*>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
The National LUST Cleanup Backlog:
A Study of Opportunities
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
v»EPA
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
Mi-1
-------
State Summary Chapter: Michigan
LIST OF ACRONYMS
APC
Approved Partial Closure
DEQ
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA
Expedited Site Assessment
FY
Fiscal Year
LUST
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MNA
Monitored Natural Attenuation
MSA
Multi-Site Agreement
MTBE
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
MUSTFA
Michigan Underground Storage Tank Financial Assurance
PRP
Potentially Responsible Party
RBCA
Risk-Based Corrective Action
RP
Responsible Party
TRP
Temporary Reimbursement Program
UST
Underground Storage Tank
MI-2
September 2011
-------
State Summary Chapter: Michigan
Michigan LUST Data
By the Numbers1
National Backlog Contribution
8.9%
Cumulative Historical Releases
21,792
Closed Releases
12,623/58%
Open Releases
9,169/42%
Stage of Cleanup
Confirmed Release
Site Assessment/
Remediation3
3,025/33%
6,144/67%
Media Contaminated
Groundwater
8,816/96%
Soil
1/<1%
Unknown5
352/4%
Median Age of Open Releases
14.0 years
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.eov/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.
September 2011
MI-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 Potential Opportunity Releases
26 percent of releases: • Use expedited site 2,426
• are 5 years old or older; and assessments or encourage
• have not started site assessment. 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.
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.
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.
50 percent of releases are:
• 10 years old or older; and
• in site assessment/remediation.
MI-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 MI-15 for more details)
Michigan Finding
16 percent of releases
are high priority
releases considered to
be an immediate risk
to human health.
Potential Opportunity
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.
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
MI-5
-------
State Summary Chapter: Michigan
Cleanup Financing (see page MI-16for more details)
Michigan Finding Potential Opportunity
PRPs are listed for 89
percent of "inactive" or
"stopped" releases in
Michigan's backlog.
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 MI-I8 for more details)
I Michigan Finding
Potential Opportunity
Releases 1
Release age and the distribution of
releases among stages of cleanup vary
among DEQ's eight districts.
Develop region-specific strategies
for moving releases toward
remediation and closure.
Variable
number of
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 MI-19 for more details)
1 Michigan Finding
Potential Opportunity
Releases 1
27 percent of releases have MTBE
Consider reevaluating the current
2,486
contamination.
remedial plan and utilizing
optimal remedial technologies for
the removal of MTBE.
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.
September 2011
-------
State Summary Chapter: Michigan
Number of Releases per PRP (see page MI-20 for more details)
Michigan Finding Potential Opportunity Releases
18 percent of releases are associated Identify PRPs and explore 1,676
with 69 PRPs each with 10 or more possibilities for multi-site
releases. agreements (MSAs) or
enforcement actions with parties
associated with multiple releases.
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 Ml-21 for more details)
Michigan Finding
Potential Opportunity
Releases
64 percent of releases are clustered
Target releases within close
Targeted
within a one-mile radius of five or more
proximity for resource
number of
releases.
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.
CONCLUSION
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 UST releases and to protecting the nation's groundwater, land,
and communities affected by these releases.
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.
September 2011
MI-7
-------
State Summary Chapter: Michigan
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
PROGRAM SUMMARY
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 (APC) status.
Approval of an APC 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 APC 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.eov/(S(zopell55ihtent45acrtteal))/milee.aspx?paee=eetObiect&obiectName=mcl-324-2151Q.
MI-8
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.
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.
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.michiean.eov/documents/dea/dea-rrd-opMEMQ3 249985 7.pdf.
Figure 1. Use of Institutional Controls over Time
1,800
1,600
1,400
l/)
i-
1,200
(/>
u
1,000
o
i-
0>
800
-Q
E
3
600
z
400
200
0
IlllMK
cC>V ^ c®
S? S? S? S? S? S? V V n? V V V V V V
Institutional Controls Used Institutional Controls Not Used
r$b
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
MI-9
-------
State Summary Chapter: Michigan
[This page has intentionally been left blank.]
MI-10
September 2011
-------
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.
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 • Number of releases per potentially
• Media contaminated ether (MTBE) contamination responsible party (PRP)
• Release priority • Use of monitored natural • Geographic clusters
• Cleanup financing attenuation (MNA)
• State district backlogs
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
MI-11
-------
State Summary Chapter: Michigan
Figure 3. Standard Closures and APC Closures,
2004 - 2008
APC
- 71
6%
Not APC
1,028
94%
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.
Figure 2. Age of Releases among Stages of Cleanup
20
6,144
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. DEQcan 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%
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.
Confirmed Release
(3,025 Releases)
Site Assessment/Remediation
(6,144 Releases)
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.
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.eov/OUST/pubs/sam.htm.
September 2011
MI-13
-------
State Summary Chapter: Michigan
MEDIA CONTAMINATED
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 6. Age of Site Assessment/Remediation
Stage Releases with Groundwater Impacts
Unknown Age
42
1%
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 (Figure 5).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.
Figure 5. Age of Releases by Media Contaminated and Stage of Cleanup
20
15
10
0
6,085
2,731
•
V
1
•
2,147
2,348
¦
294 58 8,128
Q o
O Confirmed Release
O Site Assessment/
Remediation
¦ Closed
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).
MI-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
20
15
10
1,465
2,345
o
4
O
10
O
3,025
o -
¦
¦
47
¦
12,548
¦
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
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.
Releases
September 2011
MI-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.
MI-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 Cleanup28
20 .
2 15 ¦
a>
i/i
ro
¦3 10
cc
o
ai 5
CD 3
<
0
A
2,044
o
O Confirmed Release
O 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 MI-17
-------
State Summary Chapter: Michigan
STATE DISTRICT BACKLOGS
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
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.
MI-18
September 2011
-------
State Summary Chapter: Michigan
Table 1. Michigan Backlog by DEQ District30
CAD
GR
JAK
KAL
LAN
SAG
SE
UP
State Backlog Contribution
9%
11%
7%
9%
14%
10%
32%
7%
Cumulative Historical Releases
1,603
2,337
1,660
1,903
2,689
2,033
7,538
970
Closed Releases
815/51%
1,302/56%
1,046/63%
1,088/57%
1,399/52%
1,080/53%
4,592/61%
371/38%
Open Releases
788/49%
1,035/44%
614/37%
815/43%
1,290/48%
953/47%
2,946/39%
599/62%
Stage of Cleanup
Confirmed Release
171/22%
279/27%
143/23%
238/29%
125/10%
497/52%
1,232/42%
266/44%
Site Assessment/
Remediation
617/78%
756/73%
471/77%
577/71%
1,165/90%
456/48%
1,714/58%
333/56%
Media Contaminated
Groundwater
782/99%
1,016/98%
587/96%
782/96%
1,268/98%
933/98%
2,807/95%
585/98%
Soil
0/0%
0/0%
0/0%
0/0%
0/0%
0/0%
0/0%
0/0%
Unknown
6/1%
19/2%
27/4%
33/4%
22/2%
20/2%
139/5%
14/2%
Median Age of Open Releases
14.4 years
14.7 years
13.8 years
13.5 years
16.0 years
13.2 years
12.9 years
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
15
10
488
o
3,272
2,860
O Confirmed Release
O Site Assessment/
Remediation
¦ Closed
102
_Q
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.
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.ore/contaminantfocus/default.focus/sec/Methvl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE)/cat/Treatment Technologies.
September 2011
-19
-------
State Summary Chapter: Michigan
USE OF MNA
Figure 12. Use of MNA for Releases in the Site
Assessment/Remediation Stage
DEQ has MNA listed as a remedial treatment technology at 13 percent (783 releases) of the 6,144 releases in the Site 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.
NUMBER OF RELEASES PER PRP
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 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
Number of
Releases
Number of
PRPs
Gasoline - Retail/Distribution/
Refining
1,335
45
Convenience Store Chain
104
7
Government - Local
73
6
Manufacturer
60
5
Government - State
39
2
Utility
36
2
Supermarket Chain
29
2
Total
1,676
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.eov/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.
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.
MI-20
September 2011
-------
State Summary Chapter: Michigan
GEOGRAPHIC CLUSTERS
EPA performed a geospatia! 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.
Figure 13. Map of All Open Releases by DEQ District
Michigan Finding
y
V *
* »«
..." 7
7 V1"'
v.
•; r
7
Grand Rapids
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 geospatiai 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.
Detroit
Metro Area
Lansing
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
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
MI-21
-------
State Summary Chapter: Michigan
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.michigan.gov/dea/0.1607.7-135-
3311 4109 4215-.00.html
CONCLUSION
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.
MI-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.
1 Data Element
Michigan Data
Use in Analysis 1
Administrative Cost
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.
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
Data were obtained from the list of releases in the "APC_query_MI_2-23-09.xls" file.
Examined in the "Stage of Cleanup"
section.
Baseline Environmental
Assessment
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.
No informative patterns were identified.
Cleanup Activity
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.
Examined in the "Cleanup Financing"
section.
Cleanup Financing
Data from the MUSTFA program (facilities in "7132 Claims Final.xls," "Approved MUSTFA Claims query 118.xls," "Open with
MUSTFA Claims4-30-09.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."
Examined in the "Program Summary"
section.
Cleanup Standards
No site-specific data available.
State-wide standards examined in the
national chapter.
Closure Date
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.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Confirmed Release Date
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.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Data Date
April 30, 2009, is used for all records. This is the date the data were obtained.
Included in the calculation of release age.
DEQ District
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.
Examined in "District Office Backlogs"
section.
Facility Type
Data were obtained from the "TYPE_DESC" field in the "Facilities IDs with descriptions and addresses 8-17-09.xls" file.
No informative patterns were identified.
September 2011
MI-23
-------
Chapter Notes
State Summary Chapter: Michigan
I Data Element
Michigan Data
Use in Analysis 1
Federally-Regulated
LUST Releases
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.
Identifies the appropriate universe of
releases for analysis.
Free Product
No data available.
Not applicable.
Institutional and Data were obtained from the "Fac_Restriction" field in the "closed releases with other restriction mechanisms 4-30-09. Examined in the "Cleanup Standards"
Engineering Controls xls," "closed releases with ordinance restrictions.xls," "closed releases MDOT permit 4-30-09.xls," and "closed releases section and in the national chapter,
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."
Latitude and Longitude Data were obtained from the "Latitude" and "Longitude" fields in the "LUST_LIST_Open_6-29-09.xls" and "LUST_LIST_ Used in geospatial analysis calculating the
Closed_6-29-09.xls" files. Where possible, coordinates for releases without existing latitude and longitude values were number of open releases within a one-
obtained by EPA staff by geocoding address and street locations. mile radius of other open releases.
Media Data were obtained from the "GWJMPACT" and "SWJMPACT" fields in the "Closed sites-gw sw rc etc 4-27-09.xls" file. Examined in the "Media Contaminated"
The fields "GW_Remediated," "Priv_Wells_Affected," "Muni_Wells_Affected," "Homes_Water_limpacted," "Homes_Alt_ section.
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.
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
per PRP
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
open release.
Examined in the "Geographic Clusters"
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
one record were categorized as "Multiple." Because dates of ownership were not available, releases marked as "Multiple"
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."
Used to calculate the number of releases
associated with each unique PRP.
Public Spending
No release-level data were available. The cumulative public spending was assigned to a specific release when it was 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
release. These aggregate data could not be adjusted for inflation. DEQ provided an estimated average cleanup cost.
Average cleanup cost examined in the
"Program Summary" section. Release-
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.
MI-24
September 2011
-------
State Summary Chapter: Michigan
Chapter Notes
I Data Element
Michigan Data
Use in Analysis 1
Staff Workload
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.
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."
Variable in all analyses.
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."
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.
1 Risk Class
Description 1
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
MI-25
-------
Chapter Notes State Summary Chapter: Michigan
[This page has intentionally been left blank/
MI-26
September 2011
------- |