support formal liability determinations for all PRPs, the need
for future publicly-funded cleanups could be better defined. PRPs are listed for 89 percent (6,265 releases) of "inactive"
and "stopped" releases (Figure 9 to the right). Reviewing these PRPs and, where possible, identifying RPs and pursuing
enforcement actions where necessary would reduce the potential burden on the state to address these cleanups.
The second challenge is to fund state-lead work. Michigan is the only state in this backlog study that takes on responsibility for
a significant number of cleanups without having a state fund or other funding mechanism specifically in place to finance LUST
cleanups. At current program funding levels (i.e., $20 million per year) and using the average estimated cost for each cleanup
($400,000), it could take the state 90 years to address current potential orphan releases.29 Without additional funding,
Michigan's backlog will not be addressed in the foreseeable future.
Figure 9. PRP Documentation for "Inactive" and
"Stopped" Cleanups
PRP Not Listed
756
11%
PRP Listed
6,265
89%
28 There are 385 releases (4 percent of the backlog) for which the activity category is unknown. These releases are not depicted in this
graphic.
29 This estimate is based on $1.8 billion needed to address 4,500 orphan cleanups and an average annual budget of $20 million. The
estimate does not factor in annual escalated costs.
SEPTEMBER 2011
11-17
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
Michigan Finding
Release age and the distribution of releases
among stages of cleanup vary among DEQ's
eight districts.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Develop region-specific Variable
strategies for moving number of
releases toward remediation releases
and closure.
Figure 10. DEQ Districts Map
CAD-Cadillac
GR-Grand Rapids
JAK-Jackson
KAL - Kalamazoo
LAN - Lansing
SAG - Saginaw Bay
SE - Southeast Michigan
UP- Upper Peninsula
STATE DISTRICT BACKLOGS
EPA analyzed cleanup backlogs within DEQ's eight
districts to identify patterns and opportunities
for targeted backlog reduction strategies within
each DEQ district. Release age and distribution of
releases among stages of cleanup vary among the
districts (Figure 10 to the right and Table 1, page 19).
Differences in density of LUSTs among DEQ districts
are likely due to the large number of USTs located in
the state's densely populated urban centers. Almost
every release in each district impacts groundwater
resources.
The Southeast Michigan District has the highest rate
of unknown media contamination of any district
(5 percent, 139 releases) (Table 1). The Southeast
Michigan District also has the largest district backlog
(2,946 releases comprising 32 percent of the state
backlog) as well as the largest population in the
state, while the other districts are each responsible
for between 7 and 14 percent of releases (Table 1).
In some cases, urban areas with greater populations
provide a greater financial incentive for cleanup due
to property transfers. In the Upper Peninsula District, 62 percent of releases (599 releases) remain open and 44 percent of
these releases (266 releases) remain in the Confirmed Release stage, while over half of the releases in the Lansing District
have been closed (1,399 releases) and only 10 percent of the remaining open releases (125 releases) are in the Confirmed
Release stage (Table 1). These regional differences might be due to administrative or geologic variation. District-specific
strategies might help reduce the backlog. EPA encourages DEQ to look for opportunities to share best practices among its
regions and with other states. According to DEQ staff, the success of the district offices depends on program funding and
enforcement resources and DEQ has lacked both these resources since 1995.
11-18
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
Table 1. Michigan Backlog by DEQ District30
State Backlog Contribution
Cumulative Historical Releases
Closed Releases
Open Releases
CAD
9%
1,603
815/51%
788/49%
GR
11%
2,337
1,302/56%
1,035/44%
JAK
7%
1,660
1,046/63%
614/37%
KAL
9%
1,903
1,088/57%
815/43%
LAN
14%
2,689
1,399/52%
1,290/48%
SAG
10%
2,033
1,080/53%
953/47%
SE
32%
7,538
4,592/61%
2,946/39%
UP
7%
970
371/38%
599/62%
Stage of Cleanup
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment/
Remediation
171/22%
617/78%
279/27%
756/73%
143/23%
471/77%
238/29%
577/71%
125/10%
1,165/90%
497/52%
456/48%
1,232/42%
1,714/58%
266/44%
333/56%
Media Contaminated
Groundwater
Soil
Unknown
Median Age of Open Releases
782/99%
0/0%
6/1%
14.4 years
1,016/98%
0/0%
19/2%
14.7 years
587/96%
0/0%
27/4%
13.8 years
782/96%
0/0%
33/4%
13.5 years
1,268/98%
0/0%
22/2%
16.0 years
933/98%
0/0%
20/2%
13. 2 years
2,807/95%
0/0%
139/5%
12.9 years
585/98%
0/0%
14/2%
13.9 years
PRESENCE OF MTBE CONTAMINATION
MTBE can be a complicating factor at LUST releases. MTBE contamination from LUST releases is common in Michigan and
might be contributing to longer remediation times for active cleanups. Because MTBE is not readily degraded in groundwater,
releases involving MTBE require more aggressive management and remediation than releases where MTBE is not present.31
Data on the presence of MTBE exist for 3,037 releases (33 percent of the backlog), 2,486 of which (82 percent) are contaminated
with MTBE (Figure 11 below). Requiring active remediation of releases with MTBE, especially for RP-financed cleanups, and
employing innovative technologies where feasible could allow for faster cleanups. As with any release in remediation, DEQ
should consider having a system in place for regular revaluation of the cleanup strategy. Although some releases could be
lower risk or priority, EPA believes it is important to act quickly for releases with MTBE contamination, to prevent further
migration of the contaminants in groundwater.
Figure 11. Age of Releases by Presence of MTBE and Stage of Cleanup
20
63
488
o
3,272
2,860
-£ io -
I Confirmed Release
I Site Assessment/
Remediation
Closed
102
20,780
MTBE Present
No MTBE Present
Unknown
30 Data for DEQ district is unknown for 930 closed and 129 open releases. These releases are not included in Table 2.
31 For more information, see
www.clu-in.org/contaminantfocus/default.focus/sec/Methvl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE)/cat/Treatment Technologies.
Michigan Finding
27 percent of releases have MTBE
contamination.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Consider reevaluating the 2,486
current remedial plan and
utilizing optimal remedial
technologies for the removal
of MTBE.
SEPTEMBER 2011
11-19
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
Figure 12. Use of MNA for Releases in the Site
Assessment/Remediation Stage
USE OF MNA
DEQhas MNA listed as a remedial treatmenttechnology at 13 percent (783 releases) of the 6,144 releases in theSite Assessment/
Remediation stage (Figure 12 to the left).32 EPA guidance states that MNA is an appropriate remediation method where its use
will be protective of human health and the environment and it will be capable of achieving site-specific remediation objectives
within a timeframe that is reasonable compared to other alternatives. While EPA supports the appropriate use of MNA, EPA
also encourages ongoing evaluation of cleanup progress where MNA is used to address contamination. MNA should not be
considered a default or presumptive remedy at any contaminated site.33 If MNA is not expected to address contamination in a
reasonable time frame, the Agency encourages the use of other strategies where feasible. On the other hand, if an expensive,
active technology is being used for remediation and is having little or no effect on contamination, a revaluation of cleanup
progress might reveal that MNA could be a more cost-effective technology to use, as long as cleanup times do not become
unreasonable.
Michigan Finding
18 percent of releases are associated with 69
PRPs each with 10 or more releases.
Potential Opportunity
Identify PRPs and explore
possibilities for multi-site
agreements (MSAs) or
enforcement actions with
parties associated with
multiple releases.
Releases
1,676
NUMBER OF RELEASES PER PRP
EPA analyzed the number of releases per PRP to identify PRPs that
are the largest potential contributors to the state's cleanup backlog.34
A total of 69 PRPs are each associated with 10 or more releases
and account for 18 percent of the Michigan backlog (1,676 releases;
Table 2 to the right).35 Of these, 45 gasoline retail, distribution, and
refining businesses are the PRPs for 1,335 releases (15 percent of the
backlog), and seven convenience store chains are the PRPs for 104
releases (1 percent of the backlog; Table 2). DEQ and EPA can use
these data to identify possible participants for multi-site strategies
to clean up these groups of releases. Focused effort engaging these
69 PRPs through collaborative cleanup agreements or enforcement
actions might expedite the closure of many of these releases.
Table 2. PRPs with 10 or More Open Releases
Type of PRP
Gasoline - Retail/Distribution/
Refining
Convenience Store Chain
Government -Local
Manufacturer
Government - State
Utility
Supermarket Chain
Total
Number of
Releases
1,335
104
73
60
39
36
29
1,676
Number of
PRPs
45
7
6
5
2
2
2
69
32 This might overestimate the use of MNA in Michigan; for releases where the site assessment has not been completed, the remedial
method has not yet been approved even if it is listed in the database.
33 For more information regarding appropriate use of MNA, see www.epa.gov/swerustl/pubs/tums.htm and EPA Directive Number
9200.4-17P, Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank Sites,
available online atwww.epa.gov/oust/directiv/d9200417.htm.
34 DEQ provided data on parties that are potentially legally responsible for cleanups, but have not necessarily been legally established
as the RPs.
35 No federal government entities were identified as being the PRPs for 10 or more open releases.
11-20
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
GEOGRAPHIC CLUSTERS
EPA performed a geospatial analysis to look for alternative Figure 13. Map of All Open Releases by DEQ District
ways to address the backlog. While releases in geographic
clusters might not have the same RP, they tend to be located
in densely populated areas and might present opportunities
to consolidate resources and coordinate efforts. Geographic
proximity can call attention to releases in areas of interest
such as redevelopment, environmental justice, and
ecological sensitivity.
State and local governments can utilize geographic clusters
for area-wide planning efforts. EPA's analysis identified 5,843
releases (64 percent of releases) located within a one-mile
radius of five or more other releases (Figure 13 to the right).
Of these releases, 3,633 releases (40 percent of releases) are
located within a one-mile radius of 10 or more other releases.
Approaching the assessment and cleanup needs of an area
impacted by LUSTs can be more effective than focusing on
individual sites in isolation from the adjacent or surrounding
area. Considering geographically-clustered releases might
pave the way for new community-based revitalization
efforts, utilize economies of scale to yield benefits such as
reduced equipment costs, and present opportunities to
develop multi-site cleanup strategies, especially at locations
with commingled contamination. EPA encourages states to look for opportunities for resource consolidation and area-wide
planning but also recognizes that this approach is best geared to address targeted groups of releases as opposed to a state-
wide opportunity for every cluster of releases. EPA intends to conduct further geospatial analyses on clusters of releases in
relation to RPs, highway corridors, local geologic and hydrogeologic settings, groundwater resources, and/or communities
with environmental justice concerns. These analyses might reveal additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
Michigan Finding
64 percent of releases are clustered within a
one-mile radius of five or more releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Target releases within close Targeted
proximity for resource number of
consolidation opportunities. releases36
Grand Rapids
Detroit
Metro Area
Lansing
36 Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic opportunities that will address a limited number of
releases within select designated geographic areas.
SEPTEMBER 2011
11-21
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
CONCLUSION
Michigan LUST Program
Contact Information
Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality
Remediation & Redevelopment Division
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program
P.O. Box 30426
Lansing, Ml 48909-7926
Phone: 517-373-9837
Fax: 517-373-2637
www.michiean.eov/dea/0.1607.7-135-
3311 4109 4215-.00.html
In this state chapter, EPA presented the analysis of LUST data submitted by DEQ and highlighted information on Michigan's
LUST program. Based on the analytic results, EPA identified potential opportunities that could be used to address specific
backlog issues in Michigan. Over the course of the entire study, EPA also analyzed data from 13 other states. Findings and
opportunities that apply to all 14 states are discussed in the national chapter of the report. Each opportunity represents one
potential approach among many to address the backlog. Discussion of the opportunities as a whole is intended as a starting
point for further conversations among EPA, Michigan, and the other states on strategies to reduce the backlog. EPA will work
with states to develop detailed strategies for reducing the backlog. Development of the strategies might include targeted
data collection, reviewing particular case files, analyzing problem areas, and sharing best practices. The strategies could
involve actions from EPA, such as using additional program metrics, targeting resources for specific cleanup actions, clarifying
and developing guidance, and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with the states, is committed to reducing the backlog of
confirmed UST releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater and land and the communities affected by these releases.
11-22
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
CHAPTER NOTES
CHAPTER NOTES
MICHIGAN DATA BY ATTRIBUTE
The following table provides details on the data elements of interest in this analysis. Data were provided by DEQ staff in 2008 and 2009 for use in this analysis. Several data
elements of interest could not be addressed with the information available. All available data elements were analyzed and only those data elements that revealed informative
patterns of interest are included in the report.
Data Element
Administrative Cost
Michigan Data
Data were obtained from the "Fiscal Year," "Expenditure GAAP," and "Expenditure Type" data fields in the "Part 213 Project
expenditures as of 12-9-08.xls" file. When the expenditure amount had a type of "Operational," it was counted as an
administrative cost. All operational expenditures were totaled for a given FY.
Use in Analysis
Included in the "Program Summary"
section and in the national chapter.
Age
Age was calculated for closed releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the closure date and dividing by
365. Age was calculated for open releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the data date and dividing by
365. Any values less than -.1 were left blank. Values between -.1 and 0 were counted as 0. All dates were rounded to one
decimal point. Ages of releases with insufficient or invalid data were left blank.
Variable in all analyses.
APC
Baseline Environmental
Assessment
Cleanup Activity
Cleanup Financing
Cleanup Standards
Closure Date
Confirmed Release Date
Data Date
DEQ District
Facility Type
Data were obtained from the list of releases in the "APC_query_MI_2-23-09.xls" file.
Data were obtained from releases listed in the "All data" spreadsheet of "releases_related_to_BEA.xls." Releases that had
baseline environmental assessments were more likely on properties with some real estate interests.
Data were obtained from the "PRP_CORR_ACT_STAT_CD" field in the "Open-closed releases-site activity-site class-etc 5-1-
09.xls" file.
Data from the MUSTFA program (facilities in "7132 Claims Final.xls," "Approved MUSTFA Claims query 118.xls," "Open with
MUSTFA Claims 4-30-09.xls," and "releases with MUSTFA claims that have closed 4-30-09.xls") and Part 213 (Environmental
Response Network Information Exchange) releases cleanup project (facilities, as identified by "SID #" field, in all spreadsheets
in "213 state funded sites in ERNIE.xls"), were used to mark selected releases as "Public Financing."
No site-specific data available.
Data were obtained from the "CLOSED_DT" field in the "open and closed mtbe present and other impact 4-30-09.xls" file.
"1/1/1900" was treated as unknown.
Data were obtained from the "Release Date" field in the "LUST_LIST_Closed_6-29-09.xls" and "LUST_LIST_Open_6-29-09.
xls" files. For releases with no "Release Date," the "Discovery_DT" field from "open and closed mtbe present and other
impact 4-30-09.xls" was used. "1/1/1900" was treated as unknown.
April 30, 2009, is used for all records. This is the date the data were obtained.
Data were obtained from the "District" field in the "LUST_LIST_Closed_6-29-09.xls" and "LUST_LIST_Open_6-29-09.xls"
files.
Data were obtained from the "TYPE_DESC" field in the "Facilities IDs with descriptions and addresses 8-17-09.xls" file.
Examined in the "Stage of Cleanup"
section.
No informative patterns were identified.
Examined in the "Cleanup Financing"
section.
Examined in the "Program Summary"
section.
State-wide standards examined in the
national chapter.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Examined in "District Office Backlogs"
section.
No informative patterns were identified.
SEPTEMBER 2011
II-23
-------
CHAPTER NOTES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
Data Element
Federally-Regulated
LUST Releases
Michigan Data
A list of relevant releases was provided by DEQ staff in the "open and closed mtbe present and other impact 4-30-09.xls,"
"LUST_LIST_Closed_6-29-09.xls," and "LUST_LIST_Open_6-29-09.xls" files.
Use in Analysis
Identifies the appropriate universe of
releases for analysis.
Free Product
No data available.
Not applicable.
Institutional and
Engineering Controls
Data were obtained from the "Fac_Restriction" field in the "closed releases with other restriction mechanisms 4-30-09.
xls," "closed releases with ordinance restrictions.xls," "closed releases MOOT permit 4-30-09.xls," and "closed releases
with Notice of Corrective Action.xls" files. Releases with multiple records were marked as "Multiple." Releases marked as
"Unknown" can include both releases that have no data as well as releases previously marked as "Unknown."
Examined in the "Cleanup Standards"
section and in the national chapter.
Latitude and Longitude
Data were obtained from the "Latitude" and "Longitude" fields in the "LUST_LIST_Open_6-29-09.xls" and "LUST_LIST_
Closed_6-29-09.xls" files. Where possible, coordinates for releases without existing latitude and longitude values were
obtained by EPA staff by geocoding address and street locations.
Used in geospatial analysis calculating the
number of open releases within a one-
mile radius of other open releases.
Media
Data were obtained from the "GWJMPACT" and "SWJMPACT" fields in the "Closed sites-gw sw re etc 4-27-09.xls" file.
The fields "GW_Remediated," "Priv_Wells_Affected," "Muni_Wells_Affected," "Homes_Water_lmpacted," "Homes_Alt_
Water," and "MTBE_IN_GW" in the "open and closed mtbe present and other impact 4-30-09.xls" file were also used to
identify releases with groundwater contamination. Releases with groundwater contamination marked (in addition to any
other media) were counted as "groundwater." Releases with any other combination of media were counted as "other."
Releases that had soil remediation records in "Remediation Technology data for soil 4-30-09.xls" but were not marked
as "groundwater" or "other" were marked as "soil." However, this additional rule identified only one open soil cleanup.
Releases with no data were categorized as "Unknown." Unknown releases might include those releases for which there
were no data available in the database, but for which information was available in other files and releases for which the
type of media contaminated is truly unknown.
Examined in the "Media Contaminated"
section.
Monitored Natural
Attenuation (MNA)
Data were obtained from the "GW_Method" field in the "Open and Closed releases gw method and code.xls" file and
the "Soil_Method" field in the "Remediation Technology data for soil 4-30-09.xls" file. Releases listed as having "Natural
Attenuation" in either "GW_Method" or "Soil_Method" field were marked as using MNA.
Examined in the "Use of MNA" section.
Methyl Tertiary Butyl
Ether (MTBE)
Data were obtained from the "MTBE_IN_GW" data field in the "open and closed mtbe present and other impact 4-30-09.
xls" field.
Examined in "Presence of MTBE" section.
Number of Releases
perPRP
Calculated as the total number of open releases affiliated with a unique PRP name.
Examined in the "Number of Releases per
PRP" section.
Orphan
No data available.
Not applicable.
Proximity Geospatial analysis performed by EPA revealed the number of other open releases located within a one-mile radius of each Examined in the "Geographic Clusters"
open release. section.
PRP Data were obtained from the "PRP_Name" field in the "PRP and facility code 4-30-09.xls" file. Releases with more than Used to calculate the number of releases
one record were categorized as "Multiple." Because dates of ownership were not available, releases marked as "Multiple" associated with each unique PRP.
might include releases with only one current owner. Releases marked as "Unknown" include both releases that have no
data as well as releases previously marked as "Unknown."
Public Spending No release-level data were available. The cumulative public spending was assigned to a specific release when it was the Average cleanup cost examined in the
only release at a facility. The cumulative spending was not assigned to a release if it was at a facility with more than one "Program Summary" section. Release-
release. These aggregate data could not be adjusted for inflation. DEQ provided an estimated average cleanup cost. level data not suitable for analysis.
Release Priority Data were obtained from the "CURR_SITE_CLS" field in the "Closed releases with latlong 4-26-09.xls" and "Open releases
with latlong 4-26-09.xls" files (see Release Priority Reference Table).
Examined in the "Release Priority"
section.
RP Recalcitrance
No data available.
Not applicable.
11-24
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
CHAPTER NOTES
Data Element
Staff Workload
Michigan Data
Calculated from the total number of unique Part 213 project managers listed in "Count_of_open_releases_assigned_to_
MI_project_managers_2-23-09.xls" file and the total number of open releases in Michigan.
Use in Analysis
Examined in the "Program Summary"
section and in the national chapter.
Stage of Cleanup Data were not available to differentiate between the Site Assessment and Remediation stages. For any open release, if
the "CURR_SITE_CLS" field in the "Closed releases with latlong 4-26-09.xls" and "Open releases with latlong 4-26-09.xls"
files was "UNK," the release was marked "Confirmed Release." Otherwise, it was marked "Site Assessment/ Remediation."
Closed releases were marked "Closed."
Status
Releases were considered "Closed" if the "CLOSED_DT" field in the "open and closed mtbe present and other impact 4-30-
09.xls," "LUST_LIST_Closed_6-29-09.xls," or "LUST_LIST_Open_6-29-09.xls" files had a valid closure date entry. All other
releases were considered "Open."
Variable in all analyses.
Identifies the appropriate universe of
releases for tree analysis.
Voluntary Cleanup
Program
No data available.
Not applicable.
Release Priority Reference Table
Site class ranges from Class 1, where there is an immediate threat to the public or environment, to Class 4, where there is no demonstrable long-term threat.
Risk Class Description
Class 1
General Scenario: Immediate threat to human health, safety, environment, or sensitive environmental receptors.
Class 2
General Scenario: Short-term (0-2 years) threat to human health, safety, or sensitive environmental receptors.
Class 3
General Scenario: Long-term (>2 years) threat to human health, safety, or sensitive environmental receptors.
Class 4
General Scenario: No demonstrable long-term threats to human health, safety, or sensitive environmental receptors.
SEPTEMBER 2011
II-25
-------
CHAPTER NOTES STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MICHIGAN
[This page has intentionally been left blank.
11-26 SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG
A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
September 2011
MT-1
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CPI
DEQ
EPA
ESA
FY
LUST
MCLs
MNA
MSA
NA
PTS
RP
UST
Consumer Price Index
Montana Department of Environmental Quality
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Expedited Site Assessment
Fiscal Year
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Maximum Contaminant Levels
Monitored Natural Attenuation
Multi-Site Agreement
Not Applicable
Petroleum Technical Section
Responsible Party
Underground Storage Tank
MT-2
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Leaks from underground storage tanks (USTs) threaten America's groundwater and land resources. Even a small amount of
petroleum released from a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) can contaminate groundwater, the drinking water source
for nearly half of all Americans. In surveys of state water programs, 39 states and territories identified USTs as a major source
of groundwater contamination.2 As the reliance on our resources increases due to the rise in population and use, there is a
correspondingly greater need to protect our finite natural resources.
From the beginning of the UST program to September 2009, more than 488,000 releases were confirmed from federally-
regulated USTs nationwide. Of these confirmed releases over 100,000 needing cleanup remained in the national LUST
backlog. These releases are in every state, and many are old and affect groundwater. To help address this backlog of releases,
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invited 14 states to participate in a national backlog characterization
study.
ANALYSIS OF MONTANA DATA
Montana's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has made significant progress toward reducing its LUST cleanup
backlog. As of March 2009, DEQ had completed 2,022 LUST cleanups, which is 63 percent of all known releases in the state.
At the time of data collection, there were 1,189 releases remaining in its backlog.4 To most effectively reduce the national
cleanup backlog, EPA believes that states and EPA must develop backlog reduction strategies that can be effective in most
states as well as those with the largest backlogs. EPA invited Montana to participate and represent EPA Region 8 in its national
backlog study.
In this chapter, EPA characterized Montana's releases that have not been cleaned up, analyzed these releases based on
categories of interest, and developed potential opportunities for DEQ and EPA to explore that might improve the state's
cleanup progress and reduce its backlog. Building on the potential cleanup opportunities identified in the study, EPA will
continue to work with DEQ to develop backlog reduction strategies.
In Montana, as in every state, many factors affect the pace of cleaning up releases such as the availability and mechanisms of
funding, statutory requirements, and program structure. The recent economic downturn has also had an impact on the ability
of many states to make progress on cleanups. EPA included potential cleanup opportunities in this report even though current
Montana LUST
By the Numbers1
National Backlog Contribution
Cumulative Historical Releases
Closed Releases
Open Releases
Stage of Cleanup3
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Remediation
Media Contaminated3
Groundwater
Median Age of Open Releases
1 Data were provided in March 2009 by DEQ staff and are not identical to the UST performance measures reported on EPA's website,
available at: www.epa.gov/oust/cat/camarchv.htm.
2 EPA, National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report, pp. 50-52. www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/chp6.pdf.
3 The data available for the stage of cleanup and the media contaminated were not up to date at the time of this analysis. The stage
of cleanup as defined in this report might not reflect the current cleanup status. Likewise, percentage of releases with groundwater
impacts might be understated. See Data Limitations section for more information.
4 EPA tracks individual releases rather than sites in its performance measures. Therefore, the analyses in this report account for
numbers of releases, not sites.
5 Unknown media releases include those releases where the media contaminated is unknown as well as those releases where the
media data were not recorded in Montana's database.
SEPTEMBER 2011
MT-3
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
circumstances in Montana might make pursuing certain opportunities challenging or
unlikely. Also, in some cases, Montana is already using similar strategies as part of its
ongoing program.
The findings from the analysis of DEQ's data and the potential cleanup opportunities
are summarized below in eight study areas: stage of cleanup, media contaminated,
state regional backlogs, cleanup financing, release priority, number of releases per
responsible party (RP), geographic clusters, and data management.
Stage Of Cleanup (page MT-12for more details)
Montana Finding
18 percent of releases are
either:
5 years old or older
and site assessment
has not started; or
10 years old or
older and still in site
assessment.
Potential Opportunity
Continue to expedite site assessments at
old releases to identify releases that can
be closed with minimal effort or moved
toward remediation and closure.
Implement enforcement actions at
stalled releases.
Releases
218
64 percent of releases are:
10 years old or older;
and
in remediation.
Use a systematic process to explore
opportunities to accelerate cleanups and
reach closure, such as:
periodically review release-specific
treatment technologies;
consider use of institutional or
engineering controls; and
implement enforcement actions if
cleanup has stalled.
756
According to the data, releases in Montana are taking a long time to move through
the cleanup process. DEQ prioritizes releases based on risk and some of these older
releases are classified as high priority. There are several reasons why many releases
in the backlog are old including: releases are technically complex and therefore take a
long time to clean up (e.g., many of the high priority releases); releases where active
remediation has concluded and the remaining contamination is being addressed
through monitored natural attenuation (MNA); and releases remain unaddressed in
the backlog for reasons such as a low priority ranking. EPA recognizes DEQ's interest
in addressing high priority releases first and in reducing risk without necessarily
completing all activities to achieve closure. DEQ has prioritized work efforts to identify
and close low priority releases near to closure. DEQ has also recently updated its
enforcement policy to address consistent enforcement at LUST releases. EPA believes
it is important for DEQ to continue to explore opportunities to accelerate cleanups at
older releases and to continue to work toward bringing all releases to closure.
Media Contaminated (page MT-14for more details)
Montana Finding
52 percent of releases:
contaminate
groundwater;
are in remediation; and
are 10 years old or
older.
Potential Opportunity
Systematically evaluate cleanup progress at
old releases with groundwater impacts and
consider alternative cleanup technologies or
other strategies to reduce time to closure.
Releases
622
9 percent of releases:
contaminate soil only;
and
have not begun
remediation.
Expedite site assessment to identify
additional releases with soil contamination
that can be:
targeted for closure with minimal effort;
and
moved more quickly into remediation.
104
Releases contaminating groundwater have always been the largest part of the national
backlog. In Montana, 75 percent of releases are documented as contaminating
groundwater, although DEQ states that the percentage is probably higher than what is
indicated in the database. In general, groundwater contamination is more technically
complex to remediate and also takes longer to clean up than soil contamination. For
old, complex cleanups where long-term remediation is underway, EPA believes it is
important to have a system in place for periodic revaluation of cleanup progress and
to reconsider whether the cleanup technology being used is still optimal.
Even though soil contamination is typically easier to remediate than groundwater
contamination, many releases with soil-only impacts are still unaddressed or in the
early stages of remediation. DEQ states that many of these releases might also impact
groundwater but these are not accurately reflected in the database. Releases with
soil-only impacts could remain unaddressed because they are lower priority releases.
Nevertheless, EPA believes progress toward closure should continue for all cleanups.
MT-4
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
State Regional Backlogs (page MT-16 for more details)
Cleanup Financing (page MT-18for more details)
Montana Finding
Site assessments are
completed and remediation
begins sooner for releases
in Montana's western
counties than for releases in
the state's eastern counties.
Potential Opportunity
Develop region-specific strategies for moving
releases toward remediation and closure.
Releases
Variable
number of
releases6
EPA identified differences in the characteristics of the backlog between the eastern
and western areas of the state. Differences in geology and terrain can make releases
in one part of the state more difficult to clean up than releases in other parts of the
state. Differences in economic factors and property values also cause differences
in cleanup outcomes with property transfers often providing incentives for cleanup,
particularly in the more populous parts of the state. The differences between the
eastern and western counties might reveal opportunities for DEQto develop region-
specific strategies for backlog reduction.
Opportunities marked as "variable number of releases" relate to programmatic
opportunities and affect an unknown number of releases, potentially including all open
releases.
Montana Finding Potential Opportunity
16 percent of releases:
are privately
financed; and
have not begun
remediation.
Explore opportunities to ensure that privately-
financed cleanups are completed expeditiously,
such as:
conducting outreach to RPs; and
implementing enforcement actions at stalled
releases.
Releases
186
37 percent of releases:
are in
remediation;
contaminate
groundwater; and
are eligible for
the state fund.
Explore opportunities to move state-funded
cleanups toward closure, such as:
reevaluate the current remedial plan at
state fund eligible releases in long-term
remediation to identify releases where
a more cost-effective plan could be
implemented, such as:
o using site-specific risk-based decision
making;
o closure with institutional or engineering
controls; and
examine other funding sources including
public/private funding options like EPA
petroleum brownfields grants for low priority
releases or financing claim payments.
445
EPA and state programs are interested in exploring successful financing strategies for
completing cleanups quickly. EPA acknowledges that the recent economic downturn
has impacted cleanup financing. EPA also believes the availability of funding for
cleanup is essential to reducing the backlog, so in addition to this study, EPA is
increasing its focus on oversight of state funds as well as conducting a study of private
insurance.
All state programs are experiencing resource limitations, and progress toward
backlog reduction is dependent upon their ability to apply existing resources to their
backlogs. Fees supporting Montana's fund have not increased since 1989 and are not
likely to increase in the near term due to current economic conditions. Therefore,
annual accruals to the fund have not kept pace with inflation or the rising cost of
cleanups, and expenditures from the fund have slowed. Implementing more cost-
effective remedial plans at state-funded cleanups in remediation, or identifying other
funding sources such as petroleum brownfields grants for low priority releases with
no viable RP, might free up funding to address more state-funded cleanups in the early
stages of cleanup. DEQ is proactively reviewing lower priority releases to develop
SEPTEMBER 2011
MT-5
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
an inventory of potential petroleum brownfields sites, which can then be used by
brownfields grant recipients to identify properties at which to apply their resources.
Privately-financed cleanups account for less than half of open releases but might
offer opportunities to accelerate backlog reduction through the use of enforcement
actions and outreach to RPs, especially at stalled releases. DEQ states that many
of the privately-financed cleanups are the responsibility of the federal government,
railroads, and refineries, which typically have the financial means to address releases
and are generally cooperative. On April 18, 2011, Montana instituted a legislative
change allowing risk-based corrective action and institutional control closures for
releases to groundwater. Implementation of this new law will help resolve certain
MNA cleanups that do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health.
Release Priority (page MT-20 for more details)
Montana Finding Potential Opportunity
4 percent of releases:
are high priority;
have not begun
site assessment;
and
are 5 years old or
older.
Explore options for moving high priority releases
forward, such as:
expediting site assessments of releases to
ensure that all releases are ranked;
ensuring releases with immediate risks are
actively being worked on; and
making progress toward closure for all sites.
Releases
45
11 percent of releases
meet the criteria for
closure.
Continue to expedite the preparation of closure
packets for submittal for peer review for releases
that meet the criteria for closure.
127
DEQ's data show that some high priority releases are in the early stages of cleanup and
that an appreciable number of low priority releases meeting the criteria for closure
remain open. High priority releases are often the most complex to clean up. DEQ
assigns priority based on site characterization, receptors impacted, and the extent of
contamination. Project managers give the most attention to high priority releases.
In 2008, DEQ changed its prioritization system. One change moved releases with
unknown risk impacts to the high priority category. A consequence of this change is
that it moved these previously lower priority releases into the high priority category,
increasing the number of unaddressed high priority releases in the 2009 data. Many
of these releases had not been assessed because of their former low priority. In the
long run, this strategy will allow DEQ to move the unknown risk impact releases toward
closure because, with a higher priority ranking, they not only receive increased project
management priority, they can also receive funding. DEQ is able to adjust workload
to consider redevelopment plans and requests from local governments. With these
policies in mind, EPA will work with DEQ to develop strategies to move all releases
toward closure and to ensure that there are no immediate risks to human health and
the environment from the high priority releases that have not been addressed.
The priority system change also created a new category called Pending Closures.
This new category allows DEQ to distinguish between lower priority releases near
to closure from those that are not. Using grant funding from EPA Region 8, DEQ
has focused on completing the documents necessary to officially close releases in
this category, resulting in an additional 100 closures from 2006 to 2009. Continuing
to expedite closure packets for peer review for releases that meet the criteria for
closure will further reduce the backlog.
Number Of Releases per RP (page MT-21 for more details)
Montana Finding Potential Opportunity
20 percent of releases
are associated with 12
RPs each with 10 or
more releases.
Consider exploring possibilities for multi-site
agreements (MSAs) or enforcement actions with
RPs associated with multiple releases.
Releases
243
EPA analyzed the number of releases per RP to identify the RPs that are the largest
potential contributors to the state's cleanup backlog. EPA was able to identify groups
of 10 or more releases that are associated with the same RP. In Montana, 12 RPs are
each responsible for 10 or more releases and account for 20 percent of the backlog.
DEQ and EPA can consider whether to use this information to identify potential
participants for multi-site strategies to clean up groups of releases.
Geographic Clusters (page MT-22 for more details)
Montana Finding
45 percent of releases are
clustered within a one-mile
radius of five or more releases.
Potential Opportunity
Target releases within close proximity for
resource consolidation opportunities.
Releases
Targeted
number of
releases7
Another multi-site approach that DEQ has used is to target cleanup actions at
geographically-clustered releases. DEQ conducted a pilot project to conduct MNA
monitoring at eight geographically-clustered releases. This type of approach may
offer opportunities for new community-based reuse efforts, using economies of
scale, and addressing commingled contamination. According to DEQ, preliminary
results from DEQ's successful pilot indicate the potential for significant resource
7 Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic
opportunities that will address a limited number of releases within select designated
geographic areas.
MT-6
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
savings. EPA believes that highlighting geographic clusters of releases and working
with state and local governments in area-wide initiatives will improve DEQ's pace of
cleaning up releases. EPA recognizes that state laws and regulations might present
implementation challenges. During the MNA pilot project, DEQ had to work through
many administrative, legislative, and fiscal challenges to complete the project but
DEQ believes it is worth the effort in terms of future benefit and cost savings to
the program.8 EPA intends to work with the states to conduct further geospatial
analyses on clusters of releases in relation to RPs, highway corridors, local geologic
and hydrogeologic settings, groundwater resources, and/or communities with
environmental justice concerns. These analyses might reveal additional opportunities
for backlog reduction.
Data Management (page MT-23 for more details)
Montana Finding
Several key data fields are
not included, consistently
maintained, or routinely tracked
in the DEQ LUST tracking
database.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Improve LUST tracking database to Variable
enhance program management and number of
backlog reduction efforts. releases
Because Montana's database was not utilized to track project management, multiple
data limitations prevent a full assessment of the backlog and associated strategies
for backlog reduction. Because of data limitations, EPA could not analyze the
media contaminated by releases, contaminants of concern, or state fund eligibility.
Additional data management improvements could allow for easier overall program
management within DEQ as well as provide an improved tool for developing strategies
to reduce the cleanup backlog. DEQ has an initiative to improve data quality and is
modifying its database, creating systems analyst positions on staff, and implementing
new business processes to track release status and other project management
information.
CONCLUSION
This chapter contains EPA's data analysis of Montana's LUST cleanup backlog and
identifies potential opportunities to reduce the backlog in Montana. EPA discusses
the findings and opportunities for Montana, along with those of 13 additional
states, in the national chapter of this report. EPA will work with states to develop
potential approaches and detailed strategies for reducing the backlog. Development
of strategies could involve targeted data collection, reviewing particular case files,
analyzing problem areas, and sharing best practices. Final strategies could involve
EPA actions such as using additional program metrics to show cleanup progress,
targeting resources for specific cleanup actions, clarifying and developing guidance,
and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with states, is committed to reducing the
backlog of confirmed LIST releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater, land,
and communities affected by these releases.
8 According to Mike Trombetta, Montana DEQ Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Bureau
Chief.
SEPTEMBER 2011
MT-7
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
PROGRAM SUMMARY
Montana LUST
Program
At A Glance
Cleanup Rate
In fiscal year (FY) 2009, DEQ confirmed 19
releases and completed 53 cleanups.9
Cleanup Financing
Of open releases, 57 percent (676 releases)
are eligible for state funding.
Cleanup Standards
Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) must be
used if they have been defined. If no MCL has
been established, cleanups must meet risk-
based screening levels.
Priority System
Releases are prioritized for state resources
based on receptors impacted and the extent
of contamination.
Average Public Spending on Cleanup
$57,198 for open releases in the Remediation
stage and $5,982 for closed releases.12
Releases Per Project Manager
On average, each project manager is
responsible for 136 open releases.13
Administrative Funding (2008)
$1.0 million."
State LUST Program Organization and Administration
Oversight of releases from leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) is the responsibility of two sections within the Hazardous
Waste Site Cleanup Bureau within the Remediation Division of Montana's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The
Petroleum Technical Section (PTS) regulates remediation activities conducted by storage tank owners and operators funded
by the state's Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup Fund or self-funded by the responsible parties. The LUST-Brownfields Section
manages remedial activities funded by the LUST Trust Fund, brownfield projects, and federally-owned LUSTS. Approximately
86 open releases in Montana's backlog are located in Indian country.10
Cleanup Financing
A total of 57 percent of Montana's backlogged LUST cleanups (676 releases) have been determined to be eligible for state
funding. Overseen by the Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Board, the Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup Fund finances
the cleanup of accidental releases confirmed on or after April 13, 1989. Tanks must be in compliance with applicable laws
and rules at the time of release discovery in order for the release to be eligible for state funding. Tanks owned by railroads,
refineries, or the federal government are ineligible for state funding. Limited funding availability has recently slowed
expenditures from this fund. Fees supporting this fund have not increased since 1989 and are not likely to increase in the
near term due to current economic conditions. Therefore, annual accruals to the fund have not kept pace with inflation or
the rising cost of cleanups. Of the additional open releases, 3 percent (41 releases) are financed by the federal LUST Trust
Fund, which finances releases if the source of the release cannot be identified or the owner is insolvent or recalcitrant, and 36
percent (430 releases) are privately financed.11
Cleanup Standards
At the time of data collection, Montana law required releases to be cleaned up to strict numerical standards which are similar
to MCLs. Montana instituted a legislative change on April 18, 2011, to allow risk-based corrective action and institutional
control closures for releases to groundwater. Implementation of this new law will help resolve certain monitored natural
attenuation (MNA) cleanups that do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health.
9 Based on FY 2009 UST Performance Measures End of Year Activity Report.
10 According to Mike Trombetta, Montana DEQ Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Bureau Chief.
11 Data for the remaining 4 percent (42 releases) of releases was not listed in the database.
12 This is the adjusted median of spending by the Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup Fund.
13 Based on estimate from DEQ staff.
14 Fund expenditures on administrative expenses including equipment, salaries and benefits, supplies, and other costs.
MT-8
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
Release Prioritization
DEQ assigns a preliminary priority based on the findings of site characterization, the
receptors impacted, and the extent of contamination.15 Releases with unknown risk
or media are given higher priority. Responsible parties (RPs) for releases with high
priority scores are required to prepare a Remedial Investigation Corrective Action
Plan and the releases are assigned to DEQ project managers to be actively addressed.
Lower priority releases might not be addressed immediately and may not be assigned
to project managers. RPs of low priority releases are allowed to voluntarily conduct
cleanup activities but are informed that they will not receive reimbursements until
resources become available. Low priority releases may be addressed if opportunities
arise to address multiple releases with overlapping contaminant plumes, or if the sale
of idle properties would spur development and benefit adjacent communities. DEQ
considers redevelopment plans and requests from local governments during release
prioritization. DEQ's prioritization system has changed twice, most recently in April
2008.
State Backlog Reduction Efforts
With funding from EPA's Region 8, DEQ has focused on completing the documents
necessary to officially close remediated releases.16 Temporary employees and interns
developed summaries of releases for review in the state's peer review process. This
ongoing effort has increased the number of closures over the last several years.
Since the time of data collection, Montana identified approximately 150 low priority
releases that might be closed with minimal effort. DEQ has assigned a portion of each
project manager's workload to process at least one of these releases for closure each
month in addition to their necessary work at high priority releases. This strategy has
resulted in Montana's closure of over 100 releases in the last two years. Much of the
work to facilitate closures was accomplished by temporary employees hired with the
grant funding provided by EPA Region 8.
15 Montana prioritization guidance is outlined in Technical Guidance Document #15:
Prioritization of Petroleum Release Sites, available online at: www.deq.mt.gov/lust/
techguiddocs/techguidelS.mcpx.
16 These releases meet the criteria for closure as set forth in Technical Guidance Document
#9: Petroleum Release Closure (Categorizing Petroleum Releases as Resolved), available
online at: www.deq.mt.gov/LUST/TechGuidDocs/techguid9.pdf.
SEPTEMBER 2011
MT-9
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
[This page has intentionally been left blank.
MT-10 SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNITIES
In this study, EPA analyzed Montana's federally-regulated releases that have not been cleaned up (open releases). EPA
conducted a multivariate analysis on DEQ's data.17 This technique provided an objective analysis of multiple release
characteristics and allowed EPA to highlight the traits most commonly associated with older releases. Next, EPA divided the
open releases into groups that might warrant further attention. EPA used descriptive statistics to examine the distribution of
releases by age of release and stage of cleanup and highlighted findings based on DEQ's data.19 EPA then identified potential
opportunities for addressing particular groups of releases in the backlog. Many releases are included in more than one
opportunity. These opportunities describe actions that EPA and DEQ might use as a starting point for collaborative efforts to
address the backlog. Although EPA's analysis covered all releases in Montana, there are 69 releases that are not included in
any of the subsets identified in the findings or opportunities due to the way EPA structured the analysis. These releases might
also benefit from some of the suggested opportunities and strategies.
EPA's analyses revealed eight areas of Montana's backlog with potential opportunities for its further reduction:
Stage of cleanup Cleanup financing Geographic clusters
Media contaminated Release priority Data management
State regional backlogs Number of releases per RP
LUST Data Source
Electronic data for LUST releases occurring
between April 1982 and August 2008 were
compiled with DEQ staff in 2008 and 2009.18
Data were obtained from DEQ's Remediation and
Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup Fund databases
and selected based on quality and the ability to
address areas of interest in this analysis.20
Data Limitations
According to DEQ staff, the data available for inclusion in this analysis were not up to date for several data fields of interest.
Montana's database is used to manage regulatory documents and not to manage project status. DEQ staff informed EPA
that the numbers reported for releases in the Site Assessment and Remediation stages are higher than reported in the
data. Likewise, the number of releases that contaminate groundwater is higher than indicated in the available data. EPA
understands that the absence of data that would indicate whether a release is in a certain stage of cleanup or contaminates
various media does not mean that the release is not in that stage or that media is not contaminated. According to DEQ staff,
the quality of data on current cleanup status and media contamination is being updated throughout the state's databases
since the time of data collection for this analysis.
17 For a detailed description of the analytic tree method, see Appendix A.
18 The Chapter Notes section provides a detailed description of the Montana data used in this analysis.
19 For a detailed description of release stages, see the Chapter Notes section (Stage of Cleanup Reference Table).
20 These databases can be queried online at nris.mt.gov/deq/remsitequerv/default.aspx?qt=rrs.
SEPTEMBER 2011
MT-11
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
STAGE OF CLEANUP
As of February 2009, the Montana backlog consisted of 1,189 open releases. EPA analyzed the age of these LUST releases
and their distribution among the stages of cleanup. To facilitate analysis, EPA classified Montana's open releases into three
stages of cleanup: the Confirmed Release stage (releases where assessments have not begun), the Site Assessment stage
(releases where assessments have begun), and the Remediation stage (releases where remedial activities have started).21
While EPA grouped the releases into linear stages for this analysis, EPA recognizes that cleanups might not proceed in a linear
fashion. Cleanup can be an iterative process where releases go through successive rounds of site assessment and remediation.
However, in the long run, this approach might be both longer and more costly. Acquiring good site characterization up front
can accelerate the pace of cleanup and avoid the extra cost of repeated site assessment.
Since Montana's LUST program began, DEQ has closed 2,022 releases; half of these releases were closed in fewer than 1.2
years (Figure 1 below). The young median age of closed LUST releases might be attributable to the rapid closure of relatively
easy to remediate releases. Also, national program policy allows states to report confirmed releases that require no further
action at time of confirmation as "cleanup completed." Therefore, some releases are reported as confirmed and cleaned up
simultaneously.
Figure 1. Age of Releases among Stages of Cleanup
20
,_, 830 O Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Remediation
* 10 -Cl°sed
2,022
O
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
priority releases where little or no remedial work is required to reach closure standards, including continued efforts to close
releases in the Pending Closure category.
At the time of data collection, DEQ's data showed that Montana had old LUST releases not in remediation. Figure 2 below
shows the backlog of open releases by age and stage of cleanup according to the database and allows for the identification of
older releases by stage. Figure 2 breaks out the 120 older releases in the Confirmed Release stage (10 percent of the backlog)
that have not started assessment, five years or more after the releases were confirmed. It also shows the 98 older releases in
the Site Assessment stage (8 percent of the backlog) that have not entered the Remediation stage, 10 years or more after the
releases were confirmed. This subset of older releases in the early stages of cleanup accounts for 18 percent of Montana's
total backlog, as indicated by the database. As noted in the data limitations section, DEQ's data likely overstate the number
of releases not yet in site assessment or still in site assessment. However, although DEQ is working on data improvement, it
is not complete and so, for this study, EPA will rely on the original data submission with the caveat that DEQ has conducted
more work than what is reflected in this report.
DEQ has performed expedited site assessments (ESAs) with grant funding provided by EPA Region 8. If releases are privately
financed and stalled, enforcement may be appropriate to move sites toward cleanup. DEQ has recently updated its
enforcement policy to address consistent enforcement at LUST releases. Continuing to expedite site assessments to identify
releases to be closed with minimal effort and pursuing enforcement actions in cases where cleanups have stalled could help
move more releases to closure.
Figure 2. Release Age Distribution among Stages of Cleanup
< 10 Years
47%
Confirmed Release
(173 Releases)
Site Assessment
(186 Releases)
Remediation
(830 Releases)
Montana Finding
18 percent of releases are either:
5 years old or older and site assessment
has not started; or
10 years old or older and still in site
assessment.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Continue to expedite site 218
assessments at old releases
to identify releases that
can be closed with minimal
effort or moved toward
remediation and closure.
Implement enforcement
actions at stalled releases.
Releases 5 years old or
older in the Confirmed
Release stage
Releases 10 years old
or older in the Site
Assessment stage
120
98
EPA encourages states to streamline the corrective action process, improve data collection, reduce the overall cost of
remediation, and move releases more rapidly toward remediation and closure. To assist states and regulators in implementing
these objectives, EPA developed its Expedited Site Assessment guide.22 The guide explains the overall ESA process as well
as specific site assessment tools and methods. The ESA process rapidly characterizes site conditions to help support cost-
effective corrective action decisions. ESAs can identify releases that can be closed with minimal effort or will provide all the
information needed to move a release into remediation. Conducting site assessments efficiently and quickly might help
reduce the backlog by accelerating the pace of cleanup and ultimately decreasing overall project costs.
22 EPA's 1997 guidance document, Expedited Site Assessment Tools For Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide For Regulators (EPA
510 B-97-001), is available online at: www.epa.gov/OUST/pubs/sam.htm.
SEPTEMBER 2011
MT-13
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
Montana Finding
64 percent of releases are:
10 years old or older; and
in remediation.
Potential Opportunity
Releases
Use a systematic process 756
to explore opportunities to
accelerate cleanups and reach
closure, such as:
periodically review
release-specific treatment
technologies;
consider use of institutional
or engineering controls; and
implement enforcement
actions if cleanup has
stalled.
Montana Finding
52 percent of releases:
contaminate groundwater;
are in remediation; and
are 10 years old or older.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Systematically evaluate cleanup 622
progress at old releases with
groundwater impacts and
consider alternative cleanup
technologies or other strategies
to reduce time to closure.
Montana also has many old releases in the Remediation stage. DEQ is confident that its data accurately count the numbers
of closed versus open releases. Therefore, while the data may underestimate the number of releases that have started
remediation, the data still accurately report the releases as open. Based on the reported data, 64 percent of Montana's
releases (756 releases) are in remediation and are 10 years old or older (Figure 3, page 15). This older group of releases
represents 91 percent of the releases in remediation (Figure 2).
Because EPA only has the dates that a release was confirmed but not when it moved from one stage to the next (e.g., from
assessment to remediation), EPA can calculate the overall age of the release but not the actual time spent in the Remediation
stage. It is possible that some of these releases might have only recently begun remediation. DEQ should consider establishing
a systematic process to evaluate existing releases in remediation and optimize cleanup approaches, including choice of
technology and site-specific risk-based decision making where feasible. This process might save Montana resources and bring
releases to closure more quickly. This could allow Montana to move on to other releases that need attention and remove
releases from the backlog within existing budget limitations. This review might also identify opportunities to move stalled
cleanups to closure through the use of enforcement actions. The use of institutional or engineering controls can also reduce
the time to closure by eliminating exposure pathways and allowing for less stringent cleanup standards where protective and
appropriate.
MEDIA CONTAMINATED
Groundwater is an important natural resource at risk from petroleum contamination. Old releases impacting groundwater
make up the majority of Montana's backlog. In general, groundwater contamination takes longer and is more expensive
to clean up than soil contamination. In this study, EPA examined media as a factor contributing to the backlog. Using the
data submitted by DEQ, the following analysis classified media contamination into four categories: groundwater (890 open
releases); soil (235 open releases); other media, which includes vapor and surface water (11 open releases); and "unknown"
media, which includes releases with no media specified (53 open releases).23
In Montana, at least 75 percent of open releases (890 releases) involve groundwater contamination; these releases have a
median age of 13.7 years (Figure 3).24 In contrast, 57 percent of closed releases (905 releases) for which the media contamination
is known impacted groundwater. These closed releases have a significantly younger median age of 1.8 years compared to the
median age of open releases (Figure 3). Of the 666 Remediation stage releases that impact groundwater, 93 percent (622
releases) are 10 years old or older (Figure 4, page 15, top right). This subset of older releases that contaminate groundwater
and are in remediation makes up 52 percent of Montana's total backlog. DEQ states that the percentage of releases with
groundwater contamination is actually higher than what is indicated by the database. Groundwater contamination is typically
more complex and difficult to remediate than soil contamination. However, if DEQ could identify opportunities to improve
cleanup efficiency, it might be able accelerate the pace of cleanups. For example, using a systematic process to evaluate
cleanup progress, current contaminant levels, and treatment technologies might move releases through cleanup and to
closure faster.
23 For a detailed description of media contamination classifications, see the Chapter Notes section (Media Reference Table).
24 The data available at the time of this analysis were not up to date. DEQ estimates that the percentage of releases impacting
groundwater is higher than what is recorded in the database. DEQ is working on improvements to the quality of data, including
media contaminated.
MT-14
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
Figure 3. Age of Releases, by Media Contaminated and Stage of Cleanup
20
666
O Confirmed Release
O Site Assessment
O Remediation
Closed
Groundwater Soil Other
Squares indicating closed releases are not scaled to the number of releases in that stage.
Unknown
In addition, evaluation of the cleanup progress of releases with groundwater impacts might identify releases where MNAcan
be applied. In these cases, the timeframe for remediation needs to remain reasonable compared to other methods. Montana
currently requires groundwater to be cleaned up to MCLs. Where feasible, MNA can be applied as a remedy. DEQ might
reduce cleanup costs by using MNA as a cleanup remedy.
Releases that contaminate soil only are of concern because they represent a potential threat to groundwater resources and
contaminate properties in neighborhoods and communities. Although contaminated soil can typically be cleaned up faster
than contaminated groundwater, soil cleanups in Montana tend to be as old as groundwater cleanups within each stage of
cleanup (Figure 3). In Montana, 9 percent (104 releases) of the backlog is in the early stages of cleanup and contaminates
soil only; 61 of these releases remain in the Confirmed Release stage and 43 are in the Site Assessment stage (Figure 3). The
cleanup of soil contamination might be deferred for higher priority groundwater contamination. However, Montana's total
number of releases contaminating only soil (235 releases, 20 percent of the backlog) offer potential opportunities for reducing
the backlog.25 Expediting site assessments and moving forward with remediation and closure could help reduce the backlog.
Figure 4. Age of Remediation Stage Releases
with Groundwater Impacts
< 10 Years
44
7%
Montana Finding
9 percent of releases:
contaminate soil only; and
have not begun remediation.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Expedite site assessment to 104
identify additional releases with
soil contamination that can be:
targeted for closure with
minimal effort; and
moved more quickly into
remediation.
25 According to DEQ, the number of soil-only releases is probably an overestimate due to data quality issues. Many of these releases
might also impact groundwater.
SEPTEMBER 2011
MT-15
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
Figure 5. Map of Eastern and Western Counties21
Montana Finding
Site assessments are completed and
remediation begins sooner for releases in
Montana's western counties than for releases
in the state's eastern counties.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Develop region-specific strategies Variable
for moving releases toward number of
remediation and closure. releases27
STATE REGIONAL BACKLOGS
EPA analyzed cleanup backlogs within Montana's eastern and western counties to identify patterns and the opportunity for
targeted backlog reduction strategies in the eastern and western parts of the state. Within the Confirmed Release and Site
Assessment stages, the 222 releases located in western counties (20 percent of the Montana backlog) tend to be younger than
the 137 releases in eastern counties (36 percent of the Montana backlog) (Figures 5 to the left; 6 below; and 7, page 17: Nodes
3.1 and 3.3). This pattern suggests that releases in the western counties move into remediation at a faster rate than releases in
the eastern counties. The division of eastern and western counties essentially separates the more densely populated western
areas of the state from the less populated eastern counties. It should be noted that an east-west geographic division may
be overly simplified. Some areas of western Montana are economically depressed and some areas of eastern Montana are
economically robust. However, this geographic analysis captures areas where economic conditions are generally different and
how this difference influences release cleanup. DEQ staff confirmed this observation, noting that property values, incomes,
and population densities tend to be lower in eastern counties. Urban areas with greater populations can have a greater
financial incentive for cleanup due to property transfers. Property transactions are more likely in the western counties and
are likely to accelerate the pace of cleanups. Additional efforts to promote and support property transactions at LUST sites
statewide through public/private partnerships such as petroleum brownfields grants for low priority releases without a viable
RP might help accelerate cleanups and further reduce the backlog. A strategic regional approach to these unique backlog
characteristics should help reduce the backlog. EPA encourages DEQ to look for opportunities to share best practices among
its regions and with other states.
Figure 6. Age of Releases by Location and Stage of Cleanup
O Confirmed Release
O Site Assessment
O Remediation
Closed
1,436
Western Counties
Eastern Counties
26 Counties were demarcated as "western" and "eastern" by DEQ staff.
27 Opportunities marked as "variable number of releases" relate to programmatic opportunities and affect an unknown number of
releases, potentially including all open releases.
MT-16
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
Figure 7. Tree Analysis of Open Release Age - Regional Focus
;0pen Releases
y/ledian Age (Years) 13.2
Releases 1,189
Stage
3.1
2.1
; Confirmed Release
Median Age (Years)
Releases
Location
Eastern Counties
Median Age (Years)
Releases
3.2
; Western Counties
y/ledian Age (Years)
Releases
3.3
Site Assessment ^ ( Eastern Counties
Location
Median Age (Years) 10.2 H Median Age (Years) 11.0 |
Releases
186
2.3
Remediation
Median Age (Years) 14.3
Releases
76
3.4
Releases
830
Western Counties
Median Age (Years)
Releases
SEPTEMBER 2011
MT-17
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
Figure 8. Distribution of Financial Mechanisms
of Open Releases
42 41
4% 3%
Federal LUSTTrust
EH Private Financing
State Fund
| Unknown
Montana Finding
16 percent of releases:
are privately financed; and
have not begun remediation.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore opportunities to ensure 186
that privately-financed cleanups
are completed expeditiously,
such as:
conducting outreach to RPs;
and
implementing enforcement
actions at stalled releases.
CLEANUP FINANCING
EPA and state programs are interested in exploring successful financing strategies for completing cleanups quickly. Differences
in cleanup rates between those releases covered by state funds and those releases covered by other forms of financial
responsibility could provide useful insights into what works in existing programs. EPA acknowledges that the recent economic
downturn has impacted cleanup financing. EPA also believes the availability of funding for cleanup is essential to reducing
the backlog, so in addition to this study, EPA is increasing its focus on oversight of state funds as well as conducting a study of
private insurance. DEQ's data provide an interesting opportunity to explore these areas of interest, since Montana has both
state-funded and privately-funded cleanups in its backlog.
In Montana, 36 percent of open cleanups (430 releases) are privately financed (Figure 8 to the left). The age and cleanup
stage of these privately-financed cleanups are comparable to state fund eligible releases, with the exception that 43 percent
of privately-financed cleanups (186 releases; 16 percent of the total backlog) have not begun remediation, compared to 20
percent of state fund eligible releases (138 releases; 12 percent of the total backlog) (Figure 9 below). According to DEQ,
many of the privately-financed cleanups include ineligible releases from federal and railroad RPs and releases from tanks
at refineries. These entities typically possess the financial means to address releases. Releases from tanks that were not
compliant at the time of the releases or those where the RP has not requested eligibility make up the rest of Montana's
privately-financed cleanups. For any privately-funded cleanups that are stalled, conducting outreach to RPs or pursuing
enforcement actions where necessary to expedite cleanup activities and closure could further help to reduce the backlog.
Figure 9. Age of Releases, by Funding Mechanism and Stage of Cleanup
c.
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
be complex and difficult to remediate. However, releases may be lingering for other reasons, such as very slow reduction in
contamination from the existing remedial systems. If a thorough evaluation determines that active remediation is ineffective
in reducing contamination, a less costly cleanup technology such as MNA could be considered as an appropriate remedy.28
MNA should not be considered a default or presumptive remedy at any contaminated site but if used appropriately, this
approach could free up state funds for use at other cleanups and could increase the number of releases that DEQ is able to
address and move toward remediation and closure. DEQ noted that MNA may take several years, or decades in some cases,
and releases will remain in the backlog for the entire time the release is not closed.
After adjusting for inflation, the median amount spent to date by the state fund on Remediation stage releases contaminating
groundwater ($82,251) is much higher than the median amount spent by the state fund at closed releases contaminating
groundwater ($8,705) (Figure II).29 Most state fund eligible releases impact groundwater, are in the Remediation stage,
are relatively old, and cost much more to clean up than closed releases affecting groundwater. These findings suggest that
cleaning up releases that contaminate groundwater is more expensive today than in the past, possibly because the easiest
releases to remediate have already been closed and releases with complex contamination remain in the backlog. Another
opportunity DEQ is investigating is the availability of additional funding sources through public/private partnerships such
as petroleum brownfields grants for low priority releases without a viable RP. DEQ is proactively reviewing lower priority
releases to develop an inventory of potential petroleum brownfields sites, which can then be used by brownfields grant
recipients to identify properties at which to apply their resources. In addition, some states have started financing claims
through public/private partnerships.
Figure 10. Age of State Fund Eligible Releases in
the Remediation Stage
Figure 11. State Funds Received, by Media Contaminated and Stage of Cleanup31
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$o-
335
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Remediation
Closed
10
-o-
-14-
47
Groundwater
Soil
28 For more information regarding the appropriate use of MNA, see www.epa.gov/swerustl/pubs/tums.htm and EPA Directive Number
9200.4-17P, Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank Sites,
available online at: www.epa.gov/oust/directiv/d9200417.htm.
29 Annual data on the Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup Fund reimbursement amounts for each release were adjusted for inflation using
the consumer price index (CPI). Private spending at releases by RPs and others is not tracked or analyzed in this study, so the cleanup
costs might be underestimated.
30 State fund expenditure data are not available for all state fund eligible releases. Therefore, this graphic does not include 117
groundwater cleanups and 29 soil cleanups that are eligible for state funding.
Montana Finding
37 percent of releases:
are in remediation;
contaminate groundwater; and
are eligible for the state fund.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore opportunities to move 445
state-funded cleanups toward
closure, such as:
reevaluate the current
remedial plan at state fund
eligible releases in long-
term remediation to identify
releases where a more
cost-effective plan could be
implemented, such as:
o using site-specific risk-
based decision making;
o closure with institutional
or engineering controls;
and
examine other funding
sources including public/
private funding options like
EPA petroleum brownfields
grants for low priority
releases or financing claim
payments.
SEPTEMBER 2011
MT-19
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
Montana Finding
4 percent of releases:
are high priority;
have not begun site assessment; and
are 5 years old or older.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore options for moving high 45
priority releases forward, such as:
expediting site assessments
of releases to ensure that all
releases are ranked;
ensuring releases with
immediate risks are actively
being worked on; and
making progress toward
closure for all sites.
Montana Finding
11 percent of releases meet the criteria for
closure.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Continue to expedite the 127
preparation of closure packets
for submittal for peer review for
releases that meet the criteria for
closure.
Figure 13. Age of Priority 1 Releases in the
Confirmed Release Stage
RELEASE PRIORITY
Many state programs employ prioritization systems to decide how to best allocate state resources for assessments and
cleanups. States approach cleanup prioritization differently and there might be opportunities within DEQ's prioritization
system to increase the number of closures. DEQ follows its priority rankings as a matter of policy, but can make exceptions on
a case-by-case basis. Prior to giving EPA the data in 2009, DEQ revised its prioritization system resulting in an increase in the
number of high priority releases. The revision to the priority system added previously lower priority releases with unknown
impacts into the high priority category to facilitate work on these sites.
The data collected in 2009 show a number of relatively old, high priority releases not in remediation. Although there is not
a substantial difference in age distribution among priority categories, analysis of high priority (Priority 1) releases indicates
that 45 releases (4 percent of the backlog) are in the Confirmed Release stage and are 5 years old or older (Figures 12
below and 13, bottom left).31 As stated above, priority definitions were changed in April 2008 and the data collected in 2009
include newly-designated high priority releases that had not been assessed. DEQ should consider expediting site assessments
at the pre-remediation, high priority releases that have not completed assessment and moving high priority releases into
remediation and toward closure as quickly as resources permit.
DEQ also has 127 Priority 5, low priority releases (11 percent of the backlog) that meet the closure criteria and could potentially
be closed quickly. As part of the revision to the priority system, DEQ created a Pending Closure category that segregates low
priority releases that may be ready for closure from other low priority releases. With funding from EPA Region 8, DEQ staff
has closed 100 releases in this category. This is a successful closure strategy for DEQ and should continue.
Figure 12. Age of Releases, by Priority and Stage of Cleanup3'
20
238
166
127
90
i Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
1 Remediation
67 53
10 ^^O
0
1
High
Priority
39 ft 14 11 I
S -o
o
2345
Low
Priority
31 Priority 1 includes high priority categories 1.1,1.2,1.3, and 1.4. For details on priority classifications, see the Chapter Notes section
(Release Priority Table).
32 The priority categories have recently changed and 234 open releases have not been assigned new priority scores.
MT-20
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
NUMBER OF RELEASES PER RP
EPA analyzed the number of releases per RP to identify RPs that are the largest potential contributors to the state's cleanup
backlog.33 A total of 12 RPs are each responsible for 10 or more releases and account for 20 percent of the Montana backlog
(243 releases) (Table 1 below). Of these, six gasoline retail, distribution, and refining businesses are the RPs for 91 releases (8
percent of the backlog), and three state or federal government RPs are responsible for 71 releases (6 percent of the backlog).
In addition, a single convenience store chain is responsible for 47 open releases (4 percent of the backlog). Although the
majority of these releases are located in the western counties of the state, 11 of these 12 RPs are responsible for releases in
both the western and eastern counties. Of these releases, 17 percent (41 releases) are from one federal RP and 5 percent (12
releases) are from one railroad RP; these 53 releases are ineligible for state funding and their cleanup is not constrained by
state funding availability. Focused efforts engaging the 12 RPs through collaboration or enforcement might expedite closure
of many of these releases. DEQ has not used MSAs, preferring to address each release individually, but other states have
found it successful.
Table 1. RPs with 10 or More Open Releases
Montana Finding
20 percent of releases are associated with 12
RPs each with 10 or more releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Consider exploring possibilities 243
for MSAs or enforcement actions
with RPs associated with multiple
releases.
Number of Releases
RP
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
Type of RP
Agricultural Product Distribution
Convenience Store Chain
Gasoline Retail/Distribution/Refining
Gasoline Retail/Distribution/Refining
Gasoline Retail/Distribution/Refining
Gasoline Retail/Distribution/Refining
Gasoline Retail/Distribution/Refining
Gasoline Retail/Distribution/Refining
Federal Government Entity
State Government Entity #1
State Government Entity #2
Railroad
Total
m^
16
35
8
14
4
19
8
14
12
8
11
7
156
39
6
12
2
2
10
4
2
4
29
11
0
5
87
33 DEQ provided names of legally responsible parties for this analysis.
SEPTEMBER 2011
MT-21
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
GEOGRAPHIC CLUSTERS
Montana Finding
45 percent of releases are clustered within a
one-mile radius of five or more releases.
Potential Opportunity
Target releases within close
proximity for resource
consolidation opportunities.
Releases
Targeted
number of
releases35
Figure 14. Map of Releases
Great Falls
Missoula
Helena
EPA performed a geospatial analysis to look for alternative
ways to address the backlog. While releases in geographic
clusters might not have the same RP, they tend to be
located in densely populated areas and might present
opportunities to consolidate resources and coordinate
efforts. Geographic proximity can call attention to releases
in areas of interest such as redevelopment, environmental
justice, or ecological sensitivity.
EPA's analysis identified 537 releases (45 percent of
releases) located within a one-mile radius of five or
more releases (Figure 14 to the right). Of these releases,
337 (28 percent of releases) are located within a one-
mile radius of 10 or more releases. Approaching the
assessment and cleanup needs of an area impacted by
LUSTs can be more effective than focusing on individual
sites in isolation from the adjacent or surrounding area. Considering geographically-clustered releases might pave the way
for new community-based revitalization efforts, utilize economies of scale to yield benefits such as reduced equipment costs,
and present opportunities to develop multi-site cleanup strategies, especially at locations with commingled contamination.
DEQ encourages work at clustered releases to share mobilization of equipment such as drill rigs and coordinated schedules as
much as possible, although there is limited legal authority to require such cooperation. In addition, DEQ recently completed
a pilot project to conduct MNA monitoring at eight geographically-clustered releases. According to DEQ, preliminary results
from DEQ's successful pilot indicate significant resource savings.
State and local governments can utilize geographic clusters for area-wide planning efforts. EPA encourages states to look
for opportunities for resource consolidation and area-wide planning such as DEQ's MNA pilot but also recognizes that this
approach is best geared to address targeted groups of releases as opposed to a state-wide opportunity for every cluster of
releases. EPA also recognizes that state laws and regulations may present implementation challenges. During the MNA pilot
project, DEQ had to work through many administrative, legislative, and fiscal challenges to complete the project but DEQ
believes it is worth the effort in terms of future benefit and cost savings to the program.36 EPA intends to conduct further
geospatial analyses on clusters of releases in relation to RPs, highway corridors, local geologic and hydrogeologic settings,
groundwater resources, and/or communities with environmental justice concerns. These analyses might reveal additional
opportunities for backlog reduction.
34 Cluster analysis and Figure 14 include only 75 percent of releases. Addresses for the remaining 25 percent of releases were not listed
and could not be mapped.
35 Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic opportunities that will address a limited number of
releases within select designated geographic areas.
36 According to Mike Trombetta, Montana DEQ Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Bureau Chief.
MT-22
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
DATA MANAGEMENT
Improvements to database management could allow for easier overall program management as well as provide an improved
tool for developing strategies to reduce the cleanup backlog. Effective data management is essential to the management of
state programs, and DEQ might be limited by the type and quality of data with which it is able to work. The data available at
the time of this analysis were taken from DEQ databases that are used to manage regulatory documents and not to manage
project status. These databases did not maintain complete or accurate data for several data fields, limiting this analysis as
well as DEQ's ability to manage cleanups. Notably, complete data on the current cleanup status, media contaminated by the
release, the contaminants of concern, and eligibility for the state fund are not maintained in the DEQ databases. The absence
of data representing whether a release is in a certain stage of cleanup or media contaminated does not mean that the release
is not in that stage or that media is not contaminated. According to DEQ staff, the numbers reported for releases in the Site
Assessment and Remediation stages are higher than reported in the data. Likewise, the number of releases contaminating
groundwater is higher than represented in these data. EPA and DEQ staffs agree that a robust database that accurately tracks
project status information will be a core foundation to developing and implementing Montana's sound backlog management
strategies. In fact, in 2010, DEQ initiated efforts to improve data quality including tracking release status and other project
management information.37 Future backlog reduction efforts could be facilitated by the presence of complete LUST-related
information.
Montana Finding
Several key data fields are not included,
consistently maintained, or routinely tracked
in the DEQ LUST tracking database.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Improve LUST tracking Variable
database to enhance program number of
management and backlog releases
reduction efforts.
37 According to Mike Trombetta, Montana DEQ Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Bureau Chief.
SEPTEMBER 2011
MT-23
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
CONCLUSION
Montana LUST Program
Contact Information
Montana Department of Environmental
Quality
Remediation Division
Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Bureau
Petroleum Technical Section
1100 North Last Chance Gulch
Helena, MT 59620
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 200901
Helena, MT 59620-0901
Phone: 406-841-5016
Fax: 406-841-5050
dea.mt.gov/LUST/default.mcDX
In this state chapter, EPA presented the analysis of LUST data submitted by DEQ and highlighted information on Montana's
LUST program. Based on the analytic results, EPA identified potential opportunities that could be used to address specific
backlog issues in Montana. Over the course of the entire study, EPA also analyzed data from 13 other states. Findings and
opportunities that apply to all 14 states are discussed in the national chapter of the report. Each opportunity represents one
potential approach among many to address the backlog. Discussion of the opportunities as a whole is intended as a starting
point for further conversations among EPA, Montana, and the other states on strategies to reduce the backlog. EPA will work
with states to develop detailed strategies for reducing the backlog. Development of the strategies might include targeted
data collection, reviewing particular case files, analyzing problem areas, and sharing best practices. The strategies could
involve actions from EPA, such as using additional program metrics, targeting resources for specific cleanup actions, clarifying
and developing guidance, and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with the states, is committed to reducing the backlog of
confirmed UST releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater, land, and the communities affected by these releases.
MT-24
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
CHAPTER NOTES
CHAPTER NOTES
MONTANA DATA BY ATTRIBUTE
The following table provides details on the data elements of interest in this analysis. Data were provided by DEQ staff in 2008 and 2009 for use in this analysis. Several data
elements of interest could not be addressed with the information available. All available data elements were analyzed and only those data elements that revealed informative
patterns of interest are included in the report.
Data Element
Administrative Cost
Montana Data
Data were obtained from the "l_Summary_2004_-_Feb_2009_Exp(l).xls" file, which summarizes the administrative
budget from 2004 through 2008.
Use in Analysis
Included in the "Program Summary"
section and in the national chapter.
Age Age was calculated for closed releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the closure date and dividing by Variable in all analyses.
365. Age was calculated for open releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the data date and dividing by
365. Any values less than -.1 were left blank. Values between -.1 and 0 were counted as 0. All dates were rounded to one
decimal point. Ages of releases with insufficient or invalid data were left blank.
Cleanup Financing
Data were obtained from the "Lead" field in the "LEAD" spreadsheet from the "OUST_lnquiry_3_ll_09.xls" file. The most
recent entry for each release was selected. These values indicate the lead and whether state, federal, or RP funding is
used.
Examined in the "Cleanup Financing"
section.
Cleanup Standards
Closure Date
Confirmed Release Date
Data Date
Federally-Regulated
LUST Releases
Free Product
Institutional and
Engineering Controls
Latitude And Longitude
Media
No site-specific data available.
Data were obtained from the "Site Cleanup/Remediation Completed" field in the "Status" spreadsheet in "OUST_
STATUS_2_4_09.xls."
Data were obtained from the "DateDiscovered" field from the "Xtab Substance" spreadsheet in "OUST_Queries.xls."
February 4, 2009, is used for all records. This date is when the data were sent.
The data set includes only those releases marked "Yes" under the "FederalRegulatedTank" field from the "Xtab Substance"
spreadsheet in "OUST_Queries.xls."
No data available.
No data available.
Coordinates provided by DEQ staff were primarily based on zip code, so coordinates were obtained bygeocoding address
and street locations by EPA staff.
Data were obtained from the "ReceptorlD" field in the "With Receptors" spreadsheet in "OUST_Queries.xls" (see Media
Reference Table). Releases with groundwater contamination marked (in addition to any other media) were counted as
"groundwater." Releases with only soil contamination marked were counted as "soil." Releases with any other combination
of media were counted as "other." "Unknown" releases might include those releases for which there are no data available
in the database, but for which information is available in other files and releases for which the type of media contaminated
is truly unknown.
State-wide standards examined in the
national chapter.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Identifies the appropriate universe of
releases for analysis.
Not applicable (NA)
NA
Used in geospatial analysis calculating the
number of open releases within a one-
mile radius of other open releases.
Examined in the "Media Contaminated"
section.
SEPTEMBER 2011
MT-25
-------
CHAPTER NOTES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
Data Element
Methyl Tertiary Butyl
Ether (MBTE)
Montana Data
No data available.
Use in Analysis
NA
Monitored Natural
Attenuation (MNA)
No data available.
NA
Number of Releases
perRP
Calculated as the total number of open releases associated with a unique RP name.
Examined in the "Number of Releases per
RP" section.
Orphan
No data available.
NA
Proximity
Geospatial analysis performed by EPA revealed the number of other open releases located within a one-mile radius of each
open release.
Examined in the "Geographic Clusters"
section.
Public Spending Spending is totaled by year in the "(Petro) EPA_Survey_all_years.xls" file provided by the Montana Petro Board. These
annual totals were adjusted for inflation using the 2008 CPI and totaled.
Examined in the "Cleanup Financing"
section and in the national chapter.
Region
Data not tracked by administrative regions.
NA
Release Location Indicates whether the release lies in an eastern or western county. Data were obtained from the "EWSide" field in the
"Sites by County East West.xls."
Examined in the "Release Location"
section.
Release Priority The "SitePriority" field from the "SITE PRIORITY" file indicates the priority assigned to a release under the old priority
system. These data are maintained in the database for historical purposes. Releases are given a score based on a number
of attributes - higher scores are higher priority. The "SitePriority" field from the "Xtab with Substances" spreadsheet in
the "OUST_Queries.xls" file is the new priority ranking that only applies to active releases. These releases are grouped into
their main category numbers: 1 through 5 (see Release Priority Reference Table).
RP
Data were obtained from "ORG_NAME" field in the "Releases with RPs" file. Three open releases with two RPs each were
assigned the RP with the most other releases.
Examined in the "Release Priority"
section.
Used to calculate the number of releases
associated with each unique RP.
RP Recalcitrance Data were obtained by identifying multiple enforcement actions in the "Document Type" field of the "Actions" spreadsheet
in the "from OUST_Request_3_12_09.xls" file. These releases have had multiple enforcement actions.
Staff Workload
Estimate provided by DEQ staff.
No informative patterns were identified.
Examined in the "Program Summary"
section and in the national chapter.
Stage of Cleanup Data were obtained from the "Status" and "Status Date" fields in the "LEAD" spreadsheet from the "OUST_lnquiry_3_ll_09.
xls" file. Each open release was counted as "Site Assessment" or "Remediation" if any status events related to those two
stages occurred, regardless of the date. Open releases with no status entries related to "Site Assessment" or "Remediation"
stages were counted as "Confirmed Release" (see Stage of Cleanup Reference Table).
Status
Data were obtained from the "Site Cleanup/Remediation Completed" field in the "Status" spreadsheet in the "OUST_
STATUS_2_4_09.xls" file. All releases with a date in this field were counted as "Closed" and the remaining releases were
counted as "Open."
Variable in all analyses.
Identifies the appropriate universe of
releases for tree analysis.
Voluntary Cleanup
Program
No data available.
NA
MT-26
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
CHAPTER NOTES
Media Reference Table
Each release record contains a field recording the type of media contaminated by
the release. These entries were standardized using the rules below.
Soil, Depth unknown
Soil, Sub-surface (>2 feet below ground surface)
Soil, Surface (<2 feet below ground surface)
Utility, Other
Utility, Sewer
Utility, Sewer Vaults/Trenches
Utility, Water Line
Vapor, Basement
Water, Ground
Water, Irrigation Well
Water, Private Domestic Well
Water, Public Supply Well
Water, Surface
Water, Well
Soil
Soil
Soil
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Other
Groundwater
Release Priority Table
Each open release is assigned a priority score under DEQ's new priority system. For
this analysis, releases were categorized according to the main priority numbers: 1
through 5.
Category
l.l
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Description
High Priority/Emergency response
High priority Remediation - Free product
High Priority Remediation
High Priority Characterization
Medium Priority Characterization
Medium Priority Remediation
Ground Water Management
Pending Closure
SEPTEMBER 2011
MT-27
-------
CHAPTER NOTES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: MONTANA
Stage of Cleanup Reference Table
DEQ maintains historical status records, so each release has multiple records. Each open release was counted as "Site Assessment" or "Remediation" if any status events re-
lated to those two stages occurred, regardless of the date of the events. Each open release with no status entry related to the "Site Assessment" or "Remediation" stages was
counted as a "Confirmed Release." (Any releases with "Closure Approved" or other entries that might indicate a release was closed were counted as open and in the Remedia-
tion stage if they did not have a date in the "Site Cleanup/Remediation Completed" field in the "Status" spreadsheet in "OUST_STATUS_2_4_09.xls")
Closure Approved
Closure Denied
Closure Submitted
Confirmed Release
Discovery
Emergency Response Taken with Federal Funds
Emergency Response Taken with State Funds
Enforcement Action
Groundwater Management
Inactive
LUST Cleanup Initiated: Petroleum
LUST Trust Action Completed
LUST Trust Action Initiated
Pending Closure
Release Notification
Site Cleanup/Remediation Completed
Site Investigation Completed
Site Investigation Initiated
Tank Release Under Control
Transferred to another program or agency
Stage of Cleanup
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Confirmed Release
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Confirmed Release
Remediation
Site Assessment
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Confirmed Release
Remediation
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
MT-28
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG:
A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES '': -"'
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEBRASKA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
September 2011
NE-1
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEBRASKA
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AP
DEQ
EPA
ESA
FY
LUST
NA
PFP
RAC
RBCA
RP
SPILLTRACK
UST
VRA
Affiliated Party
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Expedited Site Assessment
Fiscal Year
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Not Applicable
Pay for Performance
Remedial Action Class
Risk-Based Corrective Action
Responsible Party
Leaking Underground Storage Tank and Surface Spill Site Information Database
Underground Storage Tank
Voluntary Remedial Action
NE-2
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEBRASKA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Leaks from underground storage tanks (USTs) threaten America's groundwater and land resources. Even a small
amount of petroleum released from a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) can contaminate groundwater, the
drinking water source for nearly half of all Americans. In surveys of state water programs, 39 states and territories
identified USTs as a major source of groundwater contamination.2 As the reliance on our resources increases due
to the rise in population and use, there is a correspondingly greater need to protect our finite natural resources.
From the beginning of the UST program to September 2009, more than 488,000 releases were confirmed from federally-
regulated USTs nationwide. Of these confirmed releases needing cleanup, over 100,000 remained in the national LUST
backlog. These releases are in every state, and many are old and affect groundwater. To help address this backlog of releases,
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invited 14 states to participate in a national backlog characterization
study.
ANALYSIS OF NEBRASKA DATA
Nebraska's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has made significant progress toward reducing its LUST cleanup
backlog. As of July 2009, DEQ had completed 4,351 LUST cleanups, which is 71 percent of all known releases in the state.
At the time of data collection, there were 1,771 releases remaining in its backlog.4 To most effectively reduce the national
cleanup backlog, EPA believes that states and EPA must develop backlog reduction strategies that can be effective in most
states as well as those states with the largest backlogs. EPA invited Nebraska to participate and represent EPA Region 7 in its
national backlog study.
In this chapter, EPA characterized Nebraska's releases that have not been cleaned up, analyzed these releases based on
categories of interest, and developed potential opportunities for DEQ and EPA to explore that might improve the state's
cleanup progress and reduce its backlog. Building on the potential cleanup opportunities identified in the study, EPA will
continue to work with DEQ to develop backlog reduction strategies.
In Nebraska, as in every state, many factors affect the pace of cleaning up releases such as the availability and mechanisms
of funding, statutory requirements, and program structure. The recent economic downturn has also had an impact on the
ability of many states to make progress on cleanups. EPA included potential cleanup opportunities in this report even though
current circumstances in Nebraska might make pursuing certain opportunities challenging or unlikely. Also, in some cases,
DEQ is already using similar strategies as part of its ongoing program. The findings from the analysis of DEQ's data and
the potential cleanup opportunities are summarized below in seven study areas: stage of cleanup, release priority, cleanup
financing, voluntary cleanups, number of releases per affiliated party (AP), geographic clusters, and data management.
Nebraska LUST
By the Numbers1
National Backlog Contribution
Cumulative Historical Releases
Closed Releases
Open Releases
Stage of Cleanup
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Remediation
Media Contaminated3
Median Age of Open Releases
1 Data were provided in July 2009 by DEQ staff and are not identical to the UST performance measures reported on EPA's website,
available at: www.epa.gov/oust/cat/camarchv.htm.
2 EPA, National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report, pp. 50-52. www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/chp6.pdf.
3 Data on media contamination were not available electronically and are not included in this analysis.
4 EPA tracks individual releases rather than sites in its performance measures. Therefore, the analyses in this report account for
numbers of releases, not sites.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NE-3
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEBRASKA
Stage Of Cleanup (see page NE-lOfor more details)
Release Priority (see page NE-U for more details)
Nebraska Finding
63 percent of releases are
either:
5 years old or older
and site assessment
has not started; or
10 years old or older
and are still in site
assessment.
Potential Opportunity
Expedite site assessments at old
releases to identify releases that can
be closed with minimal effort or moved
toward remediation.
Provide information and technical
assistance to responsible parties (RPs) or
implement enforcement actions at old
releases that are stalled.
Continue to encourage use of the
voluntary cleanup program to move
releases into remediation and closure.
24 percent of releases are:
10 years old or older;
and
in remediation.
Use a systematic process to explore
opportunities to accelerate cleanups and
reach closure, such as:
periodically review release-specific
treatment technologies;
review site-specific cleanup standards;
implement institutional or engineering
controls; and
implement enforcement actions if
cleanup has stalled.
Releases
1,117
423
Releases are taking a long time to move through the cleanup process, and while
Nebraska prioritizes the cleanups of high risk releases, some of these older releases
in the early stages of cleanup were classified by the state as high priority. There
are several reasons why many releases in the backlog are old including: releases are
technically complex and therefore take a long time to clean up; many releases do
not have a viable RP; and releases remain unaddressed in the backlog for reasons
such as a low priority ranking. EPA recognizes DEQ's interest in addressing high
priority releases first. Nevertheless, EPA believes it important for DEQ to explore
opportunities to accelerate cleanups at older releases and to make progress toward
bringing all releases to closure.
Nebraska Finding
17 percent of releases:
are high priority; and
have not begun
remediation.
Potential Opportunity
Explore options for moving high priority
releases forward, such as:
using enforcement actions to initiate the
cleanup of stalled releases;
expediting site assessments of all
releases to ensure that all releases are
appropriately ranked;
ensuring releases with immediate risk
are actively being worked on; and
making progress toward closure for all
sites.
Releases
309
33 percent of releases:
are low priority; and
have not begun
remediation.
Explore options for moving low priority
releases forward, such as:
encouraging voluntary cleanup of low
priority releases that otherwise would
not be addressed expeditiously;
expediting site assessments of all
releases to ensure that all releases are
appropriately ranked; and
making progress toward closure for all
sites.
582
Nebraska allocates state resources to the highest priority releases first as a matter
of policy. However, EPA was surprised that an appreciable number of releases
considered high priority by the state still remain in the early stages of cleanup after
a considerable length of time. Low priority releases also tend to be old and remain
in the backlog. EPA will work with DEQ to develop strategies to move all releases
toward closure and to ensure that there are no immediate risks to human health and
the environment from the high priority releases that have not been addressed.
NE-4
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEBRASKA
Cleanup Financing (see page NE-13for more details)
V 0 I U n t a r y CI e a n U p S (see page NE-14 for more details)
Nebraska Finding Potential Opportunity
33 percent of releases:
have not begun
remediation; and
are orphans.
Explore ways to move more orphan state-lead
cleanups toward closure, such as:
continue to explore opportunities to address
more releases with available funds, such as
cost-cutting measures;
examine other funding sources including
public/private funding options like petroleum
brownfields grants for low priority sites or
financing claim payments;
redirect funds saved at cleanups with improved
cost-effectiveness to state-lead cleanups where
assessments have not been completed; and
expedite site assessments of orphan releases
to identify releases that can be closed with
minimal effort or moved toward remediation.
Releases
588
41 percent of releases
have not begun
remediation; and
are RP-lead.
Pursue enforcement actions or provide additional
guidance to expedite site assessments and cleanup
at RP-lead cleanups.
730
EPA and state programs are interested in exploring successful financing strategies for
completing cleanups quickly. EPA acknowledges that the recent economic downturn
has impacted cleanup financing. Nebraska has a large number of orphan releases for
which the state will assume financial responsibility. EPA believes the availability of
funding for cleanup is essential to reducing the backlog so, in addition to this study,
EPA is increasing its focus on oversight of state funds as well as conducting a study of
private insurance. DEQ's Petroleum Release Remedial Action Reimbursement Fund
pays for cleanups, minus the deductible and co-payments, at all RP releases where
tanks are in compliance with state regulations. The fund also finances state-lead
cleanup activities at 42 percent of releases (those that are determined to be orphan
releases with no viable RP). These releases tend to be old and many have not begun
remediation (33 percent of the total backlog). Forty-one percent of releases are RP-
lead and have not begun remediation.
All state programs are experiencing resource limitations, and progress toward backlog
reduction is dependent on their ability to apply existing resources to their backlogs.
If more cost-effective remedial plans could be implemented at state-funded cleanups
in remediation, or other funding sources could be found for those not in remediation,
this would free up funding to address more releases in the early stages of cleanup.
Nebraska Finding Potential Opportunity
2 percent of releases
participate in Voluntary
Remedial Action (VRA).
Provide additional incentives for RPs of low priority
releases to participate in VRA.
Releases
769
DEQ finances and performs cleanups using a risk-based priority system, addressing
the highest risk releases first. However, under VRA, RPs may perform cleanup
activities regardless of release priority provided that they will accept reimbursement
for eligible expenditures at a later date. Although 32 cleanups are known to be
proceeding through VRA, RPs are not required to formally enroll in a program and
an unknown number of additional cleanups might also be occurring through VRA.
Further efforts to make VRA into a more widely-known program among RPs and real
estate transaction stakeholders might lead to the accelerated closure of more low
priority releases.
Number of Releases per Affiliated Party
(see page NE-15for more details)
Nebraska Finding
6 percent of releases
are affiliated with
seven parties each with
10 or more releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore possibilities for multi-site agreements or 99
enforcement actions with parties affiliated with
multiple releases.
EPA was able to identify groups of 10 or more releases that have common ownership
or name affiliation from data provided by DEQ on the names of facility owners and
company names. EPA analyzed the number of releases per AP to identify the largest
potential contributors to the state's cleanup backlog. In Nebraska, seven parties are
each affiliated with 10 or more releases and account for 6 percent of the Nebraska
backlog. These APs may or may not be the party legally responsible for cleanup.
DEQ and EPA can use this information to identify potential participants for multi-site
strategies to clean up groups of releases.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NE-5
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEBRASKA
Geographic Clusters (see page NE-15for more details)
Nebraska Finding
54 percent of releases are
clustered within a one-mile
radius of five or more releases.
Potential Opportunity
Target releases within close
proximity for resource consolidation
opportunities.
Releases
Targeted
number of
releases5
Another multi-site approach that Nebraska could use is targeting cleanup actions
at geographically-clustered releases. This approach could offer opportunities for
new community-based reuse efforts, using economies of scale, and addressing
commingled contamination. DEQ uses the same contractor to address commingled
orphan releases when feasible. EPA believes that highlighting geographic clusters of
releases and working with state and local governments in area-wide initiatives will
improve Nebraska's pace of cleaning up releases. EPA intends to work with the states
to conduct further geospatial analyses on clusters of open releases in relation to RPs,
highway corridors, local geologic and hydrogeologic settings, groundwater resources,
and/or communities with environmental justice concerns. These analyses might
reveal additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
Data Management (see page NE-ie for more details)
Nebraska Finding
Several key data fields are not
included, consistently maintained,
or routinely tracked in the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank and
Surface Spill Site Information
(SPILLTRACK) database.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Improve database to enhance Variable
program management and backlog number of
reduction efforts. releases6
Multiple data management limitations prevent a full assessment of the backlog and
associated strategies for backlog reduction. Because of data limitations, EPA could
not analyze the media contaminated by releases, contaminants of concern, or state
fund eligibility. Additional data management improvements could allow for easier
overall program management within DEQ as well as provide an improved tool for
developing strategies to reduce the cleanup backlog.
Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic
opportunities that will address a limited number of releases within select designated
geographic areas.
Opportunities marked as "variable number of releases" relate to programmatic
opportunities and affect an unknown number of releases, potentially including all open
releases.
CONCLUSION
This chapter contains EPA's data analysis of Nebraska's LUST cleanup backlog and
identifies potential opportunities to reduce the backlog in Nebraska. EPA discusses
the findings and opportunities for Nebraska, along with those of 13 additional
states, in the national chapter of this report. EPA will work with states to develop
potential approaches and detailed strategies for reducing the backlog. Development
of strategies could involve targeted data collection, reviewing particular case files,
analyzing problem areas, and sharing best practices. Final strategies could involve
EPA actions such as using additional program metrics to show cleanup progress,
targeting resources for specific cleanup actions, clarifying and developing guidance,
and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with states, is committed to reducing the
backlog of confirmed LIST releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater, land,
and communities affected by these releases.
NE-6
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEBRASKA
PROGRAM SUMMARY
State LUST Program Organization and Administration
The Petroleum Remediation Program within the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) manages oversight
of and financial assistance for the investigation and cleanup of petroleum contamination resulting from leaking underground
storage tanks (LUSTs). Responsible parties (RPs) are responsible for selecting approved contractors to perform site investigation
and cleanup. When a site is activated for cleanup based on its priority ranking, the DEQ project manager assigned to the
release contacts the RP. The project manager tells the RP what remedial actions are needed at the site. Then the RP hires
a consultant to perform the required remedial actions. The RP typically will be asked to have their consultant provide a
work plan and a cost estimate for the proposed remedial actions. The DEQ project manager reviews this information and, if
acceptable, sends an approval letter. The contractor performs the work and a report is submitted to DEQ. The RP can then
submit a reimbursement claim for the work performed.
RPs may choose to undertake Voluntary Remedial Action (VRA) and perform cleanup activities more rapidly than DEQ can
grant approval based on available funds. RPs performing remedial actions under VRA are eligible to apply for reimbursement
at a later date.
At releases without a viable RP, the state performs cleanups through contracts paid with federal funds or the state fund. At
some of these "orphan" releases, DEQ's Pay for Performance (PFP) program is used. The PFP program pays contractors as
specific amounts of contamination are reduced within a fixed-price, time-limited contract. The PFP program is intended to
clean up releases more quickly and DEQ staff believe it has. To date, 27 cleanup contracts have been approved under the PFP
program, and eight of these contracts have since been completed.
Cleanup Financing
DEQ's Petroleum Release Remedial Action Reimbursement Fund provides reimbursements to owners and operators for costs
associated with investigation and remediation activities at releases, minus deductibles and co-payments. RPs are not required
to have additional financial responsibility mechanisms to cover the state-required deductible and co-payments.8 Releases
from underground storage tanks (USTs) and above-ground storage tanks occurring between July 17,1983, and June 30, 2012,
are eligible for the fund.
Cleanup Standards
Since 1999, DEQ has used a two-tier RBCA system to evaluate releases based on risks to human health and the environment.
The program initiates investigations to collect information needed for Tier 1, the first step in the RBCA process. DEQ intends
7 Based on FY 2009 UST Performance Measures End of Year Activity Report.
8 DEQ's Reasonable Rate Schedule and Reimbursement Guidance Manual is available online at: www.deq.state.ne.us/Publica.nsf/23e5
e39594c064ee852564ae004fa010/5c5fff57a49c592f862574f9007al8dd/$FILE/08-023.pdf.
9 Estimate provided by DEQ staff.
10 This is the operating budget.
Nebraska LUST
Program
At a Glance
Cleanup Rate
In fiscal year (FY) 2009, DEQ confirmed 39
releases and completed 112 cleanups.7
Cleanup Financing
Of open releases, 57 percent (676 releases)
are eligible for state funding.
Cleanup Financing
The Petroleum Release Remedial
Action Reimbursement Fund provides
reimbursements. RPs are required to pay a
deductible for cleanups.
Cleanup Standards
A two-tier risk-based corrective action (RBCA)
system is in place to evaluate threats to
human health and the environment.
Priority System
Releases are prioritized based on risk to
receptors.
Average Public Spending on Cleanup
$80,557 for releases in the Remediation stage;
$11,324 for closed releases.
Releases per Project Manager
There are an average of 85 active cases
per project manager. Approximately 1,000
open releases are not assigned to a project
Administrative Funding (2007)
$1.4 million.10
SEPTEMBER 2011
NE-7
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEBRASKA
to investigate additional releases each month until the information necessary for a
RBCA Tier 1 evaluation has been collected at all releases. Releases that fail Tier 1
are activated for Tier 2, which provides for a more detailed investigation and is the
next step in the RBCA process. If a release fails Tier 2, it is generally then scheduled
for cleanup. Releases that pass Tier 1 or Tier 2 are closed. In some cases, DEQ will
replace drinking water wells that might be threatened by a plume in order to reduce
the risk and lower the cleanup threshold. Since 2002,10 wells have been moved.
Release Prioritization
Due to the high number of unaddressed LUST releases, DEQ adopted a policy of
prioritizing all releases for cleanup. Priority is based on risk and is used to rank
cleanups for allocation of state resources. An initial prioritization is conducted at
the time of discovery based on potential receptors and other release characteristics.11
Prioritization may be refined as more information is learned about a release.
Resources are focused on releases with the greatest health and safety concerns
such as vapors in a building or a nearby municipal well. Release priority is based
on a release's proximity to groundwater resources and receptors and is used in the
subsequent calculation of the priority score for all releases. If a release is low risk,
DEQ does not direct the RPto perform the cleanup until other higher priority cleanups
are completed, but RPs of low priority releases are permitted to complete cleanups
under VRA. If an RP does not perform a directed cleanup, the RP can be placed under
enforcement actions.
State Backlog Reduction Efforts
In 1999, DEQ implemented a RBCA system to provide clear guidance for evaluating
releases and allow for site-specific cleanup goals that are protective of human health
and the environment. Implementation of VRA and PFP programs was also intended
to improve and accelerate the cleanup process. DEQ has also used a $100,000 grant
from EPA Region 7 to perform a review of backlogged releases. At the time data
were compiled for this study, the case reviews had led to closure of 25 releases.
Subsequently, the review process led to a total of 31 closures plus an additional five
closures achieved using leftover funds to perform Tier 1 investigations.
11 The initial prioritization is not the same as the Tier 1 RBCA assessment.
NE-8
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEBRASKA
ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNITIES
In this study, EPA analyzed Nebraska's federally-regulated releases that have not been cleaned up (open releases). EPA
conducted a multivariate analysis on all of Nebraska's data. However, this technique did not identify strong underlying
patterns in the data.12 Next, EPA divided the open releases into groups that might warrant further attention. EPA used
descriptive statistics to examine the distribution of releases by age of release and stage of cleanup and highlighted findings
based on DEQ's data.14 EPA then identified potential opportunities for addressing particular groups of releases in the backlog.
Many releases are included in more than one opportunity. These opportunities describe actions that EPA and DEQ might use
as a starting point for collaborative efforts to address the backlog. Although EPA's analysis covered all releases in Nebraska,
there are 20 releases that are not included in any of the subsets identified in the findings or opportunities due to the way EPA
structured the analysis. These releases might also benefit from some of the suggested opportunities and strategies.
EPA's analyses revealed seven areas of Nebraska's backlog with potential opportunities for its further reduction:
Stage of cleanup Voluntary cleanups Geographic clusters
Release priority Number of releases per Affiliated Data management
Cleanup financing Party (AP)
LUST Data Source
Electronic data for LUST releases occurring
between April 1971 and June 2009 were
compiled with DEQ staff in 2008 and 2009.13
Data were obtained from DEQ's Leaking
Underground Storage Tank and Surface Spill Site
Information Database (SPILLTRACK) and selected
based on quality and the ability to address areas
of interest in this analysis.
12
The analytic tree method, a multivariate technique used to identify underlying patterns among large data sets, did not reveal strong
patterns within the data. For more information on analytic trees, see Appendix A.
13 For a detailed description of the Nebraska data used in this analysis, see the Chapter Notes section.
14 For a detailed description of release stages, see the Chapter Notes section (Stage of Cleanup Reference Table).
SEPTEMBER 2011
NE-9
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEBRASKA
Nebraska Finding
63 percent of releases are either:
5 years old or older and site assessment
has not started; or
10 years old or older and are still in site
assessment.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Expedite site assessments 1,117
at old releases to identify
releases that can be closed
with minimal effort or moved
toward remediation.
Provide information and
technical assistance to
responsible parties (RPs)
or implement enforcement
actions at old releases that
are stalled.
Continue to encourage use
of the voluntary cleanup
program to move releases
into remediation and closure.
Releases 5 years old or
older in the Confirmed
Release stage
Releases 10 years old or
older in the Site Assessment
stage
481
636
STAGE OF CLEANUP
As of July 27, 2009, the Nebraska backlog consisted of 1,771 open releases. EPA analyzed the age of these LUST releases and
their distribution among the stages of cleanup. To facilitate analysis, EPA classified Nebraska's open releases into three stages
of cleanup: the Confirmed Release stage (releases where assessments have not begun), the Site Assessment stage (releases
where assessments have begun), and the Remediation stage (releases where remedial activities have begun).15 While EPA
grouped the releases into linear stages for this analysis, EPA recognizes that cleanups might not proceed in a linear fashion.
Cleanup can be an iterative process where releases go through successive rounds of site assessment and remediation.
However, in the long run, this approach might be both longer and more costly. Acquiring good site characterization up front
can accelerate the pace of cleanup and avoid the extra cost of repeated site assessment.
Since Nebraska's LUST program began, DEQ has closed 4,351 releases, half of which were closed in fewer than 1.8 years
(Figure 1 below). The young median age of closed LUST releases might be attributable to the rapid closure of relatively easy to
close releases. Also, national program policy allows states to report confirmed releases that require no further action at time
of confirmation as "cleanup completed." Therefore, some releases are reported as confirmed and cleaned up simultaneously.
Figure 1. Age of Releases among Stages of Cleanup
20
453
535
783
-£ 10
O Confirmed Release
O Site Assessment
O Remediation
O Closed
4,351
The white dot at the center of each circle represents the median age of releases. Each circle is labeled with, and scaled to, the number
of releases within each stage. Included in the release counts and size of circles are 16 closed releases for which release age is unknown.
These releases are not part of the median age calculation.
DEQ implemented several policies to accelerate the cleanup process, including a RBCA system and the VRA and PFP programs.16
DEQ has also used a $100,000 grant from EPA Region 7 to perform a review of low priority releases, a process that led to
closure of 25 releases as of the date of data collection, with an additional six releases closed later. Leftover funds were used
to perform Tier 1 investigations resulting in five additional closures. States might find opportunities for closure with minimal
effort at lower priority releases where little or no remedial work is required to reach closure standards or at releases that have
met closure standards but have not finished closure review.
Nebraska has many old LUST releases not in remediation. Figure 2 on page 11 shows the backlog of open releases by age
and stage of cleanup and allows for the identification of older releases by stage. Figure 2 breaks out the 481 older releases
15 Releases were classified into stages based on available data and discussion with DEQ staff. For more information, see the Chapter
Notes section.
16 See State Backlog Reduction Efforts in the Program Summary.
NE-10
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEBRASKA
in the Confirmed Release stage (27 percent of the backlog) that have not been assessed five years or more after the releases
were confirmed. It also shows the 636 older releases in the Site Assessment stage (36 percent of the backlog) that have not
entered the Remediation stage 10 years or more after the releases were confirmed. This subset of older releases in the early
stages of cleanup accounts for 63 percent of Nebraska's total backlog. DEQ's data indicate that releases have not moved into
remediation quickly.
Figure 2. Release Age Distribution among Stages of Cleanup
Confirmed Release
(535 Releases)
Site Assessment
(783 Releases)
Remediation
(453 Releases)
EPA encourages states to streamline the corrective action process, improve data collection, reduce the overall cost of
remediation, and move releases more rapidly toward remediation and closure. To assist states and regulators in implementing
these objectives, EPA developed its Expedited Site Assessment (ESA) guide.17 The guide explains the overall ESA process as
well as specific site assessment tools and methods. The ESA process rapidly characterizes site conditions to make cost-
effective corrective action decisions. ESAs will help identify releases that can be closed with minimal effort or provide all
the information needed to move a release into remediation. Conducting site assessments efficiently and quickly might help
reduce the backlog by accelerating the pace of cleanup and ultimately decrease overall project costs.
Under Nebraska's VRA program, RPs can move forward with cleanup without needing DEQ prior approval of workplans. This
approach can be a source of continued backlog reduction and DEQ should consider ways to encourage RPs to pursue VRA.
Providing information and technical assistance to RPs, encouraging the use of VRA, or pursuing enforcement action at old
releases could move releases toward remediation and more rapid cleanup.
Nebraska also has many old releases in the Remediation stage. Twenty-four percent of Nebraska's releases (423 releases)
are in remediation and are 10 years old or older (Figure 2). This older group of releases represents 94 percent of the releases
in remediation. Because EPA only has the date that a release was confirmed but not when it moved from one stage to the
next (e.g., from assessment to remediation), EPA can calculate the overall age of the release but not the actual time spent in
the Remediation stage. It is possible that some of these releases might have only recently begun remediation. DEQ should
consider establishing a systematic process to evaluate existing releases in remediation and optimize cleanup approaches,
including choice of technology and site-specific risk-based decision making. This process might save resources and bring
releases to closure more quickly. This would allow DEQ to move on to other releases that need attention and remove releases
from the backlog with available state funds.
Nebraska Finding
24 percent of releases are:
10 years old or older; and
in remediation.
Potential Opportunity
Releases
Use a systematic process to
explore opportunities to accelerate 423
cleanups and reach closure, such
as:
periodically review
release-specific treatment
technologies;
review site-specific cleanup
standards;
implement institutional or
engineering controls; and
implement enforcement
actions if cleanup has stalled.
17 EPA's 1997 guidance document, Expedited Site Assessment Tools For Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide For Regulators (EPA
510-B-97-001), is available online at: www.epa.gov/OUST/pubs/sam.htm.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NE-11
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEBRASKA
Nebraska Finding
17 percent of releases:
are high priority; and
have not begun remediation.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore options for moving high 309
priority releases forward, such as:
using enforcement actions to
initiate the cleanup of stalled
releases;
expediting site assessments
of all releases to ensure that
all releases are appropriately
ranked;
ensuring releases with
immediate risk are actively
being worked on; and
making progress toward
closure for all sites.
Nebraska Finding
33 percent of releases:
are low priority; and
have not begun remediation.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore options for moving low 582
priority releases forward, such as:
encouraging voluntary
cleanup of low priority
releases that otherwise
would not be addressed
expeditiously;
expediting site assessments
of all releases to ensure that
all releases are appropriately
ranked; and
making progress toward
closure for all sites.
RELEASE PRIORITY
DEQ focuses resources on the highest risk releases and unconfirmed risk releases so EPA was surprised that an appreciable
number of high priority releases still remain in the early stages of cleanup after a considerable length of time. Nebraska has a
policy to address the highest priority releases first. Cleanups at the highest priority releases are carried through to completion,
once initiated. Even with this focus on high priority releases, DEQ has not had sufficient resources to clean up all high priority
releases quickly. DEQ does not dedicate resources to low priority releases unless resources have already been made available
to address all higher priority releases. Consequently, low priority releases tend to be old and remain in the backlog.
DEQ assigns each LUST release a Remedial Action Class (RAC), which classifies cleanups based on risk of drinking water
contamination.18 Release priority is based on a release's proximity to groundwater resources and receptors and is used in
the subsequent calculation of the priority score for all releases. RAC 1 includes higher priority releases, and RAC 3 releases
generally pose the smallest risk to receptors.
A significant percentage of DEQ's backlog is made up of high priority releases. Many of these releases are old and in the early
stages of cleanup. There are 44 releases in the Confirmed Release stage (2 percent of the backlog) and 265 releases in the
Site Assessment stage (15 percent of the backlog) with a RAC 1 score (Figure 3 below). The median ages of these releases
are 18.9 and 14.8 years, respectively. These releases affect high priority groundwater resources and should be moved toward
remediation and closure as quickly as resources permit. Continuing efforts to expedite site assessments and move these
releases toward remediation and closure could help protect high priority groundwater resources and can also reduce the
backlog. With Nebraska's focus on high priority releases in mind, EPA will work with DEQ to develop strategies to move all
releases toward closure and to ensure that there are no immediate risks to human health and the environment from the high
priority releases that have not been addressed.
Many old, low priority cleanups remain in Nebraska's backlog. Thirty three percent of releases (582 releases) are classified as
RAC 3 releases and are in the Confirmed Release or Site Assessment stage (Figure 3). Implementing enforcement actions or
encouraging RPs to undertake VRA and moving these releases into remediation and to closure could help reduce the backlog.
Figure 3. Age of Releases by RAC and Stage of Cleanup
9n ,,
° A
265
15
860
m
0
61
0 258 1" 8=
A O 400 182 '
Do
S4b
417
30
O
2,22S
O Confirmed Release
O Site Assessment
O Remediation
Closed
RAC1
RAC 2
RAC 3
Unknown
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Squares indicating closed releases are not scaled to the number of releases in that stage.
18 For more information on RACs, see the Chapter Notes section (RAC Reference Table).
NE-12
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEBRASKA
CLEANUP FINANCING
EPA believes the availability of funding for cleanup is essential to reducing the backlog. DEQ's Petroleum Release Remedial
Action Reimbursement Fund pays for cleanups, minus the deductible and co-payments, at all releases where tanks are in
compliance with state regulations. In addition, DEQ's fund assumes all financial costs for the large number of orphan releases
in the state. To help analyze the impact of state fund issues on closure, EPA evaluated the progress of releases funded by the
state (both state-lead and RP-lead cleanups). In addition to this study, EPA is increasing its focus on oversight of state funds as
well as conducting a study of private insurance.
DEQ leads cleanup activities for all orphan releases in the state (740 releases; 42 percent of total backlog). DEQdefines orphan
releases as releases with no viable RP.19 Orphan releases tend to be old and 79 percent of the orphan releases (588 releases;
33 percent of total backlog) have not begun remediation (Figure 4 below). DEQ should continue to explore opportunities to
address more releases with the state cleanup fund such as continued use of cost-cutting measures. DEQalready uses the same
contractor to address commingled orphan releases whenever feasible and DEQ also uses pay for performance contracts to
clean up orphan releases. EPA encourages these types of cost saving approaches. Another opportunity DEQ could investigate
is the availability of additional funding sources through public/private partnerships such as petroleum brownfields grants for
low priority orphan releases. In addition, some states have started financing claims through public/private partnerships. DEQ
can use ESAs to identify orphan releases that can be closed with minimal effort or provide all the information needed to move
a release into remediation sooner.
Figure 4. Age of Releases by Orphan Status and Stage of Cleanup
137
301
OJ
cr
o
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEBRASKA
Nebraska Finding
41 percent of releases
have not begun remediation; and
are RP-lead.
Potential Opportunity
Pursue enforcement actions or
provide additional guidance to
expedite site assessments and
cleanup at RP-lead cleanups.
Releases
730
and could increase the number of releases that DEQ is able to address and move toward closure. If additional releases could
be closed through the use of institutional or engineering controls where protective and appropriate, DEQ could also use the
resources slated for those releases to work on reaching closure at other releases.
The remaining 58 percent of open releases (1,031 releases) funded by the state are RP-lead, where RPs are responsible for
selecting contractors for site investigations and cleanup (Figure 4). The majority of RP-lead releases (71 percent, 730 releases)
have not begun remediation, more than half of which are 10 years old or older (Figure 4). These older, RP-lead releases in
the early stages of cleanup account for 41 percent of the total backlog. A larger proportion of RP-lead releases than orphan
releases have moved into remediation from site assessment (Figure 4); however, the RP-lead releases in the Remediation
stage are no younger than the state-lead orphan releases, suggesting that the type of lead (RP or state) does not have much
impact on the speed of cleanup. Additional guidance to RPs on how to effectively begin and complete cleanups or pursuing
enforcement actions where necessary could help move more RP-lead cleanups toward remediation.
VOLUNTARY CLEANUPS
Nebraska Finding
2 percent of releases participate in VRA.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Provide additional incentives for 769
RPs of low priority releases to
participate in VRA.
VRA allows RPs to perform cleanup activities regardless of their priority and allows future reimbursement for eligible
expenditures. According to DEQ's SPILLTRACK database, only 2 percent of the backlog (32 open releases) participates in
VRA (Figure 5 below, left). However, because RPs are not required to formally enroll into a program, DEQ cannot confirm
how many RPs are engaged in VRA. One of the most likely reasons a RP would undertake VRA is to conduct a Title 118
RBCA investigation or minimal cleanup in an effort to receive closure from DEQ. DEQ will, in as timely a manner as practical,
review the VRA investigation and remediation reports, and if the cleanup meets closure criteria in place at the time, a closure
letter will be sent to the RP. Releases in VRA are still funded in order of their priority and, therefore, a RP might not receive
reimbursement for several years. Encouraging RPs to perform VRA and complete cleanups sooner would help reduce risk to
receptors and help reduce the backlog.
Only 23 percent of RP-lead cleanups (232 releases) are RAC 1 (Figure 6 below, right). The remaining 77 percent of RP-lead
cleanups (769 releases) will likely not be addressed until the higher priority cleanups are completed. Therefore, enhancing
the VRA program and providing cost-saving incentives to RPs who enter VRA could increase the number of releases at which
RPs complete site assessments and remedial activities.
Figure 5. Types of Cleanup20
Orphan
Cleanups
738
42%
Voluntary
Cleanups
32
Figure 6. RP-Lead Cleanups by RAC
Unknown
127
13%
RP-Lead
Cleanups
1,001
56%
20 Of the 32 releases classified as Voluntary Cleanups, two are classified as Orphan and the remaining 30 are classified as RP-lead.
NE-14
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEBRASKA
Type of Party
Gasoline Retail/Distribution/
Refining
Government - Local
Convenience Store Chain
Government - Federal
Government - State
Total
Number of
Releases
26
27
21
13
12
99
Number
of APs
2
1
2
1
1
7
NUMBER OF RELEASES PER AFFILIATED PARTY
EPA analyzed the number of releases per affiliated party (AP) to Table 1. Parties Affiliated with 10 or More Open Releases
identify entities that are the largest potential contributors to the
state's cleanup backlog.21 APs may or may not be the parties legally
responsible for cleanup.
A total of seven APs are each affiliated with 10 or more releases and
account for 6 percent of the Nebraska backlog (99 releases; Table 1
to the right). Of these, one local government body is affiliated with
2 percent of the backlog (27 releases) and four gasoline, retail, and
distribution businesses and convenience store chains are affiliated
with another 3 percent of the backlog (47 releases; Table 1).
Focused efforts engaging these seven APs through collaboration or
enforcement might expedite closure of many of these releases.
GEOGRAPHIC CLUSTERS
EPA performed a geospatial analysis to look for alternative ways to address the backlog. While releases in geographic
clusters might not have the same RP, they tend to be located in densely populated areas and might present opportunities to
consolidate resources and coordinate efforts. Geographic proximity can call attention to releases in areas of interest such as
redevelopment, environmental justice, and ecological sensitivity.
State and local governments can utilize geographic clusters for area-wide planning efforts. EPA's analysis identified 955
releases (54 percent of releases) located within a one-mile radius of five or more releases (Figure 7 below, left). Of these
releases, 613 (35 percent of releases) are located within a one-mile radius of 10 or more other releases. Approaching the
assessment and cleanup needs of an area impacted by LUSTs can be more effective than focusing on individual sites in
isolation from the adjacent or surrounding area. Considering
geographically-clustered releases might pave the way for new
community-based revitalization efforts, utilize economies of
scale to yield benefits such as reduced equipment costs, and
present opportunities to develop multi-site cleanup strategies,
especially at locations with commingled contamination. DEQ
already uses the same contractor to address commingled
orphan releases when feasible. EPA encourages states to look
for opportunities for resource consolidation and area-wide
planning but also recognizes that this approach is best geared
to address targeted groups of releases as opposed to a state-
wide opportunity for every cluster of releases. EPA intends to
Figure 7. Map of All Open Releases
Grand Island
21 DEQ provided data on entities identified as company RPs, but these parties may not actually be liable for the cleanups.
22 Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic opportunities that will address a limited number of
releases within select designated geographic areas.
Nebraska Finding
6 percent of releases are affiliated with seven
parties each with 10 or more releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore possibilities for multi- 99
site agreements or enforcement
actions with parties affiliated with
multiple releases.
Nebraska Finding
54 percent of releases are clustered within a
one-mile radius of five or more releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Target releases within close Targeted
proximity for resource number of
consolidation opportunities. releases22
SEPTEMBER 2011
NE-15
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEBRASKA
Nebraska Finding
Several key data fields are not included,
consistently maintained, or routinely tracked
in the SPILLTRACK database.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Improve database to enhance Variable
program management and number of
backlog reduction efforts. releases23
conduct further geospatial analyses on clusters of releases in relation to RPs, highway corridors, local geologic and hydrogeologic
settings, groundwater resources, and/or communities with environmental justice concerns. These analyses might reveal
additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
DATA MANAGEMENT
Additional improvements to database management could allow for easier overall program management as well as provide
an improved tool for developing strategies to reduce the cleanup backlog. Effective data management is essential to the
management of state programs, and DEQ might be limited by the type and quality of data with which it is able to work. Notably,
complete data on the media contaminated by the release, the contaminants of concern, and the confirmed liable RP for the
release are not maintained in the SPILLTRACK database, limiting this analysis as well as DEQ's ability to manage cleanups. Future
backlog reduction efforts similar to the effort undertaken with an EPA Region 7 grant could be facilitated by the presence of
complete LUST-related information.
23 Opportunities marked as "variable number of releases" relate to programmatic opportunities and affect an unknown number of
releases, potentially including all open releases.
NE-16
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEBRASKA
CONCLUSION
In this state chapter, EPA presented the analysis of LUST data submitted by DEQ and highlighted information on Nebraska's
LUST program. Based on the analytic results, EPA identified potential opportunities that could be used to address specific
backlog issues in Nebraska. Over the course of the entire study, EPA also analyzed data from 13 other states. Findings and
opportunities that apply to all 14 states are discussed in the national chapter of the report. Each opportunity represents one
potential approach among many to address the backlog. Discussion of the opportunities as a whole is intended as a starting
point for further conversations among EPA, Nebraska, and the other states on strategies to reduce the backlog. EPA will
work with states to develop detailed strategies for reducing the backlog. Development of strategies might include targeting
data collection, reviewing particular case files, analyzing problem areas, and sharing best practices. The strategies could also
involve actions from EPA, such as using additional program metrics, targeting resources for specific cleanup actions, clarifying
and developing guidance, and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with the states, is committed to reducing the backlog of
confirmed UST releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater and land, and the communities affected by these releases.
Nebraska LUST Program
Contact Information
Nebraska Department of Environmental
Quality
Water Quality Division
Petroleum Remediation Section
1200 N Street
Suite 400
Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509
Phone: 402-471-2186
Fax: 402-471-2909
www.dea.state.ne.us/LUST-RA.nsf/Paees/
SEPTEMBER 2011
NE-17
-------
CHAPTER NOTES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEBRASKA
CHAPTER NOTES
NEBRASKA DATA BY ATTRIBUTE
The following table provides details on the data elements of interest in this analysis. Data were provided by DEQ staff in 2008 and 2009 for use in this analysis. Several data
elements of interest could not be addressed with the information available. All available data elements were analyzed and only those data elements that revealed informative
patterns of interest are included in the report.
Data Element
Administrative Cost
Nebraska Data
Estimates were provided by DEQ staff.
Use in Analysis
Included in the "Program Summary"
section and in the national chapter.
Age
Age was calculated for closed releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the closure date and dividing by
365. Age was calculated for open releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the data date and dividing by
365. Any values less than -.1 were left blank. Values between -.1 and 0 were counted as 0. All dates were rounded to one
decimal point. Ages of releases with insufficient or invalid data were left blank.
Variable in all analyses.
AP
Cleanup Standards
Closure Date
Confirmed Release Date
Data Date
Federally-Regulated
LUST Releases
Free Product
Institutional and
Engineering Controls
Latitude and Longitude
Media
Monitored Natural
Attenuation
Data were obtained from the "OWNCO" data field in the "NE_LUST_DATA_7-29-09.xls" file. Entries in this data field
represent the AP company, which might not be the current owner.
No site-specific data available.
Data were obtained from the "DATEACH" and "TYPE" data fields in the "NE_LUST_DATA_ACTIONS_7-29-09.xls " file. When
a release had a type of "SC," "Z5," or "R8," the corresponding date entry in the "DATEACH" field was used as the closure
date.
Data were obtained from the "DIDATE" data field in the "NE_LUST_DATA_7-29-09.xls" file.
July 29, 2009, is used for all records. This is the date the "NE_LUST_DATA_7-29-09.xls" file was received.
Data were obtained from the "SPILLNO" data field in the "NE_LUST_DATA_7-29-09.xls" file. When a closed release had a
spill number in the "APxxxx" form, it indicated that it was a clean closure and did not count toward release numbers that
DEQ reported to EPA.
No data available.
Data were obtained from the "NE_WellsMoved-Replaced" file. Fewer than 10 releases were listed in this file.
Data were obtained from the "LAP and "LON" data fields in the "LST_coordinate_list_2009.xls" file. Where possible,
coordinates for releases without existing latitude and longitude values were obtained by EPA by geocoding address and
street locations.
No data available.
No data available.
Used to calculate the number of releases
associated with each unique AP.
State-wide standards examined in the
national chapter.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Identifies the appropriate universe of
releases for analysis.
Not applicable (NA)
Data not suitable for analysis.
Used in geospatial analysis calculating the
number of open releases within a one-
mile radius of other open releases.
NA
NA
Methyl Tertiary Butyl
Ether
Data were obtained from the "ACTCOM1" field in the "NE_LUST_DATA_MTBE.xls" file. When a release had a record of No informative patterns were identified.
MTBE in the "ACTCOM1" data field, it was marked as having MTBE contamination.
NE-18
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEBRASKA
CHAPTER NOTES
Data Element
Number of Releases
per AP
Orphan
Proximity
Public Spending
Region
Release Priority -
Remedial Action Class
(RAC), Score, Rank
RP Recalcitrance
Staff Workload
Stage of Cleanup
Nebraska Data
Calculated as the total number of open releases associated with a unique AP name.
Data were obtained from a compiled list of releases listed in the "Orphan T200 site costs.xls," "Orphan Sites LUST Fed
payments.xls," and "NE_LUST_PRIORITY_LIST.xls" files.
Geospatial analysis performed by EPA revealed the number of other open releases located within a one-mile radius of each
open release.
Data were obtained from the "Orphan T200 site costs.xls," "Orphan RP split sites T200.xls," "Orphan sites_LUST Fed
payments.xls," and "RP T200 site reimbursements.xls" files. The dollar amounts in the "total payment" data field from
each of the source files were added up to identify cumulative public spend ing to date for a release. Because these spend ing
data are cumulative, inflation adjustment was not applied and it was not included in release level analysis.
Data not tracked by administrative regions.
Data were obtained from the "RAC" and "SCORE" fields in the "NE_LUST_DATA_7-29-09.xls" file. RAC is divided into
categories 1-3, and drinking water source is one of the major criteria (see RAC Reference Table). Scores are based on
several factors, including RAC. All of the releases that have not been worked on will have a score; other releases that are
being actively worked on will have a score but not a rank.
No data available.
Estimates provided by DEQ staff.
Data were obtained from the "DATEACH" and "TYPE" data fields in the "NE_LUST_DATA_ACTIONS_7-29-09.xls" file. A
Use in Analysis
Examined in the "Number of Releases per
AP" section.
Examined in the "Cleanup Financing"
section.
Examined in the "Geographic Clusters"
section.
Data not suitable for analysis.
NA
Examined in the "Release Priority"
section.
NA
Examined in the "Program Summary"
section and in the national chapter.
Variable in all analyses.
release was assigned to a specific cleanup stage depending on its most recent action type ("TYPE" that corresponded to
the most recent data entry in "DATEACH"; see Stage of Cleanup Reference Table for details).
Status
Data were obtained from the "TYPE" data field in the "NE_LUST_DATA_ACTIONS_7-29-09.xls" file. When a release had a
type of "SC," "Z5," or "R8," the release was marked as "Closed"; otherwise, the release was marked as "Open."
Identifies the appropriate universe of
releases for tree analysis.
Voluntary Cleanups
Data were obtained from the "SPILLNO" data field in the "VRA Sites 2009.xls" file. Releases that were listed in the VRA
data set were marked as having VRAs.
Examined in the "Voluntary Cleanups"
section.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NE-19
-------
CHAPTER NOTES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEBRASKA
Stage of Cleanup Reference Table
Each release has multiple action records; releases were assigned to a specific stage
of cleanup depending on the most recent action type.
Type
NA
R2
R3
Ul
U2
U3
U4
U5
U6
N2
PH
R5
R6
U7
US
U9
X3
PI
P2
P3
QA
QB
QC
R4
R7
R9
Description
Confirmed UST Release
Source Notification
Source Response
Confirmed UST Release
Spill Investigation Initiated
Official Source Notification
Obtain Contractor
State/Source Meeting
Precision Testing
Investigation Initiated
Environmental Assessment
Ground Water Monitoring/Report
Preliminary Site Assessment
Initial Site Assessment
Detailed Site Assessment
This code is used when project manager activates the site.
DATESCH is the date the site is activated; DATEACH is the
date the investigation is discontinued.
R.P. Lead - Cleanup Started
R.P. Lead - Cleanup Under Control
R.P. Lead - Cleanup Completed
Cleanup Started
Release Under Control
Cleanup Complete
Remedial Action Plan/Status
On-site Inspection/Follow-up
Remedial Action - Long term Monitoring
Stage
Confirmed Release
Confirmed Release
Confirmed Release
Confirmed Release
Confirmed Release
Confirmed Release
Confirmed Release
Confirmed Release
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
1 Type Description Stage
X4 This code is used when a site goes into remediation. Remediation
DATESCH is the date the site begins remediation process.
DATEACH is the date the cleanup process is discontinued.
X5 This code is used when a site goes into monitoring. The Remediation
remediation system has either been shut down or there is no
remediation system. DATESCH is the date the site goes into
monitoring. DATEACH is the date when the monitoring ends.
X6 This code is used when a site goes into closure phase. Remediation
DATESCH is the date the site goes into closure. DATEACH is
the date the site is officially closed.
R8 Site Closed Closed
SC Site Closed Closed
Z5 Closed Site Closed
Release Priority Table
Each open release is assigned a priority score under DEQ's new priority system.
this analysis, releases were categorized according to the main priority numbers:
through 5.
1 RAC Description
For
1
1 RAC 1 includes groundwater of Class GA and a portion of Class GB, imposing a
500-foot radius around all private drinking water supply wells. RAC 1 ground water
receives the most extensive remedial action measures.
2 RAC 2 includes groundwater of Class GB (except for the portion of Class GB placed in
RAC 1) and Class GC(R).
3 RAC 3 includes, but is not limited to, groundwater of Class GC - except for Class
GC(R) that was placed in RAC 2. RAC 3 groundwater receives the least extensive
remedial action measures.
NE-20
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG
A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW HAMPSHIRE
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
September 2011
NH-1
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW HAMPSHIRE
LIST OF ACRONYMS
DES New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
EDB Ethylene Dibromide
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FY Fiscal Year
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MNA Monitored Natural Attenuation
MSA Multi-Site Agreement
MTBE Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
NA Not Applicable
ODD Oil Discharge and Disposal Cleanup
RBCA Risk-Based Corrective Action
RP Responsible Party
RSA Revised Statutes Annotated
SRCIS Spill Response and Complaint Investigation Section
UST Underground Storage Tank
NH-2 SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW HAMPSHIRE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Leaks from underground storage tanks (USTs) threaten America's groundwater and land resources. Even a small amount of
petroleum released from a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) can contaminate groundwater, the drinking water source
for nearly half of all Americans. In surveys of state water programs, 39 states and territories identified USTs as a major source
of groundwater contamination.2 As the reliance on our resources increases due to the rise in population and use, there is a
correspondingly greater need to protect our finite natural resources.
From the beginning of the UST program to September 2009, more than 488,000 releases were confirmed from federally-
regulated USTs nationwide. Of these confirmed releases over 100,000 needing cleanup remained in the national LUST backlog.
These releases are in every state, and many are old and affect groundwater. To help address this backlog of releases, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invited 14 states to participate in a national backlog characterization
study.
ANALYSIS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DATA
New Hampshire's Department of Environmental Services (DES) has made significant progress toward reducing its LUST cleanup
backlog. As of March 2009, DES had completed 1,553 LUST cleanups, which is 67 percent of all known releases in the state. At
the time of data collection, there were 745 releases remaining in its backlog.4 To most effectively reduce the national cleanup
backlog, EPA believes that states and EPA must develop backlog reduction strategies that can be effective in most states as
well as those with the largest backlogs. EPA invited New Hampshire to participate and represent EPA Region 1 in its national
backlog study.
In this chapter, EPA characterized releases in New Hampshire that have not been cleaned up, analyzed these releases based
on categories of interest, and developed potential opportunities for DES and EPA to explore that might improve the state's
cleanup progress and reduce its backlog. Building on the potential cleanup opportunities identified in the study, EPA will
continue to work with DES to develop backlog reduction strategies.
In New Hampshire, as in every state, many factors affect the pace of cleaning up releases, such as the availability and
mechanisms of funding, statutory requirements, and program structure. The recent economic downturn has also had an
impact on the ability of many states to make progress on cleanups.
EPA included potential cleanup opportunities in this report even though current circumstances in New Hampshire might
make pursuing certain opportunities challenging or unlikely. Also, in some cases, DES is already using similar strategies as
1 Data were provided in March 2009 by DES staff and are not identical to the UST performance measures reported on EPA's website,
available at: www.epa.gov/oust/cat/camarchv.htm.
2 EPA, National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report, pp. 50-52. www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/chp6.pdf.
3 Available data do not distinguish between whether a release is in the Confirmed Release or the Site Assessment stage.
4 EPA tracks individual releases rather than sites in its performance measures. Therefore, the analyses in this report account for
numbers of releases, not sites.
5 Unknown media releases include those releases where the media is unknown as well as those releases where, based on available
data, it was not possible to identify the media contaminated.
New Hampshire
LUST Data
By the Numbers1
National Backlog Contribution
Cumulative Historical Releases
Stage of Cleanup
Pre-remediation3
Remediation
Media Contaminated
Groundwater
Median Age of Open Releases
SEPTEMBER 2011
NH-3
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW HAMPSHIRE
part of its ongoing program. The findings from the analysis of DES's data and the
potential cleanup opportunities are summarized below in eight study areas: stage of
cleanup, media contaminated, use of passive remediation, cleanup financing, type of
contamination, number of releases per responsible party (RP), geographic clusters,
and data management.
Stage Of Cleanup (see page NH-lOfor more details)
New Hampshire Finding Potential Opportunity
63 percent of releases:
are in remediation; and
are 10 years old or
older.
Continue to use a systematic process to
explore opportunities to accelerate cleanups
and reach closure, such as periodically
reviewing release-specific treatment
technologies.
Releases
469
New Hampshire assessed most of its confirmed releases but releases are taking a
long time to move through remediation. The majority of open releases are 10 years
old or older. There are several reasons why many releases in the backlog are old
including: releases are complex and therefore take a long time to address; releases
where active remediation has concluded and the remaining contamination is being
addressed through passive remediation; and limited availability of state fund
resources for cleanups. DES has made significant efforts at backlog management and
reduction. Nevertheless, EPA believes it is important for DES to continue to explore
opportunities to accelerate cleanups at older releases and to make progress toward
bringing these releases to closure.
Media Contaminated (see page NH-13for more details)
New Hampshire Finding
63 percent of releases:
contaminate groundwater;
are in remediation; and
are 10 years old or older.
Potential Opportunity
Systematically evaluate cleanup progress
at old releases with groundwater
impacts and consider alternative cleanup
technologies or other strategies to
reduce time to closure.
Releases
468
Releases contaminating groundwater have always been the largest part of the
national backlog and 98 percent of releases in New Hampshire are documented
as contaminating groundwater. In general, groundwater contamination is more
technically complex to remediate and also takes longer to clean up than soil
contamination. For old, complex cleanups where long-term remediation is underway,
EPA believes it is important to have a system in place for periodic revaluation of
cleanup progress and to reconsider whether the cleanup technology being used is
still optimal. DES is faced with a large number of releases with groundwater impacts
and has very few soil-only cleanups remaining. Nevertheless, EPA believes DES should
continue to make progress toward closure for all cleanups.
Use Of Passive Remediation (see page NH-U for more details)
New Hampshire Finding Potential Opportunity
75 percent of releases with
groundwater contamination
and that are in the
Remediation stage are in
passive remediation.6
Continue to look for cost savings
measures to address additional releases.
When resources permit, evaluate the
effectiveness of cleanups using passive
remediation and consider using active
remediation technologies for releases
with potential receptors.
Releases
459
Due to resource limitations, DES no longer has a formal monitored natural attenuation
(MNA) program, which is typically characterized by a carefully controlled and
monitored process to achieve site-specific remedial objectives within a timeframe
that is comparable to more active methods. DES made a strategic decision to limit
expensive monitoring and now uses a passive remediation approach (identified
as releases with groundwater monitoring permits) at releases where the source
has been addressed. DES monitors these releases, but on a less frequent basis
than a formal MNA program requires. DES believes that many of the releases in
long-term groundwater monitoring will naturally attenuate within the next 10
years.7 This decision potentially contributes to the backlog but it also allows DES to
actively address additional releases by spending less reimbursement fund money on
groundwater monitoring and more on remediation. If passive remediation does not
address contamination in a reasonable timeframe, EPA encourages the use of other
strategies such as active remediation technologies as resources permit.
The data submitted identified 75 percent of releases as currently using a passive
remediation approach. Since that time, DES clarified that this is actually two subsets
of sites. One subset of releases is in passive remediation or in long-term groundwater
monitoring. The other subset contains lower priority releases that are awaiting funding
to enter active remediation.
According to Gary Lynn, Coordinator, Petroleum Remediation Program, DES.
NH-4
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW HAMPSHIRE
Cleanup Financing (see page NH-15for more details)
Type Of Contamination (see page NH-IG for more details)
New Hampshire Finding Potential Opportunity
94 percent of releases are
eligible for state funding.
Continue to explore opportunities to move
state-funded cleanups to closure, including:
continuing to look for cost saving
incentives and approaches to cleanup;
continuing to reevaluate remedial plans
to identify releases where more cost-
effective plans could be implemented;
and
continuing to encourage the use of
other sources of public and private
funding such as petroleum brownfields
grants to move relatively low risk
releases toward closure.
Releases
703
EPA and state programs are interested in exploring successful financing strategies for
completing cleanups quickly. EPA acknowledges that the recent economic downturn
has impacted cleanup financing. New Hampshire has indicated that limited availability
of state fund resources impacts the cleanup of its backlog, particularly for funding
remediation activities. EPA also believes the availability of funding for cleanup is
essential to reducing the backlog, so in addition to this study, EPA is increasing its
focus on oversight of state funds as well as conducting a study of private insurance.
All state programs are experiencing resource limitations, and progress toward backlog
reduction is dependent on their ability to apply existing resources to their backlogs.
DES is already pursuing strategies to efficiently expend state funds including evaluating
the cost-effectiveness of remedial plans at state-funded cleanups in remediation.
DES also considers cost saving approaches to cleanups and makes effective use of
the petroleum brownfields program and other funding sources to move releases into
remediation.
New Hampshire Finding Potential Opportunity
Of releases with
groundwater impacts that
are in remediation and have
methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE) contamination:
75 percent use passive
remediation.
Reevaluate the current remedial plan and
utilize optimal remedial technologies for the
removal of MTBE, as resources permit.
Releases
543
9 percent of releases:
impact groundwater;
and
have ethylene
dibromide(EDB)
contamination.
Continue to monitor and report the
presence of lead scavengers (e.g., EDB)
in groundwater at appropriate LUST
sites;
Analyze EDB using EPA methods with
the appropriate detection limits;
Remediate lead scavengers aggressively
when such constituents could threaten a
source of drinking water; and
Share information with EPA on the
presence and remediation of these
constituents.
65
MTBE can be a complicating factor at LUST releases. Because MTBE is not easily
degraded in groundwater, releases involving MTBE require more aggressive
management and remediation than releases where MTBE is not present. As with
any release in remediation, it is important to have a system in place for regular re-
evaluation of the cleanup strategy to ensure that optimal strategies are employed, as
resources permit.
DES has recently undertaken an effort to investigate levels of EDB contamination
at LUST releases. Due to resource limitations, DES is targeting EDB sampling to
known leaded gas releases, and focusing its sampling effort on a case-by-case basis
to releases requiring the highest level of oversight. If lead scavengers are present
and could threaten a source of drinking water, EPA strongly advises that states,
tribes, and EPA regions take or require UST owners and operators to take aggressive
remedial action to address the contamination and prevent human consumption of
contaminated drinking water.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NH-5
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW HAMPSHIRE
Number Of Releases per RP (see page NH-IS for more details)
Data Management (see page NH-19for more details)
New Hampshire Finding Potential Opportunity
11 percent of releases
are associated with five
RPs each with 10 or more
releases.
Continue to explore possibilities for multi-site
agreements (MSAs) with RPs associated with
multiple open releases.
Releases
79
New Hampshire Finding Potential Opportunity
EPA analyzed the number of releases per RP to identify the largest potential
contributors to New Hampshire's backlog. In New Hampshire, five RPs are each
responsible for 10 or more releases and account for 11 percent of the New Hampshire
backlog. DES uses MSAs with RPs. DES and EPA can use this information to identify
possible participants for additional multi-site strategies to clean up groups of releases.
Geographic Clusters (see page NH-18 for more details)
New Hampshire Finding Potential Opportunity
38 percent of releases are
clustered within a one-
mile radius of five or more
releases.
Continue to target releases within close
proximity for resource consolidation
opportunities.
Releases
Targeted
number of
releases8
Another multi-site approach DES uses is targeting cleanup actions at geographically-
clustered releases. This approach might offer opportunities for new community-
based reuse efforts, using economies of scale, and addressing commingled
contamination. DES has been assigning clusters of sites to project managers for at
least five years to facilitate coordination and minimize the expenditure of funds.
EPA believes that highlighting geographic clusters of releases and working with state
and local governments in area-wide initiatives improves New Hampshire's pace of
cleaning up releases. To this end, DES has already secured a petroleum brownfields
revolving loan fund grant and is working with regional planning commissions on
redevelopment issues in the state. EPA intends to work with the states to conduct
further geospatial analyses on clusters of open releases in relation to RPs, highway
corridors, local geologic and hydrogeologic settings, groundwater resources, and/
or communities with environmental justice concerns. These analyses might reveal
additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
Several key data fields were
not included, consistently
maintained, or routinely
tracked in the OneStop
database.
Continue to implement changes in the
OneStop database to enhance program
management.
Releases
Variable
number of
releases9
Data management limitations prevented a full assessment of New Hampshire's backlog.
Because of data limitations, EPA used a combination of data sources to identify the
current stage of cleanup at releases. In February 2010, DES added functionality to
the OneStop database and assigned all open releases a status indicating their cleanup
progress. The added functionality allows DES to track detailed status information
within the backlog and will assist DES with reporting on its various backlog reduction
approaches.
CONCLUSION
This chapter contains EPA's data analysis of New Hampshire's LUST cleanup backlog
and identifies potential opportunities to reduce the backlog in New Hampshire. EPA
discusses the findings and opportunities for New Hampshire, along with those of 13
additional states, in the national chapter of this report. EPA will work with states
to develop potential approaches and detailed strategies for reducing the backlog.
Development of strategies could involve targeted data collection, reviewing particular
case files, analyzing problem areas, and sharing best practices. Final strategies could
involve EPAactions such as using additional program metrics to show cleanup progress,
targeting resources for specific cleanup actions, clarifying and developing guidance,
and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with states, is committed to reducing the
backlog of confirmed LIST releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater, land,
and communities affected by these releases.
Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic
opportunities that will address a limited number of releases within select designated
geographic areas.
Opportunities marked as "variable number of releases" relate to programmatic
opportunities and affect an unknown number of releases, potentially including all open
releases.
NH-6
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW HAMPSHIRE
PROGRAM SUMMARY
State LUST Program Organization and Administration
The Petroleum Remediation Program within New Hampshire's Department of Environmental Services (DES) Waste Management
Division oversees the remediation of releases from leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) and aboveground storage
tanks, as well as other petroleum-contaminated sites. All petroleum remediation sites are assigned to project managers
for oversight, including the review of site assessment reports, oversight of remedial activities, approval of work scopes and
budgets, and review of reimbursement claims associated with state fund eligible releases.
Cleanup Financing
Administered by the Oil Fund Disbursement Board, DES's Petroleum Reimbursement Fund program is composed of four
separate funds.11 The Oil Discharge and Disposal Cleanup (ODD) Fund finances 94 percent of cleanups (703 cleanups) in
the state. The remaining 6 percent of cleanups (42 cleanups) not covered by the fund might be located at facilities not
in compliance or might not yet have applied for coverage. All releases from tanks at facilities that are in compliance with
local, state, and federal standards are eligible for state funding. An initial cost deductible applies to all facilities except on-
premise-use fuel oil. New Hampshire made a series of policy and legislative changes resulting in near universal availability of
state funding for LUST sites. The number of releases covered by public funding will increase with the passage of last year's
legislation that expands coverage from tank facility owners to also include property owners. Near universal coverage of
funding for LUST sites means there is no orphan or abandoned site issue in New Hampshire.
Cleanup Standards
New Hampshire's Groundwater Protection Statute requires that all groundwater must meet state drinking water standards,
without exception. No contaminated site can be closed until those standards are met. Risk-based cleanup standards for
releases with soil contamination are used but because most of New Hampshire's releases impact groundwater as well as soil,
the risk-based standards for soil rarely speed the pace of cleanup.13 DES allows the use of institutional controls to prevent
direct exposure and allows contaminated soil to be managed on site. However, only four LUST releases have records of closure
with institutional controls in place.
New Hampshire
LUST Program
At a Glance
Cleanup Rate
In fiscal year (FY) 2009, DBS confirmed 38
releases and completed 78 cleanups.10
Cleanup Financing
Of open releases, 94 percent (703 releases)
are state fund eligible.
Cleanup Standards
Stringent groundwater cleanup standards
must be met for all releases. Risk-based
corrective action (RBCA) can be used for soil
remediation.
Priority System
DBS does not currently prioritize releases.
Average Public Spending on Cleanup
$182,829 for open releases and $47,612 for
closed releases.12
Releases per Project Manager
Each project manager is on average
responsible for 90 open releases.14
Administrative Funding (FY 2008)
$1.8 million.15
10 Based on FY 2009 UST Performance Measures End of Year Activity Report.
11 The program is composed of four separate funds authorized by state statute: the Oil Discharge and Disposal Cleanup Fund (under
Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) 146-D), the Fuel Oil Discharge Cleanup Fund (under RSA 146-E), the Motor Oil Discharge Cleanup
Fund (under RSA 146-F), and the Gasoline Remediation and Elimination of Ethers Fund (under RSA 146-G).
12 Based on New Hampshire's January 2009 Petroleum Reimbursement Funds Activity Report.
13 According to Gary Lynn, Coordinator, Petroleum Remediation Program, DES.
14 Estimate provided by Gary Lynn, Coordinator, Petroleum Remediation Program, DES.
15 This amount does not include reimbursement staff, UST staff, or other non-LUST expenses.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NH-7
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW HAMPSHIRE
Release Prioritization
The DES OneStop database is able to track release priority and all releases are assigned
a default value in this field when the release is entered in the system, but DES has not
used its release priority system since 2002, at which time the program had enough
resources to fund cleanup of all releases. Case workers make informal decisions
about which releases get the highest level of oversight. DES also performs expedited
environmental site assessment reviews for a fee if they are needed for time-critical
real estate transfers or financial transactions.16 DES might prioritize releases again in
the near future to use its limited resources most effectively.
State Backlog Reduction Efforts
The total number of LUST releases in New Hampshire peaked in 1993 and declined
sharply as the first two backlog reduction initiatives were implemented in that year.
The two initiatives were: 1) the use of risk-based decision making for soil standards
(previously the standard was 1 part per million total volatile organic compounds and
100 parts per million of total petroleum hydrocarbons) and 2) a review of inactive
files to determine whether actions should be taken or sites closed. In 1998, DES
reviewed the files of every open release in the OneStop database to determine the
status of work underway. Where records showed no current activity, DES ran queries
to identify releases with overdue submittals. DES staff contacted responsible parties
(RPs) and contractors for these releases and used a variety of strategies to move
the releases forward, including performing site visits, implementing enforcement
actions, referring releases to brownfields programs, and helping RPs achieve state
fund eligibility. This long-term initiative was funded in part by supplemental LUST
Trust Fund awards. Of the 1,003 open releases in the backlog in 1998, 518 releases
(52 percent) were addressed as part of this initiative and, of those releases, 333
releases (64 percent) have since been closed. During this initiative, many of the
closures were achieved using the RBCA standards for soil, as the releases occurred
at a time when DES used stringent standards for total volatile organic compounds
and total petroleum hydrocarbons, which had been changed in the interim. Sites
were also addressed during the initiative by resolving eligibility for the ODD Fund,
enforcement, persuasion, and referral to USTfields or brownfields programs. This
initiative was a major multi-year effort involving existing staff, and the queries used
in this initiative to keep track of overdue work are now performed semi-annually or
more frequently if staff resources are available.
16 Expedited environmental site assessment reviews were required by RSA 485:3-b, passed
during the 1993 state legislative session. More information is available online at:
des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/pip/factsheets/rem/documents/rem-10.pdf.
NH-£
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW HAMPSHIRE
ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNITIES
In this study, EPA analyzed New Hampshire's federally-regulated releases that have not been cleaned up (open releases).
EPA conducted a multivariate analysis on New Hampshire's data. However, this technique did not identify strong underlying
patterns in the data.17 Next, EPA divided the open releases into groups that might warrant further attention. EPA used
descriptive statistics to examine the distribution of releases by age of release and stage of cleanup and highlighted findings
based on DES's data.19 EPA then identified potential opportunities for addressing particular groups of releases in the backlog.
Many releases are included in more than one opportunity. These opportunities describe actions that EPA and DES might
use as a starting point for collaborative efforts to address the backlog. Although EPA's analysis covered all releases in New
Hampshire, there are 26 releases that are not included in any of the subsets identified in the findings or opportunities due
to the way EPA structured the analysis. These releases might also benefit from some of the suggested opportunities and
strategies.
EPA's analyses revealed eight areas of New Hampshire's backlog with potential opportunities for its further reduction:
Stage of cleanup Cleanup financing Geographic clusters
Media contaminated Type of contamination Data management
Use of passive remediation Number of releases per RP
LUST Data Source
Electronic data for LUST releases occurring
between June 1975 and February 2009 were
compiled with DES staff in 2008 and 2009.18
Data were obtained from the DES OneStop
database and selected based on quality and
ability to address areas of interest in this
analysis.
17
The analytic tree method, a multivariate technique used to identify underlying patterns among large data sets, did not reveal strong
patterns within the data. For more information on analytic trees, see Appendix A.
18 For a detailed description of the New Hampshire data used in this analysis, see the Chapter Notes section.
19 For a detailed description of release stages, see the Chapter Notes section (Stage of Cleanup Reference Table).
SEPTEMBER 2011
NH-9
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW HAMPSHIRE
STAGE OF CLEANUP
As of March 23, 2009, the New Hampshire backlog consisted of 745 open releases. EPA analyzed the age of these LUST
releases and their distribution among the stages of cleanup. To facilitate analysis, EPA classified New Hampshire's open
releases into two stages of cleanup: the Pre-remediation stage (releases where assessments have either not begun or have
not been completed) and the Remediation stage (releases where remedial activities have begun).20 While EPA grouped the
releases into linear stages for this analysis, EPA recognizes that cleanups might not proceed in a linear fashion. Cleanup can
be an iterative process where releases go through successive rounds of site assessment and remediation. However, in the
long run, this approach might be both longer and more costly. Acquiring good site characterization up front can accelerate
the pace of cleanup and avoid the extra cost of repeated site assessment.
Since New Hampshire's LUST program began, DES has closed 1,553 releases; half of these releases were closed in fewer than
3.4 years (Figure 1 below). The young median age of closed LUST releases might be attributable to rapid closure of relatively
easy-to-remediate releases. Also, national program policy allows states to report confirmed releases that require no further
action at the time of confirmation as "cleanup completed." Therefore, some releases are reported as confirmed and cleaned
up simultaneously.
Figure 1. Age of Releases among Stages of Cleanup
20
,_, Pre-remediation
ro
<£ 128 1,553
0 -
The white dot at the center of each circle represents the median age of releases. Each circle is labeled with, and scaled to, the number of
releases within each stage. Included in the release counts and size of circles are 12 closed releases for which it was not possible to calculate
age. These releases are not part of the median age calculation.
New Hampshire has been working to reduce its backlog since the early 1990s and has a well developed and mature program
to address this issue. The first two backlog reduction initiatives were implemented in 1993: 1) the use of risk-based decision
making for soil standards and 2) a review of inactive files to determine whether actions should be taken or releases closed. In
1998, DES undertook a dormant site effort to reduce New Hampshire's backlog by identifying opportunities to move releases
toward remediation and closure; the effort resulted in the closure of 333 releases.
On the heels of the dormant site initiative, DES committed to permanently assigning all LUST releases to a project manager.
The past practice was to leave low priority releases unassigned and only work on them when a report came in to DES.
20 Releases were classified into stages based on available data and discussion with DES staff. Data were not available to distinguish
between the Confirmed Release and Site Assessment stages. For more information, see the Chapter Notes section.
NH-10 SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW HAMPSHIRE
Dormant releases were the consequence of this previous approach to low priority releases. Permanent assignment of sites
and improved project management is one of DES's key backlog reduction steps.21
DES did not track stage of cleanup in its database at the time of data collection. Therefore, EPA extrapolated the early stages
of cleanup by using reports to identify the releases in remediation and then, by process of elimination, identified every release
as a pre-remediation release that was not in one of the remediation reports. After the data were collected, DES conducted a
separate analysis and began tracking stage of cleanup in its OneStop database. Reviewing each release file, DES developed a
more accurate report on the status of its releases, particularly for the releases in the Pre-remediation stage. EPA was not able
to use these revised data in the analysis because the analysis for the report had already been completed when the data were
shared. However, EPA modified the discussion of the findings and included DES's revised table (Table 1 below).
Table 1. Stage of Cleanup as of October 6, 2010
Phase Codes
SI
GM
IR
RA
RA-H
Number of
Releases in Stage
49
327
3
98
232
Totals 709
Percentage of
Releases
7%
46%
<1%
14%
33%
100%
Releases Less than
10 Years Old
32
84
3
23
55
Releases Greater
than 10 Years Old
17
243
0
75
177
Notes: This table presents data based on release status as of 10/6/2010.
1. All of the SI releases greater than 10 years old have completed at least an initial site investigation. These releases are at the
supplemental SI step.
2. The Phase Codes are as follows:
IR includes: initial response action, emergency services, product recovery immediately post-release. IR generally applies to new
projects that stay with Spill Response and Complaint Investigation Section (SRCIS) from start to closure.
SI means more investigation is needed after IR to characterize the magnitude and extent of contamination, and the project
probably cannot be closed in the near term. The SI phase also includes supplemental site investigation activities. Projects may
be coded SI by SRCIS after IR to request further investigations, but will likely transition to a project manager to achieve closure.
RA and RA-H means likely post-investigation, a remediation plan was requested, a remediation plan is under review/approved,
an approved remediation plan is being implemented, or a presumptive remediation plan is being implemented. This includes
soil excavations, in-situ treatment systems, long-term product recovery, etc. LUST projects in this category are assigned to a
project manager. For the -H category, this means the release is low risk and work is not being sought at this time by the state
due to insufficient state funding. Owners with their own resources may proceed, but are at risk of not receiving reimbursement.
GM means no further investigations are needed and remediation is completed. There is no need for more source removal and
only monitoring toward eventual closure is necessary. Projects in this category are likely assigned to a project manager and
not SRCIS.
21 According to Gary Lynn, Coordinator, Petroleum Remediation Program, DES.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NH-11
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW HAMPSHIRE
Figure 2. Release Age Distribution among
Stages of Cleanup
Pre-remediation
(128 Releases)
Remediation
(617 Releases)
Not all LUST releases in New Hampshire have begun remediation although New Hampshire has made progress moving most
of its releases into remediation. Figure 2 to the left shows the backlog of releases by age and stage of cleanup and includes
128 releases in the Pre-remediation stage (17 percent of the backlog) that EPA identified in the original analysis. As seen in
DES Table 1, the 128 releases include releases that are not actually in the Pre-remediation stage. Based on the DES table, New
Hampshire has very few releases (52 releases) that are in site assessment and initial response. According to DES, these releases
in site assessment tend to be much younger than the backlog population as a whole and there is no evidence that there are
any old sites that have not had a full initial assessment.22 DES also stated that site assessments are typically completed within
a year and that the 17 releases noted as 10 years old or older have already completed the initial site assessment and now have
additional site investigation work ongoing. In New Hampshire, additional assessment activities occur after the completion
of the initial assessment activities, particularly to support remedial action proposals or to finalize groundwater management
zones prior to issuance of a groundwater management permit.23
Most of New Hampshire's releases are in the Remediation stage. According to EPA's analysis, 63 percent of New Hampshire's
releases (469 releases) are in remediation and are 10 years old or older (Figure 2). This older group of releases represents
76 percent of the releases in remediation. The DES table shows a more refined look at the releases classified by EPA as being
in the Remediation stage. According to the DES table, 98 releases are actively undergoing remediation and of that group, 75
are 10 years old or older. An additional 232 releases will have remediation actions but are considered lower priority and are
awaiting funding. Another sizable group of 327 releases is in post-remediation long-term groundwater monitoring. These
releases are discussed below in the passive remediation section. DES reviews releases in its database on a semi-annual
basis to determine if there is any overdue work. DES could also consider including a systematic evaluation of releases in
remediation to determine if cleanup approaches are optimized, including choice of technology to address the release. This
process might save DES resources and bring releases to closure more quickly.
New Hampshire Finding
63 percent of releases:
are in remediation; and
are 10 years old or older.
Potential Opportunity
Releases
Continue to use a systematic 469
process to explore opportunities
to accelerate cleanups and reach
closure, such as periodically
reviewing release-specific
treatment technologies.
22 According to Gary Lynn, Coordinator, Petroleum Remediation Program, DES.
23 Ibid.
NH-12
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW HAMPSHIRE
MEDIA CONTAMINATED
Groundwater is an important natural resource that is at risk from petroleum contamination. Old releases impacting
groundwater make up the majority of New Hampshire's backlog. In general, groundwater contamination takes longer and is
more expensive to clean up than soil contamination. In this study, EPA examined media as a factor contributing to the backlog.
The following analysis classified media contamination into four categories: groundwater (732 open releases); soil (six open
releases); other media, which includes surface water (one open release); and unknown media, which includes releases with
no media specified (six open releases).24
In New Hampshire, 98 percent of open releases (732 releases) involve groundwater contamination and have a median age
of 14.3 years (Figure 3 below). The age of open releases contaminating groundwater is significantly older than the 5.9-year
median age at closure for groundwater cleanups (Figure 3). Of the 613 Remediation stage releases that impact groundwater,
76 percent (468 releases) are 10 years old or older (Figure 4 below, right). Groundwater contamination might be complex and
difficult to remediate. However, using a systematic process to evaluate the cleanup progress, current contaminant levels, and
treatment technologies might identify releases where revised remediation methods or other strategies to accelerate closure
can be implemented.
Age of Releases, by Media Contaminated and Stage of Cleanup
613
Q Pre-remediation
0 Remediation
Closed
New Hampshire Finding
63 percent of releases:
contaminate groundwater;
are in remediation; and
are 10 years old or older.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Systematically evaluate cleanup 468
progress at old releases with
groundwater impacts and
consider alternative cleanup
technologies or other strategies
to reduce time to closure.
Figure 4. Age Distribution of Remediation Stage
Releases with Groundwater Impacts
3 3 129
o o
I 1
Groundwater
Soil
Other
Unknown
Squares indicating closed releases are not scaled to the number of releases in that stage.
24 For a detailed description of media contamination classifications, see the Chapter Notes section.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NH-13
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW HAMPSHIRE
New Hampshire Finding
75 percent of releases with groundwater
contamination and that are in the Remediation
stage are in passive remediation.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Continue to look for cost 459
savings measures to address
additional releases.
When resources permit,
evaluate the effectiveness
of cleanups using passive
remediation and consider
using active remediation
technologies for releases
with potential receptors.
Figure 6. Status of Remediation Stage Releases
Where Passive Remediation Is Used
Status of
Passive Remediation
(459 releases)
USE OF PASSIVE REMEDIATION
To minimize costs and make funding available for other cleanups, DES made a strategic decision to reduce monitoring schedules
at cleanups where contaminant plumes are stable and are expected to remain stable in the future. Prior to this decision,
DES operated a formal monitored natural attenuation (MNA) program. The MNA program involved sampling for natural
attenuation parameters and electron receptors, and analyses were performed to determine whether MNA would achieve
remedial objectives in a reasonable timeframe. The extra expense incurred by maintaining this program was not fruitful
according to DES, because collection of additional monitoring data did not move releases toward closure. As a result, DES
discontinued the formal MNA program and redirected the funds saved toward other cleanups. DES uses a permitting process
to move groundwater Remediation stage releases into passive remediation. DES project managers believe that these releases
will naturally attenuate in less than 10 years because contaminated source areas have been addressed.25 This approach
potentially contributes to New Hampshire's backlog but it also allows DES to actively address additional releases by spending
less reimbursement fund money on groundwater monitoring and more on moving additional releases into remediation.
Figure 5. Remediation Stage Releases
with Groundwater Contamination, by
Type of Remediation
Passive Remediation
Active Remediation
Pre-permit Remediation
EPA identified 75 percent of the releases in remediation (459 releases) as using passive
remediation (Figure 5 to the immediate left).26 DES clarified that this number includes
two subsets of sites. The first set is comprised of the releases in post-remediation
groundwater monitoring. DES reported there are 327 releases in this category (44 percent
of the backlog). The remaining releases are lower priority releases where remedial
action is necessary to close the releases and the remedial action is on hold pending the
availability of funding. According to DES, these sites do not pose a significant threat
to public health or the environment and are on hold to ensure that reimbursement
fund money is available for higher priority releases. All of these releases are actively
managed and many of them have limited groundwater contamination and are in areas
served by public utilities.27 These releases remain in a natural attenuation mode until
remediation dollars are available to accelerate closure. According to the data originally
submitted to EPA, 10 percent of groundwater Remediation stage releases (62 releases)
have not been permitted (Figure 5). DES monitors the progress of cleanups in passive
remediation, which might be moved into active remediation at any time depending on
DES's evaluation of current contaminant levels and availability of funding.
Of releases where passive remediation is currently being used, 25 percent (117 releases)
are considered close to closure; the remaining 75 percent (342 releases) are expected to
require long-term monitoring or active remediation prior to achieving cleanup standards due to the amount of contamination
present (Figure 6 above, far left).28 DES should continue to evaluate the progress and effectiveness of cleanups using passive
remediation and, when resources are available, determine if an alternative cleanup approach is more appropriate.
25 According to Gary Lynn, Coordinator, Petroleum Remediation Program, DES.
26 Passive remediation is identified by releases with New Hampshire groundwater monitoring permits.
27 According to Gary Lynn, Coordinator, Petroleum Remediation Program, DES.
28 Releases that have low concentrations of contaminants in one or two monitoring wells are identified as "close to closure." Gary Lynn,
Coordinator of the DES Petroleum Remediation Program, tracks these releases manually in a spreadsheet.
NH-14
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW HAMPSHIRE
CLEANUP FINANCING
EPA and state programs are interested in exploring successful financing strategies for completing cleanups quickly. EPA
acknowledges that the recent economic downturn has impacted cleanup financing. New Hampshire has indicated that
limited availability of state fund resources impacts the cleanup of its backlog, particularly for funding remediation activities.
EPA also believes the availability of funding for cleanup is essential to reducing the backlog, so in addition to this study, EPA is
increasing its focus on oversight of state funds as well as conducting a study of private insurance.
In New Hampshire, 94 percent of the open releases (703 releases) are eligible for the state fund (Figure 7 below). The New
Hampshire legislature expanded coverage of the state fund from tank facility owners to also include property owners in 2010,
which could increase this number.29 The small number of tanks ineligible for the fund is likely from facilities not in compliance
at the time of release or where the RPs might not have applied for eligibility. The median age of releases ineligible for the state
fund is younger than the median age of state fund eligible releases.
Figure 7. Age of Releases, by State Fund Eligibility and Stage of Cleanup
20 599
15
C1J
l/l
ro
0 Pre-remediation
0 Remediation
Closed
812
24
18
-o-
New Hampshire Finding
94 percent of releases are eligible for state
funding.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Continue to explore opportunities 703
to move state-funded cleanups to
closure, including:
continuing to look for
cost saving incentives and
approaches to cleanup;
continuing to reevaluate
remedial plans to identify
releases where more cost-
effective plans could be
implemented; and
continuing to encourage the
use of other sources of public
and private funding such as
petroleum brownfields grants
to move relatively low risk
releases toward closure.
State Fund Eligible
State Fund Ineligible
DES has made a significant effort to maximize the funds available for cleanup in New Hampshire. DES noted that the current
fee of 1.5 cents per gallon is among the top tier of state funding levels, although it is unlikely that additional funds will be
granted to the program in the near future because the New Hampshire legislature recently rejected a proposed increase to
the fee. DES reported that the availability of funds for active remediation sets the pace for backlog reduction. Remedial
action is currently delayed at 33 percent of releases (232 releases) due to a lack of available funds.30 DES also noted that the
costs for remediation activities are typically much higher than those for assessment.
DES has pursued several approaches to make more funds available for remediation activities. The first was discussed above
in the passive remediation section where DES cut funds used for expensive groundwater monitoring practices to fund
additional remediation activities. In addition, DES states that it has a standard practice of considering cost-effectiveness
when making remedial decisions and makes this practice a training priority for the program. DES has also championed the
use of integrated funding sources since 2000.31 According to DES, it is not unusual for them to blend two or three funding
sources to move projects forward. For example, DES has made effective use of the petroleum brownfields program and has
29 According to Gary Lynn, Coordinator, Petroleum Remediation Program, DES.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NH-15
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW HAMPSHIRE
provided brownfields-type assistance at abandoned releases or at sites that are undergoing redevelopment. This effort has
been extended to approximately 10 percent of the LUST releases.32 Interestingly, a key finding reported by DES is that using
petroleum brownfields funds generated nearly as many new LUST sites as it closed. As discussed below in the geographic
clusters section, DES has encouraged the use of petroleum brownfields assessment grants by municipalities and regional
planning commissions. DES has also secured petroleum brownfields cleanup revolving loan fund grants to provide additional
funds to clean up and reuse lower priority releases.
New Hampshire Finding
Of releases with groundwater impacts that are
in remediation and have methyl tertiary butyl
ether (MTBE) contamination:
75 percent use passive remediation.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Reevaluate the current remedial 543
plan and utilize optimal remedial
technologies for the removal of
MTBE, as resources permit.
TYPE OF CONTAMINATION
Presence of MTBE contamination might be contributing to the ongoing cleanup backlog. DES reports that releases with MTBE
contamination take longer to clean up. Open releases contaminated with MTBE constitute 83 percent of the backlog (618
releases) (Figures below). Of the 543 releases with groundwater impacts and MTBE contamination, 75 percent (408 releases)
are currently using passive remediation (Figure 9, page 17). Because MTBE is not easily degraded in groundwater, releases
involving MTBE require more aggressive management and remediation than releases where MTBE is not present.33 DES
should consider requiring active remediation of releases with MTBE present as funding permits. DES can consider employing
innovative technologies to reach closure faster for these releases as resources permit.
Figure 8. Age of Releases, by Presence of MTBE and Stage of Cleanup
20
543
£ 15
<1J
1/1
ro
% 10
o
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW HAMPSHIRE
Figure 9. Type of Remediation in Use at Releases with Groundwater
Impacts and MTBE Contamination
53
10%
15%
Figure 10. Presence of EDB Contamination at Releases with
Groundwater Impacts
Passive Remediation
Active Remediation
Pre-Permit Remediation
408
75%
With EDB
Without EDB
EDB Unknown
EPA provides recommendations for states, tribes, and EPA regions to investigate and clean up lead scavengers when present
at LUST releases. Because the primary threat posed by lead scavengers at LUST releases is to drinking water sources, EPA
recommends particular attention be paid to releases where the presence of lead scavengers could threaten sources of drinking
water. If lead scavengers are present and could threaten a source of drinking water, EPA strongly advises that states, tribes,
and EPA regions take or require UST owners and operators to take aggressive remedial action to address the contamination
and prevent human consumption of contaminated drinking water.
New Hampshire Finding
9 percent of releases:
impact groundwater; and
have EDB contamination.
Potential Opportunity
Releases
Continue to monitor and 65
report the presence of lead
scavengers (e.g., EDB) in
groundwater at appropriate
LUST sites;
Analyze EDB using
EPA methods with the
appropriate detection limits;
Remediate lead scavengers
aggressively when such
constituents could threaten
a source of drinking water;
and
Share information with
EPA on the presence and
remediation of these
constituents.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NH-17
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW HAMPSHIRE
NUMBER OF RELEASES PER RP
EPA analyzed the number of releases per RP to identify RPs that are the largest potential contributors to the state's cleanup
backlog.35 DES staff has been able to identify RPs for all releases, so orphan releases do not pose a problem for the state. A
total of five RPs are responsible for 10 or more releases each and account for 11 percent of the New Hampshire backlog (79
releases); these RPs are all gasoline retailers, distributors, or refiners (Table 2 below).36 DES has worked with RPs to address
multiple sites. DES and EPA can use these data to identify possible participants for additional multi-site strategies to clean up
these groups of releases.
New Hampshire Finding
11 percent of releases are associated with five
RPs each with 10 or more releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Continue to explore possibilities 79
for multi-site agreements (MSAs)
with RPs associated with multiple
open releases.
Table 2. RPs with 10 or More Open Releases
RP Type
Gasoline - Retail/Distribution/Refining
Number of Number of
Releases RPs
79
New Hampshire Finding
38 percent of releases are clustered within a
one-mile radius of five or more releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Continue to target releases Targeted
within close proximity for number of
resource consolidation releases37
opportunities.
GEOGRAPHIC CLUSTERS
EPA performed a geospatial analysis to look for alternative ways to address the backlog. F'gure n- MaP of Releases
While releases in geographic clusters might not have the same RP, they tend to be located
in densely populated areas and might present opportunities to consolidate resources
and coordinate efforts. Geographic proximity can call attention to releases in areas of
interest such as redevelopment, environmental justice, and ecological sensitivity.
EPA's analysis identified 285 releases (38 percent of releases) located within a one-mile
radius of five or more releases (Figure 11 to the right). Of these releases, 137 (18 percent
of all releases) are located within a one-mile radius of 10 or more releases. Approaching
the assessment and cleanup needs of an area impacted by LUSTs can be more effective
than focusing on individual sites in isolation from the adjacent or surrounding area.
Considering geographically-clustered releases might pave the way for new community-
based revitalization efforts, utilize economies of scale to yield benefits such as reduced
equipment costs, and present opportunities to develop multi-site cleanup strategies,
especially at locations with commingled contamination. DES worked on a multi-site
closure initiative recently with one company and is wrapping up a multi-site chemical
oxidation pilot project that seeks economies of scale by awarding multiple sites at
once.38 Finally, DES has been assigning clusters of sites to project managers for at least
five years to facilitate coordination and minimize the expenditure of funds.
Portsmouth
Concord
Manchester
Nashua
35 DES provided data on parties legally responsible for releases (i.e., RPs).
36 No federal government entities were identified as RPs for 10 or more releases.
37 Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic opportunities that will address a limited number of
releases within select designated geographic areas.
38 According to Gary Lynn, Coordinator, Petroleum Remediation Program, DES.
NH-18
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW HAMPSHIRE
State and local governments can also utilize geographic clusters for area-wide planning efforts. In fact, DES encouraged New
Hampshire's regional planning commissions to work with local governments to apply for petroleum brownfields assessment
grants. Approximately 80 percent of the regional planning commissions and municipalities admitted the need and subsequently
applied for assessment grants for targeted lower priority releases within their communities. In 2005, DES secured its initial
petroleum brownfields cleanup revolving loan fund grant to support cleanup and reuse of these lower priority releases. DES
estimates that approximately 10 percent of its LUST releases are addressed through this process.39 EPA would like to work
with DES to explore opportunities to promote and enhance the understanding and use of planning commissions and revolving
loan funds to address LUST releases. EPA encourages states to look for opportunities for resource consolidation and area-
wide planning such as New Hampshire's approach to assessment and cleanup using petroleum brownfields grants and other
resource consolidation efforts, but also recognizes that this approach is best geared to address targeted groups of releases
as opposed to a state-wide opportunity for every cluster of releases. EPA intends to conduct further geospatial analyses on
clusters of releases in relation to RPs, highway corridors, local geologic and hydrogeologic settings, groundwater resources,
and/or communities with environmental justice concerns. These analyses might reveal additional opportunities for backlog
reduction.
DATA MANAGEMENT
Database limitations prevent a full assessment of the backlog and associated strategies for backlog reduction. At the time of
data collection, the DES OneStop database did not track the stage of cleanup. DES staff manually tracked the stage of cleanup
and data for releases that were close to closure in spreadsheets, including details of required final monitoring events and
EDB contaminant levels. In February 2010, this functionality was added to the OneStop database and all open releases were
assigned a status indicating their cleanup progress. This will allow for easier overall program management as well as provide
an improved tool for developing strategies to reduce the cleanup backlog. DES also intends to improve its ability to track and
project spending commitments.
New Hampshire Finding
Several key data fields were not included,
consistently maintained, or routinely tracked
in the OneStop database.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Continue to implement changes Variable
in the OneStop database to number of
enhance program management. releases40
39 According to Gary Lynn, Coordinator, Petroleum Remediation Program, DES.
40 Opportunities marked as "variable number of releases" relate to programmatic opportunities and affect an unknown number of
releases, potentially including all open releases.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NH-19
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW HAMPSHIRE
CONCLUSION
New Hampshire
LUST Program
Contact Information
New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services
Waste Management Division
Underground Storage Tank Program
29 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 95
Concord, NH 03302-0095
Phone: 603-271-3644
Fax: 603-271-2181
des.nh.gov/oreanization/divisions/waste/
orcb/ocs/ustD/index.htm
In this state chapter, EPA presented the analysis of LUST data submitted by DES and highlighted information on New Hampshire's
LUST program. Based on the analytic results, EPA identified potential opportunities that could be used to address specific
backlog issues in New Hampshire. Over the course of the entire study, EPA also analyzed data from 13 other states. Findings
and opportunities that apply to all 14 states are discussed in the national chapter of the report. Each opportunity represents
one potential approach among many to address the backlog. Discussion of the opportunities as a whole is intended as
a starting point for further conversations among EPA, New Hampshire, and the other states on strategies to reduce the
backlog. EPA will work with states to develop detailed strategies for reducing the backlog. Development of the strategies
might include targeted data collection, reviewing particular case files, analyzing problem areas, and sharing best practices.
The strategies could involve actions from EPA, such as using additional program metrics, targeting resources for specific
cleanup actions, clarifying and developing guidance, and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with the states, is committed to
reducing the backlog of confirmed underground storage tank releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater, land, and
the communities affected by these releases.
NH-20
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW HAMPSHIRE
CHAPTER NOTES
CHAPTER NOTES
NEW HAMPSHIRE DATA BY ATTRIBUTE
The following table provides details on the data elements of interest in this analysis. Data were provided by DES staff in 2008 and 2009 for use in this analysis. Several data
elements of interest could not be addressed with the information available. All available data elements were analyzed and only those data elements that revealed informative
patterns of interest are included in the report.
Data Element
Administrative Cost
New Hampshire Data
Data were obtained from totals calculated by DES staff and provided in correspondence.
Use in Analysis
Included in the "Program Summary"
section and in the national chapter.
Age Age was calculated for closed releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the closure date and dividing by Variable in all analyses.
365. Age was calculated for open releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the data date and dividing by
365. Any values less than -.1 were left blank. Values between -.1 and 0 were counted as 0. All dates were rounded to one
decimal point. Ages of releases with insufficient or invalid data were left blank.
Cleanup Standards
No site-specific data available.
State-wide standards examined in the
national chapter.
Closure Date
Confirmed Release Date
Cooperative Agreement
Requirement
Data Date
Ethyl Dibromide (EDB)
Federally-Regulated
LUST Releases
Free Product
Institutional and
Engineering Controls
Latitude and Longitude
Data were obtained from the "DATE_ASSIGNED" field in the "Lust data.xls" file. This date was applied to all closed releases.
This is the date that the project manager was assigned. Because "Closed" is a valid "Project Manager" entry, this is the
closed date for all releases.
Data were obtained from the "Project_Start_Date" field in the "Lust data.xls" file.
Data were obtained from the "CNFA" field in the "ClosureBacklog.xls" file. These data indicate that DES negotiated a site
closure target. These data are maintained at the facility level, so all releases from a single facility are treated the same way.
March 23, 2009 is used for all records. This date is when the data were sent.
Data were obtained from the "EDB" field in "lust data.xls" file and from "edb_orig.xls" file, a list of releases with EDB
contamination.
DES staff included only relevant releases in the "lust data.xls" file, indicated by the presence of a "LUST" entry in the
"PROJECT_TYPE" field.
No data available.
Data were obtained from the "PROJECT_MANAGER" field in the "lust data.xls" file. A "Closed-AUR" entry in this field
indicates that the release was closed with institutional controls. Only four releases have this type of entry and age is
unknown for all four releases.
Data were obtained from "LAT" and "LNG" fields in the "Lust data.xls" file. Where possible, coordinates for releases
without existing latitude and longitude values were obtained by EPA staff by geocoding address and street locations.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Included in the calculation of release age.
No informative patterns were identified.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Examined in the "Type of Contamination"
section.
Identifies the appropriate universe of
releases for analysis.
Not applicable (NA).
Data not suitable for analysis.
Used in geospatial analysis calculating the
number of open releases within a one-
mile radius of other open releases.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NH-21
-------
CHAPTER NOTES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW HAMPSHIRE
Data Element
Media
New Hampshire Data
Data were obtained from "MI_AIR," "MI_DRINKING_WATER," "MI_GROUNDWATER," "MI_PUBLIC_WATER," "MI_SOIL,"
and "MI_SURFACE_WATER" fields in the "lust data.xls" file. Releases with groundwater contamination marked (in addition
to any other media) were counted as "groundwater." Releases with only soil contamination marked were counted as "soil."
Releases with any other combination of media were counted as "other." "Unknown" releases might include those releases
for which there are no data available in the database, but for which information is available in other files, and releases for
which the type of media contaminated is truly unknown.
Use in Analysis
Examined in the "Media Contaminated"
section.
Methyl Tertiary Butyl
Ether (MTBE)
Number of Releases
per RP
Orphan
Owner Type
Passive Remediation
Proximity
Public Spending
Region
Release Priority
RP
RP Recalcitrance
Data were obtained from the "MTBE" field in the "lust data.xls" file.
Calculated as the total number of open releases associated with a unique RP name.
There are no releases in New Hampshire for which a RP cannot be identified.
Owner type data were obtained from the "OWNER_TYPE" field in the "lust_data.xls" file.
Data were obtained from the "Site #" field in the "permits.xls" file, a list of facilities with groundwater monitoring permits.
Releases with facility IDs in this list are counted as releases where passive remediation is used.
Geospatial analysis performed by EPA revealed the number of other open releases located within a one-mile radius of each
open release.
DES provided two sets of data related to public spending. The first data set included spending records at releases between
2004 and 2008. Because these data covered only a limited timeframe, they did not offer opportunities for comparative
analyses. The second data set included aggregate spending at sites. Because each site can include multiple releases and
aggregate totals could not be adjusted for inflation, these data were not suitable for analysis.
Data not tracked by administrative regions.
No data available. DES has not used its release priority system since 2002.
Data were obtained from the "RP_COMPANY" field in the "lust_data.xls" field.
Data were obtained from the "overdue list.xls" file, a list of releases that are currently overdue. This list is not a history of
Examined in the "Type of Contamination"
section.
Examined in the "Number of Releases per
RP" section.
NA
No informative patterns were identified.
Examined in the "Use of Passive
Remediation" section.
Examined in the "Geographic Clusters"
section.
Data not suitable for analysis.
NA
NA
Used to calculate the number of releases
associated with each unique RP.
Data not suitable for analysis.
Staff Workload
all sites that have ever been recalcitrant. The overdue list had both facility number and PERM_ELIG to indicate the release.
When those data matched with data in "Lust list.xls," all those releases were treated the same way. Only 12 releases were
identified with recalcitrant RPs. Due to the small sample size, these data were not analyzed.
Estimate provided by Gary Lynn, Coordinator, Petroleum Remediation Program, DES.
Examined in the "Program Summary"
section and in the national chapter.
Stage of Cleanup Data were obtained from the "Remediation_for_09-10.xls," "Delayed_Projects_ODD GREE_Funds_with_RM_edits.xls,"
"permits.pdf," and "ClosureBacklog.xls" files. These files are lists of facilities that are undergoing remedial activities, have
delayed remedial activities, are in monitoring, or are close to closure, respectively. The presence of a facility ID in any of
these lists indicates that the release is in the Remediation stage. The remaining open releases were assigned to the "Pre-
remediation" stage.
State Fund Eligibility
Data were obtained from the "PERM_ELIGIBLE" field in the "lust data.xls" file. Releases marked "P" (permanently eligible)
or "Y" (yes) were marked as state fund eligible.
Variable in all analyses.
Examined in the "Cleanup Financing"
section.
Status
Data were obtained from the "PROJECT_MANAGER" field in the "lust data.xls" file. A "Closed" entry in this field indicates
that the release is closed.
Identifies the appropriate universe of
releases for tree analysis.
Voluntary Cleanup
Program
New Hampshire does not have a voluntary cleanup program. The state uses the Petroleum Reimbursement Fund to ensure
that releases are addressed.
NA
NH-22
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG
A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW JERSEY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
September 2011
NJ-1
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW JERSEY
LIST OF ACRONYMS
BDA Brownfields Development Area
BRMINCA Bureau of Risk Management, Initial Notice, and Case Assignment
BSCM Bureau of Southern Case Management
CEA Classification Exception Area
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Expedited Site Assessment
FR Financial Responsibility
FY Fiscal Year
LSRP Licensed Site Remediation Professional
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MNA Monitored Natural Attenuation
NA Not Applicable
NFA No Further Action
NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
NJEMS New Jersey Environmental Management System
RP Responsible Party
SRRA Site Remediation Reform Act
UST Underground Storage Tank
UST Fund Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Remediation, Upgrade, and Closure Fund
J-2
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW JERSEY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Leaks from underground storage tanks (USTs) threaten America's groundwater and land resources. Even a small amount of
petroleum released from a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) can contaminate groundwater, the drinking water source
for nearly half of all Americans. In surveys of state water programs, 39 states and territories identified USTs as a major source
of groundwater contamination.2 As the reliance on our resources increases due to the rise in population and use, there is a
correspondingly greater need to protect our finite natural resources.
From the beginning of the UST program to September 2009, more than 488,000 releases were confirmed from federally-
regulated USTs nationwide. Of these confirmed releases needing cleanup, over 100,000 remained in the national LUST
backlog. These releases are in every state, and many are old and affect groundwater. To help address this backlog of releases,
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invited 14 states to participate in a national backlog characterization
study.
ANALYSIS OF NEW JERSEY DATA
New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has made significant progress toward reducing its LUST
cleanup backlog. As of March 2009, NJDEP had completed 6,523 LUST cleanups, which is 60 percent of all known releases in
the state. At the time of data collection, there were 4,268 releases remaining in its backlog.3 To most effectively reduce the
national cleanup backlog, EPA believes that states and EPA must develop backlog reduction strategies that can be effective in
states with the largest backlogs. EPA invited New Jersey to participate in its national backlog study because New Jersey has
one of the ten largest backlogs in the United States.
In this chapter, EPA characterized New Jersey's releases that have not been cleaned up, analyzed these releases based on
categories of interest, and developed potential opportunities for NJDEP and EPA to explore that might improve the state's
cleanup progress and reduce its backlog. Building on the potential cleanup opportunities identified in the study, EPA will
continue to work with NJDEP to develop backlog reduction strategies.
In New Jersey, as in every state, many factors affect the pace of cleaning up releases such as the availability and mechanisms
of funding, statutory requirements, and program structure. The recent economic downturn has also had an impact on the
ability of many states to make progress on cleanups.
EPA included potential cleanup opportunities in this report even though current circumstances in New Jersey might make
pursuing certain opportunities challenging or unlikely. Also, in some cases, NJDEP is already using similar strategies as part of
its ongoing program. The findings from the analysis of NJDEP's data and the potential cleanup opportunities are summarized
1 Data were provided in March 2009 by NJDEP staff and are not identical to the UST performance measures found on EPA's website,
available at: www.epa.gov/oust/cat/camarchv.htm.
2 EPA, National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report, pp. 50-52. www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/chp6.pdf.
3 EPA tracks individual releases rather than sites in its performance measures. Therefore, the analyses in this report account for
numbers of releases, not sites.
4 Unknown media releases include those releases where the media is unknown as well as those releases where, based on available
data, it was not possible to identify the media contaminated.
New Jersey
LUST Data
By the Numbers1
National Backlog Contribution
Cumulative Historical Releases
Closed Releases
Open Releases
Stage of Cleanup
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Remediation
Media Contaminated
Groundwater
Median Age of Open Releases
6,523/60%
4,268/40%
2,895/68%
1,340/31%
3,489/82%
740/17%
SEPTEMBER 2011
NJ-3
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW JERSEY
below in six study areas: stage of cleanup, media contaminated, responsible party (RP)
recalcitrance, release priority, number of releases per RP, and geographic clusters.
Stage Of Cleanup (seepage NJ-lOformore details)
Media Contaminated (see page NJ-12for more details)
New Jersey Finding
34 percent of releases are
either:
5 years old or older
and site assessment
has not started; or
10 years old or older
and in site assessment.
Potential Opportunity
Encourage RPs to expedite site
assessments at old releases.
Implement enforcement actions at
stalled releases.
Encourage RPs and stakeholders to
examine public and private funding
options.
Releases
1,472
28 percent of releases are:
10 years old or older;
and
in remediation.
Continue to use a systematic process to
explore opportunities to accelerate cleanups
and reach closure, such as:
continuing to periodically review
release-specific treatment technologies;
reviewing site-specific cleanup
standards;
continuing to implement institutional or
engineering controls; and
pursuing alternative funding
mechanisms or enforcement actions for
old releases that are stalled.
1,199
NJDEP's data show many old releases in the early stages of cleanup. However, the
data might understate the level of remedial activity that has taken place at releases.
For many releases in the Site Assessment stage, preliminary remediation efforts to
remove contamination occur concurrently with groundwater and soil delineation
efforts. Although these releases have started remedial action/early excavation to
address contamination, the releases might not warrant nor necessarily have been
granted final remedial action work plan approval and so the releases are not classified
in this report as being in the Remediation stage. For those old releases where no
remedial activities have begun, enforcement actions could be appropriate to move
releases toward remediation and closure. EPA believes it is important for NJDEP to
explore opportunities to accelerate cleanups at older releases and to make progress
toward bringing all releases to closure.
New Jersey Finding
28 percent of releases:
contaminate
groundwater;
are in remediation; and
are 10 years old or
older.
Potential Opportunity
Systematically evaluate cleanup progress at
old releases with groundwater impacts and
encourage alternative cleanup technologies or
other strategies to reduce time to closure.
Releases
1,190
16 percent of releases:
contaminate only soil;
and
are not classified in the
Remediation stage.
Explore opportunities to move releases to
remediation and closure, including:
encouraging RPs to move forward with
cleanup under licensed site remediation
professionals;
initiating enforcement actions at stalled
releases;
continuing to target easy to close releases
and moving them to closure; and
encouraging RPs to use expedited site
assessment to move releases more quickly
into remediation.
669
Releases contaminating groundwater have always been the largest part of the
national backlog and 82 percent of open releases in New Jersey are documented
as contaminating groundwater. In general, groundwater contamination is more
technically complex to remediate and takes longer to clean up than soil contamination.
For old, complex cleanups where long-term remediation is underway, EPA believes it
is important to have a system in place for periodic revaluation of cleanup progress
and to reconsider whether the cleanup technology being used is still optimal.
Soil contamination is typically easier to remediate than groundwater contamination.
NJDEP's data show that many of New Jersey's releases with soil-only impacts are in
the early stages of cleanup. As discussed above in the Stage of Cleanup section, NJDEP
conducts some preliminary remedial activities simultaneously with site assessment
activities. In this study, releases are considered to be in the Remediation stage when a
final remedial action work plan is approved. Therefore, the status might not accurately
reflect the ongoing remediation activities at releases. In addition, for releases that
contaminate both groundwater and soil only, a portion of the releases never have a
formal remedial action work plan. NJDEP estimates that of the groundwater releases,
25 to 35 percent will not have a formal remedial action work plan and the percentage
for the soil only releases is much greater at 65 to 75 percent. These releases go
from assessment/excavation to monitoring and closure. EPA believes NJDEP should
J-4
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW JERSEY
continue to make progress toward closure for all of its LUST releases. In cases where
action is not proceeding NJDEP should consider enforcement.
RP Recalcitrance (see page NJ-14for more details)
New Jersey Finding
38 percent of releases are
associated with recalcitrant
RPs.
Potential Opportunity
Consider enforcement actions to address
releases with recalcitrant RPs.
Releases
1,612
RPs are listed as recalcitrant in NJDEP's database if required reports are overdue.
Releases with recalcitrant RPs are less likely to have begun remediation and are
therefore slowing the progress of cleanups in New Jersey. Increased use of
enforcement actions by NJDEP, especially applied to RPs for soil cleanups, could yield
more closures as well as influence other recalcitrant RPs to resume and complete
cleanup activities.
Release Priority (see page NJ-15for more details)
New Jersey Finding
1 percent of releases:
are high priority; and
are not classified in the
Remediation stage.
Potential Opportunity
Explore options for moving high priority
releases toward closure such as:
using enforcement actions to initiate the
cleanup of stalled releases;
expediting site assessments of all
releases to ensure that all releases are
appropriately ranked;
continuing to ensure that releases
with immediate risk are actively being
worked on; and
moving all releases toward closure.
Releases
42
3 percent of releases (not
including releases that
contaminate soil only):
are not classified in the
Remediation stage; and
have unknown or
incomplete priority
rankings.
Consider options to move unranked releases
toward remediation and closure such as:
assign and track priority for these
releases to identify releases that:
o require expedited cleanups; or
o can be closed with minimal effort;
and
examine public and private funding
options such as petroleum brownfields
grants for low priority releases.
353
NJDEP uses a priority ranking system based on wellhead protection, receptor
pathways, and source identification. NJDEP follows its priority rankings as a matter of
policy. However, it makes exceptions on a case-by-case basis, allowing some releases
to be worked on for economic development reasons. NJDEP stated it typically does
not prioritize lower risk releases that contaminate soil only. However, excluding these
releases, New Jersey has releases with unknown, incomplete, or high priority rankings
that remain in early stages of cleanup. EPA will work with NJDEP to develop strategies
to move all releases toward closure. NJDEP has stated that all high priority releases
have had initial remedial action to address impacts to receptors and, as discussed in
the Stage of Cleanup section above, many have had additional remedial activities but
do not have final remedial action work plan approval.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NJ-5
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW JERSEY
Number Of Releases per RP (see page NJ-ie for more details)
New Jersey Finding
34 percent of releases are
associated with 17 RPs each
with 10 or more releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore possibilities for multi-site agreements 1,430
(MSAs) or enforcement actions with parties
associated with multiple open releases.
EPA analyzed the number of releases per RP to identify the RPs that are the largest
potential contributors to the state's cleanup backlog. EPA was able to identify 17
RPs that are each responsible for 10 or more releases and account for 34 percent of
the New Jersey backlog. NJDEP and EPA could use these data to identify potential
participants for multi-site strategies to clean up groups of releases.
Geographic Clusters (see page NJ-l 7 for more details)
New Jersey Finding
64 percent of releases are
clustered within a one-
mile radius of five or more
releases.
Potential Opportunity
Target releases within close proximity for
resource consolidation opportunities.
Releases
Targeted
number of
releases5
Another multi-site approach that NJDEP uses is targeting cleanup actions at
geographically-clustered releases. This approach offers opportunities for new
community-based reuse efforts, using economies of scale, and addressing commingled
contamination. New Jersey has created Brownfields Development Areas (BDAs)
to enhance revitalization for areas and communities affected by the presence of
brownfields. EPA would like to work with NJDEP to explore opportunities to promote
and enhance the understanding and use of BDAs to address LUST releases. EPA also
intends to work with the states to conduct further geospatial analyses on clusters of
open releases in relation to RPs, highway corridors, local geologic and hydrogeologic
settings, groundwater resources, and/or communities with environmental justice
concerns. These analyses might reveal additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
5 Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic
opportunities that will address a limited number of releases within select designated
geographic areas.
CONCLUSION
This chapter contains EPA's data analysis of New Jersey's LUST cleanup backlog and
identifies potential opportunities to reduce the backlog in New Jersey. EPA discusses
the findings and opportunities for New Jersey, along with those of 13 additional
states, in the national chapter of this report. EPA will work with states to develop
potential approaches and detailed strategies for reducing the backlog. Development
of strategies could involve targeted data collection, reviewing particular case files,
analyzing problem areas, and sharing best practices. Final strategies could involve
EPA actions such as using additional program metrics to show cleanup progress,
targeting resources for specific cleanup actions, clarifying and developing guidance,
and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with states, is committed to reducing the
backlog of confirmed LIST releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater, land,
and communities affected by these releases.
J-6
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW JERSEY
PROGRAM SUMMARY
State LUST Program Organization and Administration
Several bureaus within the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) are responsible for oversight
of leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cleanups.6 Bureau of Risk Management, Initial Notice, and Case Assignment
(BRMINCA) (formerly the Bureau of Case Assignment and Initial Notice) staff oversee initial report submittals and, where
possible, issue letters of No Further Action (NFA) for cases that can be closed based on an initial report showing that cleanup
standards have been met and no further remediation is needed to close the release. Bureau of Underground Storage Tanks
staff administer technical oversight of active remediation for cases that cannot be closed by BRMINCA. Bureau of Southern
Case Management (BSCM) (formerly the Bureau of Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring) staff provide oversight of most
cleanups following remedial action work plan approval. Bureau of Enforcement and Investigation staff are responsible for
enforcement activities.
New Jersey's Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA), signed into law on May 7, 2009, enlists the resources of licensed site
remediation professionals (LSRPs) and establishes mandatory timeframes related to release investigation and remedial
activities. LSRPs work independently and without department pre-approval, and are responsible for conducting release
investigation and remediation and issuing response action outcomes. They answer to a licensing board and their work is
audited by NJDEP staff. SRRA is expected to accelerate cleanups and allow NJDEP to adjust its resources to a robust auditing and
enforcement program. The LSRPs address a broader universe of sites than just federally-regulated LUST sites; approximately
19,000 sites are covered under SRRA.
Cleanup Financing
Established in 1997, the Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Remediation, Upgrade, and Closure Fund (UST Fund) is
funded by a state corporate business tax. The UST Fund is managed within the New Jersey Economic Development Authority
and is administered jointly by NJDEP. The UST Fund does not function as a method of meeting financial responsibility (FR)
requirements and most RPs use private insurance to fund cleanups. If the remediation is not covered by the insurance carrier,
RPs must use private funds or state or commercial financing as their FR mechanism. Grants and loans from the UST Fund
can be applied to the closure, upgrade, and remediation of state-regulated petroleum underground storage tanks (USTs)
where applicable.10 To be eligible, the owner/operator must own fewer than 10 USTs in New Jersey, have a net worth of less
than $3 million, and be unable to obtain a commercial loan. The UST Fund has provided grants and loans to eligible owners
and operators at 113 closed releases and 275 open releases (6 percent of the backlog).11 As of June 30, 2010, the UST Fund
is no longer accepting new applications for USTs that are subject to New Jersey's UST regulations (N.J.A.C. 7:14B) with the
following exceptions: 1) supplemental applications can be submitted for cases with existing applications submitted prior to
New Jersey
LUST Program
At a Glance
Cleanup Rate
In fiscal year (FY) 2009, NJDEP confirmed 165
releases and completed 150 cleanups.7
Cleanup Financing
Responsible parties (RPs) must have insurance
to cover cleanups.
Cleanup Standards
Risk-based decision making standards based
on site-specific conditions are used.
Priority System
NJDEP uses a nine-tier priority system based
on risk and source identification.
Releases per Project Manager
Each project manager is, on average,
responsible for 93 open releases.8 Under
SRRA, project manager responsibilities will
shift to auditing and enforcement as LSRPs
assume responsibility for site investigation and
remedial activities.
Administrative Funding (FY 2007)
$5.3 million9
6 For more information, see www.state.ni.us/dep/srp/bust/contact.htm.
7 Based on FY 2009 UST Performance Measures End of Year Activity Report.
8 Estimate provided by NJDEP staff.
9 This is the total of UST-related administrative expenditures, as reported to EPA.
10 For more information, see: www.ni.gov/dep/srp/finance/ustfund/.
11 These data were obtained from the New Jersey Environmental Management System (NJEMS).
SEPTEMBER 2011
NJ-7
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW JERSEY
June 30, 2010, and 2) new applications can be submitted for newly discovered USTs
that are not in operation and for which the application is submitted within 18 months
of discovery.
Release Prioritization
NJDEP uses a priority ranking system based on wellhead protection, receptor
pathways, and source identification. Releases are categorized from 1 to 9, with
Priority 1 being the highest priority. According to NJDEP staff, it is standard practice
to not rank releases with soil impacts due to their inherently low risk. Cleanup
rankings change whenever new information is received related to site risks. In some
cases, once risks have been addressed through remedial activities, a high priority
release will be reclassified as lower priority. NJDEP follows its prioritization system
as a matter of policy and can address releases for economic development reasons as
well as risk priority.
Cleanup Standards
NJDEP uses risk-based decision making for all LUST cases. NJDEP's risk-based decision
making approach integrates risk assessment practices and traditional components of
the corrective action process to ensure that appropriate and cost-effective remedies
are selected and that limited resources are properly allocated. A risk-based cleanup
could include institutional controls such as a groundwater Classification Exception
Area (CEA) or a Declaration of Environmental Restriction, and/or an alternate direct
contact soil cleanup standard.
Once source material has been removed, the case must demonstrate a decreasing
trend in contaminants and then a release may enter monitored natural attenuation
(MNA), typically for two years. Data collected under the MNA process are used
to predict how long the contaminants will remain on site. Once institutional
controls (e.g., the establishment of a CEA) are in place, the release is given an NFA
determination. The RP must resample the site after a designated time period to
validate the attenuation predictions. If contaminants remain, a new attenuation
model is developed, the institutional control is extended, and the site retains its NFA
status. The number of releases closed with institutional controls increased in the
late 1990s and have accounted for between 10 and 18 percent of annual closures
between 1996 and 2008 (Figure 1, above right).
Figure 1. Use of Institutional Controls over Time
900
I Institutional Controls Used
Institutional Controls Not Used
State Backlog Reduction Efforts
NJDEP has pursued several backlog reduction efforts. Its largest effort involved
increasing staffing and holding overtime sessions between 1992 and 1996. In a
separate effort, NJDEP initiated its Cooperative Venture program in 1995 to work
with UST owners and operators in developing prioritized and mutually agreed-on
cleanup schedules. Review of this program began in 2003 and findings show limited
success with this program. Also, in addition to regular reviews during which case
managers focus efforts to process cases that are near to closing or can be closed,
NJDEP has pursued specific actions to identify candidate releases for no remediation
or no further action needed prior to closure. This process included establishment of
an initial notice group, and New Jersey's BSCM is working with a contractor and EPA
Region 2 to conduct file reviews. The most recent and notable backlog reduction
effort is the passage of SRRA, which designates LSRPs to perform investigations and
remedial actions to help streamline and accelerate the remediation of releases in
New Jersey.
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW JERSEY
ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNITIES
In this study, EPA analyzed New Jersey's federally-regulated releases that have not been cleaned up (open releases). EPA
conducted a multivariate analysis on all of NJDEP's data.12 This technique provided an objective analysis of multiple release
characteristics and allowed EPA to highlight the traits most commonly associated with older releases. Next, EPA divided the
open releases into groups that might warrant further attention. EPA used descriptive statistics to examine the distribution of
releases by age of release and stage of cleanup and highlighted findings based on NJDEP's data.14 EPA then identified potential
opportunities for addressing particular groups of releases in the backlog. Many releases are included in more than one
opportunity. These opportunities describe actions that EPA and NJDEP might use as a starting point for collaborative efforts to
address the backlog. Although EPA's analysis covered all releases in New Jersey, there are 340 releases that are not included in
any of the subsets identified in the findings or opportunities due to the way EPA structured the analysis. These releases might
also benefit from some of the suggested opportunities and strategies.
EPA's analyses revealed six areas of New Jersey's backlog with potential opportunities for its further reduction:
Stage of cleanup RP recalcitrance Number of releases per RP
Media contaminated Release priority Geographic clusters
LUST Data Source
Electronic data for LUST releases occurring
between October 1979 and February 2009 were
compiled with NJDEP staff in 2008 and 2009.13
Data were obtained from NJDEP's NJEMS and
selected based on quality and the ability to
address areas of interest in this analysis.
12 For a detailed description of the analytic tree method, see Appendix A.
13 For a detailed description of the New Jersey data used in this analysis, see the Chapter Notes section.
14 For a detailed description of release stages, see the Chapter Notes section (Stage of Cleanup Reference Table).
SEPTEMBER 2011
NJ-9
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW JERSEY
New Jersey Finding
34 percent of releases are either:
5 years old or older and site assessment
has not started; or
10 years old or older and in site
assessment.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Encourage RPs to expedite 1,472
site assessments at old
releases.
Implement enforcement
actions at stalled releases.
Encourage RPs and
stakeholders to examine
public and private funding
options.
Releases 5 years old or 7
older in the Confirmed
Release stage
Releases 10 years old
or older in the Site
Assessment stage
1,465
STAGE OF CLEANUP
As of March 9, 2009, the New Jersey backlog consisted of 4,268 open releases. EPA analyzed the age of LUST releases and
their distribution among the stages of cleanup. To facilitate analysis, EPA classified New Jersey's open releases into three
stages of cleanup: the Confirmed Release stage (releases where assessments have not begun), the Site Assessment stage
(releases where assessments have begun), and the Remediation stage (releases where final remedial action work plans have
been approved).15 While EPA grouped the releases into linear stages for this analysis, EPA recognizes that cleanups do not
always proceed in a linear fashion. Cleanup can be an iterative process where releases go through successive rounds of site
assessment and remediation. However, in the long run, this approach might be both longer and more costly. Acquiring good
site characterization up front can accelerate the pace of cleanup and avoid the extra cost of repeated site assessment.
Since New Jersey's LUST program began, NJDEP has closed 6,523 releases, half of which were closed in fewer than 2.0 years
(Figure 2 below). The young median age of closed LUST releases might be attributable to the closure of relatively easy to
remediate releases. BRMINCA, within NJDEP, reviews initial reports and identifies and closes releases where the initial report
shows that cleanup standards have been met and no further remediation is needed to close the release. Also, national
program policy allows states to report confirmed releases that require no further action at time of confirmation as "cleanup
completed." Therefore, some releases are reported as confirmed and cleaned up simultaneously.
Figure 2.
20
Age of Releases among Stages of Cleanup
1,340
15
2,895
i Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
1 Remediation
Closed
6,523
33
0
The white dot at the center of each circle represents the median age of releases. Each circle is labeled with, and scaled to, the number of
releases within that stage. Included in the release counts and size of circles are 74 closed releases and 24 open releases for which age is
unknown. These releases are not part of the median age calculation.
NJDEP has undertaken several efforts to identify candidate releases where no remediation or no further action is needed prior
to closure and, as described above, has a program dedicated to identifying easy to close releases early in the cleanup process.
Opportunities for closure with minimal effort are most likely found at lower priority releases where little or no remedial work
is required to reach closure standards or at releases that have met closure standards but have not finished closure review.
New Jersey has many old LUST releases not in remediation. Figure Son page 11 shows the backlog of open releases by age and
stage of cleanup. Figure 3 breaks out the 1,465 older releases in the Site Assessment stage (34 percent of the backlog) that
have not entered the Remediation stage 10 years or more after the releases were confirmed. NJDEP's data indicate that these
15 Releases were classified into stages based on available data and discussion with NJDEP staff. For more information, see the Chapter
Notes section.
J-10
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW JERSEY
releases have not moved into remediation quickly. There is considerable overlap of activities among stages of cleanup, so this
number might understate the amount of remedial activity underway at releases in the Site Assessment stage. For example,
initial response actions, such as excavation of contaminated source material and free product removal, might be taken at
the time of release confirmation. For many cases in the Site Assessment stage, efforts to remove contamination through
excavation, vacuum extraction technologies, or chemical injection occur concurrently with groundwater and soil delineation
efforts. Often, these releases have undergone some remedial action or early excavation to address contamination, but have
not been granted full remedial action work plan approval and so are not classified in this report as Remediation stage. For
those old releases where no remedial activities have begun, implementing enforcement actions might be appropriate to move
releases toward remediation and closure. NJDEP should encourage RPs and communities to look at other funding options
such as other public and private funding sources to facilitate assessment, cleanup, and reuse. For example, the state can
encourage petroleum brownfields grants for low priority releases with no viable RP.
Figure 3. Release Age Distribution among Stages of Cleanup
Unknown Age
14
Unknown Age
< 10 Years
1,416
49% > 10 Years
1,199
89%
Confirmed Release
(33 Releases)
Site Assessment
(2,895 Releases)
Remediation
(1,340 Releases)
NJDEP can also encourage RPs to use expedited site assessments to help rapidly characterize site conditions and move
releases into remediation and to closure sooner. One of the tools available to both regulators and RPs is EPA's Expedited Site
Assessment (ESA) guide.16 The guide explains the overall ESA process as well as specific site assessment tools and methods.
Having RPs conduct their site assessments efficiently and quickly can help reduce the backlog.
New Jersey has many old releases in the Remediation stage. Twenty-eight percent of New Jersey's releases (1,199 releases)
are in remediation and are 10 years old or older (Figure 3). This older group of releases represents 89 percent of the releases
in remediation (Figure 3). Because EPA only has the date that a release was confirmed but not when it moved from one
stage to the next (e.g., from assessment to remediation), EPA can calculate the overall age of the release but not the actual
time spent in the Remediation stage. It is possible that some of these releases might have only recently begun remediation.
NJDEP uses a systematic process to evaluate existing releases in remediation, focusing on MNA. NJDEP might also consider
expanding that evaluation to include optimizing cleanup approaches. A systematic review of treatment technologies and
cleanup standards in place at releases might identify opportunities to accelerate cleanups toward closure. New Jersey's new
cleanup law is set up to move releases through the cleanup process more quickly as well. SRRA requires RPs with releases
16 EPA's 1997 guidance document, Expedited Site Assessment Tools For Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide For Regulators (EPA
510-B-97-001), is available online at: www.epa.gov/OUST/pubs/sam.htm.
New Jersey Finding
28 percent of releases are:
10 years old or older; and
in remediation.
Potential Opportunity
Releases
Continue to use a systematic 1,199
process to explore opportunities
to accelerate cleanups and reach
closure, such as:
continuing to periodically
review release-specific
treatment technologies;
reviewing site-specific
cleanup standards;
continuing to implement
institutional or engineering
controls; and
pursuing alternative funding
mechanisms or enforcement
actions for old releases that
are stalled.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NJ-11
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW JERSEY
in the Site Assessment stage for more than 10 years to complete remedial investigations by May 2014. By May 2012, all
remediation must be conducted by an LSRP.17 According to state staff, the combination of these activities should accelerate
remedial progress at both old and new releases.
New Jersey Finding
28 percent of releases:
contaminate groundwater;
are in remediation; and
are 10 years old or older.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Systematically evaluate cleanup 1,190
progress at old releases with
groundwater impacts and
encourage alternative cleanup
technologies or other strategies to
reduce time to closure.
Figure 5. Age of Remediation Stage Releases
with Groundwater Impacts
Unknown Age
7 < 10 Years
< 1% 68
^- 5%
MEDIA CONTAMINATED
Groundwater is an important natural resource that is at risk from petroleum contamination. Old releases impacting
groundwater make up the majority of New Jersey's backlog. In general, groundwater contamination takes longer and is more
expensive to clean up than soil contamination. In this study, EPA examined media as a factor contributing to the backlog. The
following analysis classified media contamination into three categories: groundwater (3,489 open releases), soil (740 open
releases), and "unknown" media, which includes releases with no media specified (39 open releases).18 NJDEP consistently
tracks the type of media contaminated in its database and has very few releases with unknown media contamination.
In New Jersey, 82 percent of open releases (3,489 releases) involve groundwater contamination and have a median age of 14.5
years (Figure 4 below). In contrast, only 27 percent of closed releases (1,760 releases) involved groundwater contamination.
These closed releases have a significantly younger mean age of 5.5 years compared to the median age of open releases. Of
the 1,265 Remediation stage releases that impact groundwater, 94 percent (1,190 releases) are 10 years old are older (Figure
5 below to the left). This subset of older releases contaminating groundwater makes up 28 percent of New Jersey's total
backlog.
Figure 4. Age of Releases by Media Contaminated and Stage of Cleanup
1,265
OJ
OL
O Confirmed Release
O Site Assessment
O Remediation
Closed
Groundwater Soil Unknown
Squares indicating closed releases are not scaled to the number of releases in that stage.
Groundwater contamination is typically more complex and difficult to remediate. However, if NJDEP could identify
opportunities to improve cleanup efficiencies, it might be able to accelerate the pace of cleanups. For example, encouraging
RPs to reevaluate the cleanup progress, current contaminant levels, and treatment technologies might move releases through
remediation faster. The use of institutional or engineering controls can also reduce the time to closure by eliminating exposure
pathways and allowing for less stringent cleanup standards where protective and appropriate. NJDEP uses institutional
controls as part of its systematic process of moving releases into MNA and closure. NJDEP data indicate that institutional
controls are used at 10 to 18 percent of annual closures.
17 More information on SRRA, including additional cleanup milestones, is available at: www.state.ni.us/dep/srp/srra/.
18 For a detailed description of media contamination classifications, see the Chapter Notes section.
J-12
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW JERSEY
Releases that contaminate soil only are of concern because they represent a potential threat to groundwater resources and
contaminate properties in neighborhoods and communities. Although contaminated soil can typically be cleaned up faster
than contaminated groundwater, New Jersey has 740 releases contaminating soil only. Of soil-only cleanups, 90 percent (667
cleanups, 16 percent of the total backlog) remain in the Site Assessment stage and have a median age of 8.0 years (Figure
4). This categorization might not accurately reflect any remedial activities that have taken place at these releases because,
according to NJDEP, releases with soil contamination typically have multiple rounds of soil removal and sampling prior to
implementation of a final remedial action work plan. In addition, state staff indicated that only 25 to 35 percent of releases
with soil-only impacts are ever formally classified as being in the Remediation stage because the RP chooses to conduct site
assessment in concert with an excavation followed by post-remedial samples. Usually, once the sampling is complete, the
release can be closed. The state encourages this practice when appropriate.
Soil contamination is typically easier to remediate than groundwater contamination. Encouraging RPs of pre-remediation
soil cleanups to hire LSRPs for cleanup oversight might help expedite the cleanup of these releases.19 Other strategies for
moving these releases forward include using enforcement actions and expediting site assessment to move releases quickly
into remediation and continuing to target easy to close releases.
New Jersey Finding
16 percent of releases:
contaminate only soil; and
are not classified in the Remediation
stage.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore opportunities to move 669
releases to remediation and
closure, including:
encouraging RPs to move
forward with cleanup under
LSRPs;
initiating enforcement actions
at stalled releases;
continuing to target easy to
close releases and moving
them to closure; and
encouraging RPs to use
expedited site assessment to
move releases more quickly
into remediation.
19 Pre-remediation refers to releases in the Confirmed Release or Site Assessment stages.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NJ-13
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW JERSEY
New Jersey Finding
38 percent of releases are associated with
recalcitrant RPs.
Consider enforcement actions to 1,612
address releases with recalcitrant
RPs.
RP RECALCITRANCE
The NJDEP database tracks RPs as recalcitrant if required reports are overdue. Releases with recalcitrant RPs are less likely
to have begun remediation and are therefore slowing the progress of cleanups in New Jersey. Releases with recalcitrant RPs
account for 38 percent of the current backlog (1,612 releases), and 76 percent of these releases (1,231 releases) have not
completed site assessment (Figure 6 below).
Figure 6. Age of Releases by Recalcitrance and Stage of Cleanup
20
959
381
1,228
i,667
O Confirmed Release
O Site Assessment
O Remediation
Closed
(U
Dl
30
Recalcitrant
Not Recalcitrant
Figure 7. Tree Analysis of Open Release Age
f Open Releases
1 Releases 4,244
V
Stage
[ Confirmed Release;
Site Assessment
~1 Re^eases^6 ^^ 219°14
V ' J
1.2
Remediation
Releases 1,330
L J
Media
Media
2.1
^ Groundwater "^
RP Status
Median Age jVedibj 10. b
Releases 2,212l
2.2
Median Age (Years) 7.6 RP Status
^ Groundwater "^
Releases 1,258 I
2.4
f c ., - - , ~N
Releases 72 1
3.1
Recalcitrant
Releases 879 1
3.2
Not Recalcitrant
(Releases 1,333 1
3.3
3.4
Not Recalcitrant "^
^
Although Figure 6 suggests that the median ages of
release for recalcitrant RPs are similar to those of
releases with active RPs, further analysis of subsets
of releases revealed more pronounced effects of
recalcitrance. Figure 7 to the left illustrates that releases
in the Confirmed Release or Site Assessment stage
(Node 1.1) that impact groundwater (Node 2.1) and
have recalcitrant RPs (Node 3.1) are older than releases
with active RPs (Node 3.2). This age difference is even
more significant for releases in the Confirmed Release
or Site Assessment stage (Node 1.1) that impact soil or
unknown media (Node 2.2) and have recalcitrant RPs
(Node 3.3).
Efforts to prevent RP recalcitrance through increased
use of enforcement actions, especially if applied to
RPs with releases contaminating soil, could yield more
closures, as well as spur other recalcitrant RPs to resume
cleanup activities. According to NJDEP staff, once the
LSRP program is fully functioning, the majority of staff
resources will shift to enforcement.
J-14
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW JERSEY
RELEASE PRIORITY
Many state programs employ prioritization systems to decide how to best allocate state resources for state-funded assessments
and cleanups and oversight of privately-financed cleanups. States approach cleanup prioritization differently; there might be
opportunities within New Jersey's prioritization system to increase the number of closures. NJDEP follows its priority rankings
as a matter of policy, but can make exceptions on a case-by-case basis.
The New Jersey backlog includes old releases of all priority ranks. NJDEP staff indicated that high priority cases (Priority 1,
2, and 3 cases) where receptors are impacted are to be investigated or remediated on an expedited timeframe. The data
collected showed that 35 of the 70 high priority releases in the Site Assessment stage were confirmed 10 years ago or longer,
and the 64 high priority releases (1 percent of the backlog) in the Remediation stage have a median age of 17.9 years (Figure
8 below).20 In addition, NJDEP stated that initial remediation steps have been taken at all high priority sites to address risks
to receptors. Although other interim remediation steps have occurred at some of these releases, they have not had final
remedial action work plan approval. Since assessment and remediation often occur in tandem in New Jersey, NJDEP should
explore opportunities to expedite site assessments and evaluate cleanup progress of high priority releases to ensure that all
releases are appropriately ranked and moving toward remediation and closure. In cases where releases are stalled, NJDEP
might want to consider enforcement actions, especially for high priority releases. EPA will work with NJDEP to develop
strategies to move all releases toward closure and to continue to ensure that there are no immediate risks to human health
and the environment from the high priority releases that have not been addressed.
Figure 8. Age of Releases by Release Priority and Stage of Cleanup
20 ,-. 662
64
15
1,223
ro
_OJ
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW JERSEY
New Jersey Finding
3 percent of releases (not including releases
that contaminate soil only):
are not classified in the Remediation
stage; and
have unknown or incomplete priority
rankings.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Consider options to move 353
unranked releases toward
remediation and closure such as:
assign and track priority for
these releases to identify
releases that:
o require expedited
cleanups; or
o can be closed with minimal
effort; and
examine public and private
funding options such as
petroleum brownfields grants
for low priority releases.
New Jersey Finding
34 percent of releases are associated with 17
RPs each with 10 or more releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore possibilities for multi- 1,430
site agreements (MSAs) or
enforcement actions with parties
associated with multiple open
releases.
due to incomplete data entry. An additional 248 releases (6 percent of the backlog) have not completed risk characterization
and, therefore, do not have enough data to assign a priority. Efforts to assign and track priority at these releases could identify
high priority releases to be expedited or low priority releases to be closed with minimal effort or moved toward remediation. If
some of the releases are not moving forward because the RP is no longer viable, NJDEP could consider petroleum brownfields
grants for those releases that are lower priority.
NUMBER OF RELEASES PER RP
EPA analyzed the number of releases per RP to identify RPs
that are the largest potential contributors to the state's cleanup
backlog.22 Four RPs account for 24 percent of the New Jersey
backlog (1,032 releases) (Table 1 to the right). Including these
four RPs, 17 RPs are each responsible for 10 or more releases
and account for 34 percent of the New Jersey backlog (1,430
releases).23 NJDEP and EPA can use this information to identify
potential participants for multi-site strategies to address these
groups of releases. Focused efforts engaging these 17 RPs in
collaboration or enforcement might expedite closure of many
of these releases.
Table 1. RPs with 10 or More Releases
Type of RP
1 Gasoline -
2 Gasoline -
3 Gasoline -
4 Gasoline -
5 Gasoline -
6 Gasoline -
7 Gasoline -
8 Other
9 Gasoline -
Retail/Distribution/Refining
Retail/Distribution/Refining
Retail/Distribution/Refining
Retail/Distribution/Refining
Retail/Distribution/Refining
Retail/Distribution/Refining
Retail/Distribution/Refining
Retail/Distribution/Refining
10 Government -State
11 Gasoline -
Retail/Distribution/Refining
12 Government- State
13 Gasoline -
14 Gasoline -
15 Gasoline -
16 Gasoline -
17 Gasoline -
Retail/Distribution/Refining
Retail/Distribution/Refining
Retail/Distribution/Refining
Retail/Distribution/Refining
Retail/Distribution/Refining
Total
Number of
Releases
482
299
142
109
95
73
60
26
25
20
20
17
16
13
12
11
10
1,430
22 NJDEP provided data on names of legally-responsible parties.
23 No federal government entities were identified as having 10 or more releases in New Jersey.
J-16
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW JERSEY
Figure 9. Map of All Open Releases
Camden
New York
Metro Area
,ong Branch
GEOGRAPHIC CLUSTERS
EPA performed a geospatial analysis to look for alternative ways to address the
backlog. While releases in geographic clusters might not have the same RP, they
tend to be located in densely populated areas and might present opportunities
to consolidate resources and coordinate efforts. Geographic proximity can call
attention to releases in areas of interest such as redevelopment, environmental
justice, and ecological sensitivity.
EPA's analysis identified 2,745 releases (64 percent of releases) located within
a one-mile radius of five or more releases (Figure 9 to the right). Of these
releases, 1,655 (39 percent of releases) are located within a one-mile radius
of 10 or more releases. Approaching the assessment and cleanup needs of an
area impacted by LUSTs can be more effective than focusing on individual sites
in isolation from the adjacent or surrounding area. Considering geographically-
clustered releases might pave the way for new community-based revitalization
efforts, utilize economies of scale to yield benefits such as reduced equipment
costs, and present opportunities to develop multi-site cleanup strategies,
especially at locations with commingled contamination.
State and local governments can also utilize geographic clusters for area-wide
planning efforts. In fact, New Jersey has created Brownfields Development
Areas (BDA) to enhance revitalization for areas and communities affected by the presence of brownfields. EPA would like
to work with NJDEP to explore opportunities to promote and enhance the understanding and use of BDAs to address LUST
releases. EPA encourages states to look for opportunities for resource consolidation and area-wide planning like New Jersey's
BDAs but also recognizes that this approach is best geared to address targeted groups of releases as opposed to a state-wide
opportunity for every cluster of releases. EPA intends to conduct further geospatial analyses on clusters of open releases in
relation to RPs, highway corridors, local geologic and hydrogeologic settings, groundwater resources, and/or communities
with environmental justice concerns. These analyses might reveal additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
New Jersey Finding
64 percent of releases are clustered within a
one-mile radius of five or more releases.
Potential Opportunity
Target releases within close
proximity for resource
consolidation opportunities.
Releases
Targeted
number of
releases24
24 Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic opportunities that will address a limited number of
releases within select designated geographic areas.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NJ-17
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW JERSEY
CONCLUSION
New Jersey
LUST Program
Contact Information
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
Site Remediation Program
Bureau of Risk Management, Initial Notice,
and Case Assignment
P.O. Box 433
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Phone: 609-633-0708
In this state chapter, EPA presented the analysis of LUST data submitted by NJDEP and highlighted information on New Jersey's
LUST program. Based on the analytic results, EPA identified potential opportunities that could be used to address specific
backlog issues in New Jersey. Over the course of the entire study, EPA also analyzed data from 13 other states. Findings and
opportunities that apply to all 14 states are discussed in the national chapter of the report. Each opportunity represents one
potential approach among many to address the backlog. Discussion of the opportunities as a whole is intended as a starting
point for further conversations among EPA, New Jersey, and the other states on strategies to reduce the backlog. EPA will
work with the states to develop detailed strategies for reducing the backlog. Development of the strategies might include
targeted data collection, reviewing particular case files, analyzing problem areas, and sharing best practices. The strategies
could involve actions from EPA such as using additional program metrics, targeting resources for specific cleanup actions,
clarifying and developing guidance, and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with the states, is committed to reducing the
backlog of confirmed UST releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater, land, and the communities affected by these
releases.
Bureau of Underground Storage Tanks
P.O. Box 413
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Phone: 609-292-8761
www.state.ni.us/deD/sro/bust/co ntact.htm
J-18
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW JERSEY
CHAPTER NOTES
CHAPTER NOTES
NEW JERSEY DATA BY ATTRIBUTE
The following table provides details on the data elements of interest in this analysis. Data were provided by NJDEP staff in 2008 and 2009 for use in this analysis. Several data
elements of interest could not be addressed with the information available. All available data elements were analyzed and only those data elements that revealed informative
patterns of interest are included in the report.
Data Element
Administrative Cost
Age
Cleanup Cost
Cleanup Standards
Closure Date
Confirmed Release Date
Data Date
Federally-Regulated
LUST Releases
Free Product
Institutional Controls
Latitude and Longitude
Media
Methyl Tertiary Butyl
Ether (MTBE)
New Jersey Data
Data were obtained from the "History 5yr_l.xls" file.
Age was calculated for closed releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the closure date and dividing by
365. Age was calculated for open releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the data date and dividing by
365. Any values less than -.1 were left blank. Values between -.1 and 0 were counted as 0. All dates were rounded to one
decimal point. Ages of releases with insufficient or invalid data were left blank.
Data were obtained from the "EPA UST Resources to Cleanup 3 09" file. A single aggregated total is provided for 2,630
releases. This number is the total amount spent by contractors and includes both private and public spending. As these
amounts could not be adjusted for inflation, these data were not analyzed in this report.
No site-specific data available.
Data for closed releases were obtained from the "Start Date (Gen: Case)" field in the "z EPA UST Age 3 09" file.
Data were obtained from the "Reported_Date" field in the "EPA UST Age 3 09" file.
March 9, 2009, is used for all records. This is the date the data were obtained.
Data were obtained from the "Federal Release Confirmed (Case UST)" field in the "EPA UST Age 3 09" file. Only federally-
regulated releases were included in the files provided.
No data available.
Data were obtained from the "Subject Item Category Description" field in the "EPA UST Policy Toward Closure 3 09" file and
from the "Case Status (Gen: Case)" field in the "z EPA UST 3 09" file.
Data were obtained from the "X Coord Number (Master File)" and "Y Coord Number (Master File)" fields in the "EPA UST
Site Location 3 09" file. Where possible, coordinates for releases without existing latitude and longitude values were
obtained by EPA staff by geocoding address and street locations. The NJ State Plane coordinate system is used.
Data were obtained from the "Rem Level (Gen: Case)" field in the "EPA UST Media Contaminated vl 3 09" file (see Media
Reference Table).
No data available.
Use in Analysis
Included in the "Program Summary"
section and in the national chapter.
Variable in all analyses.
No informative patterns were identified.
State-wide standards examined in the
national chapter.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Identified the appropriate universe of
releases for analysis.
Not applicable (NA)
Examined in the "Cleanup Standards"
section and in the national chapter.
Used in geospatial analysis calculating the
number of open releases within a one-
mile radius of other open releases.
Examined in the "Media Contaminated"
section.
NA
Monitored Natural
Attenuation (MNA)
No data available.
NA
SEPTEMBER 2011
NJ-19
-------
CHAPTER NOTES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW JERSEY
Data Element
Number of Releases
per RP
Orphan
Private Funding
Mechanism
Proximity
Region
Release Priority
RP
RP Recalcitrance
Staff Workload
Stage of Cleanup
State Funded
Status
Voluntary Cleanup
Program
New Jersey Data
Calculated as the total number of open releases associated with a unique RP name.
No data available.
Data were obtained from the "FA: RFS Type (Case)" field in the "EPA UST Mech for Fin Resp 3 09" file.
Geospatial analysis performed by EPA revealed the number of open releases located within a one-mile radius of each open
release.
Data not tracked by administrative regions.
Data were obtained from "Case Category (Case Category)" field in the "EPA UST Cleanup Priority 3 09" file (see Release
Priority Reference Table).
Data were obtained from the "RP Type (Case Attr)" field in the "EPA UST Ownership 3 09" file.
Data were obtained from the "EPA UST Recalcitrant report due 3 09" file. This file is a list of overdue reports. The presence
of a release's ID number in this list indicates that the RP is currently recalcitrant.
Estimate provided by NJDEP staff.
Data were obtained from the "Activity Type Description" field in the "EPA UST Type of Remediation 3 09" file (see Stage of
Cleanup Reference Table).
Data were obtained from the "Grant Loan Type (Case)" field in the "EPA UST Mech for Fin Resp 3 09" file.
Data were obtained from the "Case Status (Gen: Case)" field in the "z EPA UST Age 3 09" file.
Data were obtained from the "Is MOA Case (Y/N)" field in the "EPA UST Policies for Prop Trans 3 09" file.
Use in Analysis
Examined in the "Number of Releases per
RP" section.
NA
Informative patterns were not identified.
Examined in the "Geographic Clusters"
section.
NA
Examined in the "Release Priority"
section.
Used to calculate the number of releases
associated with each unique RP.
Examined in the "RP Recalcitrance"
section.
Examined in the "Program Summary"
section and in the national chapter.
Variable in all analyses.
No informative patterns were identified.
Identified the appropriate universe of
releases for tree analysis.
No informative patterns were identified.
J-20
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW JERSEY
CHAPTER NOTES
Media Reference Table
Each release is assigned a remedial level in NJEMS. These data were used to identify the media contaminated by each release for analysis to identify patterns in release age
related to media contaminated.
Remedial Level
B: Single Phase Remedial Action - Single Contamination Affecting Only Soils
Soil
Cl: No Formal Design - Source Known or Identified-Potential Groundwater Contamination
Soil
C2: Formal Design - Known Source or Release with Groundwater Contamination
Groundwater
C3: Multi-Phased Remedial Action - Unknown or Uncontrolled Discharge to Soil or Groundwater
Groundwater
D: Multi-Phased Remedial Action - Multiple Source/Release to Multi-Media Including Groundwater Groundwater
L: Link Case
Unknown
No known remedial level
Unknown
U: Not Yet Determined
Unknown
Release Priority Reference Table
Each release is assigned a priority in NJEMS. These data were used to analyze patterns in the age of releases relative to their priority. Category 1 releases present the highest risk
to receptors and are the highest priority releases.
Category Description
Receptors impacted
Source not identified
Immediate response required of RP
Receptors impacted
Source identified but not mitigated
Immediate response required of RP
Receptors impacted
Source identified and mitigated
Immediate response required of RP
Receptors proximal, impact to the receptors not yet evaluated (sampled or data collected to evaluate receptor risk)
Source not identified
Source identified but not mitigated
Source identified and mitigated
30-90 day initial response required of the RP
Receptors proximal, impact to the receptors evaluated (sampled or data collected to evaluate receptor risk), no impact demonstrated
Source not identified
Source identified but not mitigated
Source identified and mitigated
30-90 day initial response required of the RP
SEPTEMBER 2011
NJ-21
-------
CHAPTER NOTES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW JERSEY
Category Description
No receptors proximal
Source not identified
30-90 day initial response required of the RP
No receptors proximal or receptor evaluated and no risk identified
Source identified and not mitigated
Initial response by RP 120 days+
No receptors proximal or receptor evaluated and no risk identified
Source identified and mitigated
Initial response by RP 120 days+
No receptor search completed
30-day response required of RP
Stage of Cleanup Reference Table
Each release was assigned to a stage of cleanup based on the NJDEP Activity Type Description.
Remedial Level
B: Single Phase Remedial Action - Single Contamination Affecting Only Soils
Cl: No Formal Design - Source Known or Identified-Potential Groundwater Contamination
C2: Formal Design - Known Source or Release with Groundwater Contamination
C3: Multi-Phased Remedial Action - Unknown or Uncontrolled Discharge to Soil or Groundwater
L: Link Case
No known remedial level
U: Not Yet Determined
Soil
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater
D: Multi-Phased Remedial Action - Multiple Source/Release to Multi-Media Including Groundwater Groundwater
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
J-22
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG:
A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW YORK
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
September 2011
NY-1
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW YORK
LIST OF ACRONYMS
BOA
DEC
EPA
ESA
FY
LUST
MNA
MSA
MTBE
NA
RP
UST
Brownfields Opportunity Area
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Expedited Site Assessment
Fiscal Year
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Monitored Natural Attenuation
Multi-Site Agreement
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
Not Applicable
Responsible Party
Underground Storage Tank
NY-2
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW YORK
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Leaks from underground storage tanks (USTs) threaten America's groundwater and land resources. Even a small amount of
petroleum released from a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) can contaminate groundwater, the drinking water source
for nearly half of all Americans. In surveys of state water programs, 39 states and territories identified USTs as a major source
of groundwater contamination.2 As the reliance on our resources increases due to the rise in population and use, there is a
correspondingly greater need to protect our finite natural resources.
From the beginning of the UST program to September 2009, more than 488,000 releases were confirmed from federally-
regulated USTs nationwide. Of these confirmed releases needing cleanup, over 100,000 remained in the national LUST
backlog. These releases are in every state, and many are old and affect groundwater. To help address this backlog of releases,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invited 14 states to participate in a national backlog characterization study.
ANALYSIS OF NEW YORK DATA
New York's Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has made significant progress toward reducing its LUST cleanup
backlog. As of March 2009, DEC had completed 24,225 LUST cleanups, which is 91 percent of all known releases in the state.
At the time of data collection, there were 2,458 releases remaining in its backlog.6 To most effectively reduce the national
cleanup backlog, EPA believes that states and EPA must develop backlog reduction strategies that can be effective in states
with the largest backlogs. EPA invited New York to participate in its national backlog study because New York had one of the
ten largest backlogs in the United States.7
In this chapter, EPA characterized New York's releases that have not been cleaned up, analyzed these releases based on
categories of interest, and developed potential opportunities for DEC and EPA to explore that might improve the state's
cleanup progress and reduce its backlog. Building on the potential cleanup opportunities identified in the study, EPA will
continue to work with DEC to develop backlog reduction strategies.
In New York, as in every state, many factors affect the pace of cleaning up releases, such as the availability and mechanisms of
funding, statutory requirements, and program structure. The recent economic downturn also has had an impact on the ability
of many states to make progress on cleanups.
1 Data were provided in March 2009 by DEC staff and are not identical to the UST performance measures found on EPA's website,
available at: www.epa.gov/oust/cat/camarchv.htm.
2 EPA, National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report, pp. 50-52. www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/chp6.pdf.
3 Stage of cleanup could not be determined based on available data.
4 Data on media contamination is based on the initial spill report and is not routinely updated. The percentage of releases with
groundwater contamination is therefore understated.
5 Unknown media releases include those releases where the media is unknown as well as those releases where, based on available
data, it was not possible to identify the media contaminated.
6 EPA tracks individual releases rather than sites in its performance measures. Therefore, the analyses in this report account for
numbers of releases, not sites.
7 New York had one of the 10 largest backlogs at the time the state was chosen to participate in this study, in 2006. As of 2009, New
York is no longer one of the top 10 contributors to the national backlog.
New York LUST
By the Numbers1
National Backlog Contribution
Cumulative Historical Releases
Stage of Cleanup3
Media Contaminated4
Groundwater
Median Age of Open Releases
SEPTEMBER 2011
NY-3
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW YORK
EPA included potential cleanup opportunities in this report even though current
circumstances in New York might make pursuing certain opportunities challenging
or unlikely. Also, in some cases, DEC is already using similar strategies as part of its
ongoing program. The findings from the analysis of DEC's data and the potential
cleanup opportunities are summarized below in eight study areas: status of cleanup,
media contaminated, state regional backlogs, cleanup financing, presence of methyl
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) contamination, number of releases per affiliated party,
geographic clusters, and data management.
StatUS Of Cleanup (see page NY-11 for more details)
Media Contaminated (see page NY-13 for more details)
New York Finding
56 percent of releases are
10 years old or older.
Potential Opportunity
Use a systematic process to explore
opportunities to accelerate cleanups and
reach closure, such as:
expediting site assessments;
periodically reviewing release-specific
treatment technologies; and
using enforcement actions if cleanup
has stalled.
Releases
1,385
Releases in New York are taking a long time to be cleaned up and, while DEC did
not provide stage of cleanup data, if New York is similar to other states in this study,
EPA would expect to find a significant number of releases that have not started
remediation. There are several reasons why many releases in the backlog are old
including: many releases are technically complex and therefore take a long time to
address; the responsible party (RP) has not performed required cleanup actions;
and many releases are low priority and remain unaddressed due to DEC directing
its limited resources to higher priority cleanups. EPA recognizes DEC's interest in
addressing high priority releases first. Nevertheless, EPA believes it is important for
DEC to explore opportunities to accelerate cleanups at older releases and to make
progress toward bringing all releases to closure.
New York Finding
32 percent of releases:
contaminate
groundwater; and
are 10 years old or
older.
Potential Opportunity
Systematically evaluate cleanup progress at
old releases with groundwater impacts and
consider alternative cleanup technologies or
other strategies to reduce time to closure.
Releases
795
50 percent of releases
are documented as
contaminating soil only.8
Explore options for moving releases forward,
such as:
expediting site assessments of all
releases to ensure that all releases are
ranked;
ensuring releases with immediate risks
are actively being worked on; and
making progress toward closure for all
sites.
1,220
Releases contaminating groundwater have always been the largest part of the
national backlog. Although DEC's data indicate that only 41 percent of releases
contaminate groundwater, DEC acknowledges that the data on media contamination
are not routinely updated. DEC believes that the majority of releases documented
as contaminating soil also impact groundwater resources. According to DEC, there
is a greater percentage of releases with groundwater contamination than the data
indicate. In general, groundwater contamination is more technically complex to
remediate and takes longer to clean up than soil contamination. For old, complex
cleanups where long-term remediation is underway, EPA believes it is important for
DEC to have a system in place for periodic revaluation of cleanup progress and to
reconsider whether the cleanup technology being used is still optimal.
Even though soil contamination is typically easier to remediate than groundwater
contamination, many releases documented as impacting only soil are still unaddressed.
These releases might remain unaddressed because they are lower priority releases
or because their contamination extends to groundwater, making the cleanup more
complex. Nevertheless, EPA believes DEC should continue to make progress toward
closure for all cleanups.
DEC believes that the majority of releases documented as contaminating soil also impact
groundwater.
NY-4
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW YORK
State Regional Backlogs (see page NY-14 for more details)
Cleanup Financing (see page NY-16 for more details)
New York Finding
The release age and media
contamination of New
York's backlog vary among
DEC's regions.
Potential Opportunity
Develop region-specific strategies for moving
releases toward remediation and closure.
Releases
Variable
number of
releases9
EPA has identified differences in the characteristics of the backlog among DEC's nine
regions. Differences in the management and administration of remedial actions might
be causing some of the differences in cleanup outcomes. Other external factors such
as geologic and geographic differences might also contribute to the differences within
the backlog. For example, areas of higher population usually result in areas of larger
backlogs. Property transfers can provide incentives for cleanup, particularly in urban
areas. Differences in geology and terrain can make releases in one part of the state
more difficult to clean up than releases in other parts of the state. These differences
might reveal opportunities for region-specific backlog reduction. Beginning in 2004,
DEC worked to address regional backlogs, including those in DEC Region 2 (New
York City), closing several thousand releases and in DEC Region 1 (Long Island) and
DEC Region 3 (the Lower Hudson Valley). DEC can continue work with its regions to
address their specific backlog issues and facilitate the sharing of information and best
practices among the regions. DEC stated that each of the above initiatives resulted
from increased resources made available from outside normal program parameters.
Opportunities marked as "variable number of releases" relate to programmatic
opportunities and affect an unknown number of releases, potentially including all open
releases.
New York Finding
More than half of the
releases where cleanup
is believed to be privately
financed are older than 10
years of age.
Potential Opportunity
Explore opportunities to ensure that
privately-financed cleanups are completed
expeditiously, such as:
providing guidance to RPs; and
pursuing alternative funding
mechanisms or enforcement actions for
old releases that are stalled.
Releases
1,156
DEC's database does
not include the type of
financing used to clean up a
LUST release.
Track financing at all UST facilities and Variable
consider having UST insurers notify DEC if a number of
facility's policy is discontinued. releases
46 percent of state-funded
cleanups:
have a median age of
19.4 years;
impact groundwater or
other media types; and
involve MTBE
contamination.
Reevaluate the current remedial plan
at old state-funded cleanups to identify
releases where a more cost-effective
plan could be implemented.
Increase efforts to enforce RP-lead
cleanups or to initiate state-lead
cleanups and cost recovery earlier.
127
EPA and state programs are interested in exploring successful financing strategies for
completing cleanups quickly. EPA acknowledges that the recent economic downturn
has impacted cleanup financing. EPA also believes the availability of funding for
cleanup is essential to reducing the backlog, so in addition to this study, EPA is
increasing its focus on oversight of state funds as well as conducting a study of private
insurance.
The New York Oil Spill Fund was approved by EPA as a financial responsibility
mechanism in the state. However, as a practice, the fund only provides financing for
releases where the RP is unknown, unwilling, or unable to pay for cleanup. Nearly
90 percent of cleanups in New York are presumed to be privately financed, although
DEC does not track the type of financing used by UST owners. More than half of
these releases are older than 10 years of age. These privately-financed cleanups
offer opportunities for backlog reduction whether through providing guidance to
RPs or using enforcement actions at stalled releases, as resources permit. DEC can
also continue to encourage RPs and other stakeholders, including municipalities,
to pursue alternative public and private funding sources at stalled releases, such
as petroleum brownfields grants in the case of low priority releases with no viable
RP. DEC can explore opportunities to complete state-funded cleanups, including
SEPTEMBER 2011
NY-5
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW YORK
reevaluating remedial plans to identify releases where a more cost-effective plan
could be implemented.
Presence of MTBE Contamination
(see page NY-18for more details)
New York Finding
20 percent of releases have
MTBE contamination.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Reevaluate the current remedial plan and 518
utilize optimal remedial technologies for the
removal of MTBE.
5 percent of releases:
have MTBE
contamination; and
contaminate soil only.
When MTBE is identified in a site assessment,
move quickly to address MTBE contamination
to prevent migration into groundwater.
127
MTBE can be a complicating factor at older LUST releases. As with any release in
remediation, DEC should consider having a system in place for regular revaluation
of the cleanup strategy. Although releases with only soil contamination are often of
relatively lower risk or priority, EPA believes it is important to act quickly, specifically
for releases with MTBE contamination, to prevent migration of the contaminants to
groundwater, where they can be more difficult and costly to remediate. Using funds
provided by special EPA grants in the early 2000s, DEC has identified spills containing
MTBE, taken action to ban its use in New YorkState, trained remedial project managers
in effective source control and remediation, and presented its findings at national
forums. As stated above, MTBE contamination has proven to be an expensive and
complicated contaminant to remove. DEC has optimized many remedial systems to
improve their efficiency and continues to oversee those efforts.
Number of Releases per Affiliated Party
(see page NY-19for more details)
New York Finding
11 percent of releases are
affiliated with 12 parties
each with 10 or more
releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore possibilities for multi-site agreements 264
(MSAs) or enforcement actions with parties
affiliated with multiple open releases.
EPA analyzed the number of releases per affiliated party to identify the largest
potential contributors to the state's cleanup backlog. In New York, 12 parties are
each affiliated with 10 or more releases and account for 11 percent of the New York
backlog. EPA was able to identify groups of 10 or more releases affiliated with the
same spiller name identified in DEC's Spill Incidents database. Each of these names is
not necessarily the party financially responsible for the cleanup. DEC has negotiated
"global" orders with major petroleum retailers in New York State. DEC and EPA can
use these data to identify possible participants for multi-site strategies to clean up
groups of releases.
Geographic Clusters (see page NY-19 for more details)
New York Finding
24 percent of releases are
clustered within a one-mile radius
of five or more releases.
Potential Opportunity
Target releases within close
proximity for resource consolidation
opportunities.
Releases
Targeted
number of
releases10
Another multi-site approach that DEC could use is targeting cleanup actions at
geographically-clustered releases. This approach might offer opportunities for
new community-based reuse efforts, using economies of scale, and addressing
commingled contamination. EPA believes that highlighting geographic clusters of
releases and working with state and local governments in area-wide initiatives will
accelerate DEC's pace of cleaning up releases. EPA intends to work with the states
to conduct further geospatial analyses on clusters of open releases in relation to RPs,
highway corridors, local geologic and hydrogeologic settings, groundwater resources,
and/or communities with environmental justice concerns. These analyses might
reveal additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
Data Management (see page NY-20for more details)
New York Finding
Several key data fields are not
included, consistently maintained,
or routinely tracked in DEC's Spill
Incidents database.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Improve database to enhance Variable
program management and backlog number of
reduction efforts. releases
Multiple data management limitations prevent a full assessment of New York's
backlog and associated strategies for backlog reduction. Because of data limitations,
EPA could not analyze the method or stage of release cleanup or the specific type of
private financial responsibility mechanism used to pay for the cleanup. Additional
improvements to data management could allow for easier overall program
management within New York and provide an improved tool for developing strategies
10 Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic
opportunities that will address a limited number of releases within select designated
geographic areas.
NY-6
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW YORK
to reduce the cleanup backlog. DEC reports that it has begun tracking stage of cleanup
and remedial efforts for each release.
CONCLUSION
This chapter contains EPA's data analysis of New York's LUST cleanup backlog and
identifies potential opportunities to reduce the backlog in New York. EPA discusses
the findings and opportunities for New York, along with those of 13 additional
states, in the national chapter of this report. EPA will work with states to develop
potential approaches and detailed strategies for reducing the backlog. Development
of strategies could involve targeting data collection, reviewing particular case files,
analyzing problem areas, and sharing best practices. Final strategies could involve
EPA actions such as using additional program metrics to show cleanup progress,
targeting resources for specific cleanup actions, clarifying and developing guidance,
and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with states, is committed to reducing the
backlog of confirmed LIST releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater, land,
and communities affected by these releases.
SEPTEMBER 2011 NY-7
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW YORK
PROGRAM SUMMARY
New York LUST
Program
At a Glance
Cleanup Rate
In fiscal year (FY) 2009, DEC confirmed 924
releases and completed 1,038 cleanups.11
Cleanup Financing
Of open releases, 89 percent (2,181 releases)
are privately financed.
Cleanup Standards
The program requires cleanup to pre-spill
conditions. When this is not possible, generic
cleanup levels are used.
Priority System
Releases are prioritized based on risk to
receptors.
Average Public Spending on Cleanup
$240,00012
Releases per Project Manager
On average, each project manager is
responsible for 22 LUST releases.12
Administrative Funding (2007)
$2.3 million.13
State LUST Program Organization and Administration
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Spill Response Program responds to reports of petroleum
and other hazardous material releases from all sources. The average annual number of petroleum spills reported to DEC over
a 10-year period is 15,574. The average annual number of leaking underground storage tank (LUST) spills in the same time
period is 650. While LUST spills are usually important due to the impacts that they entail to sensitive receptors, DEC has to
prioritize all spills based on their importance and impact.
A responsible party (RP) is required to perform a cleanup if contamination and environmental damage remain after the
initial containment and recovery. This work may be performed by a qualified contractor hired by the RP. DEC oversees the
cleanup process to ensure the actions are protective of public safety, health, and the environment. Nine regional offices are
responsible for the implementation of the program.
Cleanup Financing
The New York Oil Spill Fund, within the Office of the State Comptroller, serves as the financial responsibility mechanism for
LUST releases in New York. In practice, the fund typically finances releases where the RP is unknown, unwilling, or unable
to pay for cleanup. Most releases in New York are expected to be cleaned up with private financing and only 11 percent of
open releases (277 releases) and 5 percent of closed releases (1,126 releases) have received state funding. All cleanups,
whether state funded or privately financed, receive oversight from state program managers. The state aggressively pursues
cost recovery from the parties responsible for releases that the Oil Spill Fund cleans up.
Cleanup Standards
DEC's cleanup goal is restoration of the environment to pre-spill conditions. When cleanup to pre-spill conditions is not
feasible, generic cleanup levels that are protective of human health and the environment are used.
Release Prioritization
DEC's spill classification and response categories are used to direct the program's limited resources to the most critical
situations. Spills are prioritized based on the threat of explosion, contamination of drinking or surface waters, and the
presence and willingness of an RP to conduct the cleanup. Release priority may be upgraded or downgraded based on new
information, but the original priority is never downgraded as a result of cleanup activities.
11 Based on FY 2009 UST Performance Measures End of Year Activity Report.
12 Estimate provided by DEC staff. LUST releases account for approximately 10 percent of average staff workload. The remaining 90
percent is related to non-LUST spills.
13 This is the estimated total of administrative expenditures for the oversight of LUST releases.
NY-8
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW YORK
State Backlog Reduction Efforts
DEC has undertaken three initiatives to reduce the backlog in recent years. Beginning
in 2004, the Spill Backlog Reduction Initiative identified releases for closure in the
five boroughs of New York City. Staff from non-LUST divisions reviewed files and
recommended releases for closure. Recommendations were reviewed by project
managers, and if they agreed on the determination, the release was closed. Under a
second effort beginning in 2005, spill case files were assigned to Superfund managers
brought in to assist with file review and recommendations for closure, resulting in
9,000 closures.14 The third initiative involved contractor support provided by EPA
Region 2 to identify LUST releases for closure in DEC Region 1 (Long Island) and
Region 3 (the Lower Hudson Valley). This effort began in 2006 and to date has led to
the closure of 30 percent (156 releases) of the 528 releases reviewed.
14 This number includes all spills and is not limited to LUST releases.
SEPTEMBER 2011 NY-9
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW YORK
[This page has intentionally been left blank.
NY-10 SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW YORK
ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNITY
In this study, EPA analyzed New York's federally-regulated releases that have not been cleaned up (open releases). EPA
conducted a multivariate analysis on all of DEC's data.15 This technique allowed for an objective analysis of multiple release
characteristics and allowed EPA to highlight those traits most commonly associated with older releases. Next, EPA divided
the open releases into groups that might warrant further attention. EPA used descriptive statistics to examine the distribution
of releases by age of release and stage of cleanup and highlighted findings based on DEC's data.17 EPA then identified potential
opportunities for addressing particular groups of releases in the backlog. Many releases are included in more than one
opportunity. These opportunities describe actions that EPA and DEC might use as a starting point for collaborative efforts to
address the backlog. Although EPA's analysis covered all releases in New York, there are 310 releases that are not included in
any of the subsets identified in the findings or opportunities due to the way EPA structured the analysis. These releases might
also benefit from some of the suggested opportunities and strategies.
EPA's analyses revealed eight areas of New York's backlog with potential opportunities for its further reduction:
Status of cleanup Presence of methyl tertiary butyl Geographic clusters
ether (MTBE) contamination Data management
Media contaminated
State regional backlogs
Cleanup financing
Number of releases per affiliated
party
STATUS OF CLEANUP
As of March 2, 2009, the New York backlog
consisted of 2,458 open releases. EPA analyzed
the age of LUST releases and compared open
releases to closed releases. New York's releases
have an average median age of 10.7 years (Figure
1 to the right). Since New York's LUST program
began, the DEC has closed 24,255 releases, half of
which were closed in fewer than 0.5 years.18 The
young median age of closed LUST releases might
be attributable to the rapid closure of relatively
easy to remediate releases, as well as a large
number of closed releases where no remedial
activities were required and releases that were
closed administratively. Under its administrative
closure policy, DEC staff consolidates duplicate
Figure 1. Age of Releases, by Status
20
o
tu
en
15
% 10
O Open Releases
Closed Releases
2,458
LUST Data Source
Electronic data for LUST releases occurring
between January 1974 and February 2009 were
compiled with DEC staff in 2008 and 2009.16
Data were obtained from DEC's Spill Incidents
database and selected based on quality and
the ability to address areas of interest in this
analysis. Entries to this database were created
by the state as part of a call-in spill notification
system to track all spills reported in New York.
The database does not appear to be designed
as a LUST tracking database.
Data Limitation
Stage of cleanup was not identified in this
analysis. A data field tracking the stage of
cleanup for each release has recently been
added to the Spill Incidents database.
Most releases are marked as "Response
& Containment," which is assigned as the
default value in this field. Because this
field is not updated regularly, it was not
used to identify the stage of cleanup.
74 775
The white dot at the center of each circle represents the median age of releases.
Each circle is labeled with, and scaled to, the number of releases within each
status. Included in the release counts and size of circles are 51 closed releases and
11 open releases for which it was not possible to calculate age. These releases
are not part of the median age calculation.
15 For a detailed description of the analytic tree method, see Appendix A.
16 For a detailed description of the New York data used in this analysis, see the Chapter Notes section.
17 For a detailed description of release stages, see the Chapter Notes section (Stage of Cleanup Reference Table).
18 Of these releases, 5,295 releases have an age of zero.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NY-11
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW YORK
Figure 2. Age Distribution of Open Releases
Unknown Age
11
< 1%
> 10 Years
1,385
56%
.< 10 Years
1,062
43%
New York Finding
56 percent of releases are 10 years old or
older.
Potential Opportunity
Use a systematic process
to explore opportunities to
accelerate cleanups and reach
closure, such as:
expediting site assessments;
periodically reviewing
release-specific treatment
technologies; and
using enforcement actions if
cleanup has stalled.
Releases
1,385
release records into a single record and reports the deleted duplicate records as closed releases. Also, national program policy
allows states to report confirmed releases that require no further action at time of confirmation as "cleanup completed."
Therefore, some releases are reported as confirmed and cleaned up simultaneously.
DEC has undertaken three initiatives to reduce the backlog by identifying releases that are close to closure through file
reviews. These efforts have been successful and resulted in thousands of closures.19 As shown by New York, states might
find opportunities for closure with minimal effort at lower risk releases where little or no remedial work is required to reach
closure standards or at releases that have met closure standards but have not finished closure review.
If New York is similar to other states in this study, it might have a significant number of old LUST releases that have not started
remediation. Figure 2 to the left shows the backlog of releases and includes 1,385 releases (56 percent of the backlog) that
have not been closed, 10 years or more after the release was confirmed. The DEC LUST database does not allow discrimination
between stages of cleanup (i.e., Confirmed Release, Site Assessment, and Remediation). However, it is likely that, as in all
other states in this study, these 1,385 releases include releases that have not begun assessment, releases that have not begun
remediation, and releases that are currently undergoing remediation.
EPA encourages states to streamline the corrective action process, improve data collection, reduce the overall cost of
remediation, and move releases more rapidly toward remediation and closure. To assist states and regulators in implementing
these objectives, EPA developed its Expedited Site Assessment (ESA) guide.20 The guide explains the overall ESA process as
well as specific site assessment tools and methods. The ESA process rapidly characterizes site conditions to help support
cost-effective corrective action decisions. ESAs will help identify releases that can be closed with minimal effort or provide all
the information needed to move a release into remediation. Conducting site assessments efficiently and quickly could help
reduce the backlog by accelerating the pace of cleanup and ultimately decrease overall project costs.
Increasing efficiency and getting releases through the cleanup process as quickly as possible will expedite the reduction of
the backlog. DEC should consider establishing a systematic process to evaluate existing releases undergoing remediation and
optimize cleanup approaches, including choice of technology. This process might bring releases to closure more quickly. DEC
can also consider enforcement actions against RPs that are not moving forward with cleanup.
19 See State Backlog Reduction Efforts in the Program Summary.
20 EPA's 1997 guidance document, Expedited Site Assessment Tools for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Regulators (EPA 510
B-97-001), is available online at: www.epa.gov/OUST/pubs/sam.htm.
NY-12
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW YORK
MEDIA CONTAMINATED
Groundwater is an important natural resource that is at risk from petroleum contamination. Old releases with groundwater
contamination make up a large portion of the New York backlog and, according to DEC, the many releases with soil recorded
as the only media impacted likely also impact groundwater. In general, groundwater contamination takes longer and is more
expensive to clean up than soil contamination. In this study, EPA examined media as a factor contributing to the backlog. The
following analysis classified media contamination into four categories: groundwater (1,012 open releases), soil (1,220 open
releases), other media, which includes vapor and surface water (30 open releases), and "unknown" media, which includes
releases with no media specified (196 open releases).21
DEC's data show that in New York, 41 percent of releases (1,012 releases) involve groundwater contamination and have a
median age of 16.2 years (Figure 3 below), although DEC anticipates that the actual percentage of releases contaminating
groundwater is higher. The closed releases contaminating groundwater have a significantly younger median age of 0.7 years
compared to the median age of open releases. Seventy-nine percent of groundwater cleanups (795 releases) are 10 years old
or older (32 percent of the total backlog) (Figure 4 below, right). Although it is not possible to determine the stage of cleanup
of these releases, these findings indicate that the current backlog includes a large number of releases with groundwater
contamination that are not being remediated quickly.
Figure 3.
20
-£ io
QC
'o
OJ C,
en -"
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW YORK
New York Finding
50 percent of releases are documented as
contaminating soil only.22
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore options for moving 1,220
releases forward, such as:
expediting site assessments
of all releases to ensure that
all releases are ranked;
ensuring releases with
immediate risks are actively
being worked on; and
making progress toward
closure for all sites.
New York Finding
The release age and media contamination of
New York's backlog vary among DEC's regions.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Develop region-specific strategies Variable
for moving releases toward number of
remediation and closure. releases23
Releases that contaminate soil only represent a potential threat to groundwater resources and contaminate properties in
neighborhoods and communities. In DEC's Spill Incidents database, 50 percent of releases (1,220 releases) are recorded as
involving soil-only contamination, and 610 of these soil-impacted releases (50 percent) are 9.3 years or older (Figure 3, page
13). However, data on media contamination are based on the initial spill report and are not routinely updated, and DEC
believes that the majority of these releases also impact groundwater resources. Although it is not possible to determine the
stage of cleanup using the available data, contaminated soil can typically be cleaned up faster than contaminated groundwater.
In general, distinguishing between releases with soil contamination and those with groundwater contamination, encouraging
site assessment, and moving forward with remediation could help DEC gather more information about difficult releases and
move all releases toward closure, thereby reducing the backlog.22
Figure 5. Map of DEC Regions
STATE REGIONAL BACKLOGS
EPA analyzed cleanup backlogs within DEC's nine regions to identify patterns
and opportunities for targeted backlog reduction strategies within each
region. There are significant differences in the size of the backlog and age of
release among the nine regions (Figure 5 to the right and Table 1, page 15). Of
all releases in the current backlog, 65 percent (1,592 releases) are located in
Regions 1, 2, or 3, whereas only 9 percent (216 releases) are located in Regions
5,7, and 9. However, Regions 6,7,8, and 9 have four of the five oldest backlogs,
despite their relatively small backlog size (Figure 6, page 15). The variation in
release distribution is likely impacted by the large number of USTs located in
the densely populated urban centers in Regions 1, 2, and 3, compared with the
more sparsely populated areas in the northern part of the state. These urban
areas with greater populations might also create greater financial incentives
for cleanup due to property transfers. The variation in backlog age among
the regions might also be related to differences in administrative processes
between the regions. New York also has significant differences in geology across the state. These differences might impact
the age of the backlog among the regions and the rate at which the regions can complete cleanups. Region-specific strategies
might help reduce the backlog. EPA encourages DEC to look for opportunities to share best practices among its regions and
with other states.
22 DEC believes that the majority of releases documented as contaminating soil also impact groundwater resources.
23 Opportunities marked as "variable number of releases" relate to programmatic opportunities and affect an unknown number of
releases, potentially including all open releases.
NY-14
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW YORK
Table 1. New York Backlog, by DEC Region24
State Backlog Contribution
Cumulative Historical Releases
Closed
Open
Region 1
17%
3,154
2,734/87%
420/13%
Region 2
24%
3,186
2,590/81%
596/19%
Region 3
24%
4,746
4,170/88%
576/12%
Region 4
5%
3,445
3,312/96%
133/4%
Region 6
12%
2,033
1,732/85%
301/15%
Region 7
2%
2,139
2,083/97%
56/3%
Region 8
9%
2,559
2,354/92%
205/8%
Region 9
3%
3,415
3,348/98%
67/2%
Media Contaminated
Groundwater
Soil
Other
Unknown
Median Age of Open Releases
167/40%
210/50%
6/1%
37/9%
7.7 years
266/45%
282/47%
4/1%
44/7%
11. 9 years
172/30%
364/63%
10/2%
30/5%
10.0 years
55/41%
52/39%
0/0%
26/20%
6.4 years
188/62%
106/35%
2/1%
5/2%
14.6 years
28/50%
23/41%
0/0%
5/9%
10.7 years
80/39%
103/50%
6/3%
16/8%
10.3 years
30/45%
31/46%
2/3%
4/6%
10.4 years
Figure 6. Age of Releases, by DEC Region and Open/Closed Status of Cleanup
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW YORK
Figure 7. Age Distribution of Releases, by
Cleanup Financing25
Unknown
Other Financing
(2,181 releases)
State Funded
(277 releases)
New York Finding
More than half of the releases where cleanup
is believed to be privately financed are older
than 10 years of age.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore opportunities to ensure 1,156
that privately-financed cleanups
are completed expeditiously,
such as:
providing guidance to RPs;
and
pursuing alternative funding
mechanisms or enforcement
actions for old releases that
are stalled.
CLEANUP FINANCING
EPA and state programs are interested in exploring successful financing strategies for completing cleanups quickly. EPA
acknowledges that the recent economic downturn has impacted cleanup financing. EPA also believes the availability of
funding for cleanup is essential to reducing the backlog, so in addition to this study, EPA is increasing its focus on oversight of
state funds as well as conducting a study of private insurance. To analyze the effects of various types of financing on closure
rates in New York, EPA evaluated state fund eligibility and cleanup progress for each release.
Nearly 90 percent of cleanups in New York (2,181 releases) are presumed to be privately financed. However, DEC's database
does not track the type of financing used by LIST owners. For the purposes of this study, the financing for these releases is
considered "other" (Figure 7 to the left). More than half of these releases are older than 10 years of age. It is not possible for
EPA to determine the stage of cleanup using the available data. Since many of these cleanups are still open after 10 years or
more, some of these cleanups might be stalled. These cleanups offer opportunities for backlog reduction, whether through
providing guidance to RPs about moving forward with cleanup or using enforcement actions at stalled releases. DEC could
consider encouraging RPs and stakeholders to pursue alternative public and private funding sources, including petroleum
brownfields grants in the case of low priority releases with no viable RP. Tracking information, including financing, at all LIST
facilities and requiring that LIST insurers notify DEC if a facility's policy is discontinued would better inform DEC's efforts.
The New York Oil Spill Fund was approved by EPA as a financial responsibility mechanism in the state. However, as a practice,
the fund only provides financing for releases where the RP is unknown, unwilling, or unable to pay for cleanup. The Oil Spill
Fund has provided funding to clean up 277 releases (11 percent of the backlog) (Figure 7). DEC pursues an aggressive cost-
recovery system for cleanups funded by the state so the availability of funds might not impact the New York program as much
as other states in this study. As expected due to the type of cleanups funded, these releases tend to be older than privately-
financed cleanups. However, enforcing RP-lead cleanups or initiating state-lead and cost-recovery efforts earlier could reduce
the number of RPs that are unknown, unwilling, or unable to finance a cleanup and ensure that progress continues for all
cleanups. In addition, 46 percent of currently state-funded cleanups (127 releases) are old releases with groundwater impacts
where MTBE contamination is present (Figure 8, page 17, Node 3.1, highlighted in yellow). Evaluating current contaminant
levels and treatment technologies in use at these releases might identify releases where innovative remediation methods
could be implemented to accelerate cleanups.
For non-MTBE cleanups, if a thorough evaluation determines that active remediation is ineffective in reducing contamination,
alternative or innovative cleanup technologies such as MNA could be considered as an appropriate remedy.26 MNA should
not be considered a default or presumptive remedy at any contaminated site. However, if used appropriately, this approach
could free up state funds for use at other cleanups and could increase the number of releases that DEC is able to address and
move toward remediation and closure.
25 There are 208 releases with private financing and 18 state-funded cleanups with unknown and other media contaminated that are
not depicted in this graphic.
26 For more information regarding the appropriate use of MNA, see www.epa.gov/swerustl/pubs/tums.htm and EPA Directive Number
9200.4-17P, Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation atSuperfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank Sites,
available online at: www.epa.gov/oust/directiv/d9200417.htm.
NY-16
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW YORK
Figure 8. Tree Analysis of Open Release Age2
x*"~
EQpen Releases
ieleases 2,447 j
\^
1.1
C Groundwater; Other ^
1 Releases 1,042
1.2
f Soil
1 Releases 1,220
V J
1.3
Unknown
Median Age (Years) 0.2
H Releases 185
MTBE
MTBE
""N
2.1 3.1
C MTBE Present VcleanuP r state Funded ^
Financing
(Releases 384! ^Releases 127 1
2.2 3.2
C MTBE Not Present ^ C Other Financing ^
Releases 658 1 [Releases 257 1
V J V J
2.3
r MTBE Present ^
Releases 127 1
V X
2.4
r MTBE Not Present ^
-\ Median Age (Years) 8.6
(Releases 1,093 I
J
New York Finding
DEC's database does not include the type of
financing used to clean up a LUST release.
Potential Opportunity
Releases
Track financing at all UST facilities Variable
and consider having UST insurers number of
notify DEC if a facility's policy is releases
discontinued.
New York Finding
46 percent of state-funded cleanups:
have a median age of 19.4 years;
impact groundwater or other media
types; and
involve MTBE contamination.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Reevaluate the current 127
remedial plan at old state-
funded cleanups to identify
releases where a more
cost-effective plan could be
implemented.
Increase efforts to enforce
RP-lead cleanups or to
initiate state-lead cleanups
and cost recovery earlier.
27 There are 11 open releases for which age is unknown that are not included in the age tree.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NY-17
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW YORK
New York Finding
20 percent of releases have MTBE
contamination.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Reevaluate the current remedial 518
plan and utilize optimal remedial
technologies for the removal of
MTBE.
New York Finding
5 percent of releases:
have MTBE contamination; and
contaminate soil only.
Potential Opportunity Releases
When MTBE is identified in a 127
site assessment, move quickly
to address MTBE contamination
to prevent migration into
groundwater.
PRESENCE OF MTBE CONTAMINATION
Releases with MTBE present are significantly older than releases with no MTBE present (Figure 8, Nodes 2.1 and 2.3). Since
New York banned MTBE use as of January 1, 2004, this subset of releases will continue to increase in age until all have
completed remediation and are closed. As a result, open releases with MTBE contamination are significantly older than
closed releases with MTBE of the same media type (Figure 9 below). In contrast to the age comparison of all open and closed
releases, which includes a large number of administrative closures (Figure 1, page 11), this comparison more accurately depicts
the time to closure for releases that required remedial activities. Because MTBE does not readily degrade in groundwater,
releases involving MTBE require more aggressive management and remediation than releases where MTBE is not present.28
Between 2001 and 2003, DEC staff used an EPA grant to address the MTBE contamination from LUSTs on Long Island.29 DEC
has also used grant money to identify spills containing MTBE and train remedial project managers in effective source control
and remediation. DEC has presented its MTBE findings at national forums. DEC has optimized many remedial systems to
improve their efficiency and continues to oversee those efforts. Requiring RPs to actively remediate releases with MTBE and
employ innovative technologies could allow for faster cleanups.
According to DEC, the 127 releases with MTBE contamination identified in the Spill Incidents database as impacting soil
but not groundwater, might in fact impact groundwater (Figure 9). Early responses to releases contaminated with MTBE
can minimize its spread to groundwater. Efforts to track and address MTBE contamination in soil prior to migration into
groundwater could help to reduce future complex groundwater cleanups. Because of limited resources, states might not be
able to quickly address MTBE at all releases.
Figure 9. Age of Releases with MTBE Contamination and Groundwater or Soil Impacts, by Media Contaminated and Status of Cleanup30
o
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW YORK
NUMBER OF RELEASES PER AFFILIATED PARTY
Table 2. Parties Affiliated with 10 or More Open Releases
Type of Party
Gasoline Retail/Distribution/Refining
Government-State
Number of Number of
Releases Entities
EPA analyzed the number of releases per affiliated party to
identify entities that are the largest potential contributors
to the state's cleanup backlog.31 A total of 12 entities are
each affiliated with 10 or more releases and account for 11
percent of the New York backlog (264 releases) (Table 2 to the
right).32 Of these, 11 gasoline retail, distribution, and refining
businesses are affiliated with 252 releases (10 percent of Total
the backlog) and one government entity is affiliated with 12
releases (less than one percent of the backlog). Focused efforts engaging these 12 parties in collaboration might expedite
closure of many of these releases. DEC staff have implemented "global" orders to enforce prevention efforts and cleanup
actions with RPs affiliated with many releases, including the New York Department of Transportation and large oil companies.
252
12
264
11
12
New York Finding
11 percent of releases are affiliated with 12
parties each with 10 or more releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore possibilities for multi- 264
site agreements (MSAs) or
enforcement actions with parties
affiliated with multiple open
releases.
Figure 10. Map of All Open Releases, by DEC Region
^
Buffalo
Albany
GEOGRAPHIC CLUSTERS
EPA performed a geospatial analysis to look for alternative
ways to address the backlog. While releases in geographic
clusters might not have the same RP, they tend to be located
in densely populated areas and might present opportunities
to consolidate resources and coordinate efforts. Geographic
proximity can call attention to releases in areas of interest
such as redevelopment, environmental justice, and ecological
sensitivity.
EPA's analysis identified 598 releases (24 percent of releases)
located within a one-mile radius of five or more releases
(Figure 10 to the right). Of these releases, 187 (8 percent of
releases) are located within a one-mile radius of 10 or more
releases. Approaching the assessment and cleanup needs of
an area impacted by LUSTs can be more effective than focusing
on individual sites in isolation from the adjacent or surrounding
area. Considering geographically-clustered releases might
pave the way for new community-based revitalization efforts, utilize economies of scale to yield benefits such as reduced
equipment costs, and present opportunities to develop multi-site cleanup strategies, especially at locations with commingled
contamination.
New York City
Metro Area
New York Finding
24 percent of releases are clustered within a
one-mile radius of five or more releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Target releases within close Targeted
proximity for resource number of
consolidation opportunities. releases33
31 According to DEC, the "spiller" data field is for the name of spiller identified by the person reporting the release and therefore is not
necessarily the responsible party of the release. There is no other data field available to identify the RP or the owner.
32 No federal government entities were identified as being associated with 10 or more releases.
33 Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic opportunities that will address a limited number of
releases within select designated geographic areas.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NY-19
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW YORK
State and local governments can also utilize geographic clusters for area-wide planning efforts. In fact, New York has created
Brownfields Opportunity Areas (BOAs) to enhance revitalization for areas and communities affected by the presence of
brownfields. EPA encourages states to look for opportunities for resource consolidation and area-wide planning like New
York's BOAs but also recognizes that this approach is best geared to address targeted groups of releases as opposed to a state-
wide opportunity for every cluster of releases. EPA intends to conduct further geospatial analyses on clusters of open releases
in relation to RPs, highway corridors, local geologic and hydrogeologic settings, groundwater resources, and/or communities
with environmental justice concerns. These analyses might reveal additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
New York Finding
Several key data fields are not included,
consistently maintained, or routinely tracked
in DEC's Spill Incidents database.
Improve database to enhance Variable
program management and number of
backlog reduction efforts. releases
DATA MANAGEMENT
Multiple database limitations prevent a full assessment of the backlog and associated strategies for backlog reduction. DEC's
Spill Incidents database does not track a number of important pieces of release-related information, including the method of
release cleanup and the stage of cleanup. In addition, there are no database fields dedicated to tracking the RP or the type
or provider of financial responsibility for its LIST facilities. DEC collects initial data through the spill hotline and the data might
not be complete, accurate, or up to date. As a result, the number of releases with groundwater impacts is understated in the
database. DEC has recently added a data field tracking the stage of cleanup for each release to the Spill Incidents database,
but most releases are marked as "Response and Containment." The "Response and Containment" entry is the default value
in this field and therefore cannot be considered up to date. DEC tracks information on remediation activities in a remarks
field in the Spill Incidents database, which cannot be easily queried for important information. Additional improvements to
database management could allow for easier overall program management in New York and could provide improved tools for
developing strategies to reduce the cleanup backlog.
NY-20
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW YORK
CONCLUSION
In this state chapter, EPA presented the analysis of LUST data submitted by DEC and highlighted information on New York's
LUST program. Based on the analytic results, EPA identified potential opportunities that could be used to address specific
backlog issues in New York. Over the course of the entire study, EPA also analyzed data from 13 other states. Findings and
opportunities that apply to all 14 states are discussed in the national chapter of the report. Each opportunity represents one
potential approach among many to address the backlog. Discussion of the opportunities as a whole is intended as a starting
point for further conversations among EPA, New York, and the other states on strategies to reduce the backlog. EPA will work
with the states to develop detailed strategies for reducing the backlog. Development of the strategies might include targeted
data collection, reviewing particular case files, analyzing problem areas, and sharing best practices. The strategies could
involve actions from EPA such as using additional program metrics, targeting resources for specific cleanup actions, clarifying
and developing guidance, and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with the states, is committed to reducing the backlog of
confirmed UST releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater, land, and communities affected by these releases.
New York LUST Program
Contact Information
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Division of Environmental Remediation
Bureau of Technical Support
625 Broadway, llth Floor
Albany, NY 12233-7020
Phone: 518-402-9543
Fax: 518-402-9577
www.dec.nv.eov/chemical/8428.html
Oil Spill Fund
Office of State Comptroller
New York Environmental Protection & Spill
Compensation Fund (Oil Spill Fund)
110 State Street
Albany, NY 12236
Phone: 518-474-6657
Fax: 518-474-9979
www.osc.state.nv.us/oilsDill/index.htm
SEPTEMBER 2011
NY-21
-------
CHAPTER NOTES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW YORK
CHAPTER NOTES
NEW YORK DATA BY ATTRIBUTE
The following table provides details on the data elements of interest in this analysis. Data were provided by DEC staff in 2008 and 2009 for use in this analysis. Several data
elements of interest could not be addressed with the information available. All available data elements were analyzed and only those data elements that revealed informative
patterns of interest are included in the report.
Data Element
Administrative Cost
New York Data
Estimates were provided by DEC staff.
Use in Analysis
Included in the "Program Summary"
section and in the national chapter.
Affiliated Party
Data were obtained from the "SPILLCOMP" field in the "ALLSITES.DBF" file. The few open releases with multiple spillers
listed were assigned the spiller with the most other releases. DEC indicated these data might not be accurate and do not
necessarily indicate the party responsible for the release.
Used to calculate the number of releases
associated with each unique affiliated
party.
Age
Age was calculated for closed releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the closure date and dividing by
365. Age was calculated for open releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the data date and dividing by
365. Any values less than -.1 were left blank. Values between -.1 and 0 were counted as 0. All dates were rounded to one
decimal point. Ages of releases with insufficient or invalid data were left blank.
Variable in all analyses.
Cleanup Financing
Data were obtained from the "State_funded_lust.xls" file, a list of spill numbers where the state might have conducted at
least a portion of the investigation or cleanup.
Examined in the "Cleanup Financing"
section.
Cleanup Standards
No site-specific data available.
State-wide standards examined in the
national chapter.
Closure Date
Data were obtained from "CLOSEDATE" in the "ALLSPILL.DBF" file. This is the date the spill case was closed by the DEC case
manager because either: a) the records and data submitted indicate that the necessary cleanup and removal actions have
been completed and no further remedial activities are necessary; or b) the case was closed for administrative reasons (e.g.,
multiple reports of a single spill consolidated into a single spill number).
Included in the calculation of release age.
Confirmed Release Date
Data were obtained from the "RCVDDA" field in the "ALLSPILL.DBF" file. This is the date the spill was reported to the
department.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Data Date
February 24, 2009, is used for all records. This is the date the data were downloaded.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Federally-Regulated
LUST Releases
A list of site identification numbers for relevant releases was provided by DEC staff in "LUSTList.xls."
Identified the appropriate universe of
releases for analysis.
Free Product
No data available.
Not Applicable (NA)
Institutional and
Engineering Controls
No data available.
NA
Latitude and Longitude
Data were obtained from the "Latitude" and "Longitude" fields in the "LUSTList.xls" file. Where possible, coordinates Used in geospatial analysis calculating the
for releases without existing latitude and longitude values were obtained by EPA staff by geocoding address and street number of open releases within a one-
locations, mile radius of other open releases.
NY-22
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW YORK
CHAPTER NOTES
Data Element
Media
New York Data
Use in Analysis
Data were obtained from the "MEDDW," "MEDGW," "MEDINDAIR," "MEDSEWER," "MEDSOIL," and "MEDSW" fields in the Examined in the "Media Contaminated"
"ALLMATS.DBF" file. Releases with groundwater contamination marked (in addition to any other media) were counted as section.
"groundwater." Releases with only soil contamination marked were counted as "soil." Releases with any other combination
of media were counted as "other" (including drinking water, surface water, indoor air, and sewer). Releases counted as
"unknown" might include those for which there are no data available in the database, but for which information is available
in other files and releases at which the media contaminated are truly unknown.
Monitored Natural
Attenuation
No data available.
NA
MTBE
Data were obtained from "MaterialNa" field in the "allMATS.DBF" file.
Examined in "Presence of MTBE
Contamination" section.
Number of Releases per
Affiliated Party
Calculated as the total number of open releases affiliated with a unique spiller name.
Examined in the "Number of Releases per
RP" section.
DEC Region
Data were obtained from the "DECREG" field in the "ALLSPILLDBF" file.
Examined in "Regional Differences"
section.
Orphan
DEC does not consider any release to be orphan and has a proactive enforcement arm looking for RPs.
NA
Proximity
Staff Workload
Geospatial analysis performed by EPA revealed the number of other open releases located within a one-mile radius of each
open release.
Examined in the "Geographic Clusters"
section.
Public Spending
Release Priority
RP Recalcitrance
No data available.
Data obtained from the "CLASS" field in the "ALLSPILL.DBF" file.
No data available.
NA
No informative patterns were identified.
NA
Estimate provided by DEC staff.
Examined in the "Program Summary"
section and in the national chapter.
Stage of Cleanup
No data available.
NA
Status
Data were obtained from the "Remedial Stage" field in the "LUSTList.xls" file. All records with a "Closed" entry in this field
were counted as "Closed" and the remaining releases were counted as "Open."
Identified the appropriate universe of
releases for tree analysis.
Voluntary Cleanup
Program
No data available.
NA
SEPTEMBER 2011
NY-23
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NEW YORK
[This page has intentionally been left blank.
NY-24 SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG
A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
September 2011
NC-1
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
LIST OF ACRONYMS
DENR
EPA
ESA
FY
GCL
LUST
MNA
MSA
MSCC
MTBE
NFA
RBCA
RP
RUST
UST
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Expedited Site Assessment
Fiscal Year
Gross Contamination Level
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Monitored Natural Attenuation
Multi-Site Agreement
Maximum Soil Contaminant Concentration
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
No Further Action
Risk-Based Corrective Action
Responsible Party
Regional Underground Storage Tank
Underground Storage Tank
NC-2
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Leaks from underground storage tanks (USTs) threaten America's groundwater and land resources. Even a small amount of
petroleum released from a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) can contaminate groundwater, the drinking water source
for nearly half of all Americans. In surveys of state water programs, 39 states and territories identified USTs as a major source
of groundwater contamination.1 As the reliance on our resources increases due to the rise in population and use, there is a
correspondingly greater need to protect our finite natural resources.
From the beginning of the UST program to September 2009, more than 488,000 releases were confirmed from federally-
regulated USTs nationwide. Of these confirmed releases needing cleanup, over 100,000 remained in the national LUST
backlog. These releases are in every state, and many are old and affect groundwater. To help address this backlog of releases,
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invited 14 states to participate in a national backlog characterization
study.
ANALYSIS OF NORTH CAROLINA DATA
North Carolina's Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has made significant progress toward reducing
its LUST cleanup backlog. As of March 2009, DENR had completed 18,469 LUST cleanups, which is 74 percent of all known
releases in the state. At the time of data collection, there were 6,343 releases remaining in its backlog.4 To most effectively
reduce the national cleanup backlog, EPA believes that states and EPA must develop backlog reduction strategies that can be
effective in states with the largest backlogs. EPA invited North Carolina to participate in its national backlog study because
North Carolina has one of the ten largest backlogs in the United States.
In this chapter, EPA characterized North Carolina's releases that have not been cleaned up, analyzed these releases based
on categories of interest, and developed potential opportunities for DENR and EPA to explore that might improve the state's
cleanup progress and reduce its backlog. Building on the potential cleanup opportunities identified in the study, EPA will
continue to work with DENR to develop backlog reduction strategies.
In North Carolina, as in every state, many factors affect the pace of cleaning up releases such as the availability and mechanisms
of funding, statutory requirements, and program structure. To manage its limited resources for the program, North Carolina
has statutes and rules requiring DENR to address the highest risk releases first and prohibits working on lower risk releases
North Carolina LUST
Data
By the Numbers2
National Backlog Contribution
Cumulative Historical Releases 24,812
Closed Releases3 18,469/74%
Open Releases 6,343/26%
Stage of Cleanup
Confirmed Release 1,936/31%
Site Assessment 1,976/31%
Remediation 2,431/38%
Media Contaminated
Groundwater 4,619/73%
Median Age of Open Releases
1 EPA, National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report, pp. 50-52. www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/chp6.pdf.
2 Data were provided in March 2009 by DENR staff and are not identical to the UST performance measures reported on EPA's website,
available at: www.epa.gov/oust/cat/camarchv.htm.
3 The North Carolina Regional Underground Storage Tank (RUST) database does not track 8,966 of these releases and they are not
included in this analysis. For further discussion see the Stage of Cleanup section.
4 EPA tracks individual releases rather than sites in its performance measures. Therefore, the analyses in this report account for
numbers of releases, not sites.
5 Unknown media releases include those releases where the media is unknown as well as those releases where, based on available
data, it was not possible to identify the media contaminated.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NC-3
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
until all higher risk releases have been addressed. The recent economic downturn
has also had an impact on the ability of many states to make progress on cleanups.
EPA included potential cleanup opportunities in this report even though current
circumstances in North Carolina, such as North Carolina's statutory requirements,
might make pursuing certain opportunities challenging or unlikely. Also, in some
cases, DENR is already using similar strategies as part of its ongoing program. The
findings from the analysis of DENR's data and the potential cleanup opportunities
are summarized below in eight study areas: stage of cleanup, media contaminated,
state regional backlogs, release priority, cleanup financing, number of releases per
responsible party (RP), geographic clusters, and data management.
Stage Of Cleanup (see page NC-12 for more details)
North Carolina Finding Potential Opportunity
41 percent of releases are
either:
5 years old or older
and site assessment
has not started; or
10 years old or older
and are still in site
assessment.
Expedite site assessments at old releases
to identify releases that can be closed
with minimal effort or moved toward
remediation and closure.
Implement enforcement actions at stalled
releases.
Releases
2,625
32 percent of releases are:
10 years old or older;
and
in remediation.
Use a systematic process to explore
opportunities to accelerate cleanups and reach
closure, such as:
periodic review of release-specific
treatment technologies;
review of site-specific cleanup standards
where applicable;
continued use of institutional or
engineering controls; and
implement enforcement actions if
cleanup has stalled.
2,007
Releases in North Carolina are taking a long time to move through the cleanup process,
and while DENR has statutory restrictions on where it can spend state fund money,
some of these older releases were classified by the program as high priority. There
are several reasons why many releases in the backlog are old including: many releases
are technically complex and therefore take a long time to clean up; the majority
of releases are state fund eligible and state funding is currently limited; and many
releases remain unaddressed because of a low priority ranking. EPA recognizes DENR's
requirement to address high priority releases first. Nevertheless, EPA believes it is
important for DENR to explore opportunities to accelerate cleanups at older releases
in case more resources become available and to consider potential opportunities
while maintaining compliance with statutory thresholds. EPA encourages DENR to
continue to work toward bringing old, high priority releases to closure.
Media Contaminated (see page NC-15for more details)
North Carolina Finding Potential Opportunity
26 percent of releases:
contaminate
groundwater; and
are 10 years old or
older.
Systematically evaluate cleanup progress at
old releases with groundwater impacts and
consider alternative cleanup technologies or
other strategies to reduce time to closure.
Releases
1,636
9 percent of releases:
impact soil only;
have not finished site
assessment; and
are 10 years old or
older.
Continue to use targeted backlog
reduction efforts to close old releases
with soil contamination with minimal
effort.
Encourage RPs to use expedited site
assessments to move releases more
quickly into remediation.
570
Releases contaminating groundwater have always been the largest part of the
national backlog and 73 percent of releases in North Carolina are documented as
contaminating groundwater. In general, groundwater contamination is considered
more technically complex to remediate and also takes longer to clean up than
soil contamination. For old, complex cleanups where long-term remediation is
underway, EPA believes it is important for DENR to have a system in place for periodic
re-evaluation of cleanup progress and to reconsider whether the cleanup technology
being used is still optimal.
Even though soil contamination is easier to remediate than groundwater
contamination, many releases with soil-only impacts are still unaddressed or are in
the early stages of cleanup. Many of these releases remain unaddressed because
they are lower priority according to DENR's ranking system. Nevertheless, as
resources become available, EPA believes DENR should continue to make progress
toward closure for all of its LUST releases.
NC-4
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
State Regional Backlogs (see page NC-18 for more details)
North Carolina Finding
Two DENR regions have relatively
high proportions of releases not
undergoing remediation; and
three DENR regions have relatively
high proportions of releases
impacting groundwater.
Potential Opportunity
Releases
Develop region-specific strategies Variable
for moving releases toward number of
remediation and closure. releases6
EPA identified differences in the distribution of the backlog among DENR's seven
regions including differences in stage of cleanup and type of media contaminated.
Differences in the management and administration of remedial actions might be
causing some of the differences in cleanup outcomes. Other external factors such
as geologic and geographic differences might also contribute to the difference in the
backlog. For example, areas of higher population usually result in areas of larger
backlogs. Property transfers provide incentives for cleanup, particularly in urban
areas. Differences in geology and terrain can make releases in one part of the state
more difficult to clean up than releases in other parts of the state. These differences
might reveal opportunities for region-specific backlog reduction. DENR should work
with its regions to address their specific backlog issues and facilitate the sharing of
information and best practices among the regions.
Release Priority (see page NC-20for more details)
North Carolina Finding Potential Opportunity
Only 49 percent of
releases are above the
Risk Rank and Abatement
threshold.
Encourage RP-led cleanups for releases
with priority scores below the action
threshold and use enforcement actions
when necessary.
Encourage RPs and stakeholders to
examine public and private funding
options such as petroleum brownfields
grants.
41 percent of state fund
eligible releases:
are high risk; and
have not begun
remediation.
Explore ways to move more state-funded
cleanups toward closure, such as:
expediting site assessment of all releases
to ensure that:
o all releases are appropriately ranked;
o releases with immediate risk are
actively being worked on; and
o all releases make progress toward
closure.
Releases
3,149
363
North Carolina has a statutory requirement to address the highest priority releases
first. DENR cannot spend resources at lower priority releases. Consequently, North
Carolina's low priority releases tend to be old and remain in the backlog. In addition,
DENR re-prioritizes releases as work progresses or new information becomes
available, so work stops at high priority releases once they are no longer categorized
as higher risk releases. With North Carolina's statutory requirements in mind, EPA
will work with DENR to explore options and develop strategies to move releases
toward closure, such as supporting local governments and other stakeholders in using
the petroleum brownfields program to move relatively low priority releases forward.
EPA also believes it is important to ensure that there are no immediate risks to human
health and the environment from the higher priority releases that have not been
addressed.
Opportunities marked as "variable number of releases" relate to programmatic
opportunities and affect an unknown number of releases potentially including all open
releases.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NC-5
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
Cleanup F i n a n C i n g (see page NC-22 for more details)
North Carolina Finding Potential Opportunity
RPs for 75 percent
of releases have not
requested state fund
eligibility.
Continue to encourage RPs to apply for
eligibility in a timely manner so as to
determine the number and risk level of
state fund eligible releases.
Systematically track these releases in the
RUST database to facilitate the evaluation
of funding needs.
Consider enforcement for stalled
releases.
Releases
4,726
6 percent of state fund
eligible releases:
have a designated
priority ranking;
have not begun site
assessment; and
are below the priority
threshold.
Explore opportunities to address more
releases with the state fund such as:
o examine cost savings measures; and
o consider other funding sources
including public/private funding
options such as petroleum brownfields
grants for low priority releases or
financing claim payments.
Encourage RPs to move forward with
state fund eligible releases.
Provide information and technical
assistance to RPs or initiate enforcement
actions at stalled releases.
89
EPA and state programs are interested in exploring successful financing strategies for
completing cleanups quickly. EPA acknowledges that the recent economic downturn
has impacted cleanup financing. EPA also believes the availability of funding for
cleanup is essential to reducing the backlog, so in addition to this study, EPA is
increasing its focus on oversight of state funds as well as conducting a study of private
insurance.
The structure of state funds can potentially create incentives or disincentives for
prompt cleanup. For example, a high deductible would provide a different incentive
for owners than a low deductible. The deductibles in North Carolina can range
from $20,000 to $75,000 and must be expended before a RP can apply to the state
fund. This process might be preventing RPs from performing cleanup activities. In
addition, DENR's current budget situation does not allow DENR to fund all cleanups
expeditiously. North Carolina has a statutory requirement to address its worst sites
first. As these cleanups tend to be the most costly, DENR has only been able to
fund 25 percent of its backlog. EPA will continue to work with DENR to explore how
incentives affect the pace of cleanup and how the use of effective incentives can
support program implementation.
All state programs are experiencing resource limitations and progress is dependent
upon their ability to apply existing resources to their backlogs. Encouraging RPs to
move state fund eligible cleanups forward might be a way to continue cleanup progress
while operating within current resource availability. In addition, if more cost-effective
remedial plans could be implemented at state-funded cleanups in remediation, or
other funding sources found for those not in remediation, such savings would free up
funding to address more releases in the early stages of cleanup.
Number Of Releases per RP (see page NC-24 for more details)
North Carolina Finding Potential Opportunity
11 percent of releases
are associated with 31
RPs each with 10 or more
releases.
Explore possibilities for multi-site agreements
(MSAs) or enforcement actions with parties
associated with multiple open releases.
Releases
707
EPA analyzed the number of releases per RP to identify the RPs that are the largest
potential contributors to North Carolina's cleanup backlog. EPA was able to identify
groups of 10 or more releases associated with 31 RPs. These 31 RPs account for 11
percent of the backlog. Taking into account any statutes or rules that restrict the use
of MSAs, DENR and EPA could use this information to identify possible participants for
multi-site strategies to clean up groups of releases.
Geographic Clusters (seepage NC-24 for more details)
North Carolina Finding
75 percent of releases are
clustered within a one-
mile radius of five or more
releases.
Potential Opportunity
Target releases within close proximity for
resource consolidation opportunities.
Releases
Targeted
number of
releases7
Another multi-site approach DENR could use is targeting cleanup actions at
geographically-clustered releases. This approach could offer opportunities for new
community-based reuse efforts, using economies of scale, and addressing commingled
contamination. EPA believes that highlighting geographic clusters of releases and
working with state and local governments and communities in an area-wide planning
context can facilitate the remediation of additional releases. EPA recognizes that
state laws and regulations might present implementation challenges. EPA intends
to work with the states to conduct further geospatial analyses on clusters of releases
7 Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic
opportunities that will address a limited number of releases within select designated
geographic areas.
NC-6
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
in relation to RPs, highway corridors, local geologic and hydrogeologic settings,
groundwater resources, and/or communities with environmental justice concerns.
These analyses might reveal additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
Data Management (see page NC-25 for more details)
North Carolina Finding
Several key data fields are
not included, consistently
maintained, or routinely
tracked in the RUST
database.
Potential Opportunity
Improve RUST database to enhance program
management and backlog reduction efforts.
Releases
Variable
number of
releases
Multiple data management limitations prevent a full assessment of the backlog
and associated strategies for backlog reduction. For example, the RUST database
does not include the stage of cleanup data or track state fund eligibility. Additional
improvements to data management could allow for easier overall program
management within North Carolina as well as provide an improved tool for developing
strategies to reduce the cleanup backlog.
CONCLUSION
This chapter contains EPA's data analysis of North Carolina's LUST cleanup backlog
and identifies potential opportunities to reduce the backlog in North Carolina. EPA
discusses the findings and opportunities for North Carolina, along with those of 13
additional states, in the national chapter of this report. EPA will work with states
to develop potential approaches and detailed strategies for reducing the backlog.
Development of strategies could involve targeted data collection, reviewing particular
case files, analyzing problem areas, and sharing best practices. Final strategies could
involve EPAactions such as using additional program metrics to show cleanup progress,
targeting resources for specific cleanup actions, clarifying and developing guidance,
and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with states, is committed to reducing the
backlog of confirmed LIST releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater, land,
and communities affected by these releases.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NC-7
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
North Carolina LUST
Program
At a Glance
Cleanup Rate
In fiscal year (FY) 2009, DENR confirmed 234
releases and completed 574 cleanups.8
Cleanup Financing
Of open releases, 25 percent (1,616 releases)
are state fund eligible. RPs have not yet
applied for eligibility for the remaining 75
percent of open releases (4,726 releases),
so these releases are expected to be state
funded, but eligibility of these releases is
unknown.11
Cleanup Standards
The type of cleanup standards required is
based on risk classification.
Priority System
Releases are allocated state resources based
on risk classification.
Releases Per Project Manager
On average, each project manager is
responsible for 275 open releases.13
Administrative Spending (FY 2006-2007)
$4.1 million"
PROGRAM SUMMARY
State LUST Program Organization and Administration
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Underground Storage Tank (LIST) Section staff
oversee the assessment and cleanup of leaking underground storage tank (LUST) releases, conduct field work, monitor
consultants' work, provide technical assistance to responsible parties (RPs) and consultants, pre-approve trust fund claims,
and review technical reimbursement requests.
Cleanup Financing
The Commercial and Noncommercial Cleanup Funds reimburse tank owners, operators, and landowners for costs associated
with LUST cleanups. These funds provide reimbursements up to $1.5 million for remediation and third-party liability costs in
excess of deductibles with a 20 percent copayment for costs greater than $1 million. Deductibles for releases from commercial
tanks range between $20,000 and $75,000 depending on the date of release.9 Releases discovered on or after June 30,
1988 from registered and compliant commercial tanks for which annual operating fees have been paid are eligible for the
Commercial Trust Fund.10
State fund eligibility for either fund is not determined until an RP applies for state funding, which it will do only after exceeding
the amount of its deductible. State fund eligibility approval has been requested and received for 25 percent of open releases
(1,616 releases). Eligibility approval has not yet been requested for the remaining 75 percent of releases (4,726 releases).
DENR estimated that only 25 releases to date have been denied eligibility. Therefore, most releases with unknown state fund
eligibility might be approved for state funding once the state receives applications for funding. In 2007, the General Assembly
of North Carolina passed House Bill 2498 enacting a statute of limitations that applies to the filing of eligibility applications
and reimbursement claims.12 Claims must be submitted prior to January 1, 2010 for all tasks completed prior to January 1,
2009; for tasks completed after January 1, 2009, claims must be submitted within one year of task completion. Despite this
newly-enacted statute of limitations, as of December 2009 DENR had not received a notable increase in claims applications.
Release Prioritization
DENR prioritizes releases in Risk Classification rankings of High, Intermediate, or Low based on the results of a Limited Site
Assessment. DENR is required by statute to address the highest risk releases before adding other releases.15 A threshold
8 Based on FY 2009 UST Performance Measures End of Year Activity Report.
9 For more information, see DENR's Leaking Petroleum UST Cleanup Funds brochure, available online at:
portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/get file?uuid=82504138-4585-4492-abe4-7208bfe9371f&groupld=38361.
10 There are no registration requirements or release date restrictions associated with Noncommercial Trust Fund eligibility for
noncommercial tanks.
11 Only one open release has a record of eligibility denial.
12 For more information on Section 2 of House Bill 2498, see DENR's November 2009 memorandum, available online at:
portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/get file?p I id=38491&folderld=540393&name=DLFE-14202.pdf.
13 Estimate provided by DENR staff.
14 This is the administrative budget for North Carolina's state-funded UST program, derived from the state's Commercial and
Noncommercial Funds.
15 SL352, Section 10 - Prioritization of Remediation Work Bill, available online at: www.wastenotnc.org/ust/2004 124Law.html.
NC-8
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
Risk Rank and Abatement score is used to identify releases for active cleanup. The threshold Risk Rank and Abatement
score for cleanup actions can be adjusted depending on how much money the state has available in a given year. DENR
defines the threshold Risk Rank and Abatement score as the number of releases for which claims can be paid within 90 days
of determining the amount of eligible reimbursement. Section 10 of Session Law 2003-352 allows RPs to continue work on
their own until the point that North Carolina can reimburse them, but RPs will not be directed to perform work until they can
be reimbursed by the fund. According to the state database, RPs performed non-directed work at 30 percent of 1,271 open
releases (380 releases). These cleanups are likely driven by interest in redevelopment. All releases are assigned a Risk Rank
and Abatement score, but work must continue at all ineligible releases regardless of risk. Cleanup of releases that are not
financed by the state fund is also overseen by DENR staff.
At releases initially classified as High Risk that are subsequently re-calculated to have a lower risk score, work will stop. For
example, the state statute requires the classification of a release located within 1,000 feet of a well as a High Risk release. If
the well was later identified as up-gradient from the release or if the well could be closed once receptors were connected to
a municipal water supply, the release would be reclassified as Intermediate Risk and the work would stop.
Cleanup Standards
Releases classified as High Risk must be cleaned up to North Carolina Groundwater Quality Standards or Maximum Soil
Contaminant Concentrations (MSCCs; Table 1 to the right). Intermediate Risk releases with groundwater contamination must
be remediated to Gross Contamination Levels (GCLs), which are calculated from risk-based corrective action (RBCA) standards,
and Intermediate Risk releases with soil contamination must be remediated to the appropriate MSCCs.16 However, DENR must
allow the use of RBCA standards at Intermediate Risk releases if requested by the RP. Site-specific RBCA standards can also
be used at Low Risk releases.17 DENR places land use restrictions, or institutional and engineering controls, on sites when
contaminant levels do not meet unrestricted use requirements for soil or groundwater. Out of 3,480 releases closed between
2002 and 2008, 31 percent (1,094 releases) were closed with institutional or engineering controls (Figure 1 to the right).
State Backlog Reduction Efforts
DENR has undertaken several activities to reduce the state's backlog. The program is currently investigating opportunities
to address approximately 60 releases identified between December 2007 and January 2008 that lie within North Carolina
Department of Transportation right of ways. Site assessments and sampling activities required for release closure are
restricted at these locations. These release files will be reviewed to identify releases where No Further Action (NFA) letters
can be issued. RBCA might be applied at some of the releases and institutional controls used for release closure. As with
all NFAs in North Carolina, the cases could be reopened and remediated in the future if needed. In addition, EPA Region 4
provided supplemental funding to address easy-to-close, low priority releases where RPs were either not viable or could not
be located. Of these releases, 88 percent have been addressed. A legislative allowance to allocate state funds to address
additional easy-to-close, low priority releases would impact as many as 321 additional releases that have been identified
by DENR. Although DENR has a statutory mandate to address the highest priority releases first, the North Carolina General
Assembly designated funding in 2008 for the removal of free product at LUST cleanup sites regardless of priority.18 Finally,
DENR directed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds to address 175 non-RP-lead releases.
16 DENR's Guidelines for Assessment and Corrective Action for UST Releases is available online at:
www.wastenotnc.org/ust/docs/aca bodv.pdf.
17 Releases with groundwater contamination cannot be classified as Low Risk releases.
18 SL352, Section 10 - Prioritization of Remediation Work Bill. Available online at: www.wastenotnc.org/ust/2004 124Law.html.
Table 1. DENR Cleanup Standards, by Risk Level
Risk Level
High
Standard
Groundwater Groundwater
Quality
Standards
High
Soil
MSCCs
Intermediate Groundwater GCLs or RBCA
standards
Intermediate Soil
MSCCs or RBCA
standards
Low
Soil
RBCA standards
Figure 1. Use of Institutional Controls Over Time
700
Institutional Controls Used
Institutional Controls Not Used
SEPTEMBER 2011
NC-9
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
[This page has intentionally been left blank.
NC-10 SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNITIES _
In this study, EPA analyzed North Carolina's federally-regulated releases that have not been cleaned up (open releases). First,
EPA conducted a multivariate analysis on DENR's data.19 This technique provided an objective analysis of multiple release
characteristics and allowed EPA to highlight the traits most commonly associated with older releases. Next, EPA divided the
open releases into groups that might warrant further attention. EPA used descriptive statistics to examine the distribution of
releases by age of release and stage of cleanup and highlighted findings based on DENR's data.21 EPA then identified potential
opportunities for addressing particular groups of releases in the backlog. Many releases are included in more than one
opportunity listed. These opportunities describe actions that EPA and DENR might use as a starting point for collaborative
efforts to address the backlog. Although EPA's analysis covered all releases in North Carolina, there are 148 releases that are
not included in any of the subsets identified in the findings or opportunities due to the way EPA structured the analysis. These
releases might also benefit from some of the suggested opportunities and strategies.
EPA's analyses revealed eight areas of North Carolina's backlog with potential opportunities for its further reduction:
Stage of cleanup Release priority Geographic clusters
LUST Data Source
Electronic data for LUST releases occurring
between March 1979 and February 2009 were
compiled with DENR staff in 2008 and 2009.20
Data were obtained from DENR's Regional
Underground Storage Tank (RUST) database
and selected based on quality and the ability to
address areas of interest in this analysis.
Media contaminated
State regional backlogs
Cleanup financing
Number of releases per RP
Data management
19 For a detailed description of the analytic tree method, see Appendix A.
20 For a detailed description of the North Carolina data used in this analysis, see the Chapter Notes section.
21 For a detailed description of release stages, see the Chapter Notes section (Stage of Cleanup Reference Table).
SEPTEMBER 2011
NC-11
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
STAGE OF CLEANUP
As of March 6, 2009, the North Carolina backlog consisted of 6,343 open releases. EPA analyzed the age of these LUST
releases and their distribution among the stages of cleanup. To facilitate analysis, EPA classified North Carolina's open
releases into three stages of cleanup: the Confirmed Release stage (releases where assessments have not begun), the Site
Assessment stage (releases where assessments have begun), and the Remediation stage (releases where remedial activities
have begun).22 While EPA grouped the releases into linear stages for this analysis, EPA recognizes cleanups might not proceed
in a linear fashion. Cleanup can be an iterative process where releases go through successive rounds of site assessment and
remediation. However, ultimately, this approach might be both longer and more costly. Acquiring good site characterization
up front can accelerate the pace of cleanup and avoid the extra cost of repeated site assessment.
Since North Carolina's LUST program began, DENR has closed 18,469 releases, including 8,966 releases closed by 1992.23
Releases closed after 1992 include both "clean" closures and closures that required remedial activities. The data displayed
in Figure 2 below encompass the 9,503 releases closed after 1992. Half of the 9,503 closed releases tracked in the RUST
database were closed in fewer than 1.9 years (Figure 2 below). The young median age of closed LUST releases might be
attributable to the closure of relatively easy to remediate releases.
Figure 2. Age of Releases Among Stages of Cleanup
20
2,431
15
1,936
1,976
O Confirmed Release
B Site Assessment
O Remediation
O Closed
9,503
0 -
The white dot at the center of each circle represents the median age of releases. Each circle is labeled with, and scaled to, the number of
releases within each stage. Included in the release counts and size of circles are 247 closed releases and 13 open releases for which it was
not possible to calculate age. These releases are not part of the median age calculation. The 8,966 closed releases that are not tracked in
the RUST database do not appear in this or subsequent graphics.
DENR's backlog reduction efforts have focused on identifying releases that could be closed with minimal effort, including
those located in North Carolina Department of Transportation right of ways as well as low priority releases without viable
22 Releases were classified into stages based on available data and discussion with DENR staff. For more information, see the Chapter
Notes section.
23 Since North Carolina's LUST program began, DENR has closed 18,469 releases. In 1992, North Carolina UST Section Management
determined that 49 percent of these releases (8,966 releases) had been closed at tank removal without requiring more formal
corrective action. National program policy allows states to report confirmed releases as cleanup completed if they require no further
action at the time of confirmation. The RUST database does not track these 8,966 closures and therefore they are not analyzed in
this report.
NC-12
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
RPs.24 States might find opportunities for closure with minimal effort at lower risk releases where little or no remedial work
is required to reach closure standards or at releases that have met closure standards but have not finished closure review.
North Carolina has many old LUST releases not in remediation. North Carolina law requires RPs to take initial abatement action
and pursue initial site assessment activities without direction from DENR. Following initial site assessment activities, DENR
might determine that a release is low risk and might not require the RP to immediately continue with a comprehensive site
assessment. Doing so allows DENR to use state funds at higher risk cleanups, but also leads to not initiating comprehensive
site assessments or remedial activities at old releases.
Figure 3 below shows the backlog of open releases by age and stage of cleanup and allows for the identification of older
releases by stage. Figure 3 breaks out the 1,414 older releases in the Confirmed Release stage (22 percent of the backlog) that
have not been assessed five years or more after the releases were confirmed. It also shows the 1,211 older releases in the
Site Assessment stage (19 percent of the backlog) have not entered the Remediation stage 10 years or more after the releases
were confirmed. This subset of older releases in the early stages of cleanup accounts for 41 percent of North Carolina's total
backlog. DENR's data indicate that these releases have not moved into remediation quickly.
EPA encourages states to streamline the corrective action process, improve data collection, reduce the overall cost of
remediation, and move releases more rapidly toward remediation and closure. To assist states and regulators in implementing
these objectives, EPA developed its Expedited Site Assessment (ESA) guide.25 The guide explains the overall ESA process as
well as specific site assessment tools and methods. The ESA process rapidly characterizes site conditions to help support cost-
effective corrective action decisions. ESAs can identify releases that can be closed with minimal effort or will provide all the
information needed to move a release into remediation. Conducting site assessments efficiently and quickly can help reduce
the backlog by accelerating the pace of cleanup and ultimately decrease overall project costs.
Figure 3. Release Age Distribution among Stages of Cleanup
> 10 Years
2,007
83%
North Carolina Finding
41 percent of releases are either:
5 years old or older and site assessment
has not started; or
10 years old or older and are still in site
assessment.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Expedite site assessments 2,625
at old releases to identify
releases that can be closed
with minimal effort or
moved toward remediation
and closure.
Implement enforcement
actions at stalled releases.
Releases 5 years old or
older in the Confirmed
Release stage
Releases 10 years old
or older in the Site
Assessment stage
1,414
1,211
Confirmed Release
(1,936 Releases)
Site Assessment
(1,976 Releases)
Remediation
(2,431 Releases)
24 See State Backlog Reduction Efforts in the Program Summary.
25 EPA's 1997 guidance document, Expedited Site Assessment Tools For Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide For Regulators (EPA
510 B-97-001), is available online at: www.epa.gov/OUST/pubs/sam.htm.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NC-13
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
North Carolina Finding
32 percent of releases are:
10 years old or older; and
in remediation.
Potential Opportunity
Releases
Use a systematic process to 2,007
explore opportunities to accelerate
cleanups and reach closure, such
as:
periodic review of
release-specific treatment
technologies;
review of site-specific cleanup
standards, where applicable;
continued use of institutional
or engineering controls; and
implement enforcement
actions if cleanup has stalled.
North Carolina also has many old releases in the Remediation stage. Thirty-two percent of North Carolina's releases (2,007
releases) are in remediation and are 10 years old or older (Figure 3, page 13). This older group of releases represents 83
percent of the releases in remediation (Figure 3). Because EPA only has the date that a release was confirmed but not when
it moved from one stage to the next (e.g., from assessment to remediation), EPA can calculate the overall age of the release
but not the actual time spent in the Remediation stage. It is possible that some of these releases might have only recently
begun remediation. DENR should consider establishing a systematic process to evaluate existing releases in remediation and
optimize cleanup approaches, including choice of technology and site-specific risk-based decision making, where applicable.
This process might save DENR resources and bring releases to closure more quickly. DENR can also continue to use institutional
or engineering controls in conjunction with risk-based decision making to reduce the time to closure by eliminating exposure
pathways and allowing for less stringent cleanup standards where protective and appropriate.
NC-14
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
MEDIA CONTAMINATED
Groundwater is an important natural resource at risk from petroleum contamination.
Old releases impacting groundwater make up the majority of North Carolina's backlog.
In general, groundwater contamination takes longer and is more expensive to clean
up than soil contamination. In this study, EPA examined media as a factor contributing
to the backlog. The analysis classified media contamination into three categories:
groundwater (4,619 open releases), soil (1,616 open releases), and "unknown"
media, which includes releases with no media specified (108 open releases).26
EPA performed an analytic tree analysis of all releases with a known release date
(6,330 releases). This analysis determined that North Carolina's releases within
the Remediation stage are significantly older than releases within the Confirmed
Release or Site Assessment stages (Figure 4 and Figure 5, Nodes 1.1 and 1.2, below).
Within each of these groupings, releases with groundwater contamination tend to
be significantly older than releases with soil contamination (Figure 5, Nodes 2.1 -
Figure 4. Complete Tree Outline
AOpen Releases"^
4
^ I Stage of Cleanup I
Confirmed Release;
Site Assessment
I
Media
Remediation
Media
1
Groundwater Soil;
Unknown
I
Region
1
^ if
> V
4 *
WS MO/?; /Mt; /4SH; FX1V;
WIL WAS
Priority Priority Priority
^
'Groundwater?
Unknown
State Fund
Eligible ,
so/;
1
Regio
^^^ Figure 5
Figure 12
Figure 15
Figure 17
A simplified outline of the analytic tree structure is shown above. Specific branches are shown
in greater detail in Figures 5,12,15, and 17. For additional information on the analytic tree
method, see Appendix A.
2.4). That groundwater releases tend to be older than soil releases supports the idea
that groundwater contamination takes longer to remediate than soil contamination.
Under North Carolina's prioritization system, work and reimbursement at a High
Risk release can pause indefinitely when risk falls below the state's Risk Rank and
Abatement threshold. Thus, many old releases might not be progressing due to
their priority scores or funding limitations. At releases initially classified as High Risk
that are subsequently re-calculated to have a lower risk score, work will stop. For
example, the state statute requires a release to be classified as High Risk if it is located
within 1,000 feet of a water well. If the well was later identified as up-gradient
from the release or if the well could be closed once receptors were connected to a
municipal water supply, the release would be reclassified as Intermediate Risk and
the work would stop. Like most state programs, DENR faces challenges in addressing
backlog releases and the North Carolina state legislature requires DENR to focus on
the highest priority releases first.
Figure 5. Tree Analysis of Open Release Age - Media Focus27
Open Releases
Median Age (Years) 14.1 t
Releases 6,330
Confirmed Release;
Site Assessment
Median Age (Years) 12.5
Releases 3,903
Groundwater
Median Age (Years)
Releases
2.2
Soil; Unknown
Median Age (Years) 10.2
Releases 1,200
1.2
2.3
Remediation
Median Age (Years)
Releases
15.1
2,427
Groundwater;
Unknown
Median Age (Years) 15.3
Releases 1,930
Soil
Median Age (Years)
Releases
13.3
497
26 For a detailed description of media contamination classifications, see the Chapter Notes
section.
27 Node 2.2 includes 85 releases with unknown media and Node 2.3 includes 23 releases
with unknown media.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NC-15
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
North Carolina Finding
26 percent of releases:
contaminate groundwater; and
are 10 years old or older.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Systematically evaluate cleanup 1,636
progress at old releases with
groundwater impacts and consider
alternative cleanup technologies
or other strategies to reduce time
to closure.
North Carolina's current backlog has a much higher percentage of groundwater cleanups that are significantly older than the
median age of closed sites at closure. In North Carolina, 73 percent of open releases (4,619 releases) involve groundwater
contamination and have a median age of 14.5 years (Figure 6 below). In contrast, only 39 percent of closed releases (3,709
releases) involved groundwater contamination. These closed releases have a significantly younger median age of 5.7 years
compared to the median age of open releases (Figure 6). Seventy-three percent of closed releases with groundwater impacts
were closed in less than 10 years (Figure 7, page 17).
Of the total number of groundwater cleanups in the Remediation stage, 86 percent (1,636 releases) are 10 years old or older
(Figure 7). This subset of older releases that contaminate groundwater and are in remediation makes up 26 percent of North
Carolina's total backlog (Figure 8, page 17). Groundwater contamination is typically more complex and difficult to remediate.
However, if DENR could identify opportunities to improve cleanup efficiencies, it might be able to accelerate the pace of
cleanups. For example, using a systematic process to evaluate cleanup progress, current contaminant levels, and treatment
technologies might move releases through cleanup and to closure faster. In addition, evaluation of the cleanup progress of
releases with groundwater impacts might identify releases where monitored natural attenuation (MNA) could be applied.
In these cases, treatment times need to remain reasonable compared to other methods. DENR's cleanup costs might be
reduced by applying MNA at active cleanups.
DENR is required to use institutional or engineering controls at lower risk releases that are cleaned up to less stringent
standards than unrestricted use. These cleanups must meet appropriate risk-based standards. Institutional controls occurred
at 31 percent (1,094 releases) of closures in North Carolina between 2002 and 2008.
Figure 6. Age of Releases by Media Contaminated and Stage of Cleanup28
20
1,910
1,122
_OJ
OJ
OL
OJ
01
23
18 °
747
371
67
O
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Remediation
Closed
3,703
4,748
1,046
Groundwater Soil Unknown
Squares indicating closed releases are not scaled to the number of releases in that stage.
28 This graphic does not include 8,966 clean closures.
NC-16
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
Figure 7. Age of Closed Releases with Groundwater Impacts Figure 8. Age of Remediation Stage Releases with Groundwater Impacts
Unknown Age
18
Unknown Age
3
< 10 Years
2,700
73%
> 10 Years
1,636
86%
Releases that contaminate soil only are of concern because they represent a potential threat to groundwater resources and
contaminate properties in neighborhoods and communities. Although contaminated soil can typically be cleaned up faster
than contaminated groundwater, approximately half of the 1,116 Confirmed Release/Site Assessment stage soil cleanups in
North Carolina are 10 years old or older (570 releases; Figure 9 below left). This group of older releases in the early stages of
cleanup that contaminate soil only makes up 9 percent of North Carolina's backlog. In many cases, DENR defers the cleanup
of soil contamination for higher priority groundwater contamination. Of the 420 soil cleanups with recorded risk, 76 percent
(321 releases) are classified as Intermediate or Low Risk releases (Figure 10 below right). However, it appears that 99 High Risk
releases 10 years or older that impact soil only are not in remediation. In general, encouraging site assessment and moving
forward with remediation could help DENR gather more information about difficult releases and move all releases toward
closure, thereby reducing the backlog.
Figure 9. Age of Pre-remediation Releases with Soil
Contamination29
Unknown Age
2
Figure 10. Risk Level of Releases 10 Years Old or Older with Soil Impacts30
North Carolina Finding
9 percent of releases:
impact soil only;
have not finished site assessment; and
are 10 years old or older.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Continue to use targeted 570
backlog reduction efforts to
close old releases with soil
contamination with minimal
effort.
Encourage RPsto use
expedited site assessments to
move releases more quickly
into remediation.
29 Pre-remediation refers to releases in the Confirmed Release or Site Assessment stages.
30 There are 284 releases that are 10 years old or older for which risk is not recorded that are not presented in this graphic.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NC-17
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
North Carolina Finding
Two DENR regions have relatively high
proportions of releases that are not
undergoing remediation; and three DENR
regions have relatively high proportions of
releases that impact groundwater.
Potential Opportunity
Releases
Develop region-specific Variable
strategies for moving releases number of
toward remediation and closure. releases31
STATE REGIONAL BACKLOGS
EPA analyzed cleanup backlogs within DENR's seven regions to identify patterns and opportunities for targeted backlog
reduction strategies within each DENR region. There are significant differences in the size of backlog, stage of cleanup, and
media types among the seven regions (Figure 11 and Table 2 below). The Mooresville, Raleigh, and Winston-Salem regions
have approximately twice as many releases as each of the other regions (18, 20, and 21 percent of all releases, respectively,
compared with the other regions, which range
from 9 to 11 percent of all releases; Table 2). Figure 11. Map of DENR Regions
The number of releases in these regions is
likely due to the large number of USTs located
in the densely populated urban centers of
Charlotte (Mooresville region), Raleigh and
Durham, and Winston-Salem. These urban
areas with greater populations might also
create greater financial incentives for cleanup
due to property transfers.
Several regional backlogs include a large proportion of pre-remediation releases. For example, 77 percent of releases in
the Asheville region (497 releases) and 78 percent of releases in the Fayetteville region (530 releases) have not entered
the Remediation stage. In addition, over half of the releases in the Asheville region (342 releases) remain in the Confirmed
Release stage, which is the highest percentage of any region. In contrast, 62 percent of releases (855 releases) in the Winston-
Table 2. North Carolina Backlog by DENR Region
ASH - Asheville
FAY-Fayetteville
MOR-Mooresville
RAL - Raleigh
WAS-Washington
WIL-Wilmington
WS-Winston-Salem
State Backlog Contribution
Cumulative Historical Releases
Closed Releases
Open Releases
ASH
10%
1,824
1,175/64%
649/36%
FAY
11%
1,359
684/50%
675/50%
MOR
18%
3,394
2,241/66%
1,153/34%
RAL
20%
2,941
1,688/57%
1,253/43%
WAS
11%
1,649
958/58%
691/42%
WIL
9%
1,275
730/57%
545/43%
WS
21%
3,404
2,027/60%
1,377/40%
Stage of Cleanup
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Remediation
342/53%
155/24%
152/23%
259/38%
271/40%
145/22%
432/37%
366/32%
355/31%
312/25%
486/39%
455/36%
145/21%
284/41%
262/38%
174/32%
164/30%
207/38%
272/20%
250/18%
855/62%
Media Contaminated
Groundwater
Soil
Unknown
Median Age of Open Releases
403/62%
246/38%
0/0%
12. 8 years
536/80%
137/20%
2/
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
Salem region are in the Remediation stage. This finding suggests that some regions
might be more effective than others in starting and completing site assessments or
that there might be geologic variations or other exogenous variables that impact the
regions differently.
The distribution of releases among media types also varies between regions. The
total number of releases in the Washington region is similar to the Asheville region,
although the Washington region has a high incidence of groundwater impacts at
releases (95 percent, 656 releases), while only 62 percent of releases in the Asheville
region (403 releases) impact groundwater (Table 2). This difference is possibly due
to hydrogeologic variation between the two regions; the Washington region includes
coastal areas and the Asheville region is more mountainous. Interestingly, the
median ages of releases in these two regions are similar (Table 2), although nationally,
releases contaminating groundwater tend to take longer to clean up than releases
contaminating soil. This might again reflect hydrogeologic variation or might be due
to differences in priority ranking of these releases between the two regions.
Within the stages of cleanup, the age of releases with soil-only impacts is
significantly different among DENR regions. For example, Remediation stage releases
contaminating soil in the Winston-Salem region tend to be older than the same subset
of releases in other regions (Figure 12 to the right, Node 1.4). Despite this pattern,
the Winston-Salem region's releases with soil or unknown media impacts in the
Confirmed Release and Site Assessment stages tend to be the youngest of all of the
DENR regions (Figure 12, Node 1.3). This might indicate the Winston-Salem region
has been more efficient in assessing and assigning risk to releases. These releases
might have been determined to pose little risk to this densely populated urban area
because it uses a municipal water source, therefore, these low risk releases may have
been allowed to remain unaddressed in the Remediation stage.
Another regional pattern is releases with soil-only impacts in the Remediation stage
located in the Asheville and Fayetteville regions tend to be younger than those in
other regions (Figure 12, Node 1.6). Although DENR takes geologic variation into
account when planning remedial strategies and balances the workloads of regional
offices on a regular basis, this trend might be the result of the Asheville and
Fayetteville regions focusing on completing soil cleanups, and suggests that variations
in regional backlogs warrant further exploration by DENR. Additional analysis might
find specific differences in geologic settings, risk to receptors, or administrative and
data management policies that could be used by DENR to develop region-specific
strategies to reduce the North Carolina backlog. EPA encourages DENR to look for
opportunities to share best practices among its regions and with other states.
Figure 12. Tree Analysis of Open Release Age - Region Focus32
Open Releases
Groundwater
Site Assessment
Region Codes
ASH -Asheville
FAY -Fayetteville
MOR- Mooresville
Unknown
Soil
WAS - Washington
WIL- Wilmington
WS- Winston-Salem
^ J
^^
1.1
{MOR;RAL;WIL ^
Median Age (Years) 12.6
Releases 669!
1.2
r ASH; FAY; WAS ^
-\ Median Age (Years) 8.2
1 Releases 360 1
1.3
J WS ^|
1 Median Age (Years) 3.8
1 Releases 171 1
1.4
-f WS 1
1 Median Age (Years) 14.4
[Releases 27ll
1.5
(MOR;RAL;WAS;WIL ^
Releases 16sl
1.6
{ASH; FAY ^
Median Age (Years) 4.7
Releases 5sl
J
32 Node 2.2 includes 85 releases with unknown media and Node 2.3 includes 23 releases
with unknown media. Identification of the media contaminated at these releases could
potentially alter the tree structure.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NC-19
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
North Carolina Finding
Only 49 percent of releases are above the Risk
Rank and Abatement threshold.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Encourage RP-led cleanups 3,149
for releases with priority
scores below the action
threshold and use
enforcement actions when
necessary.
Encourage RPs and
stakeholders to examine
public and private funding
options such as petroleum
brownfields grants.
North Carolina Finding
41 percent of state fund eligible releases:
are high risk; and
have not begun remediation.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore ways to move more state- 363
funded cleanups toward closure,
such as:
expediting site assessment of
all releases to ensure that:
o all releases are
appropriately ranked;
o releases with immediate
risk are actively being
worked on; and
o all releases make progress
toward closure.
RELEASE PRIORITY
Many state programs employ prioritization systems to decide how to best allocate state resources to LUST cleanups. States
approach cleanup priority differently and there might be opportunities to use DENR's prioritization system to increase the
number of closures. DENR is required by statute to focus resources on the highest risk releases and unconfirmed risk releases.
DENR is prohibited from financing lower priority releases unless resources have already been made available to address all
higher priority releases.
DENR categorizes releases in Risk Classification rankings of High, Intermediate, or Low, based on the results of a Limited Site
Assessment. DENR is required by statute to address the highest risk releases and uses a threshold Risk Rank and Abatement
score to identify releases for active cleanup.33 RPs with releases above the risk threshold are directed to proceed with cleanup.
At the time of data collection, only 49 percent of releases (3,057 releases) were above the November 2009 Risk Rank and
Abatement threshold (Figure 13 below right).34 The remaining 51 percent of releases (3,149 releases) were scored below the
threshold and the RPs have therefore not been directed to proceed with remedial activities. State funding may be limited,
but DENR could potentially spur the cleanup of low priority releases by encouraging RPs to move forward on lower priority
cleanups. DENR should also encourage RPs and communities to look at other funding options such as petroleum brownfields
grants and other public and private funding sources to facilitate assessment, cleanup, and reuse.
Figure 13. Open Releases Above and Below the
2009 Risk Rank and Abatement Threshold35
Even with North Carolina's requirement to address the highest priority releases
first, not all high priority releases are in remediation. Site assessments have not
been completed for 41 percent of High Risk releases (363 releases) approved
for state fund eligibility, half of which are 10.4 years old or older (Figure 14,
page 21). In addition, of the 4,726 releases that have not yet applied for
eligibility, 1,494 are High Risk and 483 of these are still in the Confirmed
Release stage. To the extent possible with available funding, expediting
the completion of these site assessments to move High Risk releases into
remediation and closure could help reduce the backlog. With North Carolina's
statutory requirements in mind, EPA will work with DENR to develop strategies
to move all releases toward closure and to ensure that there are no immediate
risks to human health and the environment from the High Risk releases that
have not been addressed.
Within the 1,616 releases approved for state funding, site assessments have not begun at many Low Risk releases (24 percent;
61 releases) when compared with High Risk releases (9 percent; 83 releases.) These Low Risk releases are also significantly
older (14.7 year median age) than the High Risk releases (4.7-year median age; Figure 14). Low Risk releases tend to be older
within other subgroups of releases as well (Figure 15, page 21, Nodes 1.1,1.5, 2.1, and 2.4, highlighted in yellow). The age of
these releases reflects DENR's policy of prohibiting the expenditure of resources on Low Risk releases.
33 Active and inactive are terms employed by DENR to define releases above or below the Risk Rank and Abatement threshold.
34 DENR's Commercial and Noncommercial Cleanup Funds have different priority score thresholds for funding and only releases
categorized as High Risk and above these thresholds receive funding. The thresholds were adjusted on November 2, 2009 to permit
work on all High Risk commercial releases. For current information on DENR priority thresholds, see www.wastenotnc.org/ust/
FundLevel.html.
35 Not included in this graphic are 157 releases for which sufficient data were not available for comparison to the action threshold.
NC-20
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
Figure 14. Age of State Fund Eligible Releases by Confirmed Risk Classification and Stage of Cleanup
20
1 15 UO 183 K1 g u
| ' 0 12
O 83 3,010
Dl 5
< 40
0
O Confirmed Release
O Site Assessment
O Remediation
Closed
High
Intermediate
Low
Unknown
Figure 15. Age of Releases by Confirmed Risk and Stage of Cleanup
Site Assessment
Region Codes
ASH -Asheville
FAY-Fayetteville
MOR - Mooresville
RAL- Raleigh
WAS- Washington
WIL- Wilmington
WS - Winston-Salem
t,
Groundwater
Soil;
Unknown Media
Federal Lead
State Lead
Unknown
MOR-RAL'WIL
WS
1.1
f Low ^
Median Age (Years) 14.4
(Releases 777 1
1.2
f Unknown Risk ">
Median Age (Years) 13.4
(Releases 159 J
1.3
Intermediate
Median Age (Years) 12.4
(Releases 615 1
1.4
C High ^|
Median Age (Years) 11.1
(Releases 739 1
1.5
Releases 55
1.6
Median Age (Years) 3.7
1 Releases 65 1
1.7
Unknown Risk
Median Age (Years) 1.4
1 Releases 51 1
r LOW ^
Median Age (Years) 10.7
(Releases 223 J
2.2
f High;lntermediate ^
Median Age (Years) 7.1
(Releases 83 1
Unknown Risk
1 Releases 54 1
2.4
f Low ^
1 Releases 224!
2.5
r Unknown Risk ^
Median Age (Years) 12.5
Releases 268
L J
2.6
High; Intermediate
Median Age (Years) 10.3
Releases 177
L J
SEPTEMBER 2011
NC-21
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
North Carolina Finding
RPs for 75 percent of releases have not
requested state fund eligibility.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Continue to encourage RPs to 4,726
apply for eligibility in a timely
manner so as to determine
the number and risk level of
state fund eligible releases.
Systematically track these
releases in the RUST
database to facilitate the
evaluation of funding needs.
Consider enforcement for
stalled releases.
CLEANUP FINANCING
EPA and state programs are interested in exploring successful financing strategies for completing cleanups quickly. EPA
acknowledges that the recent economic downturn has impacted cleanup financing. EPA also believes the availability of
funding for cleanup is essential to reducing the backlog, so in addition to this study, EPA is increasing its focus on oversight of
state funds as well as conducting a study of private insurance.
DENR staff does not determine eligibility for state funds until an RP submits an application for approval. According to available
data, only 25 percent of releases (1,616 releases) have been approved for state funding (Figure 16 below). Applications for
eligibility have not been submitted for the remaining 75 percent (4,726 releases) even though some level of assessment or
cleanup up has proceeded at 63 percent (2,984 releases) of these releases.
Figure 16. Age of Releases by State Fund Eligibility, Priority Threshold, and Stage of Cleanup36
20
-£ io
1,715
O Confirmed Release
O Site Assessment
O Remediation
91
-o-
Eligibility Approved
Above Threshold Below Threshold
Not Yet Applied
for Eligibility
Until recently, nearly all LUST cleanups in North Carolina were likely to be funded by the state. Now, eligibility depends on
the promptness of application following task completion. In 2007, the General Assembly of North Carolina passed House Bill
2498 enacting a statute of limitations that applies to the filing of eligibility applications and reimbursement claims. In North
Carolina, eligibility application and filing of an initial reimbursement claim happens at the same time. Under the new bill,
claims must be submitted prior to January 1, 2010, for all tasks completed prior to January 1, 2009; for tasks completed after
January 1, 2009, claims must be submitted within one year of task completion. As of December 2009, DENR had not received
a notable increase in claims applications but DENR expects this law to assist the state in estimating the future financial
obligations of the state fund.
North Carolina has 1,929 releases (30 percent of the backlog) in the Remediation stage that impact groundwater and unknown
media (Figure 17, page 23). Of these releases, there are twice as many releases where applications for state funding have not
been submitted as releases that are approved for state funding. In addition, these Remediation stage releases where the RPs
have not applied for state funding are significantly older than those releases that have been approved for state funding (Figure
17, node 1.1, highlighted in yellow, and node 1.2).
36 One release that has been denied eligibility and 42 releases that have been approved for state funding but have unknown priority
do not appear in this graphic (14 Confirmed Release stage releases, 16 Site Assessment stage releases, and 12 Remediation stage
releases).
NC-22
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
One reason RPs might not have submitted a claim and applied for state fund eligibility at so many releases where they have
already begun work is North Carolina requires the RP to pay a deductible ranging from $20,000 to $75,000 before DENR
determines eligibility. If the RP has not reached the limit of the deductible then DENR can deny eligibility. Determining and
tracking the eligibility status of all releases and continuing to encourage RPs to apply for eligibility in a timely manner will
facilitate DENR's evaluation of funding needs. If some of the releases are ineligible for the state fund, then DENR can consider
options such as enforcement to help move these cleanups toward remediation and closure.
Figure 17. Tree Analysis of Open Release Age - State Fund Eligibility Focus Like most state programs, DENR does not have
the resources to address all releases at once.
In addition, North Carolina state law requires
DENR to focus on the highest priority releases
first. Of the 1,616 releases approved for state
funding (25 percent of the backlog), 12 percent
(194 releases) remain in the Confirmed Release
stage (Figure 16, page 22). Only 47 percent
of these releases in the Confirmed Release
stage (91 releases) have priority scores above
the Risk Rank and Abatement threshold. This
funding threshold depends on the amount of
funding available. The state does not require
the RP to conduct cleanup activities for the
remaining 49 percent of releases in the Confirmed Release stage (89 releases) that are below the threshold. The median age
of the 91 releases above the threshold is 4.7 years, and the median age for those releases below the threshold is 11.8 years.
This illustrates North Carolina's financial limitations significantly slows the progress of cleanups (Figure 16).
DENR should consider exploring opportunities to address more releases with the state cleanup fund such as employing
cost cutting measures to increase the amount of funds available per cleanup. Another opportunity DENR could investigate
is the availability of additional funding sources through public/private partnerships such as petroleum brownfields grants
for low priority releases without a viable RP. In addition, some states have started financing claims through public/private
partnerships. Encouraging RPs to move state fund eligible releases forward might be a way to continue cleanup progress while
operating with current resource availability.
Groundwater Eligibility
and Unknown Status
Media Releases
in Remediation
1.1
"~ Not Yet Applied ^|
Median Age (Years) 16.1 1
Releases 1,257 1
1.2
^ Approved "^
Median Age (Years) 13.9
Releases 672 1
North Carolina Finding
6 percent of state fund eligible releases:
have a designated priority ranking;
have not begun site assessment; and
are below the priority threshold.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore opportunities to 89
address more releases with
the state fund such as:
o examine cost savings
measures; and
o consider other funding
sources including public/
private funding options
such as petroleum
brownfields grants for
low priority releases or
financing claim payments.
Encourage RPs to move
forward with state fund
eligible releases.
Provide information and
technical assistance to RPs or
initiate enforcement actions
at stalled releases.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NC-23
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
North Carolina Finding
11 percent of releases are associated with 31
RPs each with 10 or more releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore possibilities for multi- 707
site agreements (MSAs) or
enforcement actions with parties
associated with multiple open
releases.
NUMBER OF RELEASES PER RP
EPA analyzed the number of releases per RP to identify the RPs that are the
largest potential contributors to the state's cleanup backlog.37 A total of 31
RPs are responsible for 10 or more releases each and account for 11 percent
of the North Carolina backlog (707 releases; Table 3 to the right). Of these, 19
gasoline retail, distribution, and refining businesses are the RPs for 409 releases
(6 percent of the backlog), and four convenience store chains are responsible
for 133 releases (2 percent of the backlog). Focused efforts engaging these RPs
in collaborative cleanup agreements or enforcement actions might expedite
the closure of many of these releases.
Table 3. RPs with 10 or More Open Releases
Type of RP
Gasoline Retail/
Distribution/Refining
Number
of Number
Releases of RPs
409
Convenience Store
Chain
133
Government - State
109
Government - Federal
33
Government-Local
13
Utility
10
Total
707
19
31
North Carolina Finding
75 percent of releases are clustered within a
one-mile radius of five or more releases.
Potential Opportunity
Target releases within close
proximity for resource
consolidation opportunities.
Releases
Targeted
number
of
releases38
Figure 18. Map of All Open Releases by DENR Region
Greensboro
Raleigh
GEOGRAPHIC CLUSTERS
EPA performed a geospatial analysis to look for
alternative ways to address the backlog. While
releases in geographic clusters might not have
the same RP, they tend to be located in densely
populated areas and might present opportunities
to consolidate resources and coordinate efforts.
Geographic proximity can call attention to releases
in areas of interest such as redevelopment,
environmental justice, or ecological sensitivity.
Charlotte
State and local governments can utilize geographic
clusters for area-wide planning efforts. EPA's
analysis identified 1,840 releases (29 percent of
releases) located within a one-mile radius of five or
more other releases (Figure 18 above, right). Of these releases, 977 (15 percent of releases) are located within a one-mile
radius of 10 or more other releases. Approaching the assessment and cleanup needs of an area impacted by LUSTs can be
more effective than focusing on individual sites isolated from the adjacent or surrounding area. Considering geographically-
clustered releases might pave the way for new community-based revitalization efforts, utilize economies of scale to yield
benefits such as reduced equipment costs, and present opportunities to develop multi-site cleanup strategies, especially at
37 DENR tracks the RP company, the entity considered responsible for cleanup.
38 Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic opportunities that will address a limited number of
releases within select designated geographic areas.
NC-24
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
locations with commingled contamination. EPA encourages states to look for opportunities for resource consolidation and/or
area-wide planning but also recognizes that this approach is best geared to address targeted groups of releases as opposed
to a state-wide opportunity for every cluster of releases. EPA also recognizes that state laws and regulations might present
implementation challenges. EPA intends to conduct further geospatial analyses on clusters of releases in relation to RPs,
highway corridors, local geologic and hydrogeologic settings, groundwater resources, and/or communities with environmental
justice concerns. These analyses might reveal additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
DATA MANAGEMENT
Multiple database limitations prevent a full assessment of the backlog and associated strategies for backlog reduction. DENR's
RUST database does not track several important pieces of open and closed release-related information. DENR correspondence
records were queried to assign stage of cleanup and state fund eligibility to releases for this analysis because the RUST
database does not contain data fields that track this information. In addition, information on state fund eligibility and risk
is not complete for all releases. The absence of data for 8,966 clean closures (49 percent of closed releases) in the RUST
database results in an overestimation of closed release age and the percentage of historical releases already closed by region
in this analysis, but does not yield any clear implications for program administration. Routine tracking of important release
data would allow DENR staff to determine which releases to target with enforcement efforts and which releases are delayed
due to a lack of available state funds. Additional improvements to database management could allow for easier overall
program management as well as provide an improved tool for developing strategies to reduce the cleanup backlog.
North Carolina Finding
Several key data fields are not included,
consistently maintained, or routinely tracked
in the RUST database.
Potential Opportunity
Improve RUST database to
enhance program management
and backlog reduction efforts.
Releases
Variable
number
of
releases
SEPTEMBER 2011
NC-25
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
CONCLUSION
North Carolina LUST
Program
Contact Information
North Carolina Department of Environment
& Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
Underground Storage Tank Section
1637 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1637
Phone: 919-733-1300
Fax: 919-733-9413
wastenotnc.org/ust/ust main.html
In this state chapter, EPA presented the analysis of LUST data submitted by DENR and highlighted information on the North
Carolina LUST program. Based on the analytic results, EPA identified potential opportunities that could be used to address
specific backlog issues in North Carolina. Over the course of the entire study, EPA also analyzed data from 13 other states.
Findings and opportunities that apply to all 14 states are discussed in the national chapter of the report. Each opportunity
represents one potential approach among many to address the backlog. Discussion of the opportunities as a whole is
intended as a starting point for further conversations among EPA, North Carolina, and the other states on strategies to reduce
the backlog. EPA will work with our partners to develop the backlog reduction strategies. Development of the strategies
might include targeting data collection, reviewing particular case files, analyzing problem areas, and sharing best practices.
The strategies could also involve actions from EPA, such as using additional program metrics, targeting resources for specific
cleanup actions, clarifying and developing guidance, and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with the states, is committed
to reducing the backlog of confirmed UST releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater and land and the communities
affected by these releases.
NC-26
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
CHAPTER NOTES
CHAPTER NOTES
NORTH CAROLINA DATA BY ATTRIBUTE
The following table provides details on the data elements of interest in this analysis. Data were provided by DENR staff in 2008 and 2009 for use in this analysis. Several data
elements of interest could not be addressed with the information available. All available data elements were analyzed and only those data elements that revealed informative
patterns of interest were included in the report.
Data Element
Administrative Cost
North Carolina Data
Use in Analysis
Data were obtained from "Annual Report to the Environmental Review Commission: North Carolina General Assembly," Included in the "Program Summary"
available at http://www.wastenotnc.org/ust/docs/AnnualReport2007.pdf. section and in the national chapter.
Age
Age was calculated for closed releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the closure date and dividing by
365. Age was calculated for open releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the data date and dividing by
365. Any values less than -.1 were left blank. Values between -.1 and 0 were counted as 0. All dates were rounded to one
decimal point. Ages of releases with insufficient or invalid data were left blank.
Variable in all analyses.
Cleanup Standards
Closure Date
Confirmed Release Date
Data Date
DENR Region
Easy to Close
Federally-Regulated
LUST Releases
Free Product
Institutional and
Engineering Controls
Latitude and Longitude
Lead
Site-specific data were obtained from the "RBCA" and "RBCA_GW" fields in the "tblUST_DB" file. These are the cleanup
standards at the time of closure.
Data were obtained from the "CloseOut" field in the "tblUST_DB" file.
Data were obtained from the "DateReported" field in the "tblUST_DB" file.
March 6, 2009, is used for all records. This is the date the data were obtained.
Data were obtained from the "ROCode" field in the "tblUST_DB" file. This field indicates the DENR regional office handling
the incident.
Data were obtained from the "catcode" field in the "tblUST_DB" file. Category 1 indicates releases that are close to closure
and category 2 indicates releases in the North Carolina Department of Transportation right of way where samples needed
for closure cannot be collected. According to DENR, these data are not up to date.
Data were obtained from the "Reg" field in the "tblUST_DB" file. Only releases with either an "R," "B," or blank value are
included. Only releases with both an USTNum and IncidentNumber are included.
Data were obtained from the "InterCons" field in the "tblUST_DB" file. An "F" in this field would indicate the presence of
free product at some point during the history of the release. Because it cannot be determined from these data whether
free product is currently present, these data are not examined in this analysis.
Data were obtained from the "LURFiled" field in the "tblUST_DB" file. A date in this file indicates the date an institutional
or engineering control was put in place.
Data were obtained from the "LatDec," "Latitude," "LongDec," and "Longitude" fields in the "tblUST_DB" file. Where
possible, coordinates for releases without existing latitude and longitude values were obtained by EPA staff by geocoding
address and street locations.
Data were obtained from the "Mgr" field in the "tblUST_DB" file. A "STF" entry indicates that a release is state-lead and
an "FTF" entry indicates that a release is federal-lead.
State-wide standards examined in the
national chapter.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Examined in "Regional Differences"
section.
Examined in the "State Backlog Reduction
Efforts" section.
Identifies the appropriate universe of
releases for analysis.
Data not suitable for analysis.
Examined in the "Cleanup Standards"
section and in the national chapter.
Used in geospatial analysis calculating the
number of open releases within a one-
mile radius of other open releases.
No informative patterns were identified.
SEPTEMBER 2011
NC-27
-------
CHAPTER NOTES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
Data Element
Media
North Carolina Data
Use in Analysis
Monitored Natural
Attenuation (MNA)
Data were obtained from the "Contamination" field in the "tblUST_DB" file (see Media Reference Table). Releases with Examined in the "Media Contaminated"
groundwater contamination marked (in addition to any other media) were counted as "groundwater." Releases with section.
only soil contamination marked were counted as "soil." "Unknown" releases might include releases at which the media
contaminated is truly unknown and releases for which there are no data available in the RUST database, but for which
information is available in other files.
Data were obtained from the "TypeCAP" field in the "tblUST_DB" file. An "N" in this field indicates a release addressed by No informative patterns were identified.
natural attenuation.
Methyl Tertiary Butyl
Ether (MTBE)
Data were obtained from the "MTBE" and MTBE1" fields in the "tbleUST_DB" file.
No informative patterns were identified.
Non-Directed Work
Data were obtained from the "DND" field in the "DirNonDir" file. This field identifies releases where non-directed work is
taking place, and work might be driven by interest in redevelopment. Releases occurring prior to July 1, 2004, when DENR
started directing work, are counted as "not applicable."
Examined in the "Program Summary"
section.
Number of Releases
perRP
Calculated as the total number of open releases associated with a unique RP name.
Examined in the "Number of Releases per
RP" section.
Orphan
No data available.
Not applicable
Proximity
Geospatial analysis performed by EPA revealed the number of other open releases located within a one-mile radius of each
open release.
Examined in the "Geographic Clusters"
section.
Public Spending Data were obtained from the "SumOfTtl" field in the "SpentBySite" file. Because this number is an aggregate total for each
release and cannot be adjusted for inflation, it is not examined in this analysis.
Release Priority
Data were obtained from the "ConfRisk" field in the "tblUST_DB" file and the "RRARank" and "RRA Date" fields in the
"tbIRRA" file.
Data not suitable for analysis.
Examined in "Release Priority" section.
RP
Data were obtained from the "RP/Company" field in the "tblUST_DB" file.
Used to calculate the number of releases
associated with each unique RP.
RP Recalcitrance Data were obtained from the "Enforcement" file. RPs with releases with multiple records in this file are considered to be
recalcitrant.
Staff Workload
State Fund Eligibility
Estimated by DENR staff.
No informative patterns were identified.
Examined in the "Program Summary"
section and in the national chapter.
Stage of Cleanup Data were obtained from the "Appvd" and "ReptType" fields in the "tbIRepts" file. A two-tiered assignment of cleanup Variable in all analyses.
stage first assigned stage based on reports associated with the most recent approval date for each release. For releases
without approval dates, all reports (regardless of date) were examined (see Stage of Cleanup Reference Table).
Data were obtained from the "Type" and "Status" fields in the "Eligibility" file (see Eligibility Reference Table).
Examined in the "Cleanup Financing"
section.
Status
Data were obtained from the "CloseOut" field in the "tblUST_DB" file. All releases with a CloseOut date were counted as
"Closed" and the other releases were counted as "Open."
Identifies the appropriate universe of
releases for tree analysis.
Voluntary Cleanup
Program
No data available.
Not applicable.
NC-28
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
CHAPTER NOTES
Eligibility Reference Table
Each release has multiple records in the "Eligibility" file, and only those records with a
status of "Complete" were considered as the status indicates that relevant documents
have been finalized. The "Type" field was used to identify state fund eligible releases
and those where eligibility had been denied.
Media Reference Table
Code Media Type
GW
Groundwater
SL
Soil
DEDUCTIBLE ADJUSTMENT
ELIG. RE-EVALUATION
ELIGIBILITY
ELIGIBILITY
ELIGIBILITY
ELIGIBILITY RE-REVIEW
ELIGIBILITY-RESUBMISSION
ELIGIBILITY
ELIGIBILITY
ELIGIBILITY-DENIAL
ELIGIBILITY/DENIAL
NO
None
State Fund Eligible
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
SEPTEMBER 2011
NC-29
-------
CHAPTER NOTES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: NORTH CAROLINA
Stage of Cleanup Reference Table
Each release has multiple report records. A two-tiered assignment of cleanup stage first assigned stage based on reports associated with the most recent approval date for
each release. For releases without approval dates, all reports (regardless of date) were examined. The analysis used only those reports that clearly indicated a stage of cleanup;
remaining reports were not considered. Open releases with no records relevant to the Site Assessment or Remediation stages were assigned to the Confirmed Release stage.
Report Name
(No relevant records)
Confirmed Release
Comprehensive Site Assmt - Addendum
Site Assessment
Comprehensive Site Assmt - Soil - Hi & Int
Site Assessment
Comprehensive Site Assmt - Soil & Groundwater
Site Assessment
Limited Site Assmt Phase 1
Site Assessment
Limited Site Assmt Phase 1 & 2
Site Assessment
Monitoring Report (Pre-Corrective Action Plan)
Site Assessment
Monitoring Report (Pre- Corrective Action Plan) Initial Site Assessment
Soil Assessment Report - Low only
Closure Report
Corrective Action Plan - Natural Attenuation
Corrective Action Plan - Soil
Corrective Action Plan - Soil & Groundwater
New Technology Cleanup Report
Remediation Monitoring Report
Remediation Monitoring Report (Initial)
Site Cleanup and Site Closure Report (Low)
Site Closure Report
System Enhancement Recommendations
Site Assessment
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
NC-30
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG
A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
September 2011
PA-1
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
LIST OF ACRONYMS
eFACTS Environment, Facility, Application, Compliance Tracking System
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Expedited Site Assessment
DEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
FY Fiscal Year
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MNA Monitored Natural Attenuation
MSA Multi-Site Agreement
MTBE Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
NCR Northcentral Region
NER Northeast Region
NWR Northwest Region
RP Responsible Party
UST Underground Storage Tank
USTIF Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Fund
SCR Southcentral Region
SER Southeast Region
SWR Southwest Region
PA-2 SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Leaks from underground storage tanks (USTs) threaten America's groundwater and land resources. Even a small amount of
petroleum released from a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) can contaminate groundwater, the drinking water source
for nearly half of all Americans. In surveys of state water programs, 39 states and territories identified USTs as a major source
of groundwater contamination.2 As the reliance on our resources increases due to the rise in population and use, there is a
correspondingly greater need to protect our finite natural resources.
From the beginning of the UST program to September 2009, more than 488,000 releases were confirmed from federally-
regulated USTs nationwide. Of the confirmed releases needing cleanup, over 100,000 remained in the national LUST backlog.
These releases are in every state, and many are old and affect groundwater. To help address this backlog of releases, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invited 14 states to participate in a national backlog characterization
study.
ANALYSIS OF PENNSYLVANIA DATA
Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has made significant progress toward reducing its LUST cleanup
backlog. As of May 2009, DEP had completed 12,146 LUST cleanups, which is 80 percent of all known releases in the state.3 At
the time of data collection, there were 3,084 releases remaining in its backlog. Pennsylvania's backlog of active UST cleanups
is approximately 20 percent of the total number of historical releases while the national state average is 29 percent.4 To most
effectively reduce the national cleanup backlog, EPA believes that states and EPA must develop backlog reduction strategies
that can be effective in states with the largest backlogs. EPA invited Pennsylvania to participate in its national backlog study
because Pennsylvania has one of the higher numbers of UST facilities and UST releases and, therefore, one of the ten largest
backlogs in the United States. In this chapter, EPA characterized Pennsylvania's releases that have not been cleaned up,
analyzed these releases based on categories of interest, and developed potential opportunities for DEP and EPA to explore
that might improve the state's cleanup progress and reduce its backlog. Building on the potential cleanup opportunities
identified in the study, EPA will continue to work with DEP to develop backlog reduction strategies.
In Pennsylvania, as in every state, many factors affect the pace of cleaning up releases such as the availability of state funds,
whether cleanups ineligible for state funds have financing in place, and program structure. The recent economic downturn
has also had an impact on the ability of many states to make progress on cleanups.
EPA included potential cleanup opportunities in this report even though current circumstances in Pennsylvania might make
pursuing certain opportunities challenging or unlikely. Also, in some cases, DEP is already using similar strategies as part of
1 Data were provided in May 2009 by DEP staff and are not identical to the UST performance measures reported on EPA's website,
available at: www.epa.gov/oust/cat/camarchv.htm.
2 EPA, National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report, pp. 50-52. www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/chp6.pdf.
3 EPA tracks individual releases rather than sites in its performance measures. Therefore, the analyses in this report account for
numbers of releases, not sites.
4 According to Craig Olewiler, LUST Program Manager, Pennsylvania DEP.
5 Unknown media releases include those releases where the media is unknown as well as those releases where, based on available
data, it was not possible to identify the media contaminated.
Pennsylvania
LUST Data
By the Numbers1
National Backlog Contribution
Cumulative Historical Releases
Closed Releases
Open Releases
Stage of Cleanup
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Remediation
Media Contaminated
Groundwater
12,146/80%
3,084/20%
954/31%
1,901/62%
Median Age of Open Releases
SEPTEMBER 2011
PA-3
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
its ongoing program. The findings from the analysis of DEP's data and the potential
cleanup opportunities are summarized below in eight study areas: stage of cleanup,
media contaminated, state regional backlogs, cleanup financing, presence of methyl
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) contamination, multi-site agreements (MSAs), geographic
clusters, and data management.
Stage Of Cleanup (see page PA-lOfor more details)
Pennsylvania Finding
20 percent of releases are
either:
5 years old or older
and site assessment
has not started; or
10 years old or
older and still in site
assessment.
Potential Opportunity
Expedite site assessments at old
releases to identify releases that can
be closed with minimal effort or moved
toward remediation.
Implement enforcement actions at
stalled releases.
Encourage stakeholders to examine
public and private funding options
such as petroleum brownfields grants
for low priority releases with no viable
responsible party (RP).
Releases
630
28 percent of releases are:
10 years old or older;
and
in remediation.
Use a systematic process to explore
opportunities to accelerate cleanups and
reach closure, such as:
periodically review release-specific
treatment technologies;
review site-specific cleanup standards;
consider use of institutional or
engineering controls; and
implement enforcement actions if
cleanup has stalled.
867
Pennsylvania has releases that are taking a long time to move through the cleanup
process, and Pennsylvania also has a large number of old releases in the early stages
of cleanup. There are several reasons why many releases in the backlog are old
including: remaining releases are complex and therefore take a long time to address,
the RP has not performed required cleanup actions and DEP has not pursued
enforcement, and some releases lack a viable RP. Nevertheless, EPA believes it is
important for DEP to explore opportunities to accelerate cleanups at older releases
and to make progress toward bringing all releases to closure.
Media Contaminated (see page PA-U for more details)
Pennsylvania Finding
62 percent of releases are
not electronically tracked
according to the type of
media contaminated; these
untracked releases are
much older than those with
known recorded media
contamination.
Potential Opportunity
Track media in the Environment, Facility,
Application, Compliance Tracking System
(eFACTS) database to support a routine and
automated file review process.
Releases
1,901
7 percent of releases:
have not begun site
assessment; and
impact soil only.
Use expedited site assessments to identify
releases with soil contamination that can be:
targeted for closure with minimal effort;
and
moved more quickly into remediation.
223
It is difficult to fully characterize Pennsylvania's backlog by type of media impacts
due to the lack of available data for the majority of releases. Most of the releases
with unknown media impacts have either begun site assessment or have completed
site assessment and are in remediation; the media contaminated should be available
for these releases because site assessment reports have been submitted to DEP.
Reliable, regular data entry and proactive data management practices could identify
releases that pose a higher risk to human health and the environment, as well as
those that might be closed or moved into remediation. Of releases with recorded
media impacts, many releases contaminate only soil and are still unaddressed or are
in the early stages of remediation, even though soil contamination is relatively easy
to remediate. These releases might pose a lower risk to receptors and be classified
by DEP as "inactive." Nevertheless, EPA believes progress toward closure should
continue for all cleanups.
PA-4
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
State Regional Backlogs (see page PA-IS for more details)
Pennsylvania Finding
Media contamination, release
age, and data management of
Pennsylvania's backlog vary
among the DEP regions.
Potential Opportunity
Releases
Develop region-specific strategies for Variable
moving releases toward remediation number of
and closure. releases6
EPA identified differences in the backlog among DEP's six regions. Often, areas of higher
population result in areas of larger backlogs and property transfers provide incentives
for cleanup, particularly in urban areas. Also, differences in geology and terrain can
make releases in one part of the state more difficult to clean up than releases in other
parts of the state. Differences in the management and administration of remedial
actions might be causing differences in cleanup outcomes. These differences might
reveal opportunities for region-specific backlog reduction. DEP should work with its
regions to address their specific backlog issues.
Cleanup Financing (see page PA-16for more details)
Pennsylvania Finding
17 percent of releases:
have not begun site
assessment;
are not eligible for the state
fund; and
are 4.9 years old or older.
Potential Opportunity
Explore opportunities to move
cleanups not eligible for the state
fund into remediation and closure,
including:
pursuing enforcement actions;
providing cleanup guidance; and
encouraging RPs and stakeholders
to examine all available public and
private funding options.
Releases
521
EPA and state programs are interested in exploring successful financing strategies for
completing cleanups quickly. EPA acknowledges that the recent economic downturn
has impacted cleanup financing. EPA also believes the availability of funding for
cleanup is essential to reducing the backlog, so in addition to this study, EPA is
increasing its focus on oversight of state funds as well as conducting a study of private
insurance.
In Pennsylvania, releases that occurred prior to 1994 are not eligible for state funds.
For post-1994 releases, RPs have 60 days after a release's discovery to file a claim
6 Opportunities marked as "variable number of releases" relate to programmatic
opportunities and affect an unknown number of releases, potentially including all open
releases.
for the state fund. Nearly all of the releases with no known financial responsibility
mechanism are significantly older than this 60-day timeframe and, therefore, are
no longer eligible for state funding. RPs for privately-financed cleanups can initiate
cleanup immediately upon discovery. Since many have not, these releases might not
be adequately financed and might need additional assistance or attention to move
the cleanups forward. DEP should explore opportunities to expedite this process,
such as pursuing enforcement actions, providing guidance, or encouraging RPs and
stakeholders to examine all available public and private funding options.
Presence of MTBE Contamination
(see page PA-18for more details)
Pennsylvania Finding
83 percent of releases with MTBE
contamination are in remediation.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Reevaluate the current remedial 496
plan and utilize optimal remedial
technologies for the removal of MTBE.
When MTBE is identified in the site Variable
assessment, continue to move quickly number of
to address MTBE contamination to releases
prevent migration into groundwater.
62 percent of releases in DEP's
eFACTS database do not include a
list of the contaminants present.
Evaluate contamination present and
utilize optimal treatment technologies
for contaminants.
1,900
MTBE can be a complicating factor at LUST releases. The majority of releases with
MTBE in Pennsylvania are in remediation; as with any release in remediation, it is
important to have a system in place for regular revaluation of the cleanup strategy.
Furthermore, EPA believes it is important to respond quickly to releases with MTBE
contamination to prevent migration of the contaminants to groundwater, where they
can be more difficult and costly to remediate. DEP already uses this approach where
MTBE contamination is known. The majority of releases in DEP's eFACTS database do
not have data on the contaminants present, which could facilitate effective response
to MTBE contamination. Evaluating the contamination present at releases and
consistently recording this information will help DEP to better characterize the state
backlog and respond effectively.
SEPTEMBER 2011
PA-5
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
Multi-Site Agreements (see page PA-IS for more details)
Data Management (see page PA-20for more details)
Pennsylvania Finding
MSAs have yielded a relatively
high proportion of closures.
Potential Opportunity
Consider extending use of MSAs to
additional releases.
Releases
Variable
number of
releases
DEP has forged two voluntary MSAs with RPs of multiple releases. Of the 330
sites included in these MSAs, 189 (57 percent) have been closed since 2001. This
performance is promising, indicating DEP should consider the expanded use of MSAs
with other RPs or the addition of more releases to the current MSAs to achieve more
closures.
Geographic Clusters (see page PA-20for more details)
Pennsylvania Finding
20 percent of releases are
clustered within a one-mile radius
of five or more releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Target releases within close Targeted
proximity for resource consolidation number of
opportunities. releases7
Another multi-site approach DEP could use is targeting cleanup actions at
geographically-clustered releases. This approach might offer opportunities for
new community-based reuse efforts, using economies of scale, and addressing
commingled contamination. EPA believes that highlighting geographic clusters of
releases and working with state and local governments in area-wide initiatives will
improve DEP's pace of cleaning up releases. EPA intends to work with the states to
conduct further geospatial analyses on clusters of releases in relation to RPs, highway
corridors, local geologic and hydrogeologic settings, groundwater resources, and/
or communities with environmental justice concerns. These analyses might reveal
additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
Pennsylvania Finding
Several key data fields are not
included, consistently maintained,
or routinely tracked in DEP's
eFACTS database.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Improve the eFACTS database to Variable
enhance program management and number of
backlog reduction efforts. releases
Multiple data management limitations prevent a full assessment of the backlog
and associated strategies for backlog reduction. Because of data limitations, EPA
could not analyze a number of aspects of DEP's program including type of financial
responsibility mechanism, contaminants of concern, and the types of media impacted
by releases. Additional improvements to data management could allow for easier
overall program management within DEP as well as provide an improved tool for
developing strategies to reduce the cleanup backlog.
CONCLUSION
This chapter contains EPA's data analysis of Pennsylvania's LUST cleanup backlog and
identifies potential opportunities to reduce the backlog in Pennsylvania. EPA discusses
the findings and opportunities for Pennsylvania, along with those of 13 additional
states, in the national chapter of this report. EPA will work with states to develop
potential approaches and detailed strategies for reducing the backlog. Development
of strategies could involve targeted data collection, reviewing particular case files,
analyzing problem areas, and sharing best practices. Final strategies could involve
EPA actions such as using additional program metrics to show cleanup progress,
targeting resources for specific cleanup actions, clarifying and developing guidance,
and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with states, is committed to reducing the
backlog of confirmed LIST releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater, land,
and communities affected by these releases.
7 Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic
opportunities that will address a limited number of releases within select designated
geographic areas.
PA-6
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
PROGRAM SUMMARY
State LUST Program Organization and Administration
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Bureau of Waste Management, Storage Tank Division,
regulates underground storage tanks (USTs), including all registration, permitting, certification of third-party installers and
inspectors, enforcement, and compliance requirements. The cleanup of leaking underground storage tank (LUST) releases
is administered by the Remediation Service Division, Hazardous Sites and Storage Tanks Corrective Action Section in the
Harrisburg Central Office. DEP's Environmental Cleanup Program in the six Regional Offices located throughout the state has
the regulatory authority for enforcing tank regulations, including the financial responsibility requirements. DEP prioritizes
regional staff time to review reports due to the requirement for review within 90 days; the reports are otherwise considered
approved. The state's Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Fund (USTIF) is managed separately within the Pennsylvania
Department of Insurance.
Cleanup Financing
USTIF makes claim payments to eligible owners or operators for damages caused by a release. To be eligible for funding, the
release must have occurred on or after February 1,1994, the owner must be in compliance with the permitting, registration,
and applicable product fees required by the Pennsylvania Storage Tank and Spill Prevention Act, and a claim must be filed
within 60 days of release discovery. Responsible parties (RPs) are responsible for paying a deductible per tank per occurrence
for each UST that contributed to the release.
Cleanup Standards
There are four options for meeting LUST cleanup standards
in Pennsylvania: (1) background levels, (2) state-wide health
standards, (3) site-specific risk-based standards, and (4) a
combination of standards. The RP is allowed to select the
appropriate cleanup standard or combination of standards.
RPs opting to remediate to site-specific standards are required
to submit a remedial investigation report to DEP for review and
approval. Releases cleaned up to either background or state-
wide health standards were closed in significantly less time than
releases where site-specific standards were applied (Table 1 to
the right).11 According to DEP, it is common for smaller releases
with localized contamination to be cleaned up to the state-wide
Table 1. Age of Closed Releases by Type of Cleanup Standards
Type of Cleanup Standards
Background or State-wide Health
Standards
Median
Number of Age at
Releases Closure
1,009
6.3 years
Site-Specific Standards
588
8.7 years
Both Site-Specific and
Background or State-wide Health
Standards
89
9.7 years
Pennsylvania
LUST Program
At a Glance
Cleanup Rate
In fiscal year (FY) 2009, DEP confirmed 201
releases and completed 554 cleanups.8
Cleanup Financing
Of open releases, 46 percent (1,426 releases)
have received state funding.
Cleanup Standards
The program allows background level, state-
wide health standards, or risk-based cleanup
approaches.
Priority System
Pennsylvania does not have a formal scoring
system to prioritize cleanups.
Average Public Spending on Cleanup
$180,8189
Releases per Project Manager
Each project manager is on average
responsible for 116 open releases.10
Administrative Funding (2008)
$2.7 million
No Data
10,460
7.4 years
8 Based on FY 2009 UST Performance Measures End of Year Activity Report.
9 Data provided by DEP staff based on information from the Financial Assurance Program for FY 2009.
10 Based on a total of 32 project managers spending 83 percent of their time on LUST releases.
11 The Pennsylvania eFACTS database does not distinguish use of background level cleanup standards or state-wide health standards.
SEPTEMBER 2011
PA-7
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
health standard, while site-specific risk-based standards are more often applied
at larger releases with more extensive contamination.12 Some cleanups include
institutional controls.
Release Prioritization
DEP does not have a formal scoring system to prioritize the state's releases but does
prioritize emergency cases for immediate response. The state classifies releases as
"inactive" if six criteria are met: 1) no product is in the LIST; 2) no free product is
in the environment; 3) risks to human health have been mitigated; 4) there is not
a strong potential for impacts to receptors; 5) an RP is not performing or planning
to perform corrective action; and 6) a case is at least two years old. Releases might
change status to active if the RP initiates cleanup. Such cases are mostly driven by
property transactions. At the time of this analysis there were 3,298 inactive releases.
Releases are closed by DEP when the required cleanup standards have been attained.
Releases deemed inactive based on the six criteria are reported to EPA as cleanup
completed but are not officially considered closed by DEP.
State Backlog Reduction Efforts
DEP has undertaken three efforts directed at reducing the state's backlog. The first
is an ongoing file review that began in 2006, where DEP has worked with USTIF to
identify and contact old state fund-eligible cleanups to notify RPs that cleanup action
and filing of claims are required to retain their funding eligibility. This effort has led
to the closure of 203 releases. The second effort was undertaken in 2008, when
DEP's Southwest Regional Office hired interns to review old releases and update the
Environment, Facility, Application, Compliance Tracking System (eFACTS) database.
The third effort is ongoing and involves the administrative closeout of releases;
when a new release occurs at a facility with a pre-existing release, the older release
is administratively closed and the two cleanups are considered as a single cleanup.
DEP has closed 891 releases through its administrative closeout process. Although
contamination at these sites could persist from the previous release, the site continues
in active remediation under the identity of the newer release.
12 According to Craig Olewiler, LUST Program Manager, Pennsylvania DEP.
PA-8
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNITIES
In this study, EPA analyzed Pennsylvania's federally-regulated releases that have not been cleaned up (open releases).
EPA conducted a multivariate analysis on DEP's data.13 This technique provided an objective analysis of multiple release
characteristics and allowed EPA to highlight the traits most commonly associated with older releases. Next, EPA divided
the releases into groups that might warrant further attention. EPA used descriptive statistics to examine the distribution of
releases by age of release and stage of cleanup and highlighted findings based on DEP's data.15 EPA then identified potential
opportunities for addressing particular groups of releases in the backlog. Many releases are included in more than one
opportunity. These opportunities describe actions that EPA and DEP might use as a starting point for collaborative efforts to
address the backlog. Although EPA's analysis covered all releases in Pennsylvania, there are 387 releases that are not included
in any of the subsets identified in the findings or opportunities due to the way EPA structured the analysis. These releases
might also benefit from some of the suggested opportunities and strategies.
EPA's analyses revealed eight areas of Pennsylvania's backlog with potential opportunities for its further reduction:
Stage of cleanup Cleanup financing Multi-site agreements (MSAs)
Presence of methyl tertiary butyl Geographic clusters
Media contaminated
State regional backlogs
ether (MTBE) contamination
Data management
LUST Data Source
Electronic data for LUST releases occurring
between March 1979 and February 2009 were
compiled by DEP staff in 2008 and 2009." Data
were obtained from the Pennsylvania eFACTS
and USTIF databases and selected based on
quality and the ability to address areas of
interest in this analysis.
Data Limitation -
Release Date
Due to a software change in 2002, 25
percent of the releases prior to June 2002
(460 releases) do not have an accurate
release date in the electronic database.
The database instead lists a default date
of August 5, 1989, for these releases.
While the ages of these 460 releases
between 1989 and 2002 are therefore
overestimated, they were included in the
analyses to incorporate all open releases
and to illustrate the impact of using a
default date for a large number of releases.
13 For a detailed description of the analytic tree method, see Appendix A.
14 For a detailed description of the Pennsylvania data used in this analysis, see the Chapter Notes section.
15 For a detailed description of release stages, see the Chapter Notes section (Stage of Cleanup Reference Table).
SEPTEMBER 2011
PA-9
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
Pennsylvania Finding
20 percent of releases are either:
5 years old or older and site assessment
has not started; or
10 years old or older and still in site
assessment.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Expedite site assessments 630
at old releases to identify
releases that can be closed
with minimal effort or moved
toward remediation.
Implement enforcement
actions at stalled releases.
Encourage stakeholders to
examine public and private
funding options such as
petroleum brownfields grants
for low priority releases with
no viable RP.
Releases 5 years old or
older in the Confirmed
Release stage
Releases 10 years old
or older in the Site
Assessment stage
555
75
STAGE OF CLEANUP
As of March 2, 2009, the Pennsylvania backlog consisted of 3,084 releases. EPA analyzed the age of these LUST releases and
their distribution among the stages of cleanup. To facilitate analysis, EPA classified Pennsylvania's releases into three stages of
cleanup: the Confirmed Release stage (releases where site assessment reports have not been submitted), the Site Assessment
stage (releases where remedial plans have not been submitted), and the Remediation stage (releases where remedial plans
have been received).16 While EPA grouped the releases into linear stages for this analysis, EPA recognizes cleanups might
not proceed in a linear fashion. Cleanup can be an iterative process where releases go through successive rounds of site
assessment and remediation. However, ultimately, this approach might be both longer and more costly. Acquiring good site
characterization up front can accelerate the pace of cleanup and avoid the extra cost of repeated site assessment.
Since Pennsylvania's LUST program began, DEP has closed 12,146 releases, half of which were closed in fewer than 8.0 years
(Figure 1 below). The young median age of closed LUST releases might be attributable to the rapid closure of relatively easy
to remediate releases. In addition, DEP has 3,298 inactive releases. Releases deemed inactive based on DEP's six criteria are
reported to EPA as cleanup completed but are not officially considered closed by DEP. These inactive releases are included in
the closed numbers for this report. Also, national program policy allows states to report confirmed releases that require no
further action at the time of confirmation as cleanup completed. Therefore, some releases are reported as confirmed and
cleaned up simultaneously.
Figure 1. Age of Releases among Stages of Cleanup
20
12,146
15
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
Pennsylvania has many old LUST releases not in remediation. Figure 2 below shows the backlog of open releases by age and
stage of cleanup. Figure 2 breaks out the 555 older releases (18 percent of the backlog) that have not been assessed five
years or more after the releases were confirmed. It also shows 75 releases in the Site Assessment stage (2 percent of the
backlog) that have not entered the Remediation stage, 10 years or more after the releases were confirmed. This subset of
older releases in the early stages of cleanup accounts for 20 percent of Pennsylvania's total backlog. DEP's data indicate that
these releases have not moved into remediation quickly. Many of these cleanups might be privately financed, in which case,
DEP should consider enforcement actions to move stalled releases toward cleanup. For low priority releases without a viable
RP, DEP could investigate the availability of additional funding sources through public/private partnerships such as petroleum
brownfields grants.
Figure 2. Release Age Distribution among Stages of Cleanup
10 Years
1,006
54%
Confirmed Release
(954 Releases)
Site Assessment
(257 Releases)
Remediation
(1,873 Releases)
EPA encourages states to streamline the corrective action process, improve data collection, reduce the overall cost of
remediation, and move releases more rapidly toward remediation and closure. To assist states and regulators in implementing
these objectives, EPA developed its Expedited Site Assessment (ESA) guide.17 The guide explains the overall ESA process as
well as specific site assessment tools and methods. The ESA process rapidly characterizes site conditions to help support
cost-effective corrective action decisions. ESAs can identify releases that can be closed with minimal effort or will provide all
the information needed to move a release into remediation. Conducting site assessments efficiently and quickly might help
reduce the backlog by accelerating the pace of cleanup and ultimately decreasing overall project costs.
Pennsylvania also has many old releases in the Remediation stage. Twenty-eight percent of Pennsylvania's releases (867
releases) are in remediation and are 10 years old or older (Figure 2). This older group of releases represents 46 percent of all
the releases in remediation (Figure 2). Because EPA only has the date that a release was confirmed but not when it moved
from one stage to the next (e.g., from assessment to remediation), EPA can calculate the overall age of the release but not
the actual time spent in the Remediation stage. It is possible that some of these releases might have only recently begun
remediation. DEP should consider establishing a systematic process to evaluate existing releases in remediation and optimize
cleanup approaches, including choice of technology and site-specific risk-based decision making. This process might save DEP
resources and bring releases to closure more quickly. DEP can also continue to use institutional or engineering controls to
reduce the time to closure by eliminating exposure pathways and allow for less stringent cleanup standards where protective
and appropriate. Use of enforcement actions could also help move stalled releases through remediation to closure.
17 EPA's 1997 guidance document, Expedited Site Assessment Tools for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Regulators (EPA 510
B-97-001), is available online at: www.epa.gov/OUST/pubs/sam.htm.
Pennsylvania Finding
28 percent of releases are:
10 years old or older; and
in remediation.
Potential Opportunity
Releases
Use a systematic process 867
to explore opportunities to
accelerate cleanups and reach
closure, such as:
periodically review
release-specific treatment
technologies;
review site-specific cleanup
standards;
consider use of institutional
or engineering controls; and
implement enforcement
actions if cleanup has stalled.
SEPTEMBER 2011
PA-11
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
Pennsylvania Finding
62 percent of releases are not electronically
tracked according to the type of media
contaminated; these untracked releases are
much older than those with known recorded
media contamination.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Track media in the eFACTS 1,901
database to support a routine and
automated file review process.
Pennsylvania Finding
7 percent of releases:
have not begun site assessment; and
impact soil only.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Use expedited site assessments 223
to identify releases with soil
contamination that can be:
targeted for closure with
minimal effort; and
moved more quickly into
remediation.
MEDIA CONTAMINATED
Groundwater is an important natural resource that is at risk from petroleum contamination. Groundwater contamination
generally takes longer and is more expensive to clean up than soil contamination. In this study, EPA examined media as a
factor contributing to the backlog. However, data on the type of media contaminated are not available for the majority of
releases in Pennsylvania, so it is not possible to determine the true impact of this factor on cleanup rates in Pennsylvania. The
following analysis classified contaminated media into four categories: groundwater (668 releases), soil (477 releases), other
media, which includes vapor and surface water (38 releases), and "unknown" media, which includes releases with no media
specified (1,901 releases).18
DEP does not track the type of media contaminated for a large number of releases in its eFACTS database. These releases
are much older than releases where media impacted is tracked. The media contaminated is not tracked electronically for 62
percent of releases (1,901 releases) in Pennsylvania (Figures below). Of these unrecorded media releases, 1,321 releases (69
percent) are in the Site Assessment or Remediation stages (Figure 3). The media contaminated should be known for these
releases because site assessment reports have been submitted to DEP. Cleanups with unrecorded media tend to be older than
both groundwater and soil cleanups within each stage of cleanup (Figure 3).19 Reliable, regular data entry and proactive data
management practices could identify releases that might be closed or moved on to remediation and closure.
Figure 3. Age of Releases, by Media Contaminated and Stage of Cleanup
20
1,190
O Confirmed Release
O Site Assessment
O Remediation
Closed
Groundwater Soil Other
Squares indicating closed releases are not scaled to the number of releases in that stage.
Unknown
The younger age of releases with documented groundwater or soil contamination suggests that media contamination has
been more thoroughly tracked for recent releases.20 Most of the groundwater and soil cleanups within the Remediation stage
are 5 years of age or younger, indicating a relatively short time between release confirmation and initiation of remediation.
However, DEP might be able to quickly address the 50 percent of soil cleanups that remain in the Confirmed Release stage
(223 releases, 7 percent of the total backlog). DEP should consider the use of ESAs to help rapidly characterize site conditions
and move releases into remediation and to closure sooner. Expediting site assessments might also identify releases that can
be closed with minimal effort.
18 For a detailed description of media contamination classifications, see the Chapter Notes section.
19 This pattern remains consistent when the 460 releases with the default date are removed.
20 Although the median ages for groundwater and soil cleanups would be older if the media contamination was known for the
remaining two-thirds of open releases.
PA-12
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
STATE REGIONAL BACKLOGS
EPA analyzed cleanup backlogs within DEP's six regions to identify patterns and opportunities for targeted backlog reduction
strategies within each DEP region. Media contamination, release age, and data management of Pennsylvania's backlog vary
among the six DEP regions (Figure 4 below, right and Table 2 below). Releases with unknown media contamination are a large
portion of the backlog in all but the Northeast region (Table 2). In addition, the Northwest, Southeast, and Southwest regions
have significantly more releases with unknown media than those releases with known media.
These regional backlogs might be related to regional workloads and reporting by DEP's regional staff. For example, DEP
prioritizes regional staff time to review reports due to the requirement for review within 90 days; the reports are otherwise
considered approved. Case managers are therefore more likely to devote time to reviewing reports and have less time to
update data fields in the eFACTS database.
Releases with unknown media contamination appear to be significantly older within the Northcentral, Northwest, and
Southcentral regions than in other regions (Figure 5 and Figure 6, Node 2.1, page 14). This observed difference in age of
release is primarily due to the frequent use of the default release date in these regions (Figure 7, page 15).22 The Northeast and
Southeast regions have actual release dates for the majority of their 722 unknown media releases (23 percent of the backlog),
yet the more accurate median age of 11.7 years for these releases is still old, and media contamination should be known and
Pennsylvania Finding
Media contamination, release age, and data
management of Pennsylvania's backlog vary
among the DEP regions.
Potential Opportunity
Releases
Develop region-specific Variable
strategies for moving releases number of
toward remediation and closure. releases21
Table 2. Pennsylvania Backlog by DEP Region
Cumulative Historical Releases
Closed Releases
Open Releases
NWR
852
640/75%
212/25%
NCR
896
735/82%
161/18%
NER
2,296
1,861/81%
435/19%
SWR
3,441
2,700/78%
741/22%
SCR
3,348
2,850/85%
498/15%
SER
4,397
3,360/76%
1,037/24%
Media
Groundwater
Soil
Other
Unknown
Median Age of Open Releases
9/4%
7/3%
0/0%
196/93%
19. 6 years
68/42%
19/12%
2/1%
72/45%
10. 3 years
164/38%
180/41%
21/5%
70/16%
5.8 years
30/4%
31/4%
0/0%
680/92%
7. 4 years
157/32%
102/20%
8/2%
231/46%
7.3 years
240/23%
138/13%
7/1%
652/63%
9.0 years
Figure 4. DEP Regions
21 Opportunities marked as "variable number of releases" relate to programmatic opportunities and affect an unknown number of
releases, potentially including all open releases.
22 Many releases within these regions have a default release date of August 5,1989, suggesting that the ages of many unknown media
releases are overestimated.
NCR - Northcentral Region
NER-Northeast Region
NWR- Northwest Region
SCR - Southcentral Region
SER- Southeast Region
SWR - Southwest Region
SEPTEMBER 2011
PA-13
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
Figure 5. Complete Tree Analysis of Open Release Age - Outline
Figure 6. Tree Analysis of Open Release Age - First Level
Figure 6
Figure 9
Open Releases
±
Media
Unknown
I
Region
Ground-
water
±
Region
V V V
NCR; NWR NER;
SCR SER
V V V V
SWR NCR; SER NWR; SCR; NER; NCR; NWR
NER SWR SER SCR; SWR
Cleanup
Financing
Stage
Unknown State
Financing Funded
Site Assessment; Confirmed
Remediation Release
Cleanup
Financing
Unknown State
Financing Funded
Region Acronyms
NCR- Northcentral
NER-Northeast
NWR-Northwest
SCR-Southcentral
SER-Southeast
SWR-Southwest
A simplified outline of the analytic tree structure is shown above. Specific branches are shown
in greater detail in Figures 6 and 9. For additional information on the analytic tree method, see
the Chapter Notes section.
*"~
Region Acronyms
NCR - Northcentral
NER- Northeast
NWR - Northwest
SCR - Southcentral
SER- Southeast
SWR - Southwest
[Open Releases
Median Age (Years)
Releases 3,
Media
084
j
1.1
{Unknown ^| Regjon
Median Age (tears) 11.0
Releases 1,901
1.2
Groundwater 1 .,
Region
Releases 668
V -/
1.3
f Soil; Other ^
Region
[Releases 515
2.1
( NCR; NWR; SCR "^
Median Age (Years) 19.6
1 Releases 49gJ
2.2
C NER; SER ^
-J Median Age (Years) 11.7
1 Releases 722!
2.3
{SWR ^
Median Age (Years) 8.4
Releases 68ol
2.4
r NCR; NER ^
H Median Age (Years) 7.3
[Releases 232!
2.5
f NWR; SCR; SER; SWR ^
H Median Age (Years) 4.7
^Releases 43eJ
2.6
r NER; SER ^
-1 Median Age (Years) 4.1
[Releases 346l
2.7
C NCR; NWR; SCR; SWR ^
H Median Age (Years) 2.0
[Releases 169!
^^^
PA-14
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
tracked within this timeframe (Figure 6, Node 2.2). This finding might reflect the fact
that project managers are responsible for data entry but have insufficient time for this
activity.
Differences in regional backlogs also exist within releases with known media
contamination. The Northcentral and Northeast regions have significantly older
releases that affect groundwater than the other regions (Figure 6, Node 2.4). Within
releases that impact soil and other media, the Northeast and Southeast regions
account for more than two-thirds of these releases in Pennsylvania (346 releases) and
these releases are on average two years older than similar releases in other regions
(Figure 6, Node 2.6). These media-related age differences might be due to variation in
regional geology settings or the distribution of tanks and releases or be a product of
regional data management. Urban areas with larger populations can have a greater
financial incentive for cleanup due to property transfers. A strategic regional approach
to these unique backlog characteristics should help reduce the backlog. Performing
regional file reviews to identify releases for expedited closure and to update the
eFACTS database with reliable data could help improve regional program management
and identify opportunities to reduce the backlog. EPA encourages DEP to look for
opportunities to share best practices among its regions and with other states.
Figure 7. Frequency of Default Release Date Use among the Six DEP Regions
1000
NWR NCR NER SWR SCR SER
Region
18/5/1989 Release Date Other Release Dates
SEPTEMBER 2011
PA-15
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
Pennsylvania Finding
17 percent of releases:
have not begun site assessment;
are not eligible for the state fund; and
are 4.9 years old or older.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore opportunities to move 521
cleanups not eligible for the state
fund into remediation and closure,
including:
pursuing enforcement
actions;
providing cleanup guidance;
and
encouraging RPs and
stakeholders to examine all
available public and private
funding options.
CLEANUP FINANCING
EPA and state programs are interested in exploring successful financing strategies for completing cleanups quickly. EPA
acknowledges that the recent economic downturn has impacted cleanup financing. EPA also believes the availability of
funding for cleanup is essential to reducing the backlog, so in addition to this study, EPA is increasing its focus on oversight
of state funds as well as conducting a study of private insurance. EPA analyzed the age and stage of cleanups with respect to
state-fund or unknown types of cleanup financing. Pennsylvania does not track whether a release is eligible for the state fund
in the eFACTS database. The program's insurance fund, USTIF, tracks all claim information.
Claims have been filed to Pennsylvania's state fund for 1,426 releases (46 percent of the backlog). Nearly all state-funded
cleanups are in the Remediation stage; these cleanups tend to be younger within each stage of cleanup compared to releases
that have not filed claims to the fund (Figure 8 below). In addition, state-funded cleanups tend to be younger than releases
with unknown cleanup financing within several subsets across the backlog (Figure 9, Nodes 1.2,1.4, and 2.2, page 17).23 For
state fund eligible releases where claims have been filed but cleanup is not progressing, DEP sends a Notice of Violation if 180
days pass and the RP has not submitted a report. However, according to DEP, such a case might not go forward because of
the resources needed to prosecute.
Figure 8. Age of Releases, by Stage of Cleanup and Cleanup Financing
20
15
10
5
0
1,151
177
i Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
1 Remediation
Closed
State Funded
Unknown Financing
No data are available for financial mechanisms at the remaining 1,658 releases (54 percent of the backlog). Releases that
occurred prior to 1994 are not eligible for state funds. For releases that occurred post-1994, RPs have 60 days after the date
the release is discovered to file a claim to be eligible for the state fund. Nearly all of the 1,658 releases with no known financial
responsibility mechanism are significantly older than 60 days and, therefore, are no longer eligible for state funding.
Within the Confirmed Release stage, releases with unknown financing are significantly older than releases that have received
state funds (Figure 9, Nodes 1.2,1.4, and 2.2). There are 241 unassessed releases (8 percent of the backlog) that are at least
12.4 years old with unknown cleanup financing and an additional 280 releases (9 percent of the backlog) with unknown
financing that are between 4.9 and 12.3 years old (Figure 10, Node 2.3, page 17). This subset of older unassessed releases
with unknown cleanup financing comprises 17 percent of Pennsylvania's backlog. These releases might not be adequately
financed and might need additional assistance or attention in order for cleanups to progress. Conducting outreach to RPs or
23 See yellow nodes on Figure 9.
PA-16
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
pursuing enforcement actions where necessary to initiate cleanup activities at state fund ineligible releases and moving them
into remediation could further help to reduce the backlog. If releases are stalled, DEP should encourage RPs and stakeholders
to pursue alternative public and private funding sources, particularly petroleum brownfields grants in the case of low priority
releases with no viable RP.
Figure 9. Tree Analysis of Open Release Age - Second Level
Figure 10. Backlog Distribution, by Cleanup Financing
^
Region Acronv
NCR- Northce
NER-Northea
NWR- Northw
SCR - Southcer
SWR - Southwi
Open Releases-
US
itral
;t
est
tral
t
:st
Unknown
Soil
i NCR; SCR
NWR
NER;SER
>
1.1
f~ Unknown Financing "^
1 Median Age (Years) 12.2
1 Releases 512 1
1.2
r State Funded ^
-J Median Age (Years) 10.3
Releases 210 2.1
Unknown Financing
SER
NWR; SCR; SWR
1 Releases 177!
Site Assessment; Remediation
2.2
1.3 State Funded
f Unknown Financing ^ <-\ Median Age (Years) 8.0
. Median Age (Years) 10.1 (Releases 28oJ
1.4
State Funded
-J Median Age (Years) 6.4
[Releases 15ll
Open Releases
Stage
<1.6 years
1.1
Confirmed Release
177 |
1.2
Site Assessment
159
98 i
1.3
Remediation
Age
-
102 94
II
2.2
1.7 to 4.8 years
162
38
2.3
4. 9 to 12. 3 years
280
31
2.4
r > 12. 4 years
241
SEPTEMBER 2011
PA-17
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
PRESENCE OF MTBE CONTAMINATION
DEP has data on contaminants for 38 percent of its backlog. MTBE is documented as present at 496 releases (16 percent of
the backlog), 83 percent of which (413 releases) are in the Remediation stage (Figure 11 below). In contrast, only 39 percent
of releases with no MTBE present (270 releases) are in the Remediation stage. No data are available for the presence or
absence of MTBE or other contaminants at the remaining 1,900 releases (62 percent of the backlog).
Because MTBE is not readily degraded in groundwater, releases involving MTBE require more aggressive management
and remediation than releases where MTBE is not present.24 DEP should consider evaluating whether optimal treatment
technologies are in use at releases with MTBE. Continuing to pursue active remediation of releases with MTBE and employing
innovative technologies could allow for faster cleanups. Early response to releases contaminated with MTBE can minimize
spread to groundwater. Efforts to track and address MTBE contamination in soil prior to migration into groundwater might
help reduce future complex groundwater cleanups.
Figure 11. Age of Releases, by Presence of MTBE and Stage of Cleanup
Pennsylvania Finding
83 percent of releases with MTBE
contamination are in remediation.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Reevaluate the current remedial 496
plan and utilize optimal remedial
technologies for the removal of
MTBE.
When MTBE is identified in Variable
the site assessment, continue number
to move quickly to address of
MTBE contamination to prevent releases
migration into groundwater.
Pennsylvania Finding
62 percent of releases in DEP's eFACTS
database do not include a list of the
contaminants present.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Evaluate contamination present 1,900
and utilize optimal treatment
technologies for contaminants.
20
17T
ro
^ 15
OJ
ro
ID 10
cc
QJ ^
o
1,190
579
270
i Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
i Remediation
Closed
954
MTBE
No MTBE
No Data
24 For more information, see: www.clu-in.org/contaminantfocus/default.focus/sec/Methvl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBEVcat/
Treatment Technologies.
PA-18
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
MULTI-SITE AGREEMENTS
In 2001, DEP initiated the first of two voluntary MSAs with companies and RPs with multiple LUST releases. MSAs were
designed to improve progress toward meeting cleanup goals while providing current owners with a measure of control
over year-to-year costs. MSAs have been signed with BP Amoco and a joint MSA with Motiva Enterprises LLC, Jiffy Lube
International, and the Pennzoil-Quaker State Company.
DEP credits MSAs with accelerating cleanups.25 Cleanups are implemented to address contamination at a site, including sites
with multiple LUST releases. Data were unavailable for the individual releases, but were provided for the site-level cleanup
status (Figures 12 and 13 below). The MSA with BP Amoco includes 234 sites, 130 of which (55 percent) have been closed.
The MSA with Motiva includes 96 sites, 59 of which (61 percent) have been closed. The majority of the remaining sites in both
MSAs are in the Remediation stage. The MSA with Motiva has ended. Both MSAs resulted in significant closures and DEP
should consider using MSAs with other RPs.
Pennsylvania Finding
MSAs have yielded a relatively high proportion
of closures.
Potential Opportunity
Releases
Consider extending use of MSAs Variable
to additional releases. number of
releases
Figure 12. BP Amoco Releases under an MSA, by Stage of Cleanup
I Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
I Remediation
Closed
Figure 13. Motiva Releases under an MSA, by Stage of Cleanup
0 6
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Remediation
Closed
25 For more information on DEP's MSAs, see: www.depweb.state.pa.us/landrecwaste/cwp/view.asp?a=1241&Q=455843&landrecwaste
Nav=l.
SEPTEMBER 2011
PA-19
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
Pennsylvania Finding
20 percent of releases are clustered within a
one-mile radius of five or more releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Target releases within close Targeted
proximity for resource number of
consolidation opportunities. releases26
Figure 14. Map of All Releases, by DEP Region
Erie
Scranton
Pittsburgh
Allentown
Philadelphia
GEOGRAPHIC CLUSTERS
EPA performed a geospatial analysis to look
for different ways to address the backlog.
While releases in geographic clusters
might not have the same RP, they tend to
be located in densely populated areas and
might present opportunities to consolidate
resources and coordinate efforts.
Geographic proximity can call attention
to releases in areas of interest such as
redevelopment, environmental justice, and
ecological sensitivity.
State and local governments can utilize
geographic clusters for area-wide planning
efforts. EPA's analysis identified 623 releases (20 percent of releases) located within a one-mile radius of five or more releases
(Figure 14 above). Of these releases, 137 (4 percent of releases) are located within a one-mile radius of 10 or more releases.
Approaching the assessment and cleanup needs of an area impacted by LUSTs can be more effective than focusing on individual
sites in isolation from the adjacent or surrounding area. Considering geographically-clustered releases might pave the way
for new community-based revitalization efforts, economies of scale to yield benefits such as reduced equipment costs, and
present opportunities to develop multi-site cleanup strategies, especially at locations with commingled contamination. EPA
encourages states to look for opportunities for resource consolidation and area-wide planning but also recognizes that this
approach is best geared to address targeted groups of releases as opposed to a state-wide opportunity for every cluster of
releases. EPA intends to conduct further geospatial analyses on clusters of releases in relation to RPs, highway corridors,
local geologic and hydrogeologic settings, groundwater resources, and/or communities with environmental justice concerns.
These analyses might reveal additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
DATA MANAGEMENT
Multiple database limitations prevent a full assessment of the backlog and associated strategies for backlog reduction. Notably,
the absence of complete data for release date and the use of a default release date prevented an accurate analysis of release
age. In addition, data for media contamination, type of financial responsibility mechanism, and contaminants of concern
were incomplete and limited this analysis. In addition, there are regional differences in data entry based on how project
managers enter and update the databases. Because case managers must review cleanup reports within specified timeframes,
they might have insufficient time available to update data fields in the eFACTS database. DEP staff have performed data
conversions and improved the LUST tracking system, but a legacy of poor data quality remains in the current eFACTS database.
Additional improvements to database management could allow for easier overall program management as well as provide an
improved tool for developing strategies to reduce the cleanup backlog.
Pennsylvania Finding
Several key data fields are not included,
consistently maintained, or routinely tracked
in DEP's eFACTS database.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Improve the eFACTS database Variable
to enhance program number of
management and backlog releases
reduction efforts.
26 Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic opportunities that will address a limited number of
releases within select designated geographic areas.
PA-20
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
CONCLUSION
In this state chapter, EPA presented the analysis of LUST data submitted by DEP and highlighted information on Pennsylvania's
LUST program. Based on the analytic results, EPA identified potential opportunities that could be used to address specific
backlog issues in Pennsylvania. Over the course of the entire study, EPA also analyzed data from 13 other states. Findings and
opportunities that apply to all 14 states are discussed in the national chapter of the report. Each opportunity represents one
potential approach among many to address the backlog. Discussion of the opportunities as a whole is intended as a starting
point for further conversations among EPA, Pennsylvania, and the other states on strategies to reduce the backlog. EPA will
work with the states to develop detailed strategies for reducing the backlog. Development of the strategies might include
targeted data collection, reviewing particular case files, analyzing problem areas, and sharing best practices. The strategies
could involve actions from EPA such as using additional program metrics, targeting resources for specific cleanup actions,
clarifying and developing guidance, and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with the states, is committed to reducing the
backlog of confirmed UST releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater and land and the communities affected by
these releases.
Pennsylvania
LUST Program
Contact Information
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Waste Management
Division of Remediation Services
Storage Tank Cleanup Program
P.O. Box 8471
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8471
Phone: 717-783-9475
Fax: 717-787-1904
Fax: 717-787-0880
www.deDweb.state.Da.us/landrecwaste/
cwD/view.asD?a=1241&O=461919&landrecw
asteNav=l30816l
Pennsylvania Insurance Department
Bureau of Special Funds
Underground Storage Tanks Indemnification
Fund
901 North 7th Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Phone: 717-787-0763
SEPTEMBER 2011
PA-21
-------
CHAPTER NOTES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
CHAPTER NOTES
PENNSYLVANIA DATA BY ATTRIBUTE
The following table provides details on the data elements of interest in this analysis. Data were provided by DEP staff in 2008 and 2009 for use in this analysis. Several data
elements of interest could not be addressed with the information available. All available data elements were analyzed and only those data elements that revealed informative
patterns of interest are included in the report.
Data Element
Administrative Cost
Pennsylvania Data
Estimates were provided by DEP staff.
Use in Analysis
Included in the "Program Summary"
section and in the national chapter.
Age
Age was calculated for closed releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the closure date and dividing by
365. Age was calculated for open releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the data date and dividing by
365. Any values less than -.1 were left blank. Values between -.1 and 0 were counted as 0. All dates were rounded to one
decimal point. Ages of releases with insufficient or invalid data were left blank.
Variable in all analyses.
BP Amoco MSA Data were obtained from the "facilityjd" field in the "BP_site_inventory_list_2_24_2009.xls" file downloaded from the
DEP website (www.depweb.state.pa.us/landrecwaste/cwp/view.asp?a=1241&Q=455843&landrecwasteNav=h. Releases
located at a BP facility currently listed under BP MSA were marked as "BP MSA site."
Examined in the "MSAs" section.
Cleanup Standards
Data were obtained from the "Milestone" field in "Closed_Standard_met.xls." There are two different entries in "Milestone" Site-specific standards examined in the
field: "RACRS - Cleanup Complete to Site Specific Standard" and "RACRB - Cleanup Complete to Background or Statewide "Program Summary" section. State-
Health Standard." Therefore, a release was marked as either type of cleanup standards or as using both standards. Because wide standards examined in the national
these data are available mostly on closed releases, it is not included in analyses that involve only open releases. chapter.
Closure Date
Data were obtained from the "Date Status" field in the "Backlog Data 3-2-09.xls" file.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Confirmed Release Date
Data were obtained from the "Rel Conf Date" and "Rel Susp Date" fields in the "Backlog Data 3-2-09.xls" file. DEP staff
cautioned that 95 percent of the pre-2002 releases still have the default date "8/5/1989" as their confirmed release date
("Rel Conf Date"); others have been updated based on dates on the paper files. DEP staff suggested that the suspect
release date ("Rel Susp Date") could be used to replace the default confirmed release date because suspect release dates
are real dates (no default used); however, applying this method only affected one record (from 8/5/1989 to 8/1/1989).
Included in the calculation of release age.
Data Date
March 2, 2009, is used for all records. This is the date the data were sent.
Included in the calculation of release age.
DEP Region Data were obtained from the "Org Code" field in "Backlog Data 3-2-09.xls." Each of the releases was assigned to one of the Independent variable in all analyses.
six DEP regions in Pennsylvania (Ord Code = 4100 is Region "SER" etc.).
Federally-Regulated
LUST Releases
Data were obtained from the "Status" field in the "Backlog Data 3-2-09.xls" file. Releases with a value of 2, 3, 4, 5, or 8 in Included the appropriate universe of
this field were included (see Status Reference Table). releases for analysis.
Free Product
No data available.
Not Applicable
Institutional and
Engineering Controls
No data available.
Not Applicable
Latitude and Longitude
Coordinates for releases without existing latitude and longitude values were obtained by EPA staff by geocoding address
and street locations.
Used in geospatial analysis calculating the
number of open releases within a one-
mile radius of other open releases.
PA-22
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
CHAPTER NOTES
Data Element
Media
Pennsylvania Data
Data were obtained from the "Env Impacts Desc" field in the "Backlog Data 3-2-09.xls" file (see Media Reference Table).
Releases with groundwater contamination marked (in addition to any other media) were counted as "groundwater."
Releases with only soil contamination marked were counted as "soil." Releases with any other combination of media
were counted as "other." Releases counted as "unknown" might include those for which there are no data available in
the database, but for which information is available in other files and releases at which the media contaminated are truly
unknown.
Use in Analysis
Examined in the "Media Contaminated"
section.
Monitored Natural
Attenuation (MNA)
MTBE
Data were obtained from the "Remedial Code Desc" field in the "Backlog Data 3-2-09.xls" file. Releases with a value of No informative patterns were identified.
"Natural Attenuation" in the "Remedial Code Desc" field were marked as using MNA; other releases were marked as not
using MNA.
Data were obtained from the "Chemical Desc" field in the "Backlog Data 3-2-09.xls" file.
No informative patterns were identified.
Number of Releases
per RP
No data available.
Not Applicable
Orphan
Proximity
Public Spending
Release Priority
RP
RP Recalcitrance
Staff Workload
Stage of Cleanup
State Funded
Status
Voluntary Cleanup
Program
No data available.
Geospatial analysis performed by EPA revealed the number of other open releases located within a one-mile radius of each
open release.
No data available for public spending on individual releases. However, Pennsylvania provided an estimated cleanup cost of
$180,818 per release on average from its Financial Assurance Program (USTIF).
The only priority system that DEP uses is a specific status code "5" (from the "Status" field in Backlog Data 3-2-09.xls),
which indicates "low priority." By definition these "low priority" releases are also considered "closed;" DEP does not
prioritize cleanups among open releases.
No data available.
Data were obtained from facility IDs listed in the "State Lead" worksheet in the "Tank_Funded_Proj._FY08_l-09 re-run
4-16-09.xls" file.
DEP staff workload is estimated at 116 cases per project manager, based on 32 staff and 83 percent of their time working
on 3,084 open LUST releases.
Data were obtained based on values in the "Milestone" field in the "Backlog Data 3-2-09.xls" file. For example, open releases
with a value of "NOC" in the Milestone field ("NOC" is "Notification of Contamination Form Received") are grouped into the
"Confirmed Release" stage; open releases with a value of "SCRR" in the Milestone field ("SCRR" is "Site Characterization
Report Received") are grouped into the "Site Assessment" stage; and open releases with a value of "PROGR" in the
Milestone field ("PROGR" is "Remedial Action Progress Report Received") are grouped into the "Remediation" stage (see
Stage of Cleanup Reference Table).
Data were obtained from the "Facility ID" field in the "12-31-08_DEP_Regions_Report_AII_Regions.xls" file. If a facility was
listed as having an open claim, the releases at the facility were marked as "State Fund."
Data were obtained from the "Status" field in the "Backlog Data 3-2-09.xls" file. Releases that had a status code of 3, 4, 5,
or 8 were marked as "Closed;" releases that had a status code of 2 were marked as "Open" (see Status Reference Table).
No data available.
Not Applicable
Examined in the "Geographic Clusters"
section.
Average cleanup cost examined in the
"Program Summary" section.
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
No informative patterns were identified.
Examined in the "Program Summary"
section and in the national chapter.
Variable in all analyses.
Examined in the "Cleanup Financing"
section.
Identifies the appropriate universe of
releases for tree analysis.
Not Applicable
SEPTEMBER 2011
PA-23
-------
CHAPTER NOTES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
Media Reference Table
Releases are assigned the environmental impacts in the eFACTS database. These data were used to identify the media contaminated.
Environmental
Impacts
CONTD
ECOR
GW
SED
SOIL
SW
VAPOR
WS
Environmental Impacts Description
Release Contained - No Environmental Impact
Other
Ecological Receptors
Other
Ground Water
Groundwater
Sediment
Other
Soil
Soil
Surface Water
Other
Vapors/Product in Basements
Other
Water Supplies
Other
PA-24
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
CHAPTER NOTES
Stage of Cleanup Reference Table
Each release has various milestone dates documented in the eFACTS database. These data were used to
Milestone
NOC
NORV
NORWF
NORWI
OWNER
SC310
SCREW
SCRR
SCRS
SCRV
PRCPL
PROGR
PRREP
QSTAT
RACPV
RACRB
Milestone Description
Notification of Contamination Form Received
Verbal Notification of Reportable Release Received
Follow-up - Written Notification of Reportable
Release Received
Initial - Written Notification of Reportable Release
Received
Owner Written Notification of Contamination
310(B) Site Characterization Report Received
Site Characterization Report Received -
Background/Statewide
Site Characterization Report Received
SS Site Char. Report Received - Site Specific
Site Characterization Report Reviewed
Post Remediation Care Plan Received
Remedial Action Progress Report Received
Post Remediation Report Received
Quarterly Status Report Received
Remedial Action Completion Report Reviewed
Remedial Action Complete Rep Received -
Background/Statewide
Stage |
Confirmed Release
Confirmed Release
Confirmed Release
Confirmed Release
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
1 Milestone
RACRR
RACRS
RAPBW
RAPR
RAPS
RAPSU
RAPV
RPROG
NUAQR
USTIF
90DAY
COVEN
EXTRQ
MSTAT
identify the stage of cleanup.
Milestone Description
Remedial Action Completion Report Received
SS Remedial Action Completion Report Received -
Site Specific
BG/SW Remedial Action Plan Received -
Background/Statewide
Remedial Action Plan Received
SS Remedial Action Plan Received - Site Specific
Verbal Notification of Remedial Action Plan
Suspension Received
Remedial Action Plan Reviewed
Remedial Action Progress Report Received
Non-Use Aquifer Request Received
USTIF Claim Notification Received
90 Day Interim Report
Covenant Received
Extension Request from RP
Monthly Status Report Received
Stage
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
SEPTEMBER 2011
PA-25
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: PENNSYLVANIA
Status Reference Table
Each release is assigned one status in the eFACTS database. These data were used to identify federally-regulated USTs and their status.
Release
Federally- Status
Regulated (Open/
LUST Releases Closed)
Description
Status Comment
Interim
Remedial
Actions Not
Initiated
Interim or
Remedial
Actions
Initiated
Attainment
Monitoring in
Progress
Cleanup
Completed
A confirmed release where no cleanup
was initiated (open case but not
counted as active/ongoing cleanup); this
information is not included in the backlog
number that DEP reports to EPA.
The backlog number that DEP reports to
EPA.
Part of the closed releases information
that DEP reports to EPA.
Part of the closed releases information
that DEP reports to EPA.
No Not
Applicable
Yes Open
Yes Closed
Yes Closed
Inactive Part of the closed releases information
that DEP reports to EPA. There are six
criteria that need to be met for a site
to remain inactive - inactive releases
are considered closed but not complete
(complete means that cleanup standards
must be met).
Yes
Closed
Suspected
Release -
Investigation
Pending or
Initiated
Suspected
Release
- Invest.
Complete,
No Release
Confirmed
Administrative
Close Out
This is a suspected release and is not
considered as a release until confirmed.
Releases were not confirmed and
therefore are not counted as a release.
This is part of the closed releases that DEP
reports to EPA.
No Not
Applicable
No Not
Applicable
Yes Closed
PA-26
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG
A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: SOUTH CAROLINA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
September 2011
SC-1
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: SOUTH CAROLINA
LIST OF ACRONYMS
DHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Expedited Site Assessment
FY Fiscal Year
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MNA Monitored Natural Attenuation
NA Not Applicable
RBCA Risk-Based Corrective Action
RP Responsible Party
SUPERB State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response Bank
UST Underground Storage Tank
SC-2
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: SOUTH CAROLINA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Leaks from underground storage tanks (USTs) threaten America's groundwater and land resources. Even a small amount of
petroleum released from a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) can contaminate groundwater, the drinking water source
for nearly half of all Americans. In surveys of state water programs, 39 states and territories identified USTs as a major source
of groundwater contamination.1 As the reliance on our resources increases due to the rise in population and use, there is a
correspondingly greater need to protect our finite natural resources.
From the beginning of the UST program to September 2009, more than 488,000 releases were confirmed from federally-
regulated USTs nationwide. Of these confirmed releases needing cleanup, over 100,000 remained in the national LUST
backlog. These releases are in every state, and many are old and affect groundwater. To help address this backlog of releases,
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invited 14 states to participate in a national backlog characterization
study.
ANALYSIS OF SOUTH CAROLINA DATA
South Carolina's Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) has made significant progress toward reducing its
LUST cleanup backlog. As of May 2009, DHEC had completed 6,322 LUST cleanups, which is 68 percent of all known releases
in the state. At the time of data collection, there were 2,942 open releases remaining in its backlog.3 To most effectively
reduce the national cleanup backlog, EPA believes that states and EPA must develop backlog reduction strategies that can be
effective in states with the largest backlogs. EPA invited South Carolina to participate in its national backlog study because
South Carolina has one of the ten largest backlogs in the United States.
DHEC actively employs many of the opportunities outlined in this report. In addition, EPA had previously determined that
the primary issue in South Carolina was the undercapitalization of its state assurance fund, the State Underground Petroleum
Environmental Response Bank (SUPERB) fund. The South Carolina legislature, with encouragement from the petroleum
industry and EPA, provided additional funding for LUST cleanups in 2010, which will result in an additional $36 million over
the next few years. EPA believes that this additional funding, along with continued, targeted backlog strategies, will allow
DHEC to greatly reduce its number of open releases.
In this chapter, EPA characterized South Carolina's releases that have not been cleaned up, analyzed these releases based
on categories of interest, and developed potential opportunities for DHEC and EPA to explore that might improve the state's
cleanup progress and reduce its backlog. As with all the states in this study, EPA's analysis addresses targeted subsets of South
Carolina's backlog so not every release is covered in the findings and opportunities discussed below. Building on the potential
South Carolina
LUST Data
By the Numbers2
National Backlog Contribution
Cumulative Historical Releases
Closed Releases
Open Releases
Stage of Cleanup
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Remediation
Media Contaminated
Groundwater
Median Age of Open Releases
1 EPA, National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report, pp. 50-52. www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/chp6.pdf.
2 Data were provided in May 2009 by DHEC staff and are not identical to the UST performance measures reported on EPA's website,
available at: www.epa.gov/oust/cat/camarchv.htm.
3 EPA tracks individual releases rather than sites in its performance measures. Therefore, the analyses in this report account for
numbers of releases, not sites.
4 Unknown media releases include those releases where the media is unknown as well as those releases where, based on available
data, it was not possible to identify the media contaminated.
SEPTEMBER 2011
SC-3
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: SOUTH CAROLINA
cleanup opportunities identified in the study, EPA will continue to work with DHEC to
develop backlog reduction strategies.
In South Carolina, as in every state, many factors affect the pace of cleaning up
releases, such as the availability and mechanisms of funding, statutory requirements,
and program structure. South Carolina has a statutory requirement to address the
highest risk releases first that affects its ability to address all the releases in its backlog.
This constraint is tied to the amount of funding DHEC receives each year.
EPA included potential cleanup opportunities in this report even though current
circumstances in South Carolina might make pursuing certain opportunities
challenging or unlikely. Also, as stated above, DHEC is already using many of these
strategies as part of its ongoing program. The findings from the analysis of DHEC's
data and the potential cleanup opportunities are summarized in the study areas
below: stage of cleanup, media contaminated, cleanup financing, release priority,
presence of free product, number of releases per affiliated party, geographic clusters,
and use of monitored natural attenuation (MNA).
Stage Of Cleanup (see page SC-lOfor more details)
South Carolina Finding Potential Opportunity
60 percent of releases are
either:
5 years old or older
and site assessment
has not started; or
10 years old or older
and in site assessment.
Explore options for funding additional
site assessments at old releases to
identify releases that can be closed
with minimal effort or moved toward
remediation. (South Carolina has
recently passed legislation to generate
additional funding for this purpose.)
Continue to expedite site assessments
where appropriate.
Implement enforcement actions at
releases not eligible for SUPERB funding
and at inactive releases above the
funding threshold.
Releases
1,779
South Carolina finances cleanups based on risk rather than on the age of the release.
As such, some older releases have not received funding due to their lower priority.
South Carolina legislation created a nearly 6-year-long amnesty period from 1988
through June 1993. The amnesty program gave DHEC a great deal of information
about older tanks in the state but it also resulted in a high volume of older open
releases that DHEC is still addressing to this day. The additional funds provided
through the South Carolina legislature will allow DHEC to address many of these
releases. EPA recognizes DHEC's statutory requirement to address high priority
releases first. Where practical, DHEC identifies lower priority releases needing
minimum resources to close and closes them. DHEC already employs expedited site
assessment and also has an enforcement initiative to contact responsible parties (RP)
of inactive releases. EPA believes it is important for DHEC to continue these practices
and explore opportunities to accelerate cleanups at releases.
Media Contaminated (see page SC-12 for more details)
South Carolina Finding Potential Opportunity
17 percent of releases:
contaminate
groundwater;
are in remediation; and
are 10 years old or
older.
Continue regular evaluation of technology
performance and consider alternative
cleanup technologies or other strategies to
bring releases to closure.
Releases
507
4 percent of releases:
contaminate soil only;
and
are awaiting funding
to begin assessment or
are in assessment.
Use expedited site assessment to identify
additional releases with soil contamination
that can be:
targeted for closure with minimal effort;
or
moved more quickly into remediation.
129
Releases contaminating groundwater have always been the largest part of the
national backlog and 95 percent of releases in South Carolina are documented as
contaminating groundwater. In general, groundwater contamination is considered
more technically complex to remediate and also takes longer to clean up than soil
contamination. For old, complex cleanups where long-term remediation is underway,
EPA believes it is important to have a system in place for periodic revaluation of
cleanup progress and to reconsider whether the cleanup technology being used is
still the most appropriate. Periodic revaluation of treatment technology is a core
function of DHEC project managers who oversee cleanup progress. Contractors are
also incentivized to evaluate and optimize treatment technology by the terms of the
pay-for-performance cleanup contracting that DHEC uses.
Soil contamination is typically easier to remediate than groundwater contamination.
South Carolina has releases impacting soil only that are ranked as a lower priority and
are not funded or are in assessment. As noted above, some of the releases remain
unaddressed because of lower priority and because the state fund does not have
enough money to finance the cleanup of all releases simultaneously. According to
the data, there are also several releases that do not have a priority ranking that do
not have an assessment or are awaiting funds for cleanup. New releases are given
a priority ranking as soon as enough data are available to make an educated risk
SC-4
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: SOUTH CAROLINA
ranking. As resources become available, EPA believes DHEC should continue to make
progress toward closure for all of its LUST releases.
Cleanup Financing (see page SC-13for more details)
South Carolina Finding Potential Opportunity
67 percent of state fund
eligible releases are either:
5 years old or older
and site assessment
has not started; or
10 years old or older
and in site assessment.
Secure additional funding. South
Carolina has recently passed legislation
providing $36 million of additional
financing to move more state-funded
cleanups toward remediation and
closure.
In addition to the successful funding
effort, continue to encourage the use
of other sources of public and private
funding such as petroleum brownfields
grants at appropriate releases.
Releases
1,673
The median amount of
public spending to date
at releases impacting
groundwater is nearly
nine times higher than the
median amount spent at
closed releases.
This finding is not surprising given that Variable
groundwater cleanups are typically more number of
complex. Continue to look for opportunities releases5
to achieve cost savings.
EPA and state programs are interested in exploring successful financing strategies
for completing cleanups quickly. EPA believes the availability of funding for cleanup
is essential to reducing the backlog. EPA is highly encouraged to report that, as
noted earlier, the South Carolina legislature, at the urging of the state petroleum
industry, has recently provided the necessary additional funding to address many
of the releases in South Carolina's backlog. EPA applauds this effort. Because EPA is
concerned with the availability of funding across the nation, EPA is increasing its focus
on oversight of state funds as well as conducting a study of private insurance.
In South Carolina, early amnesty programs provided strong incentives to report
releases, but DHEC's budget did not allow funding of all releases expeditiously. For
funded cleanups, DHEC uses economic incentives to reduce cleanup prices and
reward prompt cleanup completion. DHEC's use of pay-for-performance cleanup
contracting leverages competitive bidding to minimize cleanup prices and provides
strong intermediate performance incentives for contractors to complete cleanups
5 Opportunities marked as "variable number of releases" relate to programmatic
opportunities and affect an unknown number of releases, potentially including all open
releases.
quickly. The state fund pays a bonus of 10 percent to contractors for completing
a cleanup ahead of schedule. By leveraging open competitive bidding to drive
down cleanup prices, DHEC frees up financial resources to address more releases.
However, the resulting cost savings did not yield enough for South Carolina to finance
all of its LUST releases. EPA had determined that additional financing to extend these
practices to unfinanced releases would further reduce the South Carolina backlog
and acknowledges South Carolina's recent accomplishment in this area. Where
appropriate, DHEC might also continue to investigate the use of public/private
partnerships such as petroleum brownfields grants for low priority releases without
a viable RP. DHEC has addressed clusters of releases in the cities of Anderson and
Greenville using petroleum brownfields grants.
Release Priority (see page SC-16for more details)
South Carolina Finding Potential Opportunity
28 percent of releases:
are high priority
(Categories 1 and 2);
and
are in site assessment.
Continue to complete assessments and
move releases into remediation and
toward closure as resources permit.
Continue enforcement initiative to move
inactive releases through assessment
into remediation.
Releases
821
South Carolina has a statutory requirement to address the highest priority releases
first.6 Risk determines the priority of each release and the priority ranking determines
whether state funds are available to clean up a release. DHEC stated that it currently
funds all high priority releases. When the data were collected in 2009, a number of
releases considered high priority by the state were still in the early stages of cleanup
or were listed in the database as inactive These inactive high priority releases had
work initiated but were delayed temporarily due to pending directed work orders
or were delayed by enforcement actions or property redevelopment/access issues.
DHEC's enforcement effort to reestablish contact with RPs successfully moved
inactive high priority releases back into active work status.
According to DHEC, at the time of data collection, funding capacity allowed DHEC to
address all high priority releases and allowed the assessment and assignment of releases
with inconclusive risk assessments.
SEPTEMBER 2011
SC-5
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: SOUTH CAROLINA
Presence Of Free Product (see page SC-17 for more details)
Use Of M N A (seepageSC-19for more details)
South Carolina Finding Potential Opportunity
18 percent of releases have
free product present.
Continue to address the presence of free
product at releases, as resources permit
Releases
535
South Carolina Finding Potential Opportunity
Federal regulations require the removal of free product to the extent practicable.
There are 535 releases with free product in the South Carolina backlog.7 DHEC
considers the presence and depth of free product as part of its risk ranking
procedures. South Carolina is currently addressing all high priority releases with free
product present. DHEC can consider whether the use of enforcement actions at old
releases with persistent free product could help ensure the recovery of free product
contamination and move cleanups toward closure.
Geographic Clusters (see page SC-18for more details)
South Carolina Finding Potential Opportunity
41 percent of releases are
clustered within a one-
mile radius of five or more
releases.
Continue to identify releases within close
proximity for resource consolidation
opportunities.
Releases
Targeted
number of
releases8
DHEC targets cleanup actions at geographically-clustered releases where feasible. The
geographic cluster approach can join and benefit new community-based reuse efforts,
use economies of scale, and address commingled contamination. DHEC already
pursues consolidation of resources in bidding out contracts when the owner/operator
asks the state to choose a contractor on their behalf. EPA believes that highlighting
geographic clusters of releases and working with state and local governments in
area-wide initiatives can yield more cleanup closures. DHEC has also conducted
corridor work using petroleum brownfields grants in Anderson and Greenville. EPA
intends to work with the states to conduct further geospatial analyses on clusters of
open releases in relation to RPs, highway corridors, local geologic and hydrogeologic
settings, groundwater resources, and/or communities with environmental justice
concerns. These analyses might reveal additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
MNA is used at 33 percent
of releases in remediation.
Continue to consider MNA as a remedial
technology where appropriate.
Releases
Variable
number of
releases
10 percent of closed
releases used MNA.
Continue to consider MNA as a remedial
technology where appropriate.
Variable
number of
releases
EPA supports the appropriate use of MNA and encourages DHEC's 18-month
evaluation of cleanup progress where MNA is used to address contamination. MNA
without the use of active cleanup efforts has led to the closure of 631 releases in
South Carolina. In addition, a large percentage of releases have also been closed
using active remediation followed by MNA. EPA supports South Carolina's policy that
encourages the use of other strategies when MNA does not reduce contamination
within a reasonable timeframe. On the other hand, if an expensive, active remedial
technology is being used for cleanup and it has little or no effect on reducing
contamination, a revaluation of the cleanup remedy might reveal MNA to be a more
cost-effective technology, as long as cleanup is accomplished within a reasonable
timeframe.
CONCLUSION
This chapter contains EPA's data analysis of South Carolina's LUST cleanup backlog
and identifies potential opportunities to reduce the backlog in South Carolina. EPA
discusses the findings and opportunities for South Carolina, along with those of 13
additional states, in the national chapter of this report. EPA will continue to encourage
South Carolina's approaches to reducing its backlog and to explore opportunities to
further the state's efforts. Development of strategies could involve targeted data
collection, reviewing particular case files, analyzing problem areas, and sharing
best practices. Final strategies could involve EPA actions such as using additional
program metrics to show cleanup progress, targeting resources for specific cleanup
actions, clarifying and developing guidance, and revising policies. EPA, in partnership
with states, is committed to reducing the backlog of confirmed LIST releases and
to protecting the nation's groundwater, land, and communities affected by these
releases.
Free product removal is addressed under Title 40 § 280.64, available online at:
www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/techrule.htmff280.64.
Opportunities marked as "targeted numbers of releases" relate to geographic
opportunities that will address a limited number of releases within select designated
geographic areas.
SC-6
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: SOUTH CAROLINA
PROGRAM SUMMARY
State LUST Program Organization and Administration
The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) Division of Underground Storage Tank (LIST)
Management includes two sections responsible for the oversight of LIST releases: the Assessment Section and the Corrective
Action Section. The Assessment Section provides technical oversight of the assessment of releases from federally-regulated
USTs and identifies the level of risk at releases in accordance with the state's Risk-Based Corrective Action (RBCA) procedures.
The Corrective Action Section provides technical oversight of post-assessment cleanup activities related to LIST releases. All
state-funded cleanups are contracted on a pay-for-performance basis in which the price is set in open competitive bidding,
the contractor determines treatment technology, and payments are based on site progress. A core function of DHEC project
managers is to routinely evaluate treatment system effectiveness. Both sections pre-approve proposed costs and review claims
submitted to the state fund. Corrective action work must be performed by DHEC-certified site rehabilitation contractors.
Cleanup Financing
All releases in South Carolina are eligible for state funding, provided that the site is in significant operational compliance
at the time of release or when the release is reported. Since available state funding is insufficient to address all releases
simultaneously, the state funds cleanups based on the risk posed by each release. The State Underground Petroleum
Environmental Response Bank (SUPERB) funds Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) cleanups, while the State Financial
Responsibility Fund pays for third-party claims for actual costs for bodily injury and property damage caused by accidental
releases. The SUPERB fund has a $25,000 deductible. To encourage the reporting of releases, South Carolina offered an
amnesty period from 1988 to 1993 during which the deductible required to be paid by the tank owner for coverage by the
fund was waived. This created a substantial inventory of releases that remain part of the current backlog. State funds are
allocated to cleanups with the highest risk to receptors. According to EPA and DHEC, annual fund revenue at the time of
data collection was sufficient to address new releases that occur; however, the SUPERB fund was undercapitalized and could
not pay for the cleanup of the large number of amnesty releases and low priority releases. In 2010, the petroleum industry
secured an additional $36 million in long-term funding through the South Carolina legislature to address the open releases.
Cleanup Standards
DHEC uses a risk-based approach that integrates risk assessment, risk management, site assessment, monitoring, and
corrective action selection.10 Risk is assessed using site-specific data, including receptors, exposure potential, hydrogeology,
and contaminants of concern. According to DHEC, all groundwater in South Carolina is considered drinking water. However,
DHEC regulations allow conditional risk-based no further action decisions based on site-specific conditions and use of the
site.11 DHEC keeps a registry of these conditional no-further-action sites.
South Carolina
LUST Program
At a Glance
Cleanup Rate
In fiscal year (FY) 2009, DHEC confirmed 151
releases and completed 262 cleanups.9
Cleanup Financing
According to DHEC, all LUST releases are
eligible for state funds except for releases
at a site owned or operated by the federal
government. A $25,000 deductible is
required.
Cleanup Standards
RBCA standards based on site-specific
conditions are used.
Priority System
Release priority is based on current and
projected risk and updated based on new
information and changes in release conditions.
Average Public Spending on Open Cleanups
$87,420
Releases per Project Manager
On average, each project manager is
responsible for 197 open releases.
Administrative Funding (2008)
$3.4 million
9 Based on FY 2009 UST Performance Measures End of Year Activity Report.
10 DHEC's guidance document, Risk-Based Corrective Action for Petroleum Releases, is available online at:
www.scdhec.gov/environment/lwm/forms/RBCA Ol.pdf.
11 South Carolina Regulation R 61.98.
SEPTEMBER 2011
SC-7
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: SOUTH CAROLINA
Release Prioritization
South Carolina has a statutory requirement to address high risk releases first. Priority
categories are assigned based on the current and projected degree of risk to human
health and the environment. LUST cleanups are allocated state resources based on
their priority level. Releases are prioritized based on initial information, and the
priority is then updated on completion of each RBCA tier evaluation. Release priority
might change subsequent to contamination abatement, additional assessment
information, or remedial activities. According to DHEC, at the time of data collection,
funding capacity allowed DHEC to address all high priority (Class 1 and 2) releases and
the assessment and assignment of releases with inconclusive risk assessments (Class
5B). Class 3 and 4 releases are addressed as funding is available. It is important to
note that new high priority cases contribute to the continuation of low priority cases
in the backlog.
State Backlog Reduction Efforts
Beginning in November 2008, DHEC began increasing efforts to re-establish contact
with responsible parties (RPs) where correspondence had lapsed but where the
release was eligible for state funding. In these cases, RPs are contacted by DHEC and,
if no response is received, the case is placed under enforcement actions. Through
this effort, approximately 25 to 30 RPs are contacted each month. On average, 10 of
these RPs are placed under enforcement actions. DHEC plans to use its database to
track the influence of these efforts on the time to closure for releases.
SC-8
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: SOUTH CAROLINA
ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNITIES
In this study, EPA analyzed South Carolina's federally-regulated releases that have not been cleaned up (open releases). EPA
conducted a multivariate analysis on DHEC's data. However, this technique did not identify strong underlying patterns in the
data.12 Next, EPA divided the open releases into groups that might warrant further attention. EPA used descriptive statistics
to examine the distribution of releases by age of release and stage of cleanup and highlighted findings based on DHEC's data.14
EPA then identified potential opportunities for addressing particular groups of releases in the backlog. Many releases are
included in more than one opportunity. These opportunities describe actions that EPA and DHEC might use as a starting point
for their discussion on backlog reduction. Although EPA's analysis covered most releases in South Carolina, there are 339
releases that are not included in any of the subsets identified in the findings or opportunities due to the way EPA structured
the analysis. These releases might also benefit from some of the suggested opportunities and strategies.
EPA's analyses revealed seven areas of South Carolina's backlog with potential opportunities for its further reduction and
EPA acknowledges that, where practical, DHEC utilizes many of the opportunities discussed in these study areas as part of its
ongoing program:
LUST Data Source
Electronic data for LUST releases occurring
between April 1980 and May 2009 were
compiled with DHEC staff in 2008 and 2009.13
Data were obtained from DHEC's Environmental
Facility Information System and selected based
on quality and the ability to address areas of
interest in this analysis.
Stage of cleanup
Media contaminated
Cleanup financing
Release priority
Number of releases per affiliated
party
Geographic clusters
Use of monitored natural
attenuation (MNA)
12
The analytic tree method, a multivariate technique used to identify underlying patterns among large data sets, did not reveal strong
patterns within the data. For more information on analytic trees, see Appendix A.
13 For a detailed description of the South Carolina data used in this analysis, see the Chapter Notes section.
14 For a detailed description of release stages, see the Chapter Notes section (Stage of Cleanup Reference Table).
SEPTEMBER 2011
SC-9
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: SOUTH CAROLINA
South Carolina Finding
60 percent of releases are either:
5 years old or older and site assessment
has not started; or
10 years old or older and in site
assessment.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore options for funding 1,779
additional site assessments
at old releases to identify
releases that can be closed
with minimal effort or moved
toward remediation. (South
Carolina has recently passed
legislation to generate
additional funding for this
purpose.)
Continue to expedite
site assessments where
appropriate.
Implement enforcement
actions at releases not
eligible for SUPERB funding
and at inactive releases above
the funding threshold.
Releases 5 years old and
older in the Confirmed
Release stage
589
High Priority16
149
Medium Priority
382
Low Priority
38
No Priority
20
Releases 10 years old
and older in the Site
Assessment stage
1,190
High Priority
473
Medium Priority
680
Low Priority
21
No Priority
16
STAGE OF CLEANUP
As of May 4, 2009, the South Carolina backlog consisted of 2,942 open releases. EPA analyzed the age of these LUST releases
and their distribution among the stages of cleanup. In general, LUST releases in the backlog are significantly older than
releases that have been closed. The high median age of open releases is likely due to the large influx of old, lower priority
releases to the backlog during the SUPERB account amnesty period. To facilitate analysis, EPA classified South Carolina's open
releases into three stages of cleanup: the Confirmed Release stage (releases where assessments have not begun), the Site
Assessment stage (releases where assessments have begun), and the Remediation stage (releases where remedial activities
have begun).15
Since South Carolina's LUST program began, DHEC has closed 6,322 releases, half of which were closed in fewer than 1.6
years (Figure 1 below). The young median age of closed LUST releases might be attributable to the rapid closure of relatively
easy-to-remediate releases. Also, national program policy allows states to report confirmed releases that require no further
action at time of confirmation as "cleanup completed." Therefore, some releases are reported as confirmed and cleaned up
simultaneously.
Figure 1. Age of Releases among Stages of Cleanup
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: SOUTH CAROLINA
Figure 2. Release Age Distribution
among Stages of Cleanup
Confirmed Release
(637 Releases)
to look for easy closures and discovered old releases that can be closed with minimal
effort.18 Opportunities for closure with minimal effort are most likely found at lower
priority releases where little or no remedial work is required to reach closure standards
or at releases that have met closure standards but have not finished closure review.
South Carolina legislation created a nearly 6-year-long amnesty period from 1988 through
June 1993. The amnesty program alerted DHEC to a great number of older tanks in the
state. It also resulted in a high volume of open releases that DHEC is still addressing
to this day. Due to this amnesty period, South Carolina has many old LUST releases
awaiting funds to proceed with remediation. At the time of data collection, most of South
Carolina's open releases were in the Site Assessment stage (1,686 releases or 57 percent
of the total backlog) (Figure 1). Figure 2 to the left shows the backlog of all open releases,
including 589 releases five years old or older in the Confirmed Release stage (20 percent
of the backlog) that are awaiting funding to start assessment. It also shows 1,190 releases
10 years old or older in the Site Assessment stage (40 percent of the backlog). This
subset of older releases awaiting funding or in site assessment accounts for 60 percent
of South Carolina's backlog. Of the 1,190 releases in site assessment that are 10 years
old or older, investigations or risk assessments are being conducted at 52 percent of the
releases (618 releases) and 7 percent of the releases (79 releases) have been approved
for MNA (Figure 3 to the right). The remaining 41 percent (493 releases) are inactive due
to a lack of funding. The recent procurement of additional funding should allow many
of these releases to move forward with remediation and closure. A small number of
releases (4 percent of the backlog) are not eligible for SUPERB funding due to compliance
issues. If these releases are stalled, DHEC might want to consider enforcement actions
to move them forward with cleanup. In addition, since 2008, DHEC has had a successful
enforcement initiative to contact RPs at inactive releases eligible for the state fund.
EPA has encouraged states to streamline the corrective action process, improve data
collection, reduce the overall cost of remediation, and move releases more rapidly toward
remediation and closure. EPA recognizes South Carolina's efforts in these areas. EPA has
acknowledged that a lack of financing for assessment that could expedite release closure
or raise priority for remedial action funding has been the primary issue for the South
Carolina program. EPA recognizes the efforts by the petroleum industry in South Carolina to secure additional funding for the
program to address this concern. DHEC uses expedited site assessment to obtain additional cost savings for the state when
possible, allowing additional releases to be addressed. EPA developed the Expedited Site Assessment (ESA) guide as a tool for
states and regulators.19
Due to the amnesty period, South Carolina also has many old releases in the Remediation stage. Of the releases currently
in the Remediation stage, 82 percent (507 releases) are 10 years old or older (Figure 2). DHEC routinely evaluates system
Figure 3. Type of Activity at Releases 10 Years
or Older in the Site Assessment Stage
Site Assessment
(1,686 Releases)
Remediation
(619 Releases)
Releases Ten Years Old or
Older in Site Assessment
(1,190 Releases)
^ Approved MNA
| Awaiting Funding
^| Conducting Investigation/
Risk Assessment
18 See State Backlog Reduction Efforts in the Program Summary.
19 EPA's 1997 guidance document, Expedited Site Assessment Tools for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Regulators (EPA 510
B-97-001), is available online at: www.epa.gov/OUST/pubs/sam.htm.
SEPTEMBER 2011
SC-11
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: SOUTH CAROLINA
effectiveness, as this is a core function of its project managers. Under DHEC's pay-for-performance structure, payment is
triggered as the contractor reaches intermediate and final contamination reduction levels, which rewards progress. EPA
encourages DHEC's periodic review of releases in remediation and, in fact, suggests that other states consider a similar
approach.
South Carolina Finding
17 percent of releases:
contaminate groundwater;
are in remediation; and
are 10 years old or older.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Continue regular evaluation of 507
technology performance and
consider alternative cleanup
technologies or other strategies to
bring releases to closure.
High Priority
372
Medium Priority
134
Low Priority
MEDIA CONTAMINATED
Groundwater is an important natural resource that is at risk from petroleum contamination. Releases impacting groundwater
make up the majority of South Carolina's backlog. Groundwater contamination generally takes longer and is typically more
expensive to clean up than soil contamination. In this study, EPA examined media contaminated as a factor contributing to
the backlog. The following analysis classified South Carolina media contamination into three categories: groundwater (2,797
open releases), soil (129 open releases), and "unknown" media, which includes releases with no media specified (16 open
releases).20
In South Carolina, 95 percent of open releases (2,797 releases) involve groundwater contamination and, due to the amnesty
period, have a median age of 15.1 years (Figure 4 below). In contrast, 77 percent of closed releases (2,568 releases) for
which the media contamination is known involved groundwater contamination and these closed releases have a significantly
younger median age of 7.5 years compared to the median age of open releases (Figure 4).21 Of the 619 Remediation stage
releases that impact groundwater, 82 percent (507 releases) are 10 years old or older (Figure 5, page 13). This subset of older
releases in remediation that contaminate groundwater makes up 17 percent of South Carolina's total backlog.
Releases that contaminate groundwater can be complex and difficult to remediate. DHEC's regular evaluation of the cleanup
progress, current contaminant levels, and treatment technologies identifies releases where revised remediation methods or
other strategies to accelerate closure can be implemented. DHEC regulations allow risk-based conditional no further action
decisions where risk is minimized for the expected future use. It maintains a registry of conditional no-further-action sites.
DHEC also systematically identifies sites where MNA can reach closure levels within 18 months. MNA sites that do not reach
closure levels within 18 months might be moved into active remediation as funding becomes available.
Figure 4. Age of Releases by Media Contaminated and Stage of Cleanup
20
601
1,577
619
15
30
O Confirmed Release
O Site Assessment
O Remediation
Closed
2,568
99
10 2,974
Groundwater soi| Unknown
Squares indicating closed releases are not scaled to the number of releases in that stage.
20 For a detailed description of media classifications, see the Chapter Notes section.
21 The type of media contaminated is unknown for 47 percent (2,974 releases) of closed releases.
SC-12
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: SOUTH CAROLINA
Releases that contaminate soil only are of concern because they represent a potential threat to groundwater resources and
contaminate properties in neighborhoods and communities. South Carolina releases impacting soil tend to be significantly
younger than releases with groundwater impacts. South Carolina has 129 releases (4 percent of the backlog) that contaminate
soil only and are either awaiting funding to begin assessment or are in assessment. Of South Carolina's releases that
contaminate soil only, 15 are in the Confirmed Release stage and are 9.4 years or older (Figure 4). In addition, 99 releases that
contaminate soil only are being assessed. These releases have a younger median age than releases in the Confirmed Release
stage, which might have a lower priority score and are, therefore, awaiting funding (Figure 4). To the extent that releases
contaminate soil only and have lower priority scores, cleanup awaits the availability of state fund financing unless the RP has
a reason to proceed with the cleanup, such as property sale or development and has private financing to perform the work
and can wait for reimbursement from the state fund.
CLEANUP FINANCING
EPA and state programs are interested in exploring successful financing strategies for completing cleanups quickly. EPA
believes the availability of funding for cleanup is essential to reducing the backlog. EPA is highly encouraged to report that, as
noted earlier, the South Carolina legislature, at the urging of the state petroleum industry, has recently provided the necessary
additional funding to address many of the releases in South Carolina's backlog. EPA applauds this effort. Because EPA is
concerned with the availability of funding across the nation, EPA is increasing its focus on oversight of state funds as well as
conducting a study of private insurance.
South Carolina's state fund fulfills the federal financial responsibility requirement for all USTs in the state. South Carolina
has many old releases that are state fund eligible (2,588 releases, 88 percent of the backlog) and in the early stages of the
cleanup process due to limited state resources and the amnesty program (Figure 6 below). Because of South Carolina's
amnesty program, it is not surprising that these 2,588 state fund eligible releases are significantly older than the 107 state
fund ineligible releases (4 percent of the backlog) and the 247 releases with unknown eligibility (8 percent of the backlog)
(Figure 6). According to DHEC staff, all releases with unlisted eligibility should be considered state fund eligible. However, for
the purposes of this analysis, they are treated separately and labeled "unknown" since the state's database did not contain
information indicating their eligibility.
Figure 6. Age of Releases by State Fund Eligibility and Stage of Cleanup
20
564
1,454
570
15
27
69
o
11
O Confirmed Release
O Site Assessment
O Remediation
Closed
2,997
38
0
46
163
Figure 5. Age Distribution of Remediation Stage
Releases with Groundwater Impacts
Groundwater Releases
(619 releases)
South Carolina Finding
4 percent of releases:
contaminate soil only; and
are awaiting funding to begin assessment
or are in assessment.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Use expedited site assessment to 129
identify additional releases with
soil contamination that can be:
targeted for closure with
minimal effort; or
moved more quickly into
remediation.
High Priority
Medium Priority
24
12
Low Priority
No Priority
12
81
296
State Fund Eligible
State Fund Ineligible
Eligibility Unknown
SEPTEMBER 2011
SC-13
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: SOUTH CAROLINA
South Carolina Finding
67 percent of state fund eligible releases are
either:
5 years old or older and site assessment
has not started; or
10 years old or older and in site
assessment.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Secure additional funding. 1,673
South Carolina has recently
passed legislation providing
$36 million of additional
financing to move more
state-funded cleanups toward
remediation and closure.
In addition to the successful
funding effort, continue to
encourage the use of other
sources of public and private
funding such as petroleum
brownfields grants at
appropriate releases.
High Priority
580
Medium Priority
1,020
Low Priority
52
No Priority
21
At the time of data collection, DHEC reported that funding capacity allowed it to address
all high priority (Class 1 and 2) releases and the assessment and assignment of releases
with inconclusive risk assessments (Class 5B). According to the data, 21 percent of state
fund eligible releases (539 releases) are five years old or older and awaiting funding
to start assessment. Of the releases in the Site Assessment stage, 78 percent (1,134
releases) are 10 years old or older (Figure 7 to the right). Together, this subset of older
releases makes up 67 percent of the state fund eligible releases. The recent efforts by
the South Carolina legislature to address the funding needs should move many of these
releases forward. DHEC might also continue to encourage the use of additional funding
sources such as petroleum brownfields grants for low priority releases without a viable
RP. The 4 percent of releases (107 releases) that cannot be funded by the SUPERB fund
are not qualified because the LIST system was not in significant operational compliance at
the time of the release. The prospect of future action at these sites will rely on alternative
financing and perhaps further state enforcement action.
DHEC is responsible for funding cleanups regardless of whether the state or RP is the lead
for the cleanup work. DHEC is the direct lead for 19 percent of releases (545 releases),
while an RP is the lead for 59 percent of releases (1,723 releases) (Figure 8 below). A
higher relative percentage of RP-lead releases have not begun remediation (Figure 8).
These RP-lead sites are awaiting state funding due to a lower priority ranking. South
Carolina has a statutory requirement to allow a RP to choose the cleanup contractor and
DHEC provides a list of state-certified cleanup contractors from which to choose. The
maximum amount the state will reimburse, whoever the contractor, is set in competitive
bidding for pay-for-performance cleanups. DHEC allows RPs to proceed with remediation
voluntarily when state financing is not yet available for a site. There is no significant
difference in the age of state-lead and RP-lead cleanups in remediation. Incentives for
voluntary work at RP-lead releases might be found to encourage them to move forward
with cleanup.. Enforcement actions at inactive releases, where appropriate, could also
cause RPs to move forward with cleanup.
Age of Releases by Lead and Stage of Cleanup
Figure 7. Age Distribution of State
Fund Eligible Releases among Stages
of Cleanup
Confirmed Release
(564 Releases)
Site Assessment
(1,454 Releases)
Remediation
(570 Releases)
O Confirmed Release
O Site Assessment
O Remediation
Closed
4,497
State Lead
RP Lead
Unknown
SC-14
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: SOUTH CAROLINA
Most open state fund eligible releases involve groundwater and cost more to clean up than closed releases that impacted
groundwater. Data available for 2,313 open and 1,783 closed releases with groundwater impacts indicate the median amount
($117,416) spent to date for cleanup at state-funded Remediation stage releases contaminating groundwater is nearly nine
times higher than the median amount ($19,711) spent at closed releases contaminating groundwater, suggesting that cleaning
up a release has become more expensive over time (Figure 9 below).22 This spending differential is most likely due to the easiest
releases to remediate having been closed quickly and with low costs, leaving more complex and expensive cleanups in the
backlog. Closed releases impacting soil had significantly lower public spending than closed releases impacting groundwater
(Figure 9), suggesting that releases with soil contamination are easier to remediate than releases where groundwater is
contaminated.
DHEC already has procedures and policies in place to encourage cost savings. Although engineering the treatment technology
is the responsibility of the contractor and pay-for-performance contractors have freedom and economic incentive to fine-tune
or change treatment technology, DHEC project managers routinely evaluate treatment system effectiveness. Contractors
are paid as intermediate cleanup goals are met and DHEC pays a 10 percent bonus to contractors who close a site ahead
of schedule. EPA encourages the use of this practice and others that result in savings to South Carolina and allow DHEC to
address more releases. Continuing to expedite site assessments to identify releases that could be closed with minimal effort
or moved toward remediation might help to further reduce the backlog when additional state resources became available to
assess these sites.
Figure 9. Public Spending at State-Funded Cleanups with Groundwater and Soil Impacts, by Stage of Cleanup24
561
$120,000
i Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
1 Remediation
Closed
South Carolina Finding
The median amount of public spending to date
at releases impacting groundwater is nearly
nine times higher than the median amount
spent at closed releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
This finding is not surprising Variable
given that groundwater number of
cleanups are typically more releases23
complex. Continue to look for
opportunities to achieve cost
savings.
Groundwater
Soil
22 Spending data have been adjusted for inflation.
23 Opportunities marked as "variable number of releases" relate to programmatic opportunities and affect an unknown number of
releases, potentially including all open releases.
24 Public spending data were only available for 2,330 open releases (79 percent) and 2,043 closed releases (32 percent).
SEPTEMBER 2011
SC-15
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: SOUTH CAROLINA
South Carolina Finding
28 percent of releases:
are high priority (Categories 1 and 2); and
are in site assessment.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Continue to complete 821
assessments and move
releases into remediation and
toward closure as resources
permit.
Continue enforcement
initiative to move inactive
releases through assessment
into remediation.
RELEASE PRIORITY
Many state programs employ prioritization systems to decide how to best allocate state resources for assessments and
cleanups. DHEC is required by statute to focus resources on the highest risk releases and unconfirmed risk releases. DHEC is
prohibited from dedicating resources to low priority releases unless resources have already been made available to address
all higher priority releases.
In South Carolina, high priority releases are those determined to pose an emergency or significant near-term threat (Class 1
and 2). All high priority releases are funded by DHEC and have begun work. According to the data from 2009, South Carolina
has 162 high priority releases classified by DHEC as inactive (6 percent of the backlog) and 659 releases in the Site Assessment
stage (22 percent of the backlog) (Figure 10 below).25 This subset of high priority releases is 28 percent of the backlog. DHEC
maintains a current database; therefore, many of the high priority releases classified as inactive are in short-term inactive
periods between directed scopes of work or, in some cases, work is delayed due the resolution of enforcement action or
property redevelopment/access issues. In 2008, DHEC began an enforcement initiative to encourage work at inactive high
priority releases. This initiative plus additional funding moved the number of releases in inactive status from 214 in 2008 to
130 at the end of 2010. The remaining 438 high priority releases (15 percent of the backlog) are in remediation. Continuing to
use expedited site assessments for pre-remediation releases and enforcement at inactive releases will help to further reduce
South Carolina's backlog.
Figure 10. Age of Releases by Release Priority and Stage of Cleanup21
20
295 660
210
64
O Confirmed Release
O Site Assessment
O Remediation
Closed
4185
High
Priority
Low
Priority
The backlog also has pockets of low priority releases. There are 40 Priority 5 releases in the Confirmed Release stage. These
releases have a median age of 15.9 years, likely due to the amnesty period and their low priority (Figure 10). An additional 45
Priority 5 releases are in the Site Assessment stage (Figure 10). The 127 releases without a priority score either do not have
25 Priority 1 includes categories 1A, IB, 1C, ID, and IE. Priority 2 includes categories 2AA, 2AB, 2BA, and 2BB. For details on priority
classifications, see the Chapter Notes section (Priority Reference Table).
26 There are 15 open releases and 2,975 closed releases for which priority is unknown that are not included in Figure 10. Also, note
that for Class 1 and 2, the releases shown as Confirmed Release stage are actually in inactive status. All high priority Class 1 and 2
releases have started work.
SC-16
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: SOUTH CAROLINA
conclusive data to determine prioritization or pose no pending threat. Expediting site assessments of releases that have not
been prioritized and identifying releases that could be easily closed can help reduce the current backlog. DHEC estimates that
the additional recent financing provided by the legislature will provide enough resources to address the lower priority sites
as well as higher priority sites.
PRESENCE OF FREE PRODUCT
Federal law requires that an owner/operator must submit a report on free product within 45 days of release discovery.
Although federal regulations require the removal of free product, South Carolina has a large number of relatively old releases
with free product present. DHEC tracks the presence of free product using its priority (RBCA Class) codes. Of the 2,942
releases in the South Carolina backlog, the DHEC priority codes indicate that, at the time the data were provided to EPA, free
product was present at 18 percent of releases (535 releases; Figure 11 below, left). According to the data, 45 percent of the
releases with free product are in Class IE and 2BA (248 releases), with the majority in Class 2BA (240 releases). The definition
of a Class 2BA release is that free product is thicker than one foot. High priority releases are those determined to pose an
emergency or significant near-term threat (RBCA Class 1 and 2). South Carolina addresses releases based on priority and had
started site assessment or remediation at all Class 1 and almost every Class 2 release. Of the remaining releases with free
product, most are in Class 3BA, defined as free product between 0.01 and one foot (277 releases).
Of the 535 releases with free product present, 82 percent (438 releases) are ten years old or older (Figure 12 below, right).
Although there are no federal or state mandated time restrictions on the length of time to remove the free product, the owner/
operator is required to remove as much free product as practicable. DHEC should continue to encourage the removal of free
product to the extent practicable. DHEC might also consider whether enforcement actions at old releases with persistent free
product might be appropriate to help ensure the recovery of free product contamination and move cleanups toward closure.
Figure 11. Presence of Free Product at Open Releases, by
Stage of Cleanup
Figure 12. Age of Open Releases with Free Product Present
263
49%
G 0-4.9 Years
G 5-9.9 Years
| 10-14.9 Years
B 15-19.9 Years
G More Than 20 Years
| IE- Free Product on Surface Water
G 2BA- Free Product > 1 Foot
G 3BA- Free Product > 0.01 Foot
I 4BA- Free Product Sheen in Well
South Carolina Finding
18 percent of releases have free product
present.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Continue to address the presence 535
of free product at releases, as
resources permit
SEPTEMBER 2011
SC-17
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: SOUTH CAROLINA
NUMBER OF RELEASES PER AFFILIATED PARTY
EPA analyzed the number of releases per affiliated party Table 1. Parties Affiliated with 10 or More Open Releases
to identify the largest potential contributors to the state's
cleanup backlog.27 A total of 32 entities are each associated
with 10 or more releases and account for 23 percent of the
South Carolina backlog (689 releases) (Table 1 to the right).28
Of these, 25 gasoline retail, distribution, or refining businesses
are associated with 420 releases (17 percent of the backlog),
and two state government entities are associated with 76
releases (3 percent of the backlog). DHEC has combined
activities for RPs where possible, but, according to state statute, releases must be addressed based on release priority and
available funding. Releases in close proximity or different releases associated with the same site can have different priority
rankings for state funding, and the lower priority releases must await state funding. Where such releases are prospects
for sale or redevelopment, there might be private economic incentive for the RP to address all sites under one contract.
However, DHEC reports that it has not found significant improvements or advantages in multi-site agreements based on
common ownership or proximity of releases.
Type of Affiliated Party
Gasoline Retail/Distribution/Refining
Government - State
Convenience Store Chain
Total
Number of
Releases
420
76
193
689
Number of
Parties
25
2
5
32
South Carolina Finding
41 percent of releases are clustered within a
one-mile radius of five or more releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Continue to identify releases Targeted
within close proximity for number of
resource consolidation releases29
opportunities.
GEOGRAPHIC CLUSTERS
EPA performed a geospatial analysis to look for alternative ways to address the
backlog. While releases in geographic clusters might not have the same RP, they
tend to be located in densely populated areas and present potential opportunities
to consolidate resources and coordinate efforts. Geographic proximity can call
attention to releases in areas of interest such as redevelopment, environmental
justice, and ecological sensitivity. South Carolina local and state agencies have
worked with EPA's Brownfields program to develop such opportunities.
Figure 13. Map of All Open Releases
Greenville
Columbia
Charleston
State and local governments can utilize geographic clusters for area-wide
planning efforts. EPA's analysis identified 1,205 releases (41 percent of releases)
located within a one-mile radius of five or more releases (Figure 13). Of these
releases, 408 (14 percent of releases) are located within a one-mile radius of 10
or more releases. These releases are clustered primarily in metropolitan areas
and are likely to be lower priority due to municipal water use in cities. However,
these clusters of releases might still present opportunities to consolidate resources and coordinate efforts. EPA encourages
states to look for opportunities for resource consolidation or area-wide planning but also recognizes that this approach is best
geared to address targeted groups of releases as opposed to a state-wide opportunity for every cluster of releases. With the
27 According to DHEC, the "RP" data field is the current owner/operator and is not necessarily the RP for the release.
28 No federal government entities were identified as having 10 or more releases.
29 Opportunities marked as "targeted numbers of releases" relate to geographic opportunities that will address a limited number of
releases within select designated geographic areas.
SC-18
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: SOUTH CAROLINA
support of petroleum brownfields grants, DHEC has addressed clusters of releases in the cities of Anderson and Greenville.30
The coordination of resources and the state's efficiency in securing and working with assessment contractors enabled DHEC
to keep costs low. EPA intends to conduct further geospatial analyses on clusters of open releases in relation to RPs, highway
corridors, local geologic and/or hydrogeologic settings, groundwater resources, and/or communities with environmental
justice concerns. These analyses might reveal additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
USE OF MNA
Figure 14. Age of Cleanups in the Remediation Stage Using MNA
D
D
0-4.9 Years
5-9.9 Years
10-14.9 Years
15-19.9 Years
20+ Years
According to the data provided by DHEC, MNA is in use as the
remedial treatment technology at 33 percent of releases (206
releases) in the Remediation stage (Figure 14). In addition, DHEC
has closed 631 releases (10 percent of closed releases) through
the use of MNA only (i.e., no active remedial remedy used prior
to MNA). DHEC has closed a greater number of releases using
active remediation followed by MNA. EPA guidance states
that MNA is an appropriate remediation method where its
use will be protective of human health and the environment
and it will be capable of achieving site-specific remediation
objectives within a timeframe that is reasonable compared to
other alternatives.31 EPA supports DHEC's use of MNA and its
ongoing evaluation of cleanup progress where MNA is used.
Releases in DHEC's MNA process are under evaluation for an
18-month period after which the release either continues in
MNA or might be placed into active remediation. Use of MNA
is appropriate in cases where an expensive, active remediation technology is being used and is having little or no effect on
contamination. DHEC's periodic revaluation of cleanup progress might reveal that MNA would be a more cost-effective
technology to use at some releases.
MNA
(206 Releases)
South Carolina Finding
MNA is used at 33 percent of releases in
remediation.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Continue to consider MNA as Variable
a remedial technology where number of
appropriate. releases
South Carolina Finding
10 percent of closed releases use MNA.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Continue to consider MNA as Variable
a remedial technology where number of
appropriate. releases
30 For more information, see earthl.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/success/greenville.pdf.
31 For more information regarding appropriate use of MNA, see www.epa.gov/swerustl/pubs/tums.htm and EPA Directive Number
9200.4-17P, Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation atSuperfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank Sites,
available online at: www.epa.gov/oust/directiv/d9200417.htm.
SEPTEMBER 2011
SC-19
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: SOUTH CAROLINA
CONCLUSION
South Carolina
LUST Program
Contact Information
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
Bureau of Land and Waste Management
Underground Storage Tank Program
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Phone: 803-896-6396
Fax: 803-896-6245
www.scdhec.gov/eac/ust/index.html
In this state chapter, EPA presented the analysis of LUST data submitted by DHEC and highlighted information on the state's
LIST program. Based on the analytic results, EPA developed potential opportunities that could be used to address specific
backlog issues within South Carolina. Over the course of the entire study, EPA analyzed data from 14 states, including South
Carolina. Findings and opportunities that apply to all 14 states are discussed in the national chapter of the report. Each
opportunity represents one potential approach among many to address the backlog. Discussion of the opportunities as a
whole is intended as a starting point for further conversations among EPA, South Carolina and the other states on strategies
to reduce the backlog. EPA will work with our partners to develop the backlog reduction strategies. Development of the
strategies might include targeted data collection, reviewing particular case files, analyzing problem areas, and sharing best
practices. Final strategies could involve actions from EPA, such as using additional program metrics, targeting resources
for specific cleanup actions, clarifying and developing guidance, and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with states, is
committed to reducing the backlog of confirmed LIST releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater and land and
communities affected by these releases.
SC-20
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: SOUTH CAROLINA
CHAPTER NOTES
CHAPTER NOTES
SOUTH CAROLINA DATA BY ATTRIBUTE
The following table provides details on the data elements of interest in this analysis. Data were provided by DHEC staff in 2008 and 2009 for use in this analysis. Several data
elements of interest could not be addressed with the information available. All available data elements were analyzed and only those data elements that revealed informative
patterns of interest are included in the report.
Data Element
Administrative Cost
South Carolina Data
Estimates were provided by DHEC staff.
Use in Analysis
Included in the "Program Summary"
section and in the national chapter.
Affiliated Party
Data were obtained from the "RP" field in the "ust_payments.xls" file.
Used to calculate the number of releases
associated with each unique RP.
Age
Age was calculated for closed releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the closure date and dividing by Variable in all analyses.
365. Age was calculated for open releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the data date and dividing by
365. Any values less than -.1 were left blank. Values between -.1 and 0 were counted as 0. All dates were rounded to one
decimal point. Ages of releases with insufficient or invalid data were left blank.
Cleanup Financing
Cleanup Standards
Closure Date
Confirmed Release Date
Data Date
Federally-Regulated
LUST Releases
Finance Type
Free Product
Institutional and
Engineering Controls
Data were obtained from the "RELEASE_FIN_TYPE_CODE" data field from the "UST_REL.txt" file (see Finance Type
Reference Table).
No site-specific data available.
Data were obtained from the "CLEANUP_COMP" data field from the "UST_REL.txt" file. When a release had a valid date
entry in this data field, it was used as the closure date for the release.
Data were obtained from the "CONFIRMED_DATE" and "RELEASE_DATE" fields from the "UST_REL.txt" file. When a release
did not have a confirmed release date, the reported release date was used instead.
May 4, 2009, is used for all records. This is the date the "UST_REL.txt" file was received.
All releases in the "UST_REL.txt" file were marked as federally regulated.
Data were obtained from the "RELEASE_FIN_TYPE_CODE" data field from "UST_REL.txt."
Data were obtained from the "Rank" data field from "SC Database for EPA.xls."
No data available.
Examined in the "Cleanup Financing"
section.
State-wide standards examined in the
national chapter.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Identified the appropriate universe of
releases for analysis.
No informative patterns were identified.
Examined in the "Presence of Free
Product" section.
Not applicable (NA).
Latitude and Longitude Data were obtained from the LUST facility geospatial data set downloaded from South Carolina's GIS website (www.scdhec. Used in geospatial analysis calculating the
gov/gis/GIS.aspx). Where possible, coordinates for releases without existing latitude and longitude values were obtained number of open releases within a one-
by EPA staff by geocoding address and street locations. mile radius of other open releases.
Lead Data were obtained from the "RELEASE_FIN_TYPE_CODE" field in the "UST_REL.txt" file. Code "DS" indicates state-lead Examined in "Cleanup Financing" section.
releases and code "WS" indicates RP-lead releases.
SEPTEMBER 2011
SC-21
-------
CHAPTER NOTES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: SOUTH CAROLINA
Data Element
Media
South Carolina Data
Use in Analysis
Data were obtained from the "Type" data field in the "SC Database for EPA.xls" file (see Media Reference Table). Releases Examined in the "Media Contaminated"
with groundwater contamination marked (in addition to any other media) were counted as "groundwater." Releases with section.
only soil contamination marked were counted as "soil." Releases counted as "unknown" might include those for which
there are no data available in the database, but for which information is available in other files, and releases at which the
media contaminated are truly unknown.
Methyl Tertiary Butyl
Ether
No data available.
NA
Monitored Natural
Attenuation (MNA)
Data were obtained from the list of releases in the "MNA through Aug4 2009.pdf" file.
Examined in the "Use of Monitored
Natural Attenuation" section.
Number of Releases per
Affiliated Party
Calculated as the total number of open releases associated a unique associated entity.
Examined in the "Number of Releases per
Affiliated Party" section.
Orphan
No data available.
NA
Owner Type Data were obtained from the "CATEGORY" data field in the "UST_TANKS.txt" field. These data list the types of tank owners No informative patterns were identified.
tracked by DHEC, including federal, state, county or municipal government, and retail.
Possible Property
Transaction (Comfort
Letter)
Data were obtained from eight lists of releases that had received comfort letters. Due to a small sample size, these data Data not suitable for analysis.
were not analyzed.
Proximity
Geospatial analysis performed by EPA revealed the number of other open releases located within a one-mile radius of each
open release.
Examined in the "Geographic Clusters"
section.
Public Spending Data were obtained from the "PAID_AMT" field in the "ust_payments.xls" file. The reimbursement amount was adjusted
for inflation using the 2008 Consumer Price Index based on the year of the date recorded in the "PYMT_DATE" data field
in the "ust_payments.xls" field.
Release Priority- Rank
and Score
Data were obtained from the "Score" and "Rank" data fields from "SC Database for EPA.xls." Rank ranges from 1 through
5, with 1 being highest priority to 5 being lowest priority; 2A and 2B are usually used for high priority releases (see Release
Priority Rank Reference Table). Scores are a calculated total score for a release based on individual score for each of
the contaminants, derived by the measured value divided by the risk-based screening level. In addition, DHEC's project
managers perform annual reviews of the rank classifications.
Examined in the "Cleanup Financing"
section and in the national chapter.
Examined in the "Release Priority"
section.
RP Recalcitrance
No data available.
NA
Staff Workload
Data were obtained from "Historical PM inventory reports for backlog study.pdf" file.
Examined in the "Program Summary"
section and in the national chapter.
Stage of Cleanup Data were obtained from the "ST" field in "all releases through May 4 2009.xls" file (see of Cleanup Stage Reference Table).
When a release did not have an entry in this data field, it was marked as "Confirmed Release."
State Fund Eligibility
Data were obtained from the "QUALIFIEDJND" field from the "UST_REL.txt" file. Releases that had a "Y" in this data field
were counted as "State Fund Eligible;" releases that had an "N" in this data field were counted as "State Fund Ineligible;"
releases with a blank entry in this data field were marked as "Unknown."
Variable in all analyses.
Examined in the "Cleanup Financing"
section.
Status
Data were obtained from the "CLEANUP_COMP" field from the "UST_REL.txt" file. When a release had a valid date entry
in this data field, it was marked as "Closed;" other releases were marked as "Open."
Identified the appropriate universe of
releases for tree analysis.
Voluntary Cleanup
Program
No data available.
NA
SC-22
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: SOUTH CAROLINA
CHAPTER NOTES
Media Reference Table
[Blank]
Standard Media
Unknown
T25
GW
Groundwater
SOIL
Soil
SOILGW
Groundwater
UNK
UNKNOWN
Unknown
Finance Type Reference Table
CNQ
DS
RS
Finance Type Description
Cannot Qualify (not in South Carolina) - release
cannot be funded by SUPERB because the UST
system was not in substantial compliance at the
time of the release.
Standard
Private Financing
WC
DHEC/SUPERB - release qualified for SUPERB and
work is being done directly by DHEC on tank owner/
operator's request. Cannot be used on deductible
releases until deductible amount has been
documented.
State Fund
QNW Qualified Not Working - release is qualified for State Fund
SUPERB but funding is not currently available based
on priority classification.
R25 Recoverable SUPERB Deductible-release is qualified State Fund
for SUPERB but the UST owner/operator is unwilling
or unable to do the required work under the
deductible; SUPERB funds will be used to conduct
work and the UST Program will seek cost recovery
for funds expended.
WID
WOC
Recoverable SUPERB - release is from an unknown
source or the UST owner/operator is deceased,
cannot be located, or is unwilling or unable to do
the required work; SUPERB funds will be used to
conduct work and the UST Program will seek cost
recovery for funds expended.
LUST Trust
WS
Finance Type Description
With Trust $25,OOODeductible - release is qualified
for SUPERB but the UST owner/operator is
unwilling or unable to do the required work under
the deductible; federal trust funds will be used to
conduct work and the UST Program will seek cost
recovery for funds expended.
Standard
State Fund
Unknown - used when the financial mechanism
cannot be determined based on current information
submitted.
Unknown
W25 With SUPERB $25,000 Deductible - release was State Fund
reported after June 30, 1993 period and the UST
owner/operator is responsible for expending
and documenting $25,000 before SUPERB funds
become available. Code changes to WS or DS
once the deductible is met unless another code is
appropriate.
With SUPERB Contract - release is SUPERB qualified
but direct funding from the SUPERB account is not
available based on the priority classification of
the release; UST Program has provided technical
approval and preapproved costs for future possible
SUPERB reimbursement.
State Fund
Wl With Insurance - release activities are funded by an Private Financing
insurance policy.
With Insurance Deductible - SUPERB fund is paying
for the deductible of an insurance policy on a
SUPERB qualified release.
Private Financing
WO Without (not SUPERB eligible) - release is from a Private Financing
federal facility or non-petroleum UST.
Without Compensation (SUPERB eligible/qualified)
- release is eligible or qualified for SUPERB, but
the current scope of work is not being funded
by SUPERB, or the owner owes the UST Program
information necessary to qualify the release for
SUPERB.
State Fund
With SUPERB Funding - release qualified for SUPERB
funding and work being conducted by the owner/
operator or their selected contractor to directly bill
the SUPERB account.
State Fund
SEPTEMBER 2011
SC-23
-------
CHAPTER NOTES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: SOUTH CAROLINA
Code Finance Type Description Standard ^H
WT With Trust - releases where site rehabilitation is LUST Trust
being conducted utilizing federal monies.
Stage of Cleanup Reference Table
Each release has multiple action records and releases were assigned to a specific
stage of cleanup depending on the most recent release code. When a release did not
have any relevant records, it was marked as "Confirmed Release."
ST Release Code Release Description Stage ^H
5 INACT Currently Inactive Confirmed Release
6 CONT Contacted Confirmed Release
1 CIRA Conduct Invest/Risk Assessment Site Assessment
7 APPROVED Approved MNA Site Assessment
8 AFUND Awaiting Funding Site Assessment
2 FPRO Free Product Recovery Only Remediation
3 MNA MNA Remediation
4 ACA Active Corrective Action Remediation
Release Priority Rank Reference Table
1 Rank
SAB
SAC
3BA
3BB
SBC
3BD
3BE
3BF
4AA
4AB
4AC
4BA
4BB
4BC
5A
5B
Unknown
Rank Description
Water supply >lyr and <2yr downgradient
Sensitive habitats 0.01 foot thick
Chemicals detected n/potable
Hydrocarbon soil <3 feet below
Sensitive habitat <500 feet
Sensitive hydrologic setting
GW <15 feet in sand or gravel
n/potable <1 yr downgrade
Free product sheen in well
n/potable <1000 feet downgrade
GW<15feet in silt or clay
no pending threat, additional data
Assessment data not conclusive
Unknown
Rank Rank Description ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H
1A Emergency situation
IB Fire or explosion hazard
1C Vapors or free product in structure/utility
ID Chemicals detected in water
IE Free Product on surface water
2AA 0-to-l year threat to health
2AB Water supply wells <1 yr downgradient
2BA Free product >1 foot
2BB Water supply wells <1,000 feet downgradient
3AA Short-term 1-2 year threat
SC-24
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
NA1IONAI .US1 C IANUP BACK.OG
A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
September 2011
TX-1
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
LIST OF ACRONYMS
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Expedited Site Assessment
FY Fiscal Year
LPST Leaking Petroleum Storage Tank
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MNA Monitored Natural Attenuation
MSA Multi-Site Agreement
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
PSTR Petroleum Storage Tank Remediation
RBCA Risk-Based Corrective Action
RP Responsible Party
TAG Texas Administrative Code
TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
UST Underground Storage Tank
TX-2 SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Leaks from underground storage tanks (USTs) threaten America's groundwater and land resources. Even a small amount of
petroleum released from a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) can contaminate groundwater, the drinking water source
for nearly half of all Americans. In surveys of state water programs, 39 states and territories identified USTs as a major source
of groundwater contamination.2 As the reliance on our resources increases due to the rise in population and use, there is a
correspondingly greater need to protect our finite natural resources.
From the beginning of the UST program to September 2009, more than 488,000 releases were confirmed from federally
regulated USTs nationwide. Of these confirmed releases, over 100,000 needing cleanup remained in the national LUST
backlog. These releases are in every state, and many are old and affect groundwater. To help address this backlog of releases,
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invited 14 states to participate in a national backlog characterization
study.
ANALYSIS OF TEXAS DATA
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has made significant progress toward reducing its LUST cleanup
backlog. As of February 2009, TCEQ had completed 22,642 LUST cleanups, which is 88 percent of all known releases in the
state. At the time of data collection, there were 2,968 releases remaining in its backlog.3 To most effectively reduce the
national cleanup backlog, EPA believes that states and EPA must develop backlog reduction strategies that can be effective in
states with the largest backlogs. EPA invited Texas to participate in its national backlog study because Texas has one of the ten
largest backlogs in the United States.
In this chapter, EPA characterized releases in Texas that have not been cleaned up, analyzed these releases based on categories
of interest, and identified potential opportunities for TCEQ and EPA to explore that might improve the state's cleanup progress
and reduce its backlog. Building on the potential cleanup opportunities identified in the study, EPA will continue to work with
TCEQ to develop backlog reduction strategies.
In Texas, as in every state, many factors affect the pace of cleaning up releases, such as the availability and mechanisms of
funding, statutory requirements, and program structure. The recent economic downturn has also had an impact on the ability
of many states to make progress on cleanups.
EPA included potential cleanup opportunities in this report even though current circumstances in Texas might make pursuing
certain opportunities challenging or unlikely. Also, in some cases, TCEQ is already using similar strategies as part of its
ongoing program. The findings from the analysis of TCEQ's data and the potential cleanup opportunities are summarized
below in eight study areas: stage of cleanup, media contaminated, cleanup financing, potentially responsible party (PRP)
1 Data were provided in May 2009 by TCEQ staff and are not identical to UST performance measures on EPA's website, available online
atwww.epa.gov/oust/cat/camarchv.htm.
2 EPA, National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report, pp. 50-52. www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/chp6.pdf.
3 EPA tracks individual releases rather than sites in its performance measures. Therefore, the analyses in this report account for
numbers of releases, not sites.
4 Unknown media releases include those releases where the media is unknown as well as those releases where, based on available
data, it was not possible to identify the media contaminated.
Texas LUST Data
By the Numbers1
National Backlog Contribution
Cumulative Historical Releases
Closed Releases ;
Open Releases
Stage of Cleanup
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Remediation
Media Contaminated
Groundwater
22,642/88%
2,968/12%
1,235/40%
533/18%
1,200/42%
1,967/66%
644/22%
Median Age of Open Releases
SEPTEMBER 2011
TX-3
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
recalcitrance, release priority, number of releases per PRP, geographic clusters, and
passive remediation.
Stage Of Cleanup (see page TX-lOfor more details)
Media Contaminated (see page TX-U for more details)
Texas Finding
19 percent of releases are
either:
5 years old or older
and site assessment
has not started; or
10 years old or
older and still in site
assessment.
Potential Opportunity
Expedite site assessments at old
releases to identify releases that can
be closed with minimal effort or moved
toward remediation.
Implement enforcement actions at
stalled releases.
Releases
559
35 percent of releases are:
10 years old or older;
and
in remediation.
Use a systematic process to explore
opportunities to accelerate cleanups and
reach closure such as:
periodic review of release-specific
treatment technologies;
review of site-specific cleanup
standards;
consider use of institutional or
engineering controls; and
implement enforcement actions if
cleanup has stalled.
1,043
The remaining open releases in Texas are taking a long time to move through the
cleanup process and the progress of many old cleanups is stalled. There are several
reasons why many releases in the backlog are old including: past deferral of cleanups
due to lack of resources, many releases are complex and therefore take a long time to
address, and many releases are being addressed through passive remediation. EPA
believes it is important for TCEQ to explore opportunities to accelerate cleanups at
older releases and work toward bringing all releases to closure.
Texas Finding
32 percent of releases:
contaminate
groundwater;
are in remediation; and
are 10 years old or
older.
Potential Opportunity
Systematically evaluate cleanup progress at
old releases with groundwater impacts and
consider alternative cleanup technologies or
other strategies to reduce time to closure.
9 percent of releases:
impact soil only; and
have a higher median
age than releases
with groundwater
contamination in all
LUST cleanup stages.
Continue to use targeted backlog
reduction efforts to close old releases
with soil contamination;
Encourage responsible parties (RPs) to
use expedited site assessment to move
releases more quickly into remediation.
22 percent of releases do
not have the type of media
contaminated tracked
electronically.
Target releases with unknown media
contamination for expedited site assessments
(ESAs) and use this information to update the
release priority as needed and to customize
the remedial activity.
Releases
948
259
644
Releases contaminating groundwater have always been the largest part of the
national backlog and 66 percent of releases in Texas are documented as contaminating
groundwater. In general, groundwater contamination is more technically complex to
remediate and also takes longer to clean up than soil contamination. For old, complex
cleanups where long-term remediation is underway, EPA believes it is important for
TCEQ to periodically reevaluate cleanup progress and reconsider whether the cleanup
technology being used is still optimal.
Even though soil contamination is typically easier to remediate than groundwater
contamination, many releases in Texas that impact soil only are still unaddressed or
are in the early stages of cleanup. These cleanups have likely been deferred for higher
risk posed by releases with groundwater contamination. Nevertheless, EPA believes
TCEQ should continue to make progress toward closure for all its LUST releases.
Better information about the type of media contaminated at each release could also
help TCEQ to choose optimal cleanup technologies and to evaluate cleanup progress.
TX-4
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
Cleanup Financing (see page TX-14for more details)
PRP Recalcitrance (see page TX-16for more details)
Texas Finding
7 percent of state fund
eligible releases have not
finished site assessment.
Potential Opportunity
Explore ways to move more state-funded
cleanups toward closure, such as:
redirecting funds saved at cleanups with
improved cost-effectiveness to state
fund eligible cleanups where assessment
has not been completed; or
encouraging the use of other sources of
public and private funding.
Releases
193
84 percent of privately-
financed cleanups
have not finished site
assessment.
Use enforcement actions to initiate the
cleanup of privately-financed cleanups.
Provide information and technical
assistance to RPs at old releases.
Encourage RPs and stakeholders to
examine all available public and private
funding options.
1,575
EPA and state programs are interested in exploring successful financing strategies
for completing cleanups quickly. EPA acknowledges that the recent economic
downturn has impacted cleanup financing. EPA also believes the availability of
funding for cleanup is essential to reducing the backlog, so in addition to this study,
EPA is increasing its focus on oversight of state funds as well as conducting a study of
private insurance. Most remaining backlogged LUST cleanups in Texas are privately
financed, typically by private insurance, and the majority of these have not finished
site assessment. Given that RPs are responsible for financing these cleanups guided
by state-certified, privately-paid project managers, these releases should be able
to proceed with remediation. The state professional staff overseeing cleanups is
augmented by state contracted staff for state-funded and privately-funded cleanups.
TCEQ's current efforts to streamline its enforcement process could improve the
effective use of enforcement actions to initiate privately-financed cleanups. Where
financing is an issue for either state-funded or privately-funded cleanups, TCEQ
should consider encouraging the use of other public or private funding sources such
as petroleum brownfields grants for low priority releases without a viable RP.
Texas Finding
Releases with recalcitrant
PRPs are significantly older
within all media types.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Use enforcement actions to accelerate the 476
cleanup of releases with recalcitrant RPs.
TCEQ regularly reviews its database for releases with recalcitrant PRPs; these releases
are significantly older than those with active PRPs.5 However, only 42 open releases
(1 percent of the backlog) have ever been subject to enforcement actions. Increased
use of enforcement actions by TCEQ to prevent RP recalcitrance, especially at soil
cleanups, could yield more closures and influence other recalcitrant RPs to resume
cleanup activities.
Release Priority (see page TX-I 7 for more details)
Texas Finding
6 percent of releases:
are high priority; and
have not finished site
assessment.
Potential Opportunity
Explore options for moving releases toward
closure including:
expediting site assessments of all
releases to ensure that all releases are
appropriately ranked;
ensuring releases with immediate risks
are actively being worked on; and
having all releases make progress
toward closure.
Releases
180
An appreciable number of releases considered high priority by the state still remained
in the early stages of cleanup after a considerable length of time. Some of these
cleanups are relatively complex and pose higher risks but others may be artifacts of
data management practices. Releases were prioritized until 2003, when Texas Risk
Reduction Program rules were implemented and prioritization of releases ceased.
Releases are again being prioritized as of March 2009. EPA will work with TCEQ to
develop strategies to move all releases toward closure and to confirm that there are
no immediate risks to human health and the environment posed by unaddressed
high priority releases.
5 TCEQ considers a PRP recalcitrant if a release is at least 1.5 years old and the program
has not received correspondence from the PRP for 15 months.
SEPTEMBER 2011
TX-5
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
Number Of Releases per P R P (see page TX-18for more details)
Texas Finding
PRPs with few releases are
slower to complete site
assessments and begin
remediation than PRPs with
more than three releases.
Potential Opportunity
Provide information and technical
assistance to RPs; or
implement enforcement actions at old
releases.
Releases
1,242
20 percent of releases are
associated with 27 PRPs
each with 10 or more
releases.
Explore possibilities for multi-site agreements
(MSAs) or enforcement actions with parties
associated with multiple releases.
584
EPA analyzed the number of releases per PRP to identify the PRPs that might be the
largest potential contributors to Texas' cleanup backlog. EPA was able to identify
groups of 10 or more releases that are associated with the same PRP based on the
"potentially responsible parties" data maintained by TCEQ. In Texas, 27 PRPs are
potentially responsible for 10 or more releases each and account for 20 percent of
the backlog. TCEQ and EPA can use this information to identify possible participants
for multi-site strategies to clean up groups of releases. In addition, RPs responsible
for more than three releases are quicker to complete site assessments and move
their releases into remediation than are RPs with fewer than three releases.
Geographic Clusters (see page TX-20for more details)
Texas Finding
9 percent of releases are
clustered within a one-
mile radius of five or more
releases.
Potential Opportunity
Target releases within close proximity for
resource consolidation opportunities.
Releases
Targeted
number of
releases6
Another multi-site approach TCEQ could use is targeting cleanup actions at
geographically clustered releases. The geographic cluster approach may offer
opportunities for new community-based reuse efforts, using economies of scale and
addressing commingled contamination. EPA believes that highlighting geographic
clusters of releases and working with state and local governments and communities
in an area-wide planning context can facilitate the remediation of additional releases.
EPA intends to work with the states to conduct further geospatial analyses on clusters
of releases in relation to PRPs, highway corridors, local geologic and hydrogeologic
6 Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic
opportunities that will address a limited number of releases within select designated
geographic areas.
settings, groundwater resources, and/or communities with environmental justice
concerns. These analyses might reveal additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
Use Of Passive Remediation (see page TX-21 for more details)
Texas Finding
71 percent of releases
in the Remediation
stage use passive
remediation.
Potential Opportunity
Evaluate effectiveness of cleanup using
passive remediation and optimize the
cleanup methodology at the less effective
cleanups.
Releases
712
TCEQ's risk-based decision-making practices identify releases that may use passive
remediation, which entails a less active approach than EPA outlines for monitored
natural attenuation (MNA). Passive remediation is used for many ongoing cleanups
and for a significant number of privately-financed cleanups, most of which are
relatively old. Cleanups financed by private financial responsibility mechanisms are
not affected by the financial limits placed on cleanups financed by the state fund. If
passive remediation at privately-financed cleanups does not address contamination
in a reasonable timeframe, EPA encourages the use of active remediation technology.
CONCLUSION
This chapter contains EPA's data analysis of the LUST cleanup backlog in Texas and
identifies potential opportunities to reduce the backlog in Texas. EPA discusses the
findings and opportunities for Texas, along with those of 13 additional states, in
the national chapter of this report. EPA will work with states to develop potential
approaches and detailed strategies for reducing the backlog. Development of
strategies could involve targeted data collection, reviewing particular case files,
analyzing problem areas, and sharing best practices. Final strategies could involve
EPA actions such as using additional program metrics to show cleanup progress,
targeting resources for specific cleanup actions, clarifying and developing guidance,
and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with states, is committed to reducing the
backlog of confirmed LIST releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater, land,
and communities affected by these releases.
TX-6
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
PROGRAM SUMMARY
State LUST Program Organization and Administration
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's (TCEQ's) Leaking Petroleum Storage Tank (LPST) Program staff oversee all leaking
underground storage tank (LUST) cleanups. All cleanups in Texas are RP-lead regardless of whether the release is eligible for the state
fund unless the RP is unwilling, unable, or unknown. Cleanups at RP-lead releases must be conducted by a LPST-certified Corrective
Action Specialist contracted by the RP and overseen by a LPST-certified Corrective Action Project Manager. RPs must work with a
Corrective Action Specialist for cleanups funded both by private insurance and those financed by the state fund. TCEQ professional
staff are augmented by a private regulatory contractor.
Cleanup Financing
Most of the backlogged LUST cleanups in Texas are privately financed, typically by private insurance. The Petroleum Storage Tank
Remediation (PSTR) fund finances LUST cleanups of releases that were reported before December 22, 1998, from tanks that were in
compliance with UST regulations. Texas' fund has a deductible that varies based on the number of tanks that an RP owns and operates
at the time of application. State fund-financed cleanups currently represent approximately one-third of Texas' backlog. All corrective
action activities and costs for state-funded cleanups must be approved in writing by TCEQ. In addition, a licensed or registered
professional engineer must approve the remediation equipment design and supervise construction. The PSTR fund derives revenue
from a fee on petroleum fuels at bulk distribution facilities and is currently set to expire on August 31, 2011. The sunsetted state fund
will make no more reimbursements after September 1, 2012.
Cleanup Standards
Until spring 2009, two sets of risk-based cleanup standards were applied, depending on release date. As of March 19, 2009, all
releases are required to follow Texas Administrative Code (TAG) 334 Risk-Based Corrective Action (RBCA) rules, regardless of release
date. These rules are driven by receptors and were reinstituted in an effort to reduce time and resources spent on cleanups.
Release Prioritization
UnderTexas Risk Reduction Program rules applied between 2003 and 2009, there was no prioritization system in place. TAG 334, which
was effective for releases before September 2003 and is retroactively effective as of March 2009, uses risk to prioritize open releases.
Prioritization serves as the basis for allocating the state's financial resources for state-funded cleanups and oversight resources in
general. Privately-financed cleanups are prioritized to allocate staff oversight resources, if they become limited. Staff focus on higher
priority releases, regardless of state fund eligibility. Some lower priority releases may close faster because receptors are not exposed.
State Backlog Reduction Efforts
To reduce a historically large backlog, TCEQ has undertaken efforts to ensure that all releases are progressing through cleanup. For
the past five years, TCEQ used the Inactive Initiative to target releases for which there has been no communication from PRPs for 15
months or more. Efforts are also underway to streamline the enforcement process to pursue unresponsive or unwilling RPs.
7 Based on FY 2009 UST Performance Measures End of Year Activity Report.
8 Estimates provided by TCEQ staff.
9 This amount includes approximately $1.0 million for Texas' privatization contract.
Texas LUST
Program
At a Glance
Cleanup Rate
In fiscal year (FY) 2009, TCEQ confirmed
289 releases and completed 639
cleanups.7
Cleanup Financing
Of open releases, 36 percent (1,086
releases) are eligible for state fundin-
Cleanup Standards
The program applies risk-based
standards.
Priority System
Prior to September 2003, releases were
prioritized based on risk to receptors.
This system was reinstituted on March
19, 2009.
Average Cleanup Cost
$83,0008
Releases Per Project Manager
Each project manager is responsible
for 30 open releases.d Additional
management is performed by private
contractors.
Administrative Funding (FY 2008)
$3.5 million.9
SEPTEMBER 2011
TX-7
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
[This page has intentionally been left blank.
TX-8 SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNITIES
In this study, EPA analyzed Texas' federally-regulated releases that have not been cleaned up (open releases). EPA conducted
a multivariate analysis on all of TCEQ's data.10 This technique provided an objective analysis of multiple release characteristics
and allowed EPA to highlight the traits most commonly associated with older releases. Next, EPA divided the open releases
into groups that might warrant further attention. EPA used descriptive statistics to examine the distribution of releases by age
of release and stage of cleanup and highlighted findings based on TCEQ's data.12 EPA then identified potential opportunities
for addressing particular groups of releases in the backlog. Many releases are included in more than one opportunity. These
opportunities describe actions that EPA and TCEQ might use as a starting point for collaborative efforts to address the backlog.
Although EPA's analysis covered all releases in Texas, there are 14 releases that are not included in any of the subsets identified
in the findings or opportunities due to the way EPA structured the analysis. These releases might also benefit from some of
the suggested opportunities and strategies.
EPA's analyses revealed eight areas of the Texas backlog with potential opportunities for its further reduction:
LUST Data Source
Electronic data for UST releases occurring
between September 1972 and January 2009
were compiled with TCEQ staff in 2008 and
2009.11 Data were obtained from TCEQ's LPST
database and selected based on quality and
the ability to address areas of interest in this
analysis.
Stage of cleanup
Media contaminated
Cleanup financing
PRP recalcitrance
Release priority
Number of releases per PRP
Geographic clusters
Passive remediation
10 For a detailed description of the analytic tree method, see Appendix A.
11 For a detailed description of the Texas data used in this analysis, see the Chapter Notes section.
12 For a detailed description of release stages, see the Chapter Notes section (Stage of Cleanup Reference Table).
SEPTEMBER 2011
TX-9
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
Texas Finding
19 percent of releases are either:
5 years old or older and site assessment
has not started; or
10 years old or older and still in site
assessment.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Expedite site assessments 559
at old releases to identify
releases that can be closed
with minimal effort or moved
toward remediation.
Implement enforcement
actions at stalled releases.
Releases 5 years old and
older in the Confirmed
Release stage
301
Releases 10 years old
and older in the Site
Assessment stage
258
STAGE OF CLEANUP
As of February 20, 2009, the Texas backlog consisted of 2,968 open releases. EPA analyzed the age of these LUST releases
and their distribution among the stages of cleanup. To facilitate analysis, EPA classified Texas' open releases into three stages
of cleanup: the Confirmed Release stage (releases where assessments have not begun), the Site Assessment stage (releases
where assessments have begun), and the Remediation stage (releases that have started remedial activities).13 While EPA
grouped the releases into linear stages for this analysis, EPA recognizes that cleanups might not proceed in a linear fashion.
Cleanup can be an iterative process where releases go through successive rounds of site assessment and remediation.
However, in the long run, this approach might be both longer and more costly. Acquiring good site characterization up front
can accelerate the pace of cleanup and avoid the extra cost of repeated site assessment.
Since Texas' LUST program began, TCEQ has closed 22,642 releases, half of which were closed in less than 4.5 years (Figure 1
below). The young median age of closed LUST releases might be attributable to the rapid closure of relatively easy to remediate
releases. Also, national program policy allows states to report confirmed releases that require no further action at the time
of confirmation as "cleanup completed." Therefore, some releases are reported as confirmed and cleaned up simultaneously.
Figure 1. Age of Releases among Stages of Cleanup
20
1,200
15
_O>
01
o
01
533
22,642
10
1,235
i Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
1 Remediation
Closed
The white dot at the center of each circle represents the median age of releases. Each circle is labeled with, and scaled to, the number of
releases within each stage. Included in the release counts and size of circles are 227 closed releases for which release age is unknown. These
releases are not part of the median age calculation.
TCEQ has undertaken efforts to reduce its backlog through its Inactive Initiative and streamlining of its enforcement process.14
States might find opportunities for closure with minimal effort at lower-risk releases where little or no remedial work is
required to reach closure standards or at releases that have met closure standards but have not finished closure review.
Texas has many old LUST releases not in remediation. Figure 2 shows the backlog of open releases by age and stage of cleanup
and allows for the identification of older releases by stage. Figure 2 breaks out the 301 older releases in the Confirmed Release
stage (10 percent of the backlog) that have not been assessed, five years or more after the releases were confirmed. It also
13 Releases were classified into stages based on available data and discussion with TCEQ staff. For more information, see the Chapter
Notes section.
14 See State Backlog Reduction Efforts in the Program Summary.
TX-10
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
shows the 258 older releases in the Site Assessment stage (9 percent of the backlog) that have not entered the Remediation
stage, 10 years or more after the releases were confirmed. This subset of older releases in the early stages of cleanup accounts
for 19 percent of Texas' total backlog. Texas' data indicate that these releases could be moved into remediation and to closure
more quickly.
Figure 2. Release Age Distribution among Stages of Cleanup
> 10 Years
1,043
87%
Confirmed Release
(1,235 Releases)
Site Assessment
(533 Releases)
Remediation
(1,200 Releases)
EPA encourages states to streamline the corrective action process, improve data collection, reduce the overall cost of
remediation, and move releases more rapidly toward remediation and closure. To assist states and regulators in implementing
these objectives, EPA developed its Expedited Site Assessment (ESA) guide.15 The guide explains the overall ESA process as
well as specific site assessment tools and methods. The ESA process rapidly characterizes site conditions to help support
cost-effective corrective action decisions. ESAs will help identify releases that can be closed with minimal effort or provide all
the information needed to move a release into remediation. Conducting site assessments efficiently and quickly might help
reduce the backlog by accelerating the pace of cleanup and ultimately decrease overall project costs.
Texas also has many old releases in the Remediation stage. Thirty-five percent (1,043 releases) of all of Texas' releases are in
remediation and are 10 years old or older (Figure 2 above). This older group of releases represents 87 percent of the releases
in remediation. Because EPA only has the date that a release was confirmed but not when it moved from one stage to the
next (e.g., from assessment to remediation), EPA can calculate the overall age of the release but not the actual time spent in
the Remediation stage. It is possible that some of these releases might have only recently entered remediation. TCEQ should
consider establishing a systematic process to evaluate existing releases in remediation and optimize cleanup approaches,
including choice of technology and site-specific risk-based decision making. This process might save TCEQ resources and bring
releases to closure more quickly. This would allow TCEQ to move on to other releases needing attention and remove releases
from the backlog. The use of institutional or engineering controls can also reduce the time to closure by eliminating exposure
pathways and allowing for less stringent cleanup standards where protective and appropriate.
Texas Finding
35 percent of releases are:
10 years old or older; and
in remediation.
Potential Opportunity
Releases
Use a systematic process 1,043
to explore opportunities to
accelerate cleanups and reach
closure such as:
periodic review of
release-specific treatment
technologies;
review of site-specific
cleanup standards;
consider use of institutional
or engineering controls; and
implement enforcement
actions if cleanup has stalled.
15 EPA's 1997 guidance document, Expedited Site Assessment Tools for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Regulators (EPA 510
B-97-001), is available online atwww.epa.gov/OUST/pubs/sam.htm.
SEPTEMBER 2011
TX-11
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
MEDIA CONTAMINATED
Groundwater is an important natural resource at risk from petroleum contamination. Old releases impacting groundwater
make up a majority of Texas' backlog. Groundwater contamination generally takes longer and is typically more expensive to
clean up than soil contamination. In this study, EPA examined media as a factor contributing to the backlog. The following
analysis classified media contamination into four categories: groundwater (1,967 open releases); soil (259 open releases);
other media, which includes vapor and surface water (98 open releases); and "unknown" media, which includes releases with
no media specified (644 releases).16
In Texas, 66 percent of releases (1,967 releases) involve groundwater contamination and have a median age of 10.0 years
(Figure 3 below). In contrast, only 45 percent of closed releases (10,214 releases) impacted groundwater and these releases
have a significantly younger median age of 2.9 years (Figure 3 below). Of the 1,091 Remediation stage releases that impact
groundwater, 87 percent (948 releases) are 10 years old or older (Figure 4 below). This subset of older releases that contaminate
groundwater and are in remediation accounts for 32 percent of Texas' total backlog. Groundwater contamination is typically
more complex and difficult to remediate than soil contamination. However, if TCEQ could identify opportunities to improve
cleanup efficiency, it might be able to accelerate the pace of cleanups. For example, encouraging RPs to re-evaluate the
cleanup progress, current contaminant levels, and treatment technologies might move releases through remediation and to
closure more quickly.
Texas Finding
32 percent of releases:
contaminate groundwater;
are in remediation; and
are 10 years old or older.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Systematically evaluate cleanup 948
progress at old releases with
groundwater impacts and consider
alternative cleanup technologies
or other strategies to reduce time
to closure.
Texas Finding
9 percent of releases:
impact soil only; and
have a higher median age than releases
with groundwater contamination in all
LUST cleanup stages.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Continue to use targeted 259
backlog reduction efforts to
close old releases with soil
contamination;
Encourage responsible
parties (RPs) to use expedited
site assessment to move
releases more quickly into
remediation.
Figure 3. Age of Releases, by Media Contaminated and Stage of Cleanup
20
15
10
01
ao
1,091
o
O
495
34
59 0 «
166 , bl
Oc o
24
0
14
o
i Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
1 Remediation
Closed
Groundwater Soil Other
Squares indicating closed releases are not scaled to the number of releases in that stage.
Figure 4. Age of Remediation Stage Releases with Groundwater Impacts
16 For a detailed description of media contamination classifications, see the Chapter Notes section.
TX-12
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
Releases that contaminate soil only are of concern because they represent a potential threat to groundwater resources and
contaminate properties in neighborhoods and communities. Although contaminated soil can typically be cleaned up faster
than contaminated groundwater, soil cleanups in the Texas backlog have a higher median age than groundwater cleanups
in all LUST cleanup stages (Figure 3). TCEQ might defer the cleanup of soil contamination for higher priority groundwater
contamination. However, the 9 percent of the backlog (259 releases) contaminating soil only in Texas offer potential
opportunities for reducing the backlog. Of releases with soil contamination, 64 percent (166 releases) remain within the
Confirmed Release stage, 122 of which are 5 years old or older and 57 of which are greater than 13.5 years old (Figure 5,
Nodes 2.4-2.6, below). Expediting site assessments and getting these releases into remediation could help Texas move all
releases toward closure, thereby reducing the backlog.
There are also 22 percent of releases (644 releases) for which the type of media contaminated is either unknown or is not
tracked in the LPST database (Figure 3). Of these releases, 66 percent (428 releases) are recent and in the Confirmed Release
stage (Figure 5, Nodes 2.1-2.2, below). However, 192 releases with unknown media are older than 3.5 years (Figure 5, Nodes
2.3-2.6). An additional 24 releases within the Site Assessment and Remediation stages do not list a specified media, although
it should be known and tracked by these stages of cleanup (Figure 3 and Figure 5, Nodes 1.2-1.3). Reliable, regular data entry
and proactive data management and review practices could identify releases that might be closed or expeditiously moved on
to remediation and closure.
Figure 5. Backlog Distribution, by Type of Media Contaminated
S N
D Groundwater
D Soil
D Other
EH Unknown
V
Texas Finding
22 percent of releases do not have the type of
media contaminated tracked electronically.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Target releases with unknown 644
media contamination for
expedited site assessments (ESAs)
and use this information to update
the release priority as needed and
to customize the remedial activity.
SEPTEMBER 2011
TX-13
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
Texas Finding
7 percent of state fund eligible releases have
not finished site assessment.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore ways to move more state- 193
funded cleanups toward closure,
such as:
redirecting funds saved at
cleanups with improved
cost-effectiveness to state
fund eligible cleanups where
assessment has not been
completed; or
encouraging the use of other
sources of public and private
funding.
Figure 7. Characteristics of State Fund Eligible
Releases
Media Contaminated
I Groundwater
] Soil
] Other
I Unknown
Use of
Passive Remediation
193
18%,
Passive Remediation
Active Remediation
Pre-Remediation
420
38%
473
44%
CLEANUP FINANCING
EPA and state programs are interested in exploring successful financing strategies for completing cleanups quickly. EPA
acknowledges that the recent economic downturn has impacted cleanup financing. EPA also believes the availability of
funding for cleanup is essential to reducing the backlog, so in addition to this study, EPA is increasing its focus on oversight of
state funds as well as conducting a study of private insurance. To analyze the effect of financing issues on closure rates, EPA
evaluated cleanup progress of Texas' releases for both state-funded cleanups and those addressed by private funding.
Thirty-six percent of releases (1,086 releases) in Texas are state fund eligible.17 Of these releases, 82 percent (893 releases) are
in the Remediation stage. However, 7 percent (193 releases) of Texas' backlog consists of a number of older releases awaiting
site assessment (48 releases) or in site assessment (145 releases) (Figure 6 below). Although these 193 releases are a small
percentage of the Texas backlog (7 percent), they are also the oldest group of releases.
Figure 6. Age of Releases, by State Fund Eligibility and Stage of Cleanup
ra
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
releases should be able to proceed with remediation as these costs are covered by private financial responsibility mechanisms,
typically private insurance. The state professional staff overseeing cleanups is augmented by state contracted staff for state
funded and privately-funded cleanups. Federal regulations require that LIST insurers provide "first dollar coverage" so that site
assessment and cleanup should not be delayed for lack of ready cash. However, of the privately-financed cleanups in Texas,
84 percent (1,575 releases) have not started remediation. In addition, 63 percent of those releases (1,187 releases) have
not begun assessment and remain in the Confirmed Release stage (Figure 6). Over half of these releases have been awaiting
assessment for over 2.6 years. Of the privately-financed cleanups in remediation, half are over 10 years old (Figure 6).
Within the 1,882 open privately-financed cleanups, releases contaminating soil and other media are significantly older than
those releases with groundwater or unknown media impacts (Figure 8 and Figure 9, Node 2.3, below). As stated earlier in the
Contaminated Media discussion, most releases impacting soil remain unassessed and most of these are privately-financed
cleanups (Figure 6).
Figure 9. Tree Analysis of Open Release Age - First Level
There are likely significant
opportunities to expedite the
reduction of Texas' backlog
among these 1,882 privately-
financed cleanups; they are
not limited by state financing
or staffing levels. The soil
cleanups are typically faster
than groundwater cleanups.
Assessment of confirmed
privately-financed cleanups
(1,187 releases, 40 percent
of the backlog) could yield
closures under Texas' risk-based
policies, as could completion
of assessments for privately-
financed cleanups in the Site
Assessment stage (13 percent
of the backlog, 388 releases)
(Figure 6). Conducting outreach
to RPs or pursuing enforcement
actions where necessary to
initiate cleanup activities at
privately-financed cleanups and moving them into remediation and to closure could further help to reduce the backlog. If
releases are stalled, in addition to enforcement, TCEQ could encourage RPs and/or stakeholders to pursue alternative public
and private funding sources, including petroleum brownfields grants in the case of low priority releases with no viable RP.
( Open Releases ^ Sldle Fulld
Eligibility
Median Age (Years) 10.0
1 Releases 2,96sl
1.1
C State Fund Eligible ^ c'"c '" lu"
Type
1 Releases 1 086 1
1.2
State Fund Ineligible
1 Releases 1,882!
2.1
| Active Remediation
-\ Median Age (Years) 16.5
1 Releases 613!
2.2
C Passive Remediation
Median Age (Years) 13.7
1 Releases 473!
2.3
{Soil; Other
i/ledian Age (Years) 10.1
ieleases 26ll
2.4
E Groundwater
ieleases 985J
2.5
{Unknown
Median Age (Years) 2.0
ieleases 63el
J
Figure 8. Complete Tree Analysis of Open
Release Age - Outline
Open Releases
I
State Fund Eligibility
I
Eligible
±
Passive
Remediation
Ineligible
I
Media
Soil; Other
Ground-
Recalcitrant Stage
Yes No
Yes No
Remediation
Yes No
Site Confirmed
Assessment Release
4
RP
Releases
Recalcitrant
Yes No
RP
Releases
A simplified outline of the analytic tree structure
is shown above. Specific branches are shown
in greater detail in Figures 9, 12, and 17. For
additional information on the analytic tree
method, see the Chapter Notes section.
Texas Finding
84 percent of privately-financed cleanups have
not finished site assessment.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Use enforcement actions to 1,575
initiate the cleanup of privately-
financed cleanups.
Provide information and
technical assistance to RPs at
old releases.
Encourage RPs and stakeholders
to examine all available public
and private funding options.
SEPTEMBER 2011
TX-15
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
PRP RECALCITRANCE
Texas Finding
Releases with recalcitrant PRPs are
significantly older within all media types.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Use enforcement actions to 476
accelerate the cleanup of releases
with recalcitrant RPs.
State fund eligible releases
with recalcitrant PRPs
116
State fun d ineligible
releases with recalcitrant
PRPs
360
Releases with recalcitrant PRPs account for 16 percent of the current backlog (476 releases), 76 percent of which (360
releases) are ineligible for state funding (Figures 10 and 11 below).18 These releases with recalcitrant PRPs persist despite
Texas' Inactive Initiative. Releases with recalcitrant PRPs are significantly older than releases with responsive PRPs for all
media types, particularly within state fund ineligible releases (Figure 12, Nodes 1.1, 1.3, 2.1, and 2.3, below). Releases with
recalcitrant PRPs tend to be 3 to 5 years older than those releases with responsive PRPs, based on median age. According
to the Texas data, only 1 percent of the backlog (42 open releases) has ever been under enforcement actions, and only 195
closed releases had been under enforcement actions. More frequent and conspicuous enforcement, especially applied to
releases contaminating soil, could yield more closures as well as spur other recalcitrant RPs to resume cleanup activities.
Figure 10. Recalcitrance of PRPs at Open Releases
Not Recalcitrant
2,492
84%
Figure 11. State Fund Eligibility of Releases with Recalcitrant PRPs
State Fund
Ineligible
360
76%
State Fund
Eligible
116
24%
Figure 12. Tree Analysis of Open Release Age - Second Level
Soil; Other -
State Fund
Ineligible
-Groundwater-
Unknown -
Recalcitrant
Median Age (Years) 13.7
Releases 100
Not Recalcitrant
| Median Age (Years) 9.4
I Releases 161
- Remediation -
- Site Assessment
- Confirmed Release
1.3
Recalcitrant
1 Median Age (Years) 5.1
Releases 75
Not Recalcitrant
-I Median Age (Years]
I Releases
I Recalcitrant
Uledlan Age (Years) 12.2
Not Recalcitrant
Median Age (Years) 9.3
Releases 210
Recalcitrant
Median Age (Years) 5.3
Releases 71
Not Recalcitrant
J Median Age (Years)
n Releases
18 TCEQ considers a PRP recalcitrant if a release is at least 1.5 years old and the program has not received correspondence from the PRP
for 15 months.
TX-16
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
RELEASE PRIORITY
Many state programs employ prioritization systems to decide how to best allocate state resources for state-funded assessments
and cleanups and oversight of privately-financed cleanups. States approach cleanup priority differently, and there might be
opportunities within TCEQ's prioritization system to increase the number of closures. TCEQ follows its priority rankings as a
matter of policy but can make exceptions to address lower priority releases on a case-by-case basis.
Prior to September 1, 2003, all LUST releases were prioritized for allocation of state resources and oversight based on release
characteristics. TCEQ did not prioritize the 41 percent of the backlog (1,217 releases) that occurred after this date. At the
time TCEQ submitted the data to EPA for this analysis, TCEQ had only prioritized releases occurring prior to 2003. Therefore,
all releases in this study with a priority score are at least 5.5 years old. TCEQ recently resumed prioritization of all releases,
including those releases occurring between September 1, 2003 and the present, all of which are privately financed.
Texas has 180 high priority releases that have not finished site assessment. EPA, working with TCEQ, defined Priority 1 and
Priority 2 releases in the Texas database as high priority releases for the purposes of this analysis. Of the releases that
occurred before August 31, 2003, 64 are Priority 1 or Priority 2 (2 percent of the backlog) where site assessments have not
begun (Figure 13 below). In addition, 116 are Priority 1 or 2 releases where site assessments have not been completed.
Recalcitrance is common among older, prioritized releases, suggesting that release prioritization did not spur recalcitrant
PRPs to action or ensure that high priority cleanups were expedited in all cases (Figure 14 to the right). Future prioritization
programs could help prevent inactive cleanups at high priority releases if coupled with a focus on preventing RP recalcitrance.
Figure 13. Age of Open Releases, by Priority Score and Stage of Cleanup19
20 49
15
IT, 10
40
102 445
15
14 0
76
0 ,
368
205
i Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
1 Remediation
Closed
1
Priority
2 3 4 5 6
Priority
Priority 1 and Priority 4 releases have a significantly higher proportion of releases within the Confirmed Release stage (22 and
29 percent, respectively) compared to Priority 2 (8 percent) and Priority 3 releases (4 percent) (Figure 12 above). Although this
pattern would be expected for the low priority releases, the reason why Priority 1 cleanups have not progressed as quickly as
Priority 2 and 3 releases could not be determined.
Texas Finding
6 percent of releases:
are high priority; and
have not finished site assessment.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Explore options for moving 180
releases toward closure including:
expediting site assessments
of all releases to ensure that
all releases are appropriately
ranked;
ensuring releases with
immediate risks are actively
being worked on; and
having all releases
make progress toward
closure.
Figure 14. Recalcitrance of RPs with Pre-
remediation Releases 10 Years Old or Older
150
1 2 3 4 5
Priority Score
I Recalcitrant Not Recalcitrant
19 Eligibility is determined by TCEQ and documented in the LPST database and is not based solely on the release date.
SEPTEMBER 2011
TX-17
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
In addition, 12 releases are listed with a Priority 5 score which, according to TAG 334 RBCA rules, do not require a remedial
action plan and, therefore, might be close to closure (Figure 13, page 17). However, six of these releases are within the
Remediation stage, suggesting that the accuracy of the data might need to be verified.
With the re-implementation of the priority ranking system in spring 2009, TCEQ will assign a priority to the 1,217 unprioritized
releases that occurred after August 31, 2003. The type of media contamination for these releases is largely groundwater or
unknown media (Figure 15 below). TCEQ will need to characterize the releases with unknown media contamination prior to
risk-based prioritization and this should help prevent old releases with unknown media impacts from persisting in the backlog.
Figure 15. Age of Unprioritized Releases, by Media Contaminated and Stage of Cleanup20
ro
20
15
199
53
u
i/i
ro
ID 10
M
O
QJ 5
ao
323
I Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
i Remediation
Closed
Groundwater
Soil
Other
Unknown
Texas Finding
PRPs with few releases are slower to complete
site assessments and begin remediation than
PRPs with more than three releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Provide information and 1,242
technical assistance to RPs; or
implement enforcement
actions at old releases.
NUMBER OF RELEASES PER PRP
EPA analyzed the number of releases per PRP to identify PRPs that are the largest potential contributors to the state's cleanup
backlog.21 This analysis revealed that the number of releases for which a PRP is potentially responsible is related to release
age and stage of cleanup.
Releases associated with PRPs that are potentially responsible for fewer releases tend to be older and in the early stages of
cleanup, in contrast with releases where the PRP is responsible for multiple releases (Figure 16, page 19). Most PRPs in Texas
have a single open release, the majority of which are within the Confirmed Release stage. Fifty percent of the backlog (1,242
releases) has not begun remediation and is from PRPs with fewer than four releases (Figure 16).
For Confirmed Release stage releases with groundwater impacts, PRPs with fewer than 10 releases take longer to perform site
assessments (Figure 17, Node 2.1). Within the Site Assessment stage, PRPs with fewer than four releases take longer to begin
remediation (Figure 17, Node 1.1). TCEQ might expedite cleanup by providing technical assistance to RPs with fewer releases
or, in some cases, might need to pursue enforcement actions.
20 This graphic provides information on releases after August 31, 2003.
21 TCEQ provided data on "potentially responsible parties," entities that are recorded in the state's database as responsible for release
cleanup.
TX-18
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
-igure ib. Age of Open Releases, by Number of Other Open Releases tor which a PRP is Potentially Responsible and by Stage ot cleanup IPPHIIPPIPJ^I
*>S1
ro
£ 15
y, 325
ID 10
15 739 ^
01 5
<
0
]
683 179 Q Confirmed Release 20 percent of releases are associated with 27
O Site Assessment PRPs each with 10 or more releases.
lot)
48 Remediation
^ 1 Potential Opportunity Releases
-9~
1<" 15 n
45
O 23 J
O V
Explore possibilities for multi- 584
7 ££ site agreements (MSAs) or
enforcement actions with parties
m associated with multiple releases.
^fc-
2-3 4-6 7-9 10+
Number of Open Releases with PRP
Table 1. PRPs with 10 or More Open Releases
:igure 17. Tree Analysis of Open Release Age - Third Level
Groundwater Si
Co
,~.J:~4.: nr>C4.~4...-
1.1
C RP for < 3 Releases "^
-1 Median Age (Years) 4.9
Releases 23oJ
te Assessment 1.2
f RP for > 3 Releases ^ 2 ,
H Median Age (Years) 3.6 C RP for < 9 Releases ^
LReleases 86J (-^ Median Age (Years)
[Releases ISsJ
,«f:^^.^J n^l^^^^ M^4. n^. .l-:4.~~«4.
L Recalcitrant RP for >9 Releases
j Median Age (Years) 1.9
[Releases 13?!
1 Type of PRP tt'sef ofPR^
Convenience Store 135 8
Chain
Gasoline Retail/ 315 13
Distribution/Refining
Government- State 43 1
Supermarket Chain 43 1
Unknown Type22 23 2
Utility 15 1
Government- Federal 10 1
Total 584 27
A total of 27 PRPs are each potentially responsible for 10 or more releases and account for 20 percent of the Texas backlog (584
releases) (Table 1 to the right). Of these, 13 gasoline retail, distribution, or refining businesses are the PRPs for 315 releases (11
percent of the backlog), and another eight PRPs are potentially responsible for 135 releases at convenience stores (5 percent
of the backlog). Focused efforts engaging these 27 PRPs through collaboration or enforcement might expedite closure of many
of these releases.
22 The PRPs for these releases are known, but the type of business could not be determined based on available information.
SEPTEMBER 2011
TX-19
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
Texas Finding
9 percent of releases are clustered
within a one-mile radius of five or more
releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Target releases within close Targeted
proximity for resource number of
consolidation opportunities. releases23
Figure 18. Map of All Open Releases
GEOGRAPHIC CLUSTERS
EPA performed a geospatial analysis to look for alternative ways to
address the backlog. While releases in geographic clusters might
not have the same RP, they tend to be located in densely populated
areas and might present opportunities to consolidate resources and
coordinate efforts. Geographic proximity can call attention to releases
in areas of interest such as redevelopment, environmental justice, and
ecological sensitivity.
State and local governments can utilize geographic clusters for area-
wide planning efforts. EPA's analysis identified 265 releases (9 percent
of releases) located within a one-mile radius of five or more releases
(Figure 18 to the right). Of these releases, 37 (1 percent of releases) are
located within a one-mile radius of 10 or more releases. Approaching
the assessment and cleanup needs of an area impacted by LUSTs can
be more effective than focusing on individual releases in isolation from
the adjacent or surrounding area. Considering geographically-clustered
releases might pave the way for new community-based revitalization
efforts, utilize economies of scale to yield benefits such as reduced
equipment costs, and present opportunities to develop multi-site
cleanup strategies, especially at locations with commingled contamination.
The EPA Region 6 Brownfields program is undertaking an effort to address multiple releases through an initiative that supports
the redevelopment of automobile dealerships. This initiative could present an opportunity to reduce the backlog in Texas. EPA
encourages states to look for opportunities for resource consolidation and area-wide planning but also recognizes that this
approach is best geared to address targeted groups of releases as opposed to a state-wide opportunity for every cluster of
releases. EPA intends to conduct further geospatial analyses on clusters of releases in relation to RPs, highway corridors, local
geologic and hydrogeologic settings, groundwater resources, and/or communities with environmental justice concerns. These
analyses might reveal additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
San Antonio
Houston
'Austin
23 Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic opportunities that will address a limited number of
releases within select designated geographic areas.
TX-20
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
USE OF PASSIVE REMEDIATION
Frequent use of passive remediation as the remedial technology for cleanups might be contributing to the Texas backlog.
Passive remediation is currently being used at 71 percent (712 releases) of Remediation stage releases at both state fund and
privately-financed cleanups. Most of these releases are 10 to 13 years old or 16 to 19 years old (Figure 19 below). Available
data do not provide the date when a release entered into passive remediation. Therefore, some of the releases might have
only started passive remediation recently.
EPA guidance states that monitored natural attenuation (MNA) is an appropriate remediation method only where its use will
be protective of human health and the environment and it will be capable of achieving site-specific remediation objectives
within a timeframe that is reasonable compared to other alternatives.24 Neither MNA nor passive remediation should be
considered a default or presumptive remedy at any contaminated site. When implemented according to EPA guidance, MNA
might be a strategy for efficient use of state resources in comparison to a more active cleanup technology by providing more
technically defensible predictions for cleanup timeframes and effective performance monitoring. TCEQ does not use MNA as a
formal remedy, but if a release can be remediated without active remediation activities, TCEQ monitors the site until it reaches
the cleanup goal. If a thorough evaluation determines that passive remediation is ineffective in reducing contamination within
a reasonable timeframe, TCEQ should consider the use of active remediation technologies as resources permit. Evaluation
of cleanup progress and the effectiveness of passive remediation might alert TCEQ to those releases where an alternative
cleanup approach is more appropriate. In addition, TCEQ should consider whether privately-financed cleanups using passive
remediation (239 releases) should be moved into active remediation (Figure 20 right).
Figure 19. Age Distribution of Open Releases in Remediation, by Remediation Type
Texas Finding
71 percent of releases in the Remediation
stage use passive remediation.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Evaluate effectiveness of cleanup 712
using passive remediation and
optimize the cleanup methodology
at the less effective cleanups.
80
60
Figure 20. State Fund Eligibility of Cleanups Using
Passive Remediation
OJ
oc.
S 40
20
State Fund
Ineligible
239
34%
State Fund
Eligible
473
66%
0 5 10 15 20 25
Passive Remediation
10 15 20 25
Active Remediation
Age (Years)
24 For more information regarding appropriate use of MNA, see www.epa.gov/swerustl/pubs/tums.htm and EPA Directive Number
9200.4-17P, Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation atSuperfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank Sites,
available online atwww.epa.gov/oust/directiv/d9200417.htm.
SEPTEMBER 2011
TX-21
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
CONCLUSION
Texas LUST Program
Contact Information
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Office of Compliance and
Enforcement Remediation Division
MC137
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Phone: 512-239-2200
Fax: 512-239-3399
www.tcea.state.tx.us/nav/cleanuDS/Dst.html
In this state chapter, EPA presented the analysis of LUST data submitted by TCEQ and highlighted information on Texas' LUST
program. Based on the analytic results, EPA identified potential opportunities that could be used to address specific backlog
issues in Texas. Over the course of the entire study, EPA also analyzed data from 13 other states. Findings and opportunities that
apply to all 14 states are discussed in the national chapter of the report. Each opportunity represents one potential approach
among many to address the backlog. Discussion of the opportunities as a whole is intended as a starting point for further
conversations among EPA, Texas, and the other states on strategies to reduce the backlog. EPA will work with our partners
to develop the backlog reduction strategies. Development of the strategies might include targeted data collection, reviewing
particular case files, analyzing problem areas, and sharing best practices. The strategies could also involve actions from EPA,
such as using additional program metrics, targeting resources for specific cleanup actions, clarifying and developing guidance,
and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with states, is committed to reducing the backlog of confirmed UST releases and to
protecting the nation's groundwater and land and the communities affected by these releases.
TX-22
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
CHAPTER NOTES
CHAPTER NOTES
TEXAS DATA BY ATTRIBUTE
The following table provides details on the data elements of interest in this analysis. Data were provided by TCEQ staff in 2008 and 2009 for use in this analysis. Several data
elements of interest could not be addressed with the information available. All available data elements were analyzed and only those data elements that revealed informative
patterns of interest are included in the report.
Data Element
Administrative Cost
Texas Data
Estimates were provided by TCEQ staff.
Use in Analysis
Included in the "Program Summary"
section and in the national chapter.
Age
Age was calculated for closed releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the closure date and dividing by
365. Age was calculated for open releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the data date and dividing by
365. Any values less than -.1 were left blank. Values between -.1 and 0 were counted as 0. All dates were rounded to one
decimal point. Ages of releases with insufficient or invalid data were left blank.
Variable in all analyses.
Cleanup Standards
No site-specific data available.
State-wide standards examined in the
national chapter.
Closure Date
Data were obtained from the "COMP-P6" in the "Texas LPST Sites 01-15-09.txt" file.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Confirmed Release Date Data were obtained from the "Entered" field in the "Texas LPST Sites 01-15-09.txt" file.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Data Date
February 20, 2009 is used for all records. This is the date the data were sent.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Federally-Regulated
LUST Releases
The correct universe of releases was identified by TCEQ staff and included in the "Texas LPST Sites_01-15-09.txt" file.
Identifies the appropriate universe of
releases for analysis.
Free Product
Priority code data from the "PRIO-CD" field provides some information on releases that have had free product at some
point in their history. This method cannot determine whether free product continues to exist at releases, so this attribute
was not examined in this analysis.
Data not suitable for analysis.
Institutional and
Engineering Controls
No data available.
Not applicable
Latitude and Longitude
Media
Data for most releases were obtained from TCEQ's Petroleum Storage Tank shape file. Where possible, coordinates Used in geospatial analysis calculating the
for releases without existing latitude and longitude values were obtained by EPA staff by geocoding address and street number of open releases within a one-
locations, mile radius of other open releases.
Media contaminated values were assigned to releases based on the priority code assigned to each release using the "PRIO-
CD" field from the "Texas LPST Sites_01-15-09.txt" file (see Priority Code Reference Table). Where media contaminated
could not be determined using this method, "GW-IMP," "SW-IMP," "SOIL-IMP," and "DW-IMP" fields were used to
determine the media contaminated. Releases with groundwater contamination marked (in addition to any other media)
were counted as "groundwater." Releases with only soil contamination marked were counted as "soil." Releases with any
other combination of media were counted as "other." "Unknown" releases might include those releases for which there
are no data available in the database, but for which information is available in other files, and releases for which the type
of media contaminated is truly unknown.
Examined in the "Media Contaminated"
section.
SEPTEMBER 2011
TX-23
-------
CHAPTER NOTES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
Data Element
Methyl Tertiary Butyl
Ether (MTBE)
Number of Releases
per RP
Orphan
Passive Remediation
Proximity
Public Spending
Release Priority
RP
RP Recalcitrance
Texas Data
Data were obtained by selecting all releases where the "MTBEMax" field from "Texas LPST Sites_01-15-09.txt" is greater
than 0.
Calculated as the total number of open releases associated with a unique RP name.
No data available.
Status codes from the "STATCD" field in the "Texas LPST Sites_01-15-09.txt" file were used to identify releases with passive
remediation (code 3 - "Monitoring").
Geospatial analysis performed by EPA revealed the number of other open releases located within a one-mile radius of each
open release.
Data were obtained from the "Texas LPST Sites_Costs for ReimbursableSites.txt" file. This file contains information related
to requests for reimbursement for corrective action activities performed at LPST releases and the amounts include labor
expenses paid to certified contractors for their work. Data for releases that are not covered by the state fund are not
included. These amounts could not be adjusted for inflation and so this attribute was not examined in this analysis.
Data were obtained from the "PRIO-CD" field in the "Texas LPST Sites_01-15-09.txt" file. Priority codes were grouped into
the six major categories, one through six (see Release Priority Reference Table). As use of the prioritization system was
discontinued in September 2003, priority scores were not examined for releases after that date.
Data were obtained from the "PRP-NAME" field in the "Texas LPSTSites_01-15-09.txt" file.
Recalcitrance was determined by identifying releases at least 1.5 years old with no incoming correspondence since 2005
that have had outgoing correspondence. Incoming and outgoing correspondence records obtained from the "PRPREC'D"
Use in Analysis
No informative patterns were identified.
Examined in the "Number of Releases per
RP" section.
Not applicable
Examined in the "Use of Passive
Remediation" section.
Examined in the "Geographic Clusters"
section.
Data not suitable for analysis.
Examined in the "Release Priority"
section.
Used to calculate the number of releases
associated with each unique RP.
Examined in the "RP Recalcitrance"
section.
and "TWCLETTR" fields in the "Texas LPST Sites_Correspondence.txt" file. This file contains correspondence information
for all LPST releases. This rule captures only releases where RPs are currently recalcitrant.
Staff Workload
Estimate provided by TCEQ staff.
Examined in the "Program Summary"
section and in the national chapter.
Stage of Cleanup Releases were assigned a standardized stage based on values in the "STATCD" field from "Texas LPST Sites_01-15-09.txt"
and the presence or absence of a closure date (see Stage of Cleanup Reference Table).
State Fund Eligibility
Data were obtained from the "1588Elig" data field in the "Texas LPST Sites_01-15-09.txt" file.
Variable in all analyses.
Examined in the "Cleanup Financing"
section.
Status
Releases were assigned a standardized stage based on values in the "STATCD" field from "Texas LPST Sites_01-15-09.txt"
and the presence or absence of a closure date.
Identifies the appropriate universe of
releases for tree analysis.
Voluntary Cleanup
Program
The "LPST_sites.xls" file includes voluntary cleanup releases with a known leaking underground petroleum storage tank. No informative patterns were identified.
TX-24
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
CHAPTER NOTES
Release Priority Reference Table
Each release is assigned one priority score in the LPST database. Releases on or after
September 1, 2003 are not prioritized. These data were used to analyze patterns in
priority and to identify the media contaminated for each release.
Priority Code
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1A
IB
1C
ID
IE
IF
2.1
2.2
2.3
Priority Description
1.1 CURRENT VAPOR IMPACT TO BUILDING OR
RESIDENCE
1.2 ACTIVE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WELL/LINE/SW
INTAKE IMPACT
1.3 SOLE-SOURCE DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY WELL/
LINE/SW INTAKE IMPACT
1.4 EXPLOSIVE VAPORS IN SUBSURFACE UTILITY -
NO BLDG/RES IMPACT
1.5 FP ON/IN: GROUND SURFACE/SW/UTILITY (NOT
WATER SUPPLY LINE)
1.6 EDWARDS AQUIFER, RECHARGE ZONE OR
TRANSITION ZONE IMPACT
1.7 VAPORS OF A SAFTEY CONCERN PRESENT
OUTDOORS
1A IMPACT/THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH AND/OR
SAFETY
IB DRINKING WATER AQUIFER OR WATER WELL
IMPACTED/THREATENED
1C MAJOR IMPACT TO SURFACE WATER SUPPLY
ID GROUP 1 GROUNDWATER, PLUME HAS/LIKELY
TO MIGRATE OFF-SITE
IE GROUP 2 GROUNDWATER, PLUME OFF-SITE,
WELL W/IN O.Smi RADIUS
IF GROUP 3 GROUNDWATER, PLUME OFF-SITE,
WELL W/IN O.Smi RADIUS
2.1 CONTAMINATED SOIL EXPOSED & UNSECURED,
RECEPTOR W/IN 500ft
2.2 FORMER VAPOR IMPACT/NAPL NEAR UTILITY,
POTENT'L VAPOR PTHWY
2.3 DOM H20 SUPPLY WELL/LINE/SW INTAKE
IMPACT ADDLH20 AVAILABLE
Media
Vapor
Other
Groundwater
Other
Not assigned
Groundwater
Other
Not assigned
Groundwater
Other
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Soil
Other
Groundwater
Priority Code
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2A
2B
2C
2D
2E
2F
2G
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.0
Priority Description
2.4 NON-PUBLIC/NON-DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY
WELL IMPACT
2. 5 GW IMPACT, PUBLIC/DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY
WELLW/IN0.25mi
2.6 IMPACTED GW DISCHARGES TO SW USED BY
HUMAN, ENDGR SPEC <500ft
2.7 PUB/DOM WELL W/IN IMPACTED AREA,
SOURCE GW NOT IMPACTED
2A GROUNDWATER OTHER THAN IB, SITE
CHARACTERIZATION INCOMPLETE
2B SURFACE WATER IMPACT THREATENS PUBLIC
HEALTH, WILDLIFE, ETC.
2C GROUP 1 GROUNDWATER, OFF-SITE MIGRATION
UNLIKELY
2D GROUP 2 GROUNDWATER, PLUME OFF-SITE, NO
WELLS W/IN .5mi RAD.
2E GROUP 3 GROUNDWATER, OFF-SITE MIGRATION
LIKELY
2F GROUP 3 GROUNDWATER, OFF-SITE MIGRATION
UNLIKELY
2G GROUP 2 GROUNDWATER, OFF-SITE MIGRATION
UNLIKELY
3 GROUP 3 GROUNDWATER, NO WELLS W/IN .5mi
RADIUS
3.1 GW IMPACT, PUB/DOM WATER SUPPLY WELL
W/IN.25-.5mi
3.2 IMPACTED GW W/IN 500ft-0.25mi TO SW USED
BY HUMAN, ENDGR SPEC
3.3 GW IMPACT, NON-PUBLIC/NON-DOMESTIC H20
SUPPLY WELL W/IN.25mi
3.4 NON-PUB/DOM WELL W/IN IMPACTED AREA,
SOURCE GW NOT IMPACTED
3.5 A DESIGNATED MAJOR OR MINOR AQUIFER IS
IMPACTED
4.0 ASSESSMENT INCOMPLETE, NO APPARENT
RECEPTORS IMPACTED
Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Not assigned
Groundwater
Other
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Not assigned
Groundwater
Not assigned
SEPTEMBER 2011
TX-25
-------
CHAPTER NOTES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: TEXAS
Priority Code Priority Description
4.1 4.1 GW IMPACTED, NO APPARENT THREATS OR Groundwater
IMPACTS TO RECEPTORS
4.2
4.2 NO GW IMPACT, NO APPARENT THREATS OR
IMPACTS TO RECEPTORS
4A
4A SOIL CONTAMINATION ONLY, REQUIRES FULL
SITE ASSESSMENTS RAP
Soil
4B
4B MINOR SURFACE WATER IMPACT
Other
4C
4C MINOR RELEASE TO GROUND SURFACE
Soil
5 MINOR SOIL CONTAMINATION - DOES NOT
REQUIRE A RAP
Soil
6 MINOR SOIL CONTAMINATION - NO REMEDIAL
ACTION REQUIRED
Soil
Stage of Cleanup Reference Table
Each release is assigned one status in the LPST database. These data were used to
analyze the stage of cleanup.
Has
Closure
Status Description Date
1 - PREASSESSMENT/ RELEASE DETERMINATION
2 -SITE ASSESSMENT
4 - PLAN B/RISK ASSESSMENT
3 -MONITORING
5 - CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
6E - FINAL CONCURRENCE APPROPRIATE, UNABLE TO
LOCATE RP
6G - IN-ACTIVE, CANNOT CLOSE, CANNOT LOCATE RP
6G - IN-ACTIVE, CANNOT CLOSE, CANNOT LOCATE RP Yes
6X - CROSS REFERENCE TO ANOTHER LPST NUMBER
6A - FINAL CONCURRENCE ISSUED, CASE CLOSED
6A - FINAL CONCURRENCE ISSUED, CASE CLOSED Yes
6D - FINAL CONCURRENCE PENDING PAYMENT OF Yes
DELINQUENT FEES
Stage
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
Site Assessment
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Remediation
Closed
Closed
Closed
Status Description
6D - FINAL CONCURRENCE PENDING PAYMENT OF
DELINQUENT FEES
Has
Closure
Date
Closed
6E - FINAL CONCURRENCE APPROPRIATE, UNABLE TO
LOCATE RP
Yes
Closed
6P - FINAL CONCURRENCE PENDING
DOCUMENTATION OF WELL PLUGGING
Yes
Closed
6P - FINAL CONCURRENCE PENDING
DOCUMENTATION OF WELL PLUGGING
Closed
6X - CROSS REFERENCE TO ANOTHER LPST NUMBER
Yes
Closed
TX-26
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
THE NATIONAL LUST CLEANUP BACKLOG:
A STUDY OF OPPORTUNITIES
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: WASHINGTON STAT
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
September 2011
WA-1
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: WASHINGTON STATE
LIST OF ACRONYMS
cscs
ECY
EPA
ESA
FR
FY
ISIS
LUST
MNA
MSA
MTCA
NFA
PCP
PLIA
RCU
RP
LIST
VCP
WARM
Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites
Washington State Department of Ecology
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Expedited Site Assessment
Financial Responsibility
Fiscal Year
Integrated Site Information System
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Monitored Natural Attenuation
Multi-Site Agreement
Model Toxics Control Act
No Further Action
Pentachlorophenol
Pollution Liability Insurance Agency
Reported Cleaned Up
Responsible Party
Underground Storage Tank
Voluntary Cleanup Program
Washington Ranking Method
WA-2
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: WASHINGTON STATE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Leaks from underground storage tanks (USTs) threaten America's groundwater and land resources. Even a small amount of
petroleum released from a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) can contaminate groundwater, the drinking water source
for nearly half of all Americans. In surveys of state water programs, 39 states and territories identified USTs as a major source
of groundwater contamination.2 As the reliance on our resources increases due to the rise in population and use, there is a
correspondingly greater need to protect our finite natural resources.
From the beginning of the UST program to September 2009, more than 488,000 releases were confirmed from federally-
regulated USTs nationwide. Of these confirmed releases needing cleanup, over 100,000 remained in the national LUST backlog.
These releases are in every state, and many are old and affect groundwater. To help address this backlog of releases, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invited 14 states to participate in a national backlog characterization study.
ANALYSIS OF WASHINGTON STATE DATA
Washington State's Department of Ecology (ECY) has made significant progress toward reducing its LUST cleanup backlog. As
of February 2009, ECY had completed 4,411 LUST cleanups, which is 69 percent of all known releases in the state. At the time
of data collection, there were 2,003 releases remaining in its backlog.4 To most effectively reduce the national cleanup backlog,
EPA believes that states and EPA must develop backlog reduction strategies that can be effective in most states as well as those
with the largest backlogs. EPA invited Washington State to participate and represent EPA Region 10 in its national backlog study.
In this chapter, EPA characterizes Washington State's releases that have not been cleaned up, analyzes these releases based on
categories of interest, and identifies potential opportunities for ECY and EPA to explore that might improve the state's cleanup
progress and reduce its backlog. Building from the potential cleanup opportunities identified in the study, EPA will continue to
work with Washington State to develop backlog reduction strategies.
In Washington, as in every state, many factors affect the pace of cleaning up releases, such as the availability and mechanisms of
funding, statutory requirements, and program structure. The recent economic downturn has also had an impact on the ability
of many states to make progress on cleanups.
EPA included potential cleanup opportunities in this report even though current circumstances in Washington State might make
pursuing certain opportunities challenging or unlikely. Also, in some cases, ECY is already using similar strategies as part of its
ongoing program. The findings from the analysis of ECY's data and the potential cleanup opportunities are summarized below
in five study areas: stage of cleanup, media contaminated, state regional backlogs, voluntary cleanups, and geographic clusters.
1 Data were provided in February 2009 by ECY staff and are not identical to UST performance measures on EPA's website, available at:
www.epa.gov/oust/cat/camarchv.htm.
2 EPA, National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report, pp. 50-52. www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/chp6.pdf.
3 Available data do not distinguish between whether a release is in the confirmed release or the site assessment stage.
4 EPA tracks individual releases rather than sites in its performance measures. Therefore, the analyses in this report account for numbers
of releases, not sites.
5 Unknown media releases include those releases where the media is unknown as well as those releases where, based on available data,
it was not possible to identify the media contaminated.
Washington :
LUST Data
By the Numbers
Cumulative Historical Releases
Closed Releases
Open Releases
Stage of Cleanup
Pre-remediation3
Remediation
Media Contaminated
Groundwater
State
4,411/69%
2,003/31%
518/26%
1,485/74%
1,364/68%
National Backlog Contribution
Median Age of Open Releases
SEPTEMBER 2011
WA-3
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: WASHINGTON STATE
Stage Of Cleanup (seepage WA-12formore details)
Media Contaminated (see page WA-Ufor more details)
Washington Finding
15 percent of releases:
have not finished site
assessment; and
are 10 years old or
older.
Potential Opportunity
Provide information and technical
assistance to responsible parties (RPs) or
implement enforcement actions at old
releases.
Encourage RPs and stakeholders to
examine public and private funding
options.
Releases
305
59 percent of releases:
are in remediation;
and
are 10 years old or
older.
Use a systematic process to explore
opportunities to accelerate cleanups and reach
closure, such as:
periodic review of release-specific
treatment technologies;
review of site-specific cleanup standards;
consider use of institutional or
engineering controls; and
pursue alternative funding mechanisms
or enforcement actions for old releases
that are stalled.
1,191
Washington State's releases are taking a long time to move through the cleanup
process and the progress of many old cleanups is stalled. There are several reasons
why many releases in the backlog are old, including: many releases are complex and
therefore take a long time to address; RPs are not moving cleanups forward quickly;
and program issues exist, such as LUST sites generally having low priority rankings
compared to other contaminated sites in ECY's cleanup program. EPA believes it is
important for ECY to explore opportunities to accelerate cleanups at older releases
and to make progress toward bringing these old releases to closure.
Washington Finding
43 percent of releases:
contaminate
groundwater;
are in remediation;
and
are 10 years old or
older.
Potential Opportunity
Systematically evaluate cleanup progress at
old releases with groundwater impacts and
consider alternative cleanup technologies or
other strategies to reduce time to closure.
Releases
858
6 percent of releases:
impact soil only;
have not finished site
assessment; and
are 10 years old or
older.
Continue to use targeted backlog
reduction efforts to close old releases
with soil contamination with minimal
effort.
Encourage RPs to use expedited site
assessment to move releases more
quickly into remediation.
118
Releases contaminating groundwater have always been the largest part of the
national backlog and 68 percent of releases in Washington State are documented
as contaminating groundwater. In general, groundwater contamination is more
technically complex to remediate and also takes longer to clean up than soil
contamination. For old, complex cleanups where long-term remediation is underway,
EPA believes it is important for ECY to periodically reevaluate cleanup progress and
consider whether the cleanup technology being used is still optimal.
Even though soil contamination is easiertoremediatethan groundwater contamination,
many of Washington State's old releases that impact soil only are unaddressed or in
the early stages of cleanup. ECY only grants no further action determinations at sites
where all contamination is addressed, including non-LUST contamination. ECY might
not consider some of the releases with soil-only contamination as closed because of
additional non-LUST contamination. Nevertheless, EPA believes ECY should continue
to make progress toward closure for all of its LUST releases.
WA-4
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: WASHINGTON STATE
State Regional Backlogs (see page WA-16 for more details)
V 0 I U n t a r y CI e a n U p S (see page WA-l 7 for more details)
Washington Finding
Several key release
attributes, including
release age, stage of
cleanup, and media
contamination vary among
ECY's regions.
Potential Opportunity
Develop region-specific strategies for moving
releases toward remediation and closure.
Releases
Variable
number of
releases6
EPA identified differences in the backlog among ECY's four regions. For example,
areas of higher population result in larger backlogs, property transfers provide
incentives for cleanup, particularly in urban areas and differences in management
and administration of the cleanup program might also cause differences between the
ECY regions. These differences could reveal opportunities for region-specific backlog
reduction. ECY should work with its regions to address their specific backlog issues
and facilitate the sharing of information and best practices.
Washington Finding
Only 18 percent of
releases are in the
Voluntary Cleanup
Program (VCP); 82 percent
are not in the VCP.
Potential Opportunity
Encourage RPs to enroll in the VCP;
Initiate enforcement actions to help move
cleanups toward remediation; or
Develop another process to move
cleanups forward.
Releases
1,645
Since Washington State does not have a state fund, RPs pay for almost all LUST cleanup
work. Private insurance is the primary means of maintaining financial responsibility
for Washington State LIST owners. A large number of releases occurred prior to
the federal or state requirements for financial responsibility. In these cases, a RP's
existing insurance policy might not cover prior releases. Therefore, paying for these
cleanups are generally "out-of-pocket" expenses for RPs. ECY implemented a fee-
based VCP to facilitate its review of assessment and cleanup documents which allows
for rapid review of work plans and reports. As its name implies, entry into the VCP is
voluntary. ECY issues No Further Action (NFA) letters for releases that completed the
VCP and met all of its requirements. ECY also issues NFA determinations for releases
addressed through ECY's formal enforcement orders and consent decrees. To date,
property transactions are the reason most releases enter ECY's VCP, but EPA believes
ECY could improve the state's cleanup rate by encouraging more RPs to enter the
VCP. For stalled releases, ECY should consider taking enforcement actions, where
appropriate, to move cleanups forward.
SEPTEMBER 2011
WA-5
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: WASHINGTON STATE
Geographic Clusters (see page WA-18for more details)
Washington Finding
53 percent of releases are
clustered within a one-
mile radius of five or more
other releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Target releases within close proximity for Targeted
multi-site agreements (MSAs) or other number of
resource consolidation opportunities. releases7
ECY has a multi-site cleanup agreement initiative with Shell Oil to clean up 83
releases at different locations affiliated with the company. Another approach ECY
could use to address multiple releases is to target cleanup actions at geographically
clustered releases. The geographic cluster approach might offer opportunities for
new community-based reuse efforts, using economies of scale, and addressing
commingled contamination. EPA believes that highlighting geographic clusters of
releases and working with state and local governments in area-wide initiatives will
accelerate ECY's pace of cleaning up releases. EPA intends to work with the states to
conduct further geospatial analyses on clusters of open releases in relation to RPs,
highway corridors, local geologic and hydrogeologic settings, groundwater resources,
and/or communities with environmental justice concerns. These analyses might
reveal additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
CONCLUSION
This chapter contains EPA's data analysis of Washington State's LUST cleanup backlog
and identifies potential opportunities to reduce the backlog in Washington State.
EPA discusses the findings and opportunities for Washington State, along with
those of 13 additional states, in the national chapter of this report. EPA will work
with states to develop potential approaches and detailed strategies for reducing
the backlog. Development of strategies could involve targeted data collection,
reviewing particular case files, analyzing problem areas, and sharing best practices.
Final strategies could involve EPA actions such as using additional program metrics
to show cleanup progress, targeting resources for specific cleanup actions, clarifying
and developing guidance, and revising policies. EPA, in partnership with states, is
committed to reducing the backlog of confirmed LIST releases and to protecting the
nation's groundwater, land, and communities affected by these releases.
Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic
opportunities that will address a limited number of releases within select designated
geographic areas.
WA-6
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: WASHINGTON STATE
PROGRAM SUMMARY
State LUST Program Organization and Administration
Responsible parties (RPs) clean up releases with varying levels of oversight from Washington State's Department of Ecology
(ECY) Toxics Cleanup Program. ECY addresses all types of contaminated sites under Washington's Model Toxics Control Act
(MTCA), including underground storage tanks (USTs). Until recently, RPs conducted the majority of leaking underground
storage tank (LUST) cleanups without ECY oversight until they submitted the final closure report. ECY staff reviewed the
report to determine if the LUST release no longer posed a threat to human health or the environment. If the cleanup met
closure standards, ECY designated the release as "Reported Cleaned Up" (RCU) in its LUST database and included the release
in the completed cleanups count reported to EPA. Over the past few years, RCU closures accounted for half the LUST closures
reported by ECY on an annual basis to EPA. As of 2009, ECY stopped using the RCU designation. Closure is now only reached
through the more formal "No Further Action" (NFA) process.
ECY provides greater oversight in the NFA process. To obtain an NFA determination, the RP must have a formal order with
ECY or enter ECY's Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP).8 Under the VCP, the RP pays ECY a fee for cleanup oversight and report
review and approval. An RP can choose to enroll in the VCP at any time in the cleanup process, even after the final report is
submitted. Less oversight reduces the fee amount, but an RP must enroll in the VCP before ECY will review the final cleanup
report and issue an NFA determination. For sites with formal orders, ECY is involved throughout the entire cleanup process
and seeks cost recovery for all of its oversight costs.
Under the VCP, the RP must address all contamination at a facility, regardless of the source of contamination. For example, if
a LUST is present at a wood treating facility that also has pentachlorophenol (PCP) contamination, the RP must meet cleanup
standards for both the LUST and PCP contamination before the facility will receive an NFA determination, especially if the
contamination from these two sources were commingled. In contrast, under the former RCU process, ECY could report a
LUST release as cleaned up without addressing the PCP contamination. Since ECY changed its policy, RPs must address all
contaminants to achieve closure, unless the contamination is separate and distinct, in which case the site can be divided into
sub-sites which proceed separately through the VCP. According to ECY, a typical gas station is usually not divided into sub-
sites because the contamination from multiple releases is either commingled or addressed under one cleanup action (e.g.,
the releases from spills and overfills and the surface contamination of motor oil from a former service station and auto repair
facility).10
Washington State
LUST Program
At a Glance
Cleanup Rate
In fiscal year (FY) 2009, ECY confirmed 43
releases and completed 69 cleanups.8
Cleanup Financing
As of February 1994, all storage tank facilities
in Washington State were required to
have a private financial responsibility (FR)
mechanism. Forty-eight percent of open
releases were reported to ECY prior to the FR
deadline.
Cleanup Standards
The MTCA sets cleanup standards but also
allows for site-specific flexibility.
Priority System
Priority is assigned at the facility level and
incorporates both LUST and non-LUST
contamination.
Releases Per Project Manager
On average, each project manager is
responsible for 184 open releases.10
Administrative Spending (FY 2006-2007)
$1.2 million.12
Cleanup Financing
Washington State does not have a state fund; therefore, RPs privately finance all LUST cleanups, usually through private
insurance. Washington State has a unique program to support the availability of private insurance. Washington State's
Pollution Liability Insurance Agency (PLIA) acts as the reinsurer for private insurance companies. Washington State reimburses
7 Based on FY 2009 UST Performance Measures End of Year Activity Report.
8 Formal orders include administrative orders and consent decrees.
9 Estimate provided by ECY staff.
10 According to Mike Blum, UST & LUST Coordinator, ECY Toxics Cleanup Program.
11 Estimate includes personnel and indirect costs for the LUST program.
SEPTEMBER 2011
WA-7
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: WASHINGTON STATE
insurance companies for costs over a certain percentage of the total insurance. For
example, PLIA will cover costs between $75,000 and $1 million at releases where
$1 million policies are in place. This reinsurance approach was implemented to
help make the cost of obtaining pollution liability insurance for LIST owners more
affordable, especially for small businesses and local government.
In Washington State, RPs must cover the federal FR requirement. The FR requirement
was phased in between 1989 and February 18, 1994, for all releases except those
located on tribal lands, which occurred later. In the current backlog, ECY confirmed
38 releases prior to January 1,1989, and 926 releases between January 1,1989, and
February 18, 1994. Therefore, RPs for these 964 releases might not have had an FR
mechanism in place on the date of the release. However, 82 percent of these 964
open releases (794 releases) are in remediation, suggesting the RPs have funding for
at least some of the cleanup activities. The remaining 170 releases could be potential
orphan cleanups. These releases were confirmed prior to February 18,1994, and the
RPs have not begun remediation.12
If an existing LIST facility was sold after February 1994 and no site assessment was
conducted to determine if a release had occurred, the later discovery of a release
would likely not be covered under either the existing (new) insurance policy or the
former policy. The pollution liability insurance policies are "claims-made" policies,
and policies only include a six-month insurance extension or "tail." If a claim for a
release is not made within six months of the expiration of the policy, that release is
not covered under the policy. Generally, new owners of existing LIST facilities buy
new policies, which resets the retroactive coverage date. While buying an LIST facility
without first determining if the site is contaminated is not a good business practice,
there are no regulatory requirements for doing so. The new owner incurs the liability
for the pre-existing contamination. However, without adequate monetary resources
and no insurance coverage, the contamination often is not addressed. Also, the
amount of the insurance deductible payment required of the policyholder can
sometimes be an impediment to initiating cleanup action by the site owner.13
review and all LUST and non-LUST contaminants at a facility must meet Washington
State's cleanup levels as defined in the MTCA.14
Release Prioritization
The MTCA requires ranking of all contaminated sites, including LUSTs, relative to each
other based on the level of risk to human health and the environment. ECY ranks all
sites on its Hazardous Sites List based on information collected during a site hazard
assessment. Scores range from high priority (1) to low priority (5). Facilities with
only LUST contamination are often ranked low priority because the single exposure
pathway is groundwater and the contaminants pose relatively lower risk to receptors.15
LUST releases with multiple exposure pathways are given higher priority. However,
in determining the level of priority, ECY also takes into account the availability of
oversight funds, the potential cost of cleanup, the media contaminated, the level
of cooperation shown by an RP, and the public concern about the release.16 Rank
does not play a role for cleanups in the VCP. In addition, facilities for which there
is a cooperative funding agreement in place, such as some Department of Defense
facilities, might be given higher priority than indicated by their hazard ranking.
The MTCA requires that all sites be ranked to determine their relative priority to all
other sites. Sites that are placed on the Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated
Sites (CSCS) List get scheduled for a Site Hazard Assessment so the priority ranking
can be completed. All cleanup sites, including LUST sites, are evaluated using the
Washington Ranking Method (WARM). That screening model evaluates risks to
human health and the environment based on various predefined exposure pathways.
Because more sites need ranking than there are resources available to complete that
work, sites to be ranked are also prioritized. Generally, sites assumed to be a greater
risk (higher priority) to human health and the environment are ranked before those
that would likely be lower-risk sites. Based on the data provided for this study, 194 of
the 886 releases on the CSCS List (22 percent) had a priority rank. None of the 1,117
sites still on the LUST List had been ranked.
Cleanup Standards
ECY used to allow RPs to set site specific cleanup standards as long as they met
Washington State's established cleanup levels for total combined risk. Previously, a
LUST release could achieve RCU status when it had met its cleanup standards based
on an informal review. ECY no longer makes RCU determinations. However, in order
for a LUST release to achieve an NFA determination, ECY must do a formal detailed
12 Pre-remediation releases include those releases where assessments have either not
begun or have not been completed.
13 According to Mike Blum, UST & LUST Coordinator, ECY Toxics Cleanup Program.
14 Washington State maintains a Web-based tool, Cleanup Levels and Risk Calculations, to
help parties performing cleanups choose appropriate site cleanup levels according to
MTCA Chapter 173-340 of the Washington Administrative Code
(fortress.wa.gov/ecv/clarc/CLARCOverview.aspx).
15 According to Mike Blum, UST & LUST Coordinator, ECY Toxics Cleanup Program.
16 According to ECY Focus Sheet 91-107, available online at:
www.ecv.wa.gov/biblio/ftc91107.html.
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: WASHINGTON STATE
State Backlog Reduction Efforts
In recent years, ECY conducted file reviews of approximately 1,000 releases to identify
releases that could be closed with minimal effort. Of these, 150 releases were given
RCU status. In a separate effort, ECY used an EPA grant to hire contractors to assess
approximately 120 releases classified by ECY as being in "monitoring" status. As of
August 2009, ECY determined these releases required either continued sampling
from existing wells, additional site characterization or additional cleanup effort
before qualifying for NFA determinations. In another effort, ECY initiated a multi-
site agreement (MSA) project. ECY worked with EPA staff through an interagency
personnel agreement to identify a set of potential participants covering both releases
and companies. Subsequent to that effort, ECY entered into a MSA with Shell Oil.17
This agreement includes cleanups over the next 10 years at 83 releases in the
Northwest region of the state and, if ECY determines it is successful, the MSA might
be expanded to include the entire state. In the future, ECY will consider whether
to pursue additional MSAs with other companies that have large numbers of open
releases.
17 For more information, see:
www.ecv.wa.gov/programs/tcp/sites/vcp sites/vcpOverview.htm.
SEPTEMBER 2011 WA-9
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: WASHINGTON STATE
[This page has intentionally been left blank.
WA-10 SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: WASHINGTON STATE
ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNITIES
In this study, EPA analyzed Washington State's federally-regulated releases that have not been cleaned up (open releases).
EPA conducted a multivariate analysis on all of ECY's data. However, this technique did not identify strong underlying patterns
in the data.18 Next, EPA divided the open releases into groups that might warrant further attention. EPA used descriptive
statistics to examine the distribution of releases by age of release and stage of cleanup and highlighted findings based on ECY's
data.19 EPA then identified potential opportunities for addressing particular groups of releases in the backlog. Many releases
are included in more than one opportunity. These opportunities describe actions that EPA and ECY might use as a starting
point for collaborative efforts to address the backlog. Although EPA's analysis covered all releases in Washington State, there
are 116 releases that are not included in any of the subsets identified in the findings or opportunities due to the way EPA
structured the analysis. These releases might also benefit from some of the suggested opportunities and strategies.20
EPA's analyses revealed five areas of Washington State's backlog where there are potential opportunities for its further
reduction:
Stage of cleanup
Media contaminated
State regional backlogs
Voluntary cleanups
Geographic clusters
LUST Data Source
Electronic data for LUST releases occurring
between October 1979 and February 2009
were compiled with ECY staff in 2008 and
2009.21 Data were obtained from ECY's CSCS
List and Integrated Site Information System
(ISIS) database and selected based on quality
and the ability to address areas of interest in
this analysis.
Data Limitation
In an effort to consolidate tracking of contaminated sites, ECY is in the process of transferring all LUST release data from
its LUST-specific database within ISIS to its CSCS database also within ISIS. At the time of this analysis, 56 percent of open
releases had been transferred into the CSCS database. The LUST and CSCS databases track unique data fields related to
each contaminated site, so certain release characteristics (e.g., cleanup priority) were not available for all releases in this
analysis. Efforts to combine the two datasets yielded complete data attributes for the 17 percent of open releases that were
present on both lists.
The LUST and CSCS databases each maintain a data field indicating releases with RCU status that are considered closed and
are therefore reported to EPA as cleanups completed. For this analysis, all releases with RCU status were considered closed
and all remaining releases were counted as open. The 1,416 LUST releases that have received NFA determinations are not
tracked in either the LUST or CSCS databases and therefore fewer release-level data were available for this analysis. Sites
that receive an NFA determination are tracked in ECY's NFA Sites List. All releases with NFA determinations were included
in the overall closure count.
18
The analytic tree method, a multivariate technique used to identify underlying patterns among large data sets, did not reveal strong
patterns within the data. For more information on analytic trees, see Appendix A.
19 For a detailed description of release stages, see the Chapter Notes section (Stage of Cleanup Reference Table).
20 For a detailed description of the Washington State data used in this analysis, see the Chapter Notes section.
SEPTEMBER 2011
WA-11
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: WASHINGTON STATE
STAGE OF CLEANUP
As of February 10, 2009, the Washington State backlog consisted of 2,003 open releases. EPA analyzed the age of these
LUST releases and their distribution among the stages of cleanup. To facilitate analysis, EPA classified Washington State's
open releases into two stages of cleanup: the Pre-remediation stage (releases where site assessments have begun) and the
Remediation stage (releases where remedial activities have started).21 While EPA grouped the releases into linear stages for
this analysis, EPA recognizes that cleanups might not proceed in a linear fashion. Cleanup can be an iterative process where
releases go through successive rounds of site assessment and remediation. However, in the long run, this approach might be
both longer and more costly. Acquiring good site characterization can accelerate the pace of cleanup and avoid the extra cost
of repeated site assessment.
Since Washington State's LUST program began, ECY has closed 4,411 releases, half of which were closed in less than 3.6 years
(Figure 1 below). Of these releases, 2,995 (68 percent) were closed through ECY's RCU status and the remaining 1,416 releases
(32 percent) were closed with NFA determinations. The young median age of closed LUST releases might be attributable to
the rapid closure of relatively easy to remediate releases. Also, national program policy allows states to report confirmed
releases that require no further action at the time of confirmation as "cleanup completed." Therefore, some releases are
reported as confirmed and cleaned up simultaneously. In general, in the early days of the LUST program (pre-1998) when
many USTs were being removed and legacy contamination was being discovered, ECY did not classify a number of those as
LUST sites if the cleanup involved removal and disposal of only a small volume of contaminated soil. That small volume of soil
was considered incidental during removal of tanks and piping. Therefore, the total number of LUST sites in Washington State
would have been larger and the percentage of cleanups completed would also have been higher.
Washington Finding
15 percent of releases:
have not finished site assessment; and
are 10 years old or older.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Provide information and 305
technical assistance to RPs
or implement enforcement
actions at old releases.
Encourage RPs and
stakeholders to examine
public and private funding
options.
Figure 1. Age of Releases among Stages of Cleanup
20 1,485
c.
Si
15
5
0
518
4,411
O Pre-remediation
O Remediation
Closed
The white dot at the center of each circle represents the median age of releases. Each circle is labeled with, and scaled to, the number of
releases within each stage. Included in the release counts and size of circles are one open release and 40 closed releases for which release
age is unknown. These releases are not part of the median age calculation.
21 Releases were classified into stages based on available data and discussion with ECY staff. For more information, see the Chapter
Notes section.
WA-12
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: WASHINGTON STATE
ECY initiated two projects to look for releases that could be closed with minimal effort.22 ECY staff closed 150 releases based
on file reviews and are currently pursuing final sampling at another group of releases with groundwater contamination. States
might find opportunities for closure with minimal effort at lower priority releases where little or no remedial work is required
to reach closure standards or at releases that have met closure standards but have not finished closure review.
LUST releases in the ECY's backlog are significantly older than closed releases. According to ECY, nearly all LUST releases have
completed site assessments, although EPA cannot confirm this with the available data. Figure 2 below shows the backlog of
open releases by age and stage of cleanup and allows for the identification of older releases by stage. Figure 2 shows there are
305 releases in the Pre-remediation stage (15 percent of the backlog) that are 10 years old or older. ECY's data indicate that
these releases have not moved into remediation quickly. Providing information and technical assistance to RPs, encouraging
the use of the VCP or pursuing enforcement action of old releases could move releases toward remediation and more rapid
cleanup. ECY has initiated a regular process of sending letters to RPs every one-to-two years to encourage cleanup activities.
ECY should encourage RPs and communities to look at other funding options such as other public and private funding sources
to facilitate assessment, cleanup, and reuse. Where there is no viable RP, ECY can encourage the use of petroleum brownfields
grants for low priority releases.
Figure 2. Release Age Distribution among Stages of Cleanup
1
< 1%
< 10 Years
212
41%
> 10 Years
1,191
80%
Washington State has many old
releases in the Remediation stage.
Approximately 75 percent of all open
releases (1,485 releases) are in the
Remediation stage (Figure 1). Fifty-
nine percent of Washington State's
releases (1,191 releases) are in the
Remediation stage and are 10 years
old or older (Figure 3, page 14). This
older group of releases represents
80 percent of the releases in the
Remediation stage. The data might
overinflate the numbers of releases
actually in remediation. In ECY's data management process, when a LUST release entered the remediation phase, its status
in the database was changed to "cleanup in progress." The classification of "cleanup in progress" would have been given to a
release where initial soil removal was implemented. However, in many cases, the impacted groundwater issues were never
addressed and the state database shows no further work is currently "in progress." ECY's current practice is to not move
releases backwards in its status even if the site has been stalled for many years. So, for many sites that are in the Remediation
stage, initial cleanup might have occurred years ago but no further work is currently being conducted.23
Because EPA only has the date that a release was confirmed but not for when it moved from one stage to the next (i.e., from
assessment to remediation), EPA can calculate the overall age of the release but not the actual time spent in the Remediation
stage. It is possible that some of these releases might have only recently begun remediation. Increasing efficiency and
Pre-remediation
(518 Releases)
Remediation
(1,485 Releases)
Washington Finding
59 percent of releases:
are in remediation; and
are 10 years old or older.
Potential Opportunity
Releases
Use a systematic process to 1,191
explore opportunities to accelerate
cleanups and reach closure, such
as:
periodic review of
release-specific treatment
technologies;
review of site-specific cleanup
standards;
consider use of institutional
or engineering controls; and
pursue alternative funding
mechanisms or enforcement
actions for old releases that
are stalled.
22 See State Backlog Reduction Efforts in the Program Summary.
23 According to Mike Blum, UST & LUST Coordinator, ECY Toxics Cleanup Program.
SEPTEMBER 2011
WA-13
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: WASHINGTON STATE
Washington Finding
43 percent of releases:
contaminate groundwater;
are in remediation; and
are 10 years old or older.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Systematically evaluate cleanup 858
progress at old releases with
groundwater impacts and consider
alternative cleanup technologies
or other strategies to reduce time
to closure.
getting releases through the cleanup process as quickly as possible will expedite the reduction of the backlog. ECY should
establish a systematic process to evaluate existing releases in remediation and optimize cleanup approaches, including choice
of technology and site-specific risk-based decision-making. This process might save ECY resources and bring releases to
closure more quickly. If releases are stalled, ECY should encourage RPs and stakeholders to pursue alternative public and
private funding sources, particularly petroleum brownfields grants in the case of low priority releases with no viable RP. ECY
should also consider enforcement actions against RPs that are not moving forward with cleanups.
MEDIA CONTAMINATED
Groundwater is an important natural resource at risk from petroleum contamination. Releases impacting groundwater make
up the majority of Washington State's backlog. In general, groundwater contamination takes longer and is more expensive
to clean up than soil contamination. In this study, EPA examined media as a factor contributing to the backlog. The following
analysis classified media contamination into four categories: groundwater (1,364 open releases), soil (630 open releases),
other media, which includes vapor and surface water (seven open releases), and "unknown" media, which includes releases
with no media specified (two open releases).24
In Washington State, 68 percent of open releases (1,364 releases) involve groundwater contamination; these releases
have a median age of 15.0 years (Figure 3 below). In contrast, only 22 percent of closed releases (976 releases) impacted
groundwater. These closed releases have a significantly younger median age of 5.6 years compared to the median age of
open releases (Figure 3). Of the 1,065 Remediation stage releases that impact groundwater, 81 percent (858 releases) are
10 years old or older (Figure 4, page 15). This subset of older releases that contaminate groundwater and are in remediation
accounts for 43 percent of Washington State's total backlog. Groundwater contamination is typically more complex and
difficult to remediate. However, if ECY could identify opportunities to improve cleanup efficiency, ECY might be able to
accelerate the pace of cleanups. For example, encouraging RPs to reevaluate the cleanup progress, current contaminant
levels, and treatment technologies might move releases through remediation faster.
Figure 3. Age of Releases by Media Contaminated and Stage of Cleanup
OJ
1/1
ro
20
15
1,065
415
Pre-remediation
Remediation
Closed
3,426
Groundwater
Soil
Other
Unknown
Squares indicating closed releases are not scaled to the number of releases in that stage.
24 For a detailed description of contaminated media classifications, see the Chapter Notes section.
WA-14
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: WASHINGTON STATE
The use of institutional or engineering controls can also reduce the time to closure by eliminating exposure pathways and
allowing for less stringent cleanup standards, where protective and appropriate. ECY has occasionally used institutional
controls as a remedy to minimize exposure to contamination. For example, restrictive covenants have been in place at 31
closed releases since 1991.
According to ECY, there are additional institutional controls used through the NFA process, but data were unavailable for this
analysis. ECY has implemented a formal five-year review process for releases with institutional controls to ensure the cleanups
are still protective of human health and the environment.
Releases that contaminate soil only represent a potential threat to groundwater resources and contaminate properties in
neighborhoods and communities. Contaminated soil can typically be cleaned up faster than contaminated groundwater.
Most of Washington State's releases with soil contamination have been closed, but those releases that remain open are
significantly older than the closed releases with soil-only contamination. Thirty-one percent of the Washington State backlog
(630 releases) involves soil contamination and has a median age of 14.1 years, compared to 78 percent of closed releases
(3,426 releases), half of which were closed in less than 2.8 years (Figure 3). ECY might not consider some of these soil cleanups
closed because they are sites with additional non-LUST contamination present. However, 118 soil cleanups (6 percent of the
backlog) have not begun remediation 10 years or more after the release was confirmed (Figure 5 below).
ECY can encourage RPs to use expedited site assessments to help rapidly characterize site conditions and move releases into
remediation and to closure sooner. One of the tools available to both regulators and RPs is EPA's Expedited Site Assessment
(ESA) guide.25 The guide explains the overall ESA process as well as specific site assessment tools and methods. Conducting
site assessments efficiently and quickly can help reduce the backlog.
Figure 5. Age Distribution of Pre-remediation Stage Releases with Soil Impacts
Age Unknown
1
< 1%
Figure 4. Age Distribution of Remediation Stage
Releases with Groundwater Impacts
< 10 Years
207
19%
Washington Finding
6 percent of releases:
impact soil only;
have not finished site assessment; and
are 10 years old or older.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Continue to use targeted 118
backlog reduction efforts to
close old releases with soil
contamination with minimal
effort.
Encourage RPsto use
expedited site assessment to
move releases more quickly
into remediation.
25 EPA's 1997 guidance document, Expedited Site Assessment Tools for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Regulators (EPA 510
B-97-001), is available online at: www.epa.gov/OUST/pubs/sam.htm.
SEPTEMBER 2011
WA-15
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: WASHINGTON STATE
Washington Finding
Several key release attributes, including
release age, stage of cleanup, and media
contamination vary among ECY's regions.
Potential Opportunity
Develop region-specific Variable
strategies for moving releases number of
toward remediation and closure. releases27
Figure 6. ECY Regions
STATE REGIONAL BACKLOGS
EPA analyzed the cleanup backlogs in ECY's four regions to identify patterns and opportunities for developing targeted backlog
reduction strategies within each region. There are significant differences in media contamination and release age among
the releases managed by ECY's four regional offices (Figure 6 below left and Table 1 below). The more densely populated
Northwest and Southwest regions include the majority of releases. More than half of all open releases (1,055 releases) are
located within the Northwest region (Figure 7 below). Releases with groundwater contamination also predominate in these
two regions (Table 1). In contrast, soil contamination is more common in the Central and Eastern regions (Table 1). The
Northwest and Southwest regions have large numbers of old releases in the Pre-remediation stage (Table 1 and Figure 7).
The Southwest region is the only region where there are more releases in the Pre-remediation stage than in the Remediation
stage (Table 1 and Figure 7). Urban areas with larger populations can create greater financial incentives for cleanup due to
property transfers. A strategic regional approach to these unique backlog characteristics should help reduce the backlog. EPA
encourages ECY to look for opportunities to share best practices among its regions and with other states.
Table 1. Washington State Backlog, by ECY Region
SOUTHWEST NORTHWEST CENTRAL EASTERN HEADQUARTERS^
State Backlog Contribution 25% 53% 12% 7% 3%
Cumulative Historical Releases
1,742
3,117
691
769
95
Closed Releases
1,237/71%
2,062/66%
440/64%
632/82%
40/42%
Open Releases
505/29%
1,055/34%
251/36%
137/18%
55/58%
Stage of Cleanup
Pre-remediation
Remediation
293/58%
212/42%
134/13%
921/87%
59/24%
192/76%
18/13%
119/87%
14/25%
41/75%
Media Contaminated
Groundwater
Soil
Other
Unknown
Median Age of Open Releases
363/72%
141/28%
I/ < 1%
-
13. 3 years
758/72%
293/28%
4/
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: WASHINGTON STATE
VOLUNTARY CLEANUPS
RPs privately finance all LUST cleanups in Washington State typically by private insurance. Therefore, a lack of funds should
not be a cause of delayed remedial activities. Until 2009, RPs conducted most cleanup activities independently. ECY was only
involved at the end of the process, reviewing documents to make sure that risks were adequately addressed. If ECY's review
determined that a cleanup was complete, ECY applied a RCU status to the release and reported it as closed to EPA. In these
cases, ECY did not issue an NFA determination letter. RPs must enter the VCP or be subject to an administrative order or
consent decree to receive an NFA determination.
In the current backlog, 82 percent of the releases (1,645 releases) are independent cleanups that are not in the VCP (Figure
8 below). As of 2009, ECY no longer uses the RCU process and cleanups are not considered complete unless RPs receives
an NFA determination through the VCP or an order or decree. The consequence of this process change is that releases from
RPs that do not enroll in the VCP or have an enforcement order will be considered open indefinitely. ECY notes the following
advantages to the change in the closure process for independent cleanups; the NFA determination is based on a more rigorous
review than the RCU process and addresses all contamination issues at that facility; and the NFA determination is a letter that
RPs can "take to the bank" to identify the site as cleaned up for property transaction and loan purposes. The RCU process
was a less rigorous review and resulted in a less formal opinion from ECY. The review was focused solely on the LUST issues
at a facility. Also, the RCU process was implemented primarily for ECY and EPA reporting purposes and it was not a fee-based
review.
Figure 8. Age of Releases by VCP Participation and Stage of Cleanup28
20
15
300
460
Pre-Remediation
i Remediation
58
Q
Washington Finding
Only 18 percent of releases are in the VCP; 82
percent are not in the VCP.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Encourage RPs to enroll in the 1,645
VCP;
Initiate enforcement actions
to help move cleanups toward
remediation; or
Develop another process to
move cleanups forward.
Voluntary
Cleanup
Program
Independent
Cleanup
Within the current backlog, independent cleanups in the Pre-remediation stage are significantly older than pre-remediation
releases enrolled in the VCP. Twelve percent of open releases (230 releases) are independent cleanups that have not yet
begun remediation 12.5 years or more since the releases occurred, compared to the 5.8-year median age of Pre-remediation
stage VCP releases (Figure 8). Most RPs enroll in the VCP for property transactions and therefore have a financial incentive
to move the cleanups forward. ECY's encouragement of RPs to enroll in the VCP and/or their increased use of enforcement
actions could help to move cleanups toward remediation.
28 The Independent Cleanup designation includes 42 releases addressed under formal actions.
SEPTEMBER 2011
WA-17
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: WASHINGTON STATE
Washington Finding
53 percent of releases are clustered within a
one-mile radius of five or more other releases.
Potential Opportunity Releases
Target releases within close Targeted
proximity for MSAs or other number of
resource consolidation releases31
opportunities.
Figure 9. Map of All Open Releases, by ECY
Region
Spokane
Although most cleanups are addressed independently by RPs, 18 percent of open releases (358 releases) are currently being
addressed through the VCP (Figure 8). The majority of the VCP releases are in the Remediation stage, 42 percent of which
(150 releases) are more than 15.5 years old. The age gap between releases in the Pre-remediation and Remediation stages
in the VCP is likely due to variable ages of releases entering the VCP (Figure 8). For example, a release might wait 15 years
without remediation and then enter the VCP due to a property transaction. Over the past five years, ECY has received
approximately 300 VCP applications annually, and approximately 810 cleanups have been completed under the VCP during
that period.29 Because ECY no longer issues RCU determinations for independent cleanups, ECY should encourage RPs to
enter the VCP, conduct enforcement actions, or develop other requirements to ensure that RPs will make progress cleaning
up and closing releases.
GEOGRAPHIC CLUSTERS
EPA performed a geospatial analysis to look for alternative ways to address the backlog. While releases in geographic
clusters might not have the same RP, they tend to be located in densely populated areas and might present opportunities to
consolidate resources and coordinate efforts. Geographic proximity can call attention to releases in areas of interest such as
redevelopment, environmental justice, or ecological sensitivity.
State and local governments can utilize geographic clusters for area-wide planning efforts. EPA's analysis identified 1,055
open releases (53 percent of open releases) located within a one-mile radius of five or more other open releases (Figure
9 below left). Of these releases, 576 (29 percent of open releases) are located within a one-mile radius of 10 or more
other open releases. Approaching the assessment and cleanup needs of an area impacted by LUSTs can be more effective
than focusing on individual sites in isolation from the adjacent or surrounding area. Considering geographically-clustered
releases might pave the way for new community-based revitalization efforts, utilize economies of scale to yield benefits such
as reduced equipment costs, and present opportunities to develop multi-site cleanup strategies, especially at locations with
commingled contamination. ECY has recently approached cleanup in Montesano, Washington, based on a geographic cluster
where three adjacent sites are being addressed simultaneously through separate agreed orders. EPA encourages states to
look for opportunities for resource consolidation and area-wide planning but also recognizes that this approach is best geared
to address targeted groups of releases such as Washington's Montesano initiative as opposed to a state-wide opportunity for
every cluster of releases. EPA also recognizes that state laws and regulations might present implementation challenges. For
example, in Washington State, if two (or more) facilities have commingled plumes, then ECY considers and addresses those
programs as one cleanup site. If the contamination is not commingled, however, they must then be treated as individual
sites. EPA intends to conduct further geospatial analyses on clusters of open releases in relation to RPs, highway corridors,
local geologic and hydrogeologic settings, groundwater resources, and/or communities with environmental justice concerns.
These analyses might reveal additional opportunities for backlog reduction.
29 According to Mike Blum, UST & LUST Coordinator, ECY Toxics Cleanup Program.
30 Opportunities marked as "targeted number of releases" relate to geographic opportunities that will address a limited number of
releases within select designated geographic areas.
WA-18
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: WASHINGTON STATE
CONCLUSION
In this state chapter, EPA presented the analysis of LUST data submitted by ECY and highlighted information on Washington
State's LUST program. Based on the analytic results, EPA identified potential opportunities that could be used to address
specific backlog issues within Washington State. Over the course of the entire study, EPA also analyzed data from 13 other
states. Findings and opportunities that apply to all 14 states are discussed in the national chapter of the report. Each
opportunity represents one potential approach among many to address the backlog. Discussion of the opportunities as a
whole is intended as a starting point for further conversations among EPA, ECY, and the other states on strategies to reduce
the backlog. Development of the strategies might include targeted data collection, reviewing particular case files, analyzing
problem areas, and sharing best practices. The strategies could also involve actions from EPA, such as using additional
program metrics, targeting resources for specific cleanup actions, clarifying and developing guidance, and revising policies.
EPA, in partnership with states, is committed to reducing the backlog of confirmed UST releases and to protecting the nation's
groundwater and land and the communities affected by these contaminated releases.
Washington State LUST
Program
Contact Information
Washington State Department of Ecology
Toxics Cleanup Program
Underground Storage Tank / Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Section
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Phone: 360-407-7170
Fax: 360-407-7154
tanks.html
SEPTEMBER 2011
WA-19
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: WASHINGTON STATE
CHAPTER NOTES
WASHINGTON STATE DATA BY ATTRIBUTE
The following table provides details on the data elements of interest in this analysis. Data were provided by ECY staff in 2008 and 2009 for use in this analysis. Several data
elements of interest could not be addressed with the information available. All available data elements were analyzed and only those data elements that revealed informative
patterns of interest are included in the report.
Data Element
Administrative Cost
Washington State Data
Estimates were provided by ECY staff.
Use in Analysis
Included in the "Program Summary"
section and in the national chapter.
Age
Age was calculated for closed releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the closure date and dividing by Variable in all analyses.
365. Age was calculated for open releases by subtracting the confirmed release date from the data date and dividing by
365. Any values less than -.1 were left blank. Values between -.1 and 0 were counted as 0. All dates were rounded to one
decimal point. Ages of releases with insufficient or invalid data were left blank.
Cleanup Financing
Cleanup Standards
Closure Date
Confirmed Release Date
Data Date
ECY Region
Federally-Regulated
LUST Releases
Free Product
Institutional and
Engineering Controls
Latitude and Longitude
Washington State does not have a state fund and no data on private financing mechanisms were available.
No site-specific data available.
Data were obtained from the date field "Release Status Change Date" in "LUSTList_data.xls" and from the "STATUSDATE" in
"WA_RawDatal009." The former corresponds with releases that achieved an RCU status and the latter corresponds with
releases that achieved an NFA status.
Data were obtained from the "Release Notification Date" field in the "LUSTList_data.xls" and "WA_RawDatal009.xls" files.
February 10, 2009, is used for all records. This is the date the data were sent.
Data were obtained from the data field "Responsible Unit" in "LUSTList_data.xls" downloaded from ECY's ISIS Web site.
There are four ECY regions in Washington State: Central, Eastern, Northwest, and Southwest. Headquarters is also included
as an entry in this field.
All releases in the "LUSTList_data.xls" file are federally-regulated LUST releases.
No data available.
Data were obtained from the "TYPE" data field (when "TYPE" = "Restrictive Covenant") in the "UECARgistry_data.
xls" ("Environmental Covenant Registry") from ECY's ISIS website. However, this list only tracks releases that have left
contaminants on site and require a five-year review process. There are only records of institutional controls for 31 releases.
Data were obtained from the "Latitude" and "Longitude" fields in the "LUSTList_data.xls" file. Where possible, coordinates
for releases without existing latitude and longitude values were obtained by EPA staff by geocoding address and street
locations.
Not applicable.
State-wide standards examined in the
national chapter.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Examined in "Regional Differences"
section.
Identifies the appropriate universe of
releases for analysis.
Not applicable.
Data not suitable for analysis.
Used in geospatial analysis calculating the
number of open releases within a one-
mile radius of other open releases.
WA-20
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: WASHINGTON STATE
Data Element
Media
Washington State Data
Data were obtained from the "Media" field in the "LUSTList_data.xls" file (see Media Reference Table). Releases with
groundwater contamination marked (in addition to any other media) were counted as "groundwater." Releases with only
soil contamination marked were counted as "soil." Releases with any other combination of media were counted as "other."
"Unknown" releases might include those releases for which there are no data available in the database, but for which
information is available in other files and releases for which the type of media contaminated is truly unknown. Note that
ECY is in the process of eliminating drinking water as a media choice and moving those few releases into the groundwater
category.
Use in Analysis
Examined in the "Media Contaminated"
section.
Monitored Natural
Attenuation (MNA)
Data were obtained from the "TLU_COMMENT_DS" field in the "r_tab_lust_non_nfa_rcu_w_contam.xls" file. Releases
with the value "GW - Monitored Natural Attenuation" were marked as using MNA. These data were only tracked since
2000 and only 12 releases met these criteria.
Data not suitable for analysis.
Methyl Tertiary Butyl
Ether
Data were obtained from the "CTLU_COMMENT_DS" data field in "r_tab_lust_non_nfa_rcu_w_contam.xls." These data
were only tracked since 2000.
Data not suitable for analysis.
Number of Releases
per RP
Proximity
No data available.
Not applicable
Orphan ECY has an "abandoned" data field to mark abandoned sites in its UST and LUST databases. This status designation is not Data not suitable for analysis.
routinely used and there is not a clear ECY definition available to indicate which releases qualify as "abandoned." Some
LUST releases are truly abandoned, whereby the site owner/operator is no longer present or viable and the property has or
might default back to a prior owner, bank, or locality due to back taxes or lack of mortgage payments. Other "abandoned"
LUST releases might have an owner/operator but the parties might have no financial resources to affect a cleanup. ECY staff
does not recommend using this data field to draw any conclusions.
Geospatial analysis performed by EPA revealed the number of other open releases located within a one-mile radius of each
open release.
Examined in the "Geographic Clusters"
section.
Public Spending Data were obtained from the "Grant Amount" field in the "AIIGrants_id of New and LUST.xls" file. This data set contains
information on the amount of public grant money awarded for 30 LUST cleanups between 1997 and 2009. However,
ID numbers to link these data to other release-level information are not available. The average grant amount per LUST
cleanup based on this data set is $256,044; the average project cost per LUST cleanup based on the same data set is
$412,206, indicating that public spending is only a portion of the overall cleanup cost. Because the grant money was spent
over several years but reported as a cumulative sum, inflation adjustment is not possible.
Release Priority Data were only available on the CSCS List, which contains only a subset of LUST releases (ECY is in the process of moving all
LUST release data to the CSCS List). Data that are available only on the CSCS List are at the facility level and can be linked
only to individual releases through facility IDs. Accordingly, the priority rank for a facility on the CSCS List will be assigned
to all releases at that facility. In addition, because this priority rank is based on all contamination, not just LUST-related
contamination, LUST releases are in general low priority. Therefore, this data field would not indicate priorities among LUST
releases.
RP
Data not suitable for analysis.
No informative patterns were identified.
No data available.
Not applicable.
RP Recalcitrance
No data available.
Not applicable.
Site Owner Type Data were obtained from the "ownertyp_ds" field in the "r_tab_lust_non_nfa_rcu_w_contam.xls" file. These data were
only tracked since 2000. The type of owners that ECY tracks include: Private, Municipal (City/PUD/Town/Port), County,
Federal, State, Mixed, Public School, and 1872 Mining Law.
No informative patterns were identified.
SEPTEMBER 2011
WA-21
-------
STATE SUMMARY CHAPTER: WASHINGTON STATE
Data Element
Staff Workload
Washington State Data
Estimates provided by ECY staff.
Use in Analysis
Examined in the "Program Summary"
section and in the national chapter.
Stage of Cleanup Data were obtained from the "Release Status" field in the "LUSTList_data.xls" file downloaded from ECY's ISIS website. ECY
uses several release statuses, such as "Awaiting Cleanup," "Cleanup Started," "Reported Cleaned Up," and "Monitoring"
(see Stage of Cleanup Reference Table). There is not an easy way to further separate open releases into Confirmed Release
and Site Assessment stages. In Washington State, a site assessment is usually completed to confirm a release.
Status
Data were obtained from the "Release Status" data field in the "LUSTList_data.xls" file downloaded from ECY's online
ISIS website. When a release had an RCU status, it was marked as "Closed;" other releases were marked as "Open." In
Washington State, "closed releases" are those releases with an RCU status or NFA determination. An NFA determination is
a formal determination from ECY. An RCU status is not a formal agency determination. A list of additional releases closed
with NFA determinations was obtained from the "r_tabJust_nfa_excel_version_4_epa_10-7-09.xls" file. These releases
were counted as closed.
Variable in all analyses.
Identifies the appropriate universe of
releases for tree analysis.
VCP
Data were only available on the CSCS List, which contains a partial subset of LUST releases. (ECY is in the process of moving
all LUST release data to the CSCS List.) Data that are available only on the CSCS List are at the facility level and can be linked
to individual releases only through facility IDs. However, because LUST releases were added to the CSCS List when they
entered the VCP, this data element is representative of the majority of releases in the VCP.
Examined in the "Cleanup Oversight"
section.
Media Reference Table
Each release was assigned to a single media type for this analysis, based on the ECY
Media data.
ECY Media
Air
Drinking Water
Ground Water
Soil
Surface Water
Unknown
Media in this
Analysis
Other
Groundwater
Groundwater
Sediments (Underlying Water) Other
Soil
Other
Other
Stage of Cleanup Reference Table
Each release was assigned to a specific stage of cleanup for this analysis, based on the
ECY Release Status. Releases represented in a supplemental list of releases closed
with NFA determinations were counted as closed.
ECY Release Status
Awaiting Cleanup
Other
Unknown
Cleanup Started
Monitoring
Reported Cleaned Up
Stage in this Analysis
Confirmed Release/Site Assessment
Confirmed Release/Site Assessment
Confirmed Release/Site Assessment
Remediation
Remediation
Closed
WA-22
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
APPENDIX A: DATA COMPILATION AND ANALYTIC METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX A: D ATA C O M P I L AT I O N
AND ANALYTIC METHODOLOGY
DATA COMPILATION AND ORGANIZATION
The goals of the Phase 2 backlog study were to characterize the national backlog,
explain its persistence, and identify opportunities for its reduction. To achieve
these goals, OUST relied on data provided by 14 participating states. Beginning in
April 2008, OUST contacted the states' UST program staff to discuss and compile
information on all sources of electronic data related to the management of LUST
releases. State staff began submitting the requested data in early 2009. Data sources
included state databases, reports, spreadsheets, and other documents. All available
data fields related to LUST releases were catalogued and evaluated to determine
data completeness and applicability to attributes of interest. State managers
generally reported that data are maintained in greater detail within paper files and
acknowledged that not all data are tracked in the databases.
Data sets for federally-regulated LUSTs were organized and standardized by OUST to
develop final data sets suitable for analysis and comparison within and across states.
All data standardization was discussed with staff in each state to ensure that data
were not misinterpreted. The number of cumulative releases, closed releases, and
open releases were compared with the totals reported in EPA's FY 2008 End of Year
and FY 2009 Mid-Year Activity reports to determine whether the correct subset had
been identified. All data were confirmed with state staff and any inconsistencies
were addressed or otherwise noted.
ANALYTIC APPROACHES
OUST employed statistical methods to analyze available data and characterize the
backlog in each state. Open releases were analyzed based on release age and stage
of cleanup.
Age of Release
For closed releases, age was calculated as the difference between the date of cleanup
completion (i.e., the closure date) and the confirmed release date. For open releases,
age was calculated as the difference between the date that a state provided the data
and the confirmed release date. These data, therefore, provide a snapshot of the
backlog as of spring or summer 2009, depending on when each state provided its
data.
Stage of Cleanup
A LUST release progresses through four stages of cleanup: Confirmed Release, Site
Assessment, Remediation, and Closure. For this analysis, these four stages were used
to assess what OUST considers the "cleanup pipeline." Analyses based on the stage of
cleanup aimed to identify any clear bottlenecks in this pipeline.
The methods for tracking the cleanup progress of a LUST release differ among states
and can be grouped into two main types: tracking of release status (e.g., active
remediation) and tracking of release events (e.g., remedial design received). States
that track release status typically record one status for each release. In collaboration
with each state, OUST matched these data entries to one of the four stages of cleanup.
States that track release events provided historical records of correspondence and
other events related to releases along with the dates on which the events occurred.
These records were queried to identify the most recent event and to identify any
event indicating that a release had progressed into a subsequent cleanup stage.
Each participating state reviewed the number of releases classified into each stage
of cleanup.1
Descriptive Statistical Analyses
Descriptive statistics were used to characterize each of the 14 participating states'
backlogs and the national backlog. Primary methods of backlog characterization
included the distribution of releases by stage of cleanup and the median age
of releases. Additional release attributes were analyzed within age and stage
classifications and results were discussed within each section of the report.
Analytic Tree Method
For each state, data attributes were analyzed using the analytic tree method. The
analytic tree method was used to identify underlying patterns that would not
otherwise be apparent among these large datasets. Age of release and media
contaminated were used as the dependent variables in separate tree analyses for
The Chapter Notes section of each state report presents the classification method used
in each state.
SEPTEMBER 2011
A-1
-------
APPENDIX A: DATA COMPILATION AND ANALYTIC METHODOLOGY
each state. These analyses were included in six state reports where clear patterns
emerged: Montana, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas.
For states where informative patterns were not identified, the results of the analytic
tree method were not included in those state reports.
The analytic tree method is an exploratory data analysis technique for uncovering
structure in large data sets by building a tree that assigns cases (e.g., releases) into
discrete groups. Multiple tree models were analyzed for all 14 states. This method
can be used for:
Screening large numbers of variables that have the potential to influence
backlog distribution (e.g., distribution of backlog among media types) or
cleanup speed (i.e., age of releases), and selecting a useful subset of variables
for use in building more refined tree models.
Merging categorical variables and receding continuous variables into discrete
groups based on the underlying structure in the data set with minimal loss of
information.
Identifying relationships that pertain only to specific subgroups of releases
and specifying these in a tree. For example, a release's priority might only
have a significant influence on its age if it is a state fund site. This relationship
between priority and release age would remain hidden in the data set if
releases were not first grouped into a subset of only state fund releases.
Stratifying releases into groups for which specific actions can be targeted.
For categorical variables, such as priority code, the tree-building process will seek to
merge similar code categories based on the underlying structure in the data set. For
example, if there are four original priority code categories used by a state (priority
1, 2, 3, and 4), the tree-building process might merge these four categories into two
(priority 1 and 2 merged into "priority <=2" and priority 3 and 4 merged into "priority
>2") because the underlying structure in the data set suggests that priority 1 and 2
are not significantly different in how they influence backlog distribution or cleanup
speed (same for priority 3 and 4).
For continuous variables, such as confirmed release date, the tree-building process
will recode the continuous values into discrete categories based on the underlying
structure in the data set. For example, the original confirmed release date might be
receded into four time periods during a tree-building process because the underlying
structure in the data set suggests that these four time periods are significantly
different in how they influence backlog distribution or cleanup speed.
Tree-Growing Methods
There are several tree-growing methods, including CHAID, CRT, and QUEST:
CHAID (Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection): At each step, CHAID
chooses the independent (predictor) variable that has the strongest interaction
with the dependent variable. Categories of each predictor are merged if they
are not significantly different with respect to the dependent variable.
CRT (Classification and Regression Tree): CRT splits the data into segments
that are as homogeneous as possible with respect to the dependent variable.
A terminal node in which all cases have the same value for the dependent
variable is a homogeneous, "pure" node.
QUEST (Quick, Unbiased, Efficient Statistical Tree): This method avoids the
other methods' bias in favor of predictors with many categories. QUEST can be
specified only if the dependent variable is nominal.
For a classification-type problem (with a categorical dependent variable such as
backlog distribution among media types), all three methods can be used to build
a tree for prediction. For a regression-type problem (with a continuous dependent
variable such as release age), the QUEST algorithm is not appropriate, so only CHAID
and CRT can be used. Therefore, for this study, CHAID and CRT are more applicable
than QUEST.
CHAID will build non-binary trees that tend to be "wider." CHAID often yields many
terminal nodes connected to a single branch, which can be conveniently summarized
in a simple two-way table with multiple categories for each variable or dimension of
the table. Therefore, CHAID is well-suited for identifying "pockets of releases" for this
study. For example, it might yield a split on the variable Age, dividing that variable
into three categories (e.g., "< 7 years old," "7-12 years old," and "> 12 years old") and
groups of releases belonging to those categories that are different with respect to the
frequencies of media contaminated (e.g., releases that are 7 years of age or younger
might have disproportionately more unknown contamination, releases that are older
than 12 years might have disproportionately more groundwater contamination, and
releases that are in between might have disproportionately more soil contamination).
CRT, on the other hand, will always yield binary trees, which might not provide
sufficient resolutions.
For this study, CHAID was a more suitable tree-growing method than CRT or QUEST.
A-2
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
APPENDIX A: DATA COMPILATION AND ANALYTIC METHODOLOGY
Tree-Building Algorithm: CHAID
The basic algorithms that are used to construct non-binary trees (CHAID) are the Chi-
square test and the F-test. The Chi-square test is used to determine the best next split
at each step for classification problems (with categorical dependent variables such as
backlog distribution among media types) while the F-test is used for regression-type
problems (with continuous dependent variables such as site age). Specifically, the
tree-building algorithm proceeds as follows:
Preparing predictors: The first step is to create categorical predictors out of any
continuous predictors (e.g., age and cleanup cost) by dividing the respective
continuous distributions into a number of categories with an approximately
equal number of observations. For categorical predictors, the categories are
pre-defined (e.g., priority code and media type).
In this study, this method allowed for a simultaneous assessment of continuous
and categorical variables with a minimized loss of information, which had been a
significant limitation of other classification methods (e.g., discriminant analysis).2
Merging categories: The next step is to cycle through the predictors to
determine for each predictor the pair of (predictor) categories that is least
significantly different with respect to the dependent variable; for classification
problems (where the dependent variable is categorical as well), the algorithm
will compute a Chi-square test; for regression problems (where the dependent
variable is continuous), it will compute an F-test. If the respective test for
a given pair of predictor categories is not statistically significant as defined
by an alpha-to-merge value (default set to p=0.05), then it will merge the
respective predictor categories and repeat this step (i.e., find the next pair of
categories, which now might include previously-merged categories). If the
respective test for the pair of predictor categories is statistically significant, then
it will compute a Bonferroni-adjusted p-value for the set of categories for the
respective predictor.
For this study, it is in this step that "binning" of predictor variables occurred (e.g., the
original four categories of priority code might have been merged into two categories,
based on how they related to site age).
Selecting the split variable: The next step is to choose the split, the predictor
variable with the smallest adjusted p-value (i.e., the predictor variable that
will yield the most significant split). If the smallest adjusted p-value for any
2 The classic CHAID algorithms can accommodate both continuous and categorical
predictors. However, in practice, it is not uncommon to combine such variables into
analysis of variance (ANOVA)/covariance (ANCOVA)-like predictor designs with main
effects or interaction effects for categorical and continuous predictors.
predictor is greater than a pre-defined alpha-to-split value (default set to
p=0.05), then no further splits will be performed, and the respective node is a
terminal node.
For this study, it is in this step that "pockets of releases" were identified and each
individual release received a group affiliation (i.e., terminal node number).
Tree Validation and Risk Estimate
Validation enables an assessment of how well the tree structure generalizes to a
larger population. Two validation methods are available: cross-validation and split-
sample validation. Cross-validation produces a single, final tree model, and is less
sensitive to the size of the data set. This method is more suitable for this analysis.
Cross-validation divides the sample into a number of subsamples, or folds (default to
ten subsamples, or folds). Tree models are then generated, excluding the data from
each subsample in turn. The first tree is based on all of the cases (i.e., LUST releases)
except those in the first sample fold, the second tree is based on all of the cases
except those in the second sample fold, and so on. For each tree, misclassification
risk is estimated by applying the tree to the subsample excluded in generating it. The
misclassification risk estimate for the final tree is then calculated as the average of
the risks for all of the trees.
The risk estimate provides some measure of how well a tree performs (e.g., does
it misclassify 10 percent of the releases, 20 percent of the releases, or more than
20 percent of the releases?). For a continuous dependent variable (e.g., release
age), the misclassification risk estimate needs a little work to provide a meaningful
interpretation:
the total variance equals the within-node (error) variance plus the between-
node (explained) variance;
the within-node variance is the risk estimate value (x);
the total variance (y) is the variance for the dependent variables before
consideration of any independent (predictor) variables, which is the variance at
the root node (variance equals the squared standard deviation displayed at the
root node);
the proportion of variance due to error (unexplained variance) is x/y; and
the proportion of variance explained by the tree is 1 - x/y.
Potential Issues Related to the Analytic Tree Method
It is important to note that results from an analytic tree still require interpretation.
It is not uncommon that certain splits or terminal nodes are interpreted as being
more important than others in a final tree. Multiple analytic trees for all 14 states
SEPTEMBER 2011
A-3
-------
APPENDIX A: DATA COMPILATION AND ANALYTIC METHODOLOGY
were carefully evaluated in the context of the state's program history, program
characteristics, data limitations, and risk estimate. Trees with unacceptable risk
estimates or uninformative models were omitted from the reports.
DATA ATTRIBUTES OF INTEREST
Data related to the following release attributes were analyzed by age of release and
stage of cleanup.
Media Contaminated
The type of media contaminated by each release was documented electronically
by most participating states. Some states use a series of "yes/no" data fields to
indicate the types of media contaminated, while other states use a variety of entries
in a single data field. Several states did not have clear data sources regarding media
contamination, so the data were classified based on priority code descriptions and
other sources. OUST worked with participating states to classify the data. State-
specific classifications are referenced in the Chapter Notes section of the state reports.
For the purposes of this analysis, releases were categorized into four media types:
groundwater,soil, other, and unknown. Releases with any groundwater contamination
were categorized as "groundwater." Releases with soil-only contamination indicated
were categorized as "soil." Releases with any other combination of media (e.g.,
surface water or vapor) were categorized as "other." Releases categorized as
"unknown" include both releases for which the media contaminated is truly unknown
and releases for which there were no data available in state databases but for which
information is known to the state in paper files.
Release Priority
Eight states in this study use a formalized priority system to determine the order
in which cleanups receive state funding and oversight: Florida, Michigan, Montana,
Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. The use of
prioritization in participating states ranged from informal, case manager-driven actions
to formalized rankings based on calculated receptor risks. Florida, North Carolina,
and South Carolina have statutes directing resources toward only the releases that
pose the highest risk. Data varied among states and included ranking of numerical
scores or categorical priority classes (e.g., high, medium, or low). Any necessary data
manipulation to classify releases into priority categories was discussed with agency
staff in each state and is referenced in the Chapter Notes section of each state report.
Cleanup Financing
Data provided by states relating to cleanup financing included a variety of data fields,
including status of state fund eligibility, amount of public dollars spent on cleanup,
and type of private financing for a release. Releases classified as "unknown" might be
eligible for state funding. "Other" indicates those releases that will not be financed
by a state fund. These releases might or might not have a private FR mechanism. In
some cases, the data field pertained to a facility as a whole rather than an individual
release, and rules were developed to apply the facility-level data to individual releases.
Refer to the Cleanup Financing section of each state report for state-specific analyses.
Responsible Party/Affiliated Party
Data tracked in state databases generally included the names of RPs, the names of
potentially responsible parties (e.g., a past facility owner), or the names of current
facility owners. For the purposes of the Phase 2 backlog study, the names tracked
in the state databases were assumed to be RPs unless the state or state database
specified otherwise. APs were determined based on obvious owner names affiliated
with certain industries. RP names related to state or local governmental departments
were designated as "government RPs." RPs without clear affiliations were designated
as "unknown."
Additional Data Attributes
OUST requested several additional data attributes from the participating states (Table
Al). These attributes were analyzed when available. In some cases the data provided
could not be analyzed because a state provided data for a subset of releases or for
only those releases that have been closed. In addition, some states advised against
analyzing certain provided data that is not updated regularly in the state database.
State-specific data attributes are discussed within each state report.
A-4
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
APPENDIX A: DATA COMPILATION AND ANALYTIC METHODOLOGY
Table Al. Data Requested from Participating States
Attribute
Data Element
CA
FL IL Ml MT NC NE NH
NJ
NY
^H^^^^^^^^^l
Release Attributes
Release Age
Location
Media Contaminated
Type of Contaminant
Type of Remediation
Ownership/ Affiliation
Recalcitrant Party
Orphan
Release date, release reported date, or release discovery date
Closure date
Latitude/longitude
Media contaminated
Contaminants of concern
Presence of ethylene dibromide (EDB)
Presence of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
Treatment technology
Active/passive remediation
Site owner/RP
Sites with recalcitrant RPs
Orphan cleanups
Y
Y
Y
Y
P
N
N
P
P
Y
N
N
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 N Y
P N N N N N N
N N N N N N Y
P P Y N P P Y
N P P N P N N
N N Y N P N Y
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
N P N P P N P
P N P N N Y NA1
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
P
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
NA2
Y
Y
Y
Y
P
P |
Y
P
P |
N
P
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
P
Y
Y
N
N
Y Y
Y Y
Y Y
Y Y
N P
N N
P P
P P
Y P
Y N
Y N
N P
Program Attributes
Cleanup Priority
Resources Directed Toward
Cleanup
Enforcement Activity
Policy Toward Site Closure
Mechanism of Financial
Responsibility
Policies Supporting Property
Transactions
LUST cleanup priority
Sites per case manager
Spending per site
Dollars spent for program administration
Sites with free product
Sites under enforcement actions
Sites closed with institutional or engineering controls
Type of FR mechanism financing site cleanup
State fund eligibility/state funding
Voluntary cleanup program
Property transactions occurred or pending LUST cleanup
Y Data obtained, analyzed, and evaluated in the report.
P Data provided but not evaluated in the report, due to either poor data quality,
incompleteness, or a lack of informative patterns. See state-specific reports for more
information.
N Data not provided.
NA Not applicable.
NA3
N
P
N
Y
N
P
N
Y
N
N
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Y ^H Y Y Y Y NA3
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
P Y N Y P P P
P Y Y Y Y Y Y
N N N N P N N
N P N N N N N
P Y Y N Y P P
P N P N N P N
Y Y Y Y Y P Y
N P N N N Y N
N N N Y Y N N
Y
Y
P
Y
N
N
Y
P
P
P
P
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
NA3
Y
N
Y
N
P
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
P
Y NA3
Y Y
P P
Y Y
P N
Y N
N P
P Y
N N
There are no orphan releases in New Hampshire.
New York Department of Environmental Conservation does not consider any release to be
orphan and has a proactive enforcement arm looking for RPs.
State does not use a LUST prioritization system.
Washington State does not use state funds for cleanups.
Data were not available to distinguish between the Confirmed Release and Site Assessment
stages.
Data not tracked by lead office/agency/district.
SEPTEMBER 2011
A-5
-------
APPENDIX A: DATA COMPILATION AND ANALYTIC METHODOLOGY
Attribute
CA FL IL Ml MT NC NE NH NJ NY PA SC TX
^^^^^H
Additional Data
Stage of cleanup
Site-specific cleanup standards
Operating business at site
Lead office/agency/district
Y Data obtained, analyzed, and evaluated in the report.
P Data provided but not evaluated in the report, due to either poor data quality,
incompleteness, or a lack of informative patterns. See state-specific reports for more
information.
N Data not provided.
NA Not applicable.
1. There are no orphan releases in New Hampshire.
DATA SOURCES
YYYYYYYY5YNYYY
NNNNNPNNNNYPN
NPNNNNNNNNNNN
Y P Y Y NA6 Y NA6 NA6 NA6 Y Y N N
Y5
N
N
Y
2. New York Department of Environmental Conservation does not consider any release to
be orphan and has a proactive enforcement arm looking for RPs.
3. State does not use a LUST prioritization system.
4. Washington State does not use state funds for cleanups.
5. Data were not available to distinguish between the Confirmed Release and Site
Assessment stages.
6. Data not tracked by lead office/agency/district.
Therefore, the Phase 2 data from state databases is considered more reliable for age-
based analyses.
End of Year LIST Performance Measures
EPA collects and publishes data from states and territories regarding LIST performance
measures, including information such as the releases reported, cleanups initiated,
and cleanups completed. EPA's End of Year FY 2006 LIST Performance Measures
was used to select the 14 states participating in the Phase 2 study and to compare
the performance of these states with the remaining 42 states and territories. LIST
Performance Measures data were not used for further analysis due to the availability
of raw data from state databases.
Data Comparison and Validation
A comparison of the Phase 2 and LIST Performance Measures data found several
discrepancies that further validated OUST's use of original state data. For example,
due to states' ongoing corrections to previously reported data, the LIST Performance
Measures differ significantly from the data from the state databases. In three
instances, the LIST Performance Measures data indicated a state achieved a negative
number of closures. Due to ongoing adjustments by states, the closure date or
release date might not be accurately reflected in the LIST Performance Measures.
A comparison of the 2008 cleanup backlog from each data source found the overall
numbers to be similar (Table A2). However, the two data sources differed by more
than 15 percent in three states: California, Florida, and Illinois. In each case, the
discrepancy was pursued and clarified with the state: California's database did not
include releases at DOD facilities at the time of the comparison; Florida reports
the number of facilities, not individual releases, in its LIST Performance Measures
reporting; and Illinois tracks and reports federally-regulated tanks differently than
OUST's definitions.
ASTWMO Data
Additional data were obtained from the publicly-available ASTSWMO Tanks
Subcommittee publications, including the State Funds Task Force State Fund Surveys:
www.astswmo.org/Pages/Policies and Publications/Tanks.htm. Data are based on
a survey conducted by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. No
explanation of data is included in the reports, and it is acknowledged in the survey
that the data are only as accurate as responses provided by the states.
Table A2. Comparison of Cleanup Backlog in 2008 as Reported by States and Calculated from Phase 2 Data
EOY 2008 Data
11,481 13,927 6,840 9,183 1,090 5,810 1,806 769 4,146 2,443 3,368 3,072 3,033 1,935
Phase 2 Data (approximately March 2009) 9,504 16,397 8,641 9,121 1,198 6,429 1,835 764
4,332 2,438 3,314 3,078 3,007 2,017
A-6
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
APPENDIX A: DATA COMPILATION AND ANALYTIC METHODOLOGY
Additional Data
Administrative Budgets
The administrative budgets available to state programs might affect states' ability to oversee and complete cleanups, but data were
not suitable for comparative analyses due to differences in state program structures and type of budget provided. For example,
the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality provided an estimate that includes approximately $1 million for a privatization
contract, while New York's spending data include the administration of all petroleum releases, not just LUSTs, and include federal
LUST grant data (Table A3). In addition, states did not provide the budgets for the same FY. This study was therefore unable to
relate states' administrative budgets to the rate of closure or size of backlog.
Staff Workload
The number of staff available to manage LUST cases might affect states' ability to oversee and complete cleanups, but data were
not suitable for comparative analyses due to differences in state programs. The data available were typically either an estimate
provided by state staff or calculated based on a comparison between the number of program managers listed in the database
and the number of open releases. For example, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NY DEC) reported
that each project manager is responsible for only 22 open releases whereas the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources reported each manager is assigned 275 open releases (Table A4). This significant difference can be attributed to
NY DEC's program structure in which case managers work on both LUST and non-LUST contamination. In addition, the Nebraska
Department of Environmental Quality reported a caseload of 85 releases per case manager; this estimate only includes active
cases and does not include the additional 1,000 inactive releases for which no case manager is assigned. Due to these confounding
factors the releases per case manager were not compared to state backlogs.
Table A3. State Administrative Budgets3
State
FY 2007
FY 2008
IL Ml
-
$4.8 $1.7
million million
MT
-
$1.0
million
NC
$4.0
million
-
NE
$1.0
million
-
NH
-
$1.8
million
NJ
$5.3
million
-
NY
$2.3
million
-
|B
$2.7
million
$3.4
million
mm
$3.5
million
-
-
$1.2
million
Table A4. Number of Open Cases per Project Manager, by State4
CA FL IL Ml MT NC NE NH NJ NY PA SC TX WA
Number of Open
LUST Cases
52
122 141 136 275
85
90
93
22
116 197
30
184
3 No data were received for California or Florida.
4 Data were not available for California.
SEPTEMBER 2011
A-7
-------
APPENDIX A: DATA COMPILATION AND ANALYTIC METHODOLOGY
State Baseline Cleanup Standards for Groundwater Contamination
Table A5 details the specific groundwater cleanup standards for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) compounds in the
14 participating states.
Table A5. State Baseline Cleanup Standards for Groundwater
1 State
CA
FL
IL
Ml
MT
NC
NE
NH
NJ
NY
PA
SC
TX
WA
Benzene
(mg/L)
0.001
0.001
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.001
0.005
0.005
0.001
0.0007
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
Toluene
(mg/L)
0.15
1
1
0.79
1
1
1
1
0.6
0.005
1
1
1
1
Ethylbenzene
(mg/L)
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.074
0.7
0.55
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.005
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Xylenes
(mg/L)
1.75
10
10
0.28
10
0.53
10
10
7
0.005
10
10
10
1
Source
www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Documents/Lawbook/
DWRegBook2008 03 09a.pdf
www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/Rules/waste/62-777/62-777 Tablel Groundwa-
terCTLs.pdf
www.ipcb.state.il.us/documents/dsweb/Get/Document-38408/
www.michigan.gov/documents/dea/dea-rrd-OpMemo 1 283544 7.pdf
dea.mt.gov/wainfo/standards/default.mcpx
ncrules.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2015a%20-%20environment%20and%20natu-
ral%20resources/chapter%2002%20-%20environmental%20management/
subchapter%20l/subchapter%20l%20rules.pdf
www.dea.state.ne. us/Publica.nsf/0/66fdec793aefc4b286256a93005b8db8/$FI
LE/RBCA GD MAY 2009.pdf
des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/legal/rules/documents/env-or600.pdf
www.state.ni.us/dep/wms/bwqsa/docs/niac79C.pdf
www.dec.nv.gov/regs/4590.html
www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter250/subchapCtoc.html
www.scdhec.gov/environment/lwm/forms/RBCA Ol.pdf
www.tceq.state.tx.us/remediation/trrp/trrppcls.html
apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-200&full=true
A-8
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
&ER&
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
APPENDIX B:
PHASE 1 ANALYSIS OF THE BACKLOG OF OPEN
LUST RELEASES AS OF NOVEMBER 2006
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
September 2011
B-1
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ASTSWMO Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY Fiscal Year
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
OUST Office of Underground Storage Tanks
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
UST Underground Storage Tank
B-2
-------
APPENDIX B: PHASE 1 ANALYSIS OF THE BACKLOG OF OPEN LUST RELEASES AS OF NOVEMBER 2006
CONTENTS
Executive Summary B-5
Background B-6
Number of Cleanups Completed Each Year Has Trended Downward B-7
Federal LUST Spending Has Trended Downward when Adjusted for Inflation B-7
Trends Slowing State Cleanups B-8
A Snapshot of the Cleanup Backlog B-9
More Than Half of the National Backlog is Concentrated in 10 States B-9
More Than Half of Releases Are at Least 10 Years Old B-10
More Than Half of Releases Contaminate Groundwater B-10
Releases that Impact Soil Only Constitute 16 Percent of the Backlog B-12
Releases with Unknown Media Contamination Constitute 21 Percent of the Backlog B-13
A $2.3 Billion Budget Shortfall for Cleanups May Exist for the 24 States Analyzed B-14
Potential Opportunities to Expedite Reduction of the Cleanup Backlog B-15
Concentrated Distribution of Releases B-15
Releases with Soil-only Contamination B-15
Releases with Unknown Media Contamination B-15
Potential Constraints on Expediting Backlog Reduction B-16
Data Management B-16
State Financing Gaps B-16
Technological Constraints of Groundwater Cleanup B-16
Conclusion B-17
Methodology and Data Quality B-18
SEPTEMBER 2011 B-3
-------
APPENDIX B: PHASE 1 ANALYSIS OF THE BACKLOG OF OPEN LUST RELEASES AS OF NOVEMBER 2006
[This page intentionally blank]
B-4 SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
APPENDIX B: PHASE 1 ANALYSIS OF THE BACKLOG OF OPEN LUST RELEASES AS OF NOVEMBER 2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Many underground storage tank (LIST) releases were discovered due to the
implementation of new federal release prevention and detection requirements
and state cleanup programs. The total number of federally-regulated open (i.e.,
incomplete) leaking underground storage tank (LUST) releases is commonly referred
to as the cleanup backlog or the backlog. Although the national backlog has declined
since 2000, a large backlog of open LUST releases continues to exist despite cleanup
efforts, and fewer cleanups are being completed annually by states. Several factors
may have contributed to the decrease in annual cleanups completed by states since
2000, or more broadly, to the persistence of a cleanup backlog. In an effort to better
characterize the composition of the LUST cleanup backlog, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) invited states
to voluntarily share their LUST cleanup data for analysis. Forty-three states, Puerto
Rico, and the District of Columbia volunteered data files.1 The aggregate LUST cleanup
backlog for the 45 states is 104,884 releases which is 92 percent of the 2006 national
backlog of 113,915 releases. In this report, the backlog of 104,884 releases is a proxy
for the "national backlog." These data provided a snapshot of the cleanup backlog as
of November 2006.
Analysis of the state data identified several major characteristics of the backlog:
Approximately two-thirds (64 percent; 67,147 releases) of releases in the
national backlog are concentrated in 10 states.
More than half (59 percent; 62,149 releases) of releases involve impacts to
groundwater resources.
More than half (55 percent; 57,588 releases) of cleanups in the backlog are 10
years of age or older:
o Of releases that impact groundwater, 60 percent are 10 years old or
older;
o Of releases that contaminate soil only, 40 percent are 10 years old or
older; and
o Of releases where the impacted media is unknown, 48 percent are 10
years old or older.
Approximately 21 percent of cleanups involve "unknown" media
contamination, where the impacted media is not specified in the available
data.
There is an estimated $2.3 billion budget shortfall for cleanups for the 24
states with relevant data that could be analyzed.
The 16,856 releases in the backlog that contaminate soil only could potentially offer
an opportunity to reduce the cleanup backlog. More time will be needed to complete
the 62,149 releases impacting groundwater. There are an additional 4,274 releases
that impact other media. The true classification of the 21,605 releases where the
contaminated media is unknown needs to be addressed to make a fully informed
decision about how best to proceed with reducing the backlog. Closer tracking of
impacted media and of older stalled cleanups would be very helpful to target and
reduce the backlog of open LUST releases.
1. Arizona, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, Georgia, and South Dakota did not send in a data file. Ohio did not provide the release date necessary for
the age calculation but did provide the number of backlogged cleanups and the type of media impacted.
SEPTEMBER 2011
B-5
-------
APPENDIX B: PHASE 1 ANALYSIS OF THE BACKLOG OF OPEN LUST RELEASES AS OF NOVEMBER 2006
BACKGROUND
In 1984, Congress passed Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), which
required EPA to develop a comprehensive program for regulation of underground
tanks and underground tank systems and led to the promulgation of the federal
LIST regulations in 1988. The widespread implementation of new state release
prevention, leak detection, and cleanup programs identified many additional open
releases requiring cleanup. As states enforced regulations for LIST release cleanups,
the number of open LUST releases began increasing. This trend continued until
Fiscal Year (FY) 1999, after which the number of open LUST releases began to decline
(Figure 1 below). This decline illustrates that from 1999 to 2007, state programs were
successfully reducing the national backlog by completing cleanups faster than new
releases were being reported.
Figure 1. LUST National Backlog FY89 - FY07*
200,000
£ 180,000
0)
£ 160,000
tjfl _Q)
.2
-------
APPENDIX B: PHASE 1 ANALYSIS OF THE BACKLOG OF OPEN LUST RELEASES AS OF NOVEMBER 2006
NUMBER OF CLEANUPS COMPLETED EACH
YEAR HAS TRENDED DOWNWARD
Despite this reduction in the cleanup backlog (Figure 1, page 6), since 2000, fewer
cleanups are being completed annually by state LIST programs (Figure 2 below). With
the exception of 2003, the number of cleanups completed annually by state LIST
programs has gradually decreased from 20,834 in 2000 to 13,862 in 2007.
Figure 2. Annual Cleanups Completed FYOO - FY07*
25,000
y, 5 20,000
Q. o
= V
= a 15,000
-------
APPENDIX B: PHASE 1 ANALYSIS OF THE BACKLOG OF OPEN LUST RELEASES AS OF NOVEMBER 2006
TRENDS SLOWING STATE CLEANUPS
State cleanup funds have financed most active and completed cleanups in the backlog.
In 2006, 36 states maintained active state cleanup funds for LUSTs. The Association of
State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) State Fund Task
Force reports from these states illustrate some state-level trends that likely affect the
remaining backlog.2 According to these reports, from 1994 to 2008 the 36 states with
active cleanup funds processed more claims per year (Figure 4 top left), experienced
Figure 4. Number of New Claims per Year
increased caseloads per staff worker (Figure 5 top right), and incurred higher average
cleanup cost at closure (Figure 6 bottom left). Figures 4-6 include fitted lines (orange)
to better illustrate the increasing trends. In addition, the aggregate dollar value of
unpaid claims against state funds often exceeds the funds' balance (Figure 7 bottom
right).
Figure 5. Average Staff Member Caseload
160,000
w 140,000
Q_
| 120,000
0
O 100,000
Z 80,000
M
2 60000
_Q
| 40,000
Z
20,000
0
Figure 6. A
£$120,000
O $100,000
'm
[g $80,000
0
0
"3l $60,000
0
Q-
"§ $40,000
o
0
|" $20,000
0
>
< $0
N
200
140,298 180
A SS 160
0 ^
0 0 140
98,905 K £
0 0 1^U
A / \ 5? 100
/\ / \ E|
/ \ 57£60 \ ^^ G^^ =! S 80
.,,.,,., ,Knjn ' T 7^ 3T812 7*'=51\77 y* M, CL 60
»_^^ .«. ^ / \ / *\/\/
17*916 ^4JUU 20,429 "6J"" < 20
182 131
172 172 171 4-
155X*\152>^'*'^
130 13Q/£- "^^
^^j^T
93 96 QS-J^*
V^**
*
verage Cleanup Cost at Closure Figure 7. Aggregate State Fund Balances and Outstanding Claims
$104,776
/\ $90,057 ^^^gt^^^^^
$78,482 / \^^-$9n,375 $89*087 ft $0
^^^--57^129 ' =
/"o
$35,159
2.7 2.7
/ \ ^° 19 - 19 1/
14 1/ v^^/rf'-'C^
^»""1*^i.5 1-5 ' ' 1.5 .,*
1.0 Ll
"* Approximate Current Balance "Outstanding Claims
2. ASTSWMO Tanks Subcommittee publications www.astswmo.org/Pages/Policies and Publications/Tanks.htm.
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
APPENDIX B: PHASE 1 ANALYSIS OF THE BACKLOG OF OPEN LUST RELEASES AS OF NOVEMBER 2006
A SNAPSHOT OF THE CLEANUP BACKLOG
In order to better characterize the composition of the LUST cleanup backlog, OUST
invited states to voluntarily share data on their LUST releases as of November 2006.
Forty-three states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia volunteered data files.3
For convenience, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia will be considered as states
throughout this report and data will be described as coming from 45 states.
Backlog data from these 45 states were analyzed by geographic distribution, age,
and type of media impacted. For 24 states with available data, FY 2006 LUST cleanup
funding was also analyzed. Data from 15 of the 45 states were used to identify the
brand name associated with cleanup sites. These analyses identified several major
characteristics of the backlog.
MORE THAN HALF OF THE NATIONAL
BACKLOG IS CONCENTRATED IN 10 STATES
There are a total of 104,884 releases in the November 2006 data from the 45 states.
The majority of the cleanup backlog is concentrated in relatively few states. More than
64 percent (67,157 releases) of the national backlog is concentrated in 10 states, and
more than 48 percent (49,935 releases) is within five states. Figure 8 below displays
the number of releases per state from highest (14,063 releases in Florida) to lowest
(37 releases in North Dakota).
The 10 states that have the largest backlogs include Florida, California, Michigan,
Illinois, North Carolina, New Jersey, Texas, Ohio, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
Among these states, Florida and California have over 10,000 releases each, followed
by Michigan and Illinois with over 8,500 releases each, and North Carolina with
approximately 6,500 releases. The remaining five states each have approximately
3,000 releases.
However, the majority (32 states) of the 45 states analyzed has a relatively small
backlog, each reporting less than 2,000 releases in November 2006. The states with
the largest backlogs are located in six of the ten EPA Regions, with Regions 4 and 5
having the largest backlogs.
Figure 8. Cleanup Backlogs, by State
m 1 A ODD
S 2 12,000
OJ <->
EC ^ 10,000
"o £J 8,000
tfi ro
^ 55 6,000
| - 4,000
2 2,000
0 .
m
UD
0
o
CM
00
oo"
m
oo"
CM
UD"
UD <* UD 1^
s slslsltglslshnS * S i> S- ^ ^ S s a 3 5 § s ^ ^ m m ^ M M m
State
3. Arizona, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, Georgia, and South Dakota did not send in a data file. Ohio did not provide the release date necessary for
the age calculation but did provide the number of backlogged cleanups and the type of media impacted.
SEPTEMBER 2011
B-9
-------
APPENDIX B: PHASE 1 ANALYSIS OF THE BACKLOG OF OPEN LUST RELEASES AS OF NOVEMBER 2006
MORE THAN HALF OF RELEASES ARE AT
LEAST 10 YEARS OLD
The majority of the cleanup backlog is composed of relatively older releases.
Considering releases affecting all types of media, 55 percent (57,588 releases) of
releases are 10 years old or older (Figure 9 below).
Figure 9. Release Age Distribution
18,792
18%
0-4.9 Years
5-9.9 Years
10-14.9 Years
15-19.9 Years
More Than 20 Years
Unknown Age
Figure 10. Percentage of National Backlog by Media
Contaminated
62,149
59%
J Groundwater
| Soil
G Other
LH Unknown
MORE THAN HALF OF RELEASES
CONTAMINATE GROUNDWATER
With all age classes combined, releases impacting groundwater constitute more than
59 percent (62,149 releases) of the national backlog.4 Soil-only releases constitute
16 percent (16,856 releases) of the national backlog, and a substantial portion (21
percent; 21,605 releases), have unknown media contamination. Additional releases
impacting "Other" media (e.g., vapor or surface water) constitute the remaining four
percent of the national backlog (Figure 10, to the left and below).
The November 2006 data suggest that among older releases, releases that impact
groundwater are more common than releases that impact soil only (Figure 11, page 11).
The larger number of older releases with groundwater impacts is expected because
groundwater cleanups tend to be slower and more costly than soil-only cleanups.
As of November 2006, there were 62,149 releases impacting groundwater across
the 45 states, constituting more than half of the national backlog (Figure 10). These
releases with groundwater contamination tend to be older, with approximately 60
percent (37,642 releases) that are 10 years old or older (Figure 12, page 11). Because
most national backlog releases affect groundwater and most groundwater cleanups
are older, these releases are driving the age distribution pattern of the national backlog
(Figures 9 and 12).
A relatively large number of releases contaminating groundwater resources are
concentrated in a few states (Figure 13, page 11). In addition, seven of the 10 states
with the largest backlogs have over 1,000 releases that impact groundwater and are
10 years old or older.
16,856
16%
4. This percentage is based on the classification of all releases with unknown impacts in Florida as releases with groundwater contamination. According to state staff, Florida has a shallow
depth to groundwater and, therefore, those releases where it was not possible to identify the media contaminated based on available data are most likely releases with groundwater
contamination. When calculated without this assumption, 46 percent of releases contaminate groundwater.
B-10
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
APPENDIX B: PHASE 1 ANALYSIS OF THE BACKLOG OF OPEN LUST RELEASES AS OF NOVEMBER 2006
Figure 11. Age of Releases by Media Contaminated
20,000
Figure 12. Age Distribution of Releases that Impact Groundwater
13,441
22%
Q 0-4.9 Years
Q" 5-9.9 Years
| 10-14.9 Years
15-19.9 Years
More Than 20 Years
I Unknown Age
Groundwater
Soil Only
Other
More Than
20 Years
Unknown
17,708
28%
Unknown
Age
Figure 13. Releases 10 Years Old or Older that Impact Groundwater, by State
12,000 T
8! M 10,000 k
ro _O
-------
APPENDIX B: PHASE 1 ANALYSIS OF THE BACKLOG OF OPEN LUST RELEASES AS OF NOVEMBER 2006
RELEASES THAT IMPACT SOIL ONLY
CONSTITUTE 16 PERCENT OF THE BACKLOG
Although releases contaminating soil only would be expected to be cleaned up
relatively quickly, many older releases that contaminate soil only remain in the
backlog. Compared to releases that affect groundwater resources (Figure 12, page
11), releases that impact soil only were more concentrated in the age classes of zero
to 10 years (Figure 14, to the right). However, there are still 6,886 releases impacting
soil only that were 10 years old or older, consisting of nearly half (41 percent) of the
soil-only cleanups.
The number of open releases that contaminate soil only that are at least 10 years old
is shown in Figure 15 below. The largest numbers of older releases impacting soil only
are found in Washington, California, and North Carolina.
Figure 14. Age Distribution of Releases that Impact Soil Only
243 856
4,163
D 0-4.9 Years
n 5-9.9 Years
| 10 -14.9 Years
15 -19.9 Years
I I More Than 20 Years
I Unknown Age
Figure 15. Releases 10 Years Old or Older that Impact Soil Only, by State
B-12
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
APPENDIX B: PHASE 1 ANALYSIS OF THE BACKLOG OF OPEN LUST RELEASES AS OF NOVEMBER 2006
RELEASES WITH UNKNOWN MEDIA
CONTAMINATION CONSTITUTE 21 PERCENT
OF THE BACKLOG
In 2006, 21 percent (21,605 releases) of the cleanup backlog consisted of releases
where the type of media contaminated was not specified in the states' data. Therefore,
these releases are considered to have unknown media contamination.5 The 21,605
releases with unknown media contamination are evenly distributed across the age
classes between zero and 20 years (Figure 16, to the right).
The 10,411 releases with unknown-media impacts that were 10 years old or older are
distributed evenly across many states, with the exception of Illinois (Figure 17 below).
Illinois' data showed that the media contaminated was unknown for all of its large
number of releases. Thus, Illinois' cleanup backlog contributed to the substantial
portion of the releases with unknown-media impacts in the national backlog.
Figure 16. Age Distribution of Releases that Impact Unknown Media
4,978
23%
D 0-4.9 Years
G 5-9.9 Years
| 10-14.9 Years
15-19.9 Years
EH More Than 20 Years
I Unknown Age
Figure 17. Releases 10 Years Old or Older that Impact Unknown Media, by State
Number of Releases
in State Backlog
5 000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
n .
If
00
[^
*
"oTI ° ao o oo
^ [^ -i£T_S_.SS S S S S § ^ S ^! S m ^ oo m 0 01 r- n
rt | 01 | | | | i | | ' ' ''^""""""Ln^rMrslrMrtUirtLnLnLnrMrMrMrt
<<:*:< =
0. LJ < -I ^ O
>- =; X ^ T?
> O a:
>- o:
-------
APPENDIX B: PHASE 1 ANALYSIS OF THE BACKLOG OF OPEN LUST RELEASES AS OF NOVEMBER 2006
A $2.3 BILLION BUDGET SHORTFALL FOR
CLEANUPS MAY EXIST FOR THE 24 STATES
ANALYZED
Table 1. Estimated FY06 Funding Gap in 24 States6
A gap in cleanup funding is indicated in data provided by 24 states that used state funds
for 2006 cleanups. These 24 states reported 38,780 open LUST releases as of November
2006, of which only 13,254 cleanups were receiving state financing (Table 1). This left
an estimated 25,526 remaining cleanups not financed by state LUST cleanup funds.
Multiplying the number of unfinanced cleanups by each state's average cleanup cost
at closure estimates that approximately $2.3 billion dollars would be needed to fund
the unfinanced cleanups. Data from California were unavailable for this analysis, but if
included would likely increase the estimated funding gap significantly.
1 State
IL
OH
SC
PA
IN
KS
NE
KY
AL
MT
LA
CO
NV
MO
NH
TN
VA
OK
NM
UT
MS
Rl
AR
ND
Total
Number of
Backlogged
Cleanups as
of Nov 2006
8,734
3,313
3,284
3,266
2,811
1,896
1,856
1,767
1,534
1,265
1,227
1,123
984
938
791
745
724
682
643
454
315
274
117
37
38,780
Ongoing LUST
Cleanups
Receiving State
Funding In FY06
1,047
300
1,111
1,980
782
384
215
1,213
964
376
575
625
220
674
719
391
443
0
560
298
246
0
115
16
13,254
Unfinanced
Cleanups
7,687
3,013
2,173
1,286
2,029
1,512
1,641
554
570
889
652
498
764
264
72
354
281
682
83
156
69
274
2
21
25,526
Average
Cleanup Cost At Estimated
Closure (FY06) Funding Gap
$108,000 $830,196,000
$62,346 $187,848,498
$34,742 $75,494,366
$162,743 $209,287,498
$174,754 $354,575,866
$42,000 $63,504,000
$100,000 $164,100,000
$51,786 $28,689,444
$89,559
$63,756
$350,000
$92,698
$99,450
$89,000
$39,492
$93,141
$59,342
$90,431
$350,000
$19,711
$126,537
$51,048,630
$56,679,084
$228,200,000
$46,163,604
$75,979,800
$23,496,000
$2,843,424
$32,971,914
$16,675,102
$61,673,942
$29,050,000
$3,074,916
$8,731,053
$125,572 $34,406,728
$189,908 $379,816
$27,852 $584,892
$2,300,169,469
6. Compilation of State Fund Soundness Data forms returned to OUST for state fiscal year 2006.
B-14
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
APPENDIX B: PHASE 1 ANALYSIS OF THE BACKLOG OF OPEN LUST RELEASES AS OF NOVEMBER 2006
POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPEDITE
REDUCTION OF THE CLEANUP BACKLOG
Based on the Phase 1 data, EPA identified three areas with potential opportunities
to reduce the backlog of open releases. To further explore whether these and other
areas of the backlog might benefit from backlog reduction strategies, EPA embarked
on a rigorous Phase 2 study to obtain a greater level of detail about open releases
in the backlog. EPA plans to work collaboratively with states to further characterize
the backlog and explore the merits or disadvantages of potential opportunities and
associated backlog reduction strategies.
CONCENTRATED DISTRIBUTION OF
RELEASES
Approximately two-thirds (64 percent; 67,157 releases) of the releases in the national
backlog are concentrated in 10 states. A large concentration in such a small number of
states presents an opportunity to effectively reduce the national backlog by focusing
resources and efforts on the few states with the largest share of the national backlog.
RELEASES WITH SOIL-ONLY
CONTAMINATION
The November 2006 data show that many older releases with soil-only impacts
remain in the backlog, including more than 6,800 releases that are at least 10 years
old. Conventional wisdom holds that soil-only cleanups could be dealt with more
expeditiously than groundwater cleanups. Therefore, these soil-only cleanups may
present an opportunity to quickly reduce the national backlog.
RELEASES WITH UNKNOWN MEDIA
CONTAMINATION
The high numbers of releases contaminating unknown media in every age group make
it difficult to fully characterize the cleanup backlog. Specifying the media contaminated
by these releases with unknown-media impacts could change the character of the
November 2006 backlog and imply significantly different strategies to reduce the
backlog.
For example, if a high percentage of releases with unknown-media contamination
impact soil only, these releases could be targeted to accelerate reduction of the backlog.
In contrast, if most of the releases where the contaminated media is unknown were
releases where groundwater is contaminated, the backlog would likely take longer to
reduce.
Regardless of their nature, the presence of large numbers of releases where the
media contaminated is unknown indicates that many states' LUST data management
can be improved in order to provide data for the media impacted for future backlog
assessments and for developing strategies to reduce the cleanup backlog.
SEPTEMBER 2011
B-15
-------
APPENDIX B: PHASE 1 ANALYSIS OF THE BACKLOG OF OPEN LUST RELEASES AS OF NOVEMBER 2006
POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS
REDUCTION
ON EXPEDITING BACKLOG
DATA MANAGEMENT
The fact that 21 percent (21,605 releases) of the backlog involves unknown media
contamination suggests potential widespread information gaps in state cleanup data
management systems. Additional improvements to database management could
allow for easier overall program management as well as provide an improved tool for
developing strategies to reduce the cleanup backlog.
STATE FINANCING GAPS
Of states with available state funding data, the four with the largest backlogs accounted
for more than $1.3 billion of the estimated $2.3 billion state funding gap (see Table
1). Because these four states (Illinois, Ohio, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania) rely
primarily on state funds, their lack of adequate state funding could be contributing to
the persistence of their backlogs.
TECHNOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS OF
GROUNDWATER CLEANUP
The longer timeframe needed to clean up a release affecting groundwater likely
accounts for the continued persistence of releases that impact groundwater in the
backlog. A systematic evaluation of cleanup progress and consideration of alternative
cleanup technologies or other strategies might be necessary to reduce the time to
closure for these releases. With 59 percent (62,149 releases) of the backlog consisting
of releases where groundwater resources are impacted, it could be challenging to
accelerate the reduction of the backlog.
B-16
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
APPENDIX B: PHASE 1 ANALYSIS OF THE BACKLOG OF OPEN LUST RELEASES AS OF NOVEMBER 2006
CONCLUSION
The persistence of the cleanup backlog is likely the result of many factors, making
it challenging to develop successful backlog reduction strategies. However, this
snapshot of the November 2006 cleanups describes specific states, release age classes,
and media impacted that constitute the majority of the national backlog and reveals
potential opportunities to expedite cleanups. Use of these data will help EPA and the
states work together to reduce the national backlog and to improve national and state
LUST cleanup strategies.
SEPTEMBER 2011 B-17
-------
APPENDIX B: PHASE 1 ANALYSIS OF THE BACKLOG OF OPEN LUST RELEASES AS OF NOVEMBER 2006
METHODOLOGY AND DATA QUALITY
MISSING DATA
The majority of the records excluded from these analyses were removed due to invalid
or missing confirmed release dates, without which release age could not be calculated.
The frequency of these data gaps suggests that data entry errors and missing data
might be a common issue in state LUST data management.
UNUSABLE RECORDS
Initial review of the data led to the exclusion of 5.4 percent of the records in the original
state data files (5,765 records were excluded from the original 110,649 records). The
majority of the records were excluded because they did not have a confirmed release
date (4,734 records, or 4.4 percent of the total records). A smaller portion of the
records were excluded because they are likely duplicates (1,031 records, or 1 percent
of the total records).
Many of the records in states' data files shared the same identifier data fields, indicating
potential duplicates. In addition, some of the records with the same identifier data
fields also shared the same confirmed release dates and media impacted, further
suggesting potential data management issues in these data files. In order to evaluate
the magnitude of potential duplicates counted as separate records, records that shared
the same identifier data fields and the same confirmed release dates were flagged and
treated as separate data records. Records that shared the same identifier data fields,
the same confirmed release dates, and the same media impacted were treated as the
same record (one from each duplicate set was retained while others were excluded).
INTERPRETATIONS OF AMBIGUOUS FIELDS
AND VALUES
In order to perform comparisons among states based on the media impacted,
the contaminated media were categorized into one of the following four types:
"Groundwater," "Soil Only," "Unknown," and "Other." Several states use more detailed
category systems with media impacted that are not commonly tracked by most states,
such as "Drinking Water," "Spring," "Free Product," "Air," and "Bedrock." These data
entries were considered "Other" media. For example, California tracks additional
media impacted other than those discussed in this report (i.e., "Drinking Water" and
"Surface Water") in its LUST database. For this report, 3,929 releases in California that
are listed as impacting "Drinking Water" or "Surface Water" are counted in the "Other"
media category. In addition, there are high percentages of releases with unknown
media impacts in the November 2006 data, some of which may actually contaminate a
known media type that was not specified or pulled into the data files.
The reclassification of all releases with unknown-media impacts in Florida as releases
contaminating groundwater was considered a safe assumption on the basis of
conversation with state staff. Florida alone accounts for 13 percent of the national
backlog, and this reclassification substantially alters the distribution of the type
of media impacted, but the resulting data are likely a better representation of the
national backlog.
B-18
SEPTEMBER 2011
-------
APPENDIX B: PHASE 1 ANALYSIS OF THE BACKLOG OF OPEN LUST RELEASES AS OF NOVEMBER 2006
[This page intentionally blank]
SEPTEMBER 2011 B-19
-------
United States Solid Waste And EPA 510-R-11-003
Environmental Emergency Response September 2011
Protection Agency 5401P www.epa.gov/oust
------- |