*>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: NORTH CAROLINA
NC-1
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
September 2011
-------
State Summary Chapter: North Carolina
LIST OF ACRONYMS
DENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Expedited Site Assessment
FY Fiscal Year
GCL Gross Contamination Level
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MNA Monitored Natural Attenuation
MSA Multi-Site Agreement
MSCC Maximum Soil Contaminant Concentration
MTBE Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
NFA No Further Action
RBCA Risk-Based Corrective Action
RP Responsible Party
RUST Regional Underground Storage Tank
UST Underground Storage Tank
NC-2 September 2011
-------
State Summary Chapter: North Carolina
North Carolina
LUST
Data
By the Numbers2
National Backlog Contribution
5.7%
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%
Soil
1,616/25%
Unknown5
108/2%
Median Age of Open Releases
14.1 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.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
1 EPA, National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report, pp. 50-52. www.epa.eov/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
Releases
41 percent of releases are
• Expedite site assessments at old releases
2,625
either:
to identify releases that can be closed
• 5 years old or older
with minimal effort or moved toward
and site assessment
remediation and closure.
has not started; or
• Implement enforcement actions at stalled
• 10 years old or older
releases.
and are still in site
assessment.
32 percent of releases are:
Use a systematic process to explore
2,007
• 10 years old or older;
opportunities to accelerate cleanups and reach
and
closure, such as:
• in remediation.
• 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.
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-15 for more details)
North Carolina Finding
Potential Opportunity
Releases
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.
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-18for more details)
Release Priority (see page NC-20for 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
Potential Opportunity Releases
Develop region-specific strategies Variable
for moving releases toward number of
remediation and closure. releases6
North Carolina Finding
Only 49 percent of
releases are above the
Risk Rank and Abatement
threshold.
Potential Opportunity
Encourage RP-led cleanups for releases
with priority scores below the action
threshold and use enforcement actions
when necessary.
Encourage RPs and stakeholders to
impacting groundwater.
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.
Releases
3,149
examine public and private funding
options such as petroleum brownfields
grants.
41 percent of state fund Explore ways to move more state-funded 363
eligible releases: cleanups toward closure, such as:
• are high risk; and • expediting site assessment of all releases
• have not begun to ensure that:
remediation. o all releases are appropriately ranked;
o releases with immediate risk are
actively being worked on; and
o all releases make progress toward
closure.
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.
6 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 Financing (see page NC-22for more details)
North Carolina Finding
Potential Opportunity
Releases 1
RPs for 75 percent
•
Continue to encourage RPs to apply for
4,726
of releases have not
eligibility in a timely manner so as to
requested state fund
determine the number and risk level of
eligibility.
state fund eligible releases.
•
Systematically track these releases in the
RUST database to facilitate the evaluation
of funding needs.
•
Consider enforcement for stalled
releases.
6 percent of state fund
•
Explore opportunities to address more
89
eligible releases:
releases with the state fund such as:
• have a designated
o examine cost savings measures; and
priority ranking;
o consider other funding sources
• have not begun site
including public/private funding
assessment; and
options such as petroleum brownfields
• are below the priority
grants for low priority releases or
threshold.
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.
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)
1 North Carolina Finding
Potential Opportunity
Releases 1
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.
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 (see page NC-24 for more details)
1 North Carolina Finding
Potential Opportunity
Releases 1
75 percent of releases are
Target releases within close proximity for
Targeted
clustered within a one-
resource consolidation opportunities.
number of
mile radius of five or more
releases7
releases.
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.
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 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.
CONCLUSION
Data Management (see page NC-25 for more details)
Several key data fields are Improve RUST database to enhance program
not included, consistently management and backlog reduction efforts,
maintained, or routinely
tracked in the RUST
database.
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.
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 million14
PROGRAM SUMMARY
State LUST Program Organization and Administration
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Underground Storage Tank (UST) 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.ore/c/document librarv/eet file?uuid=82504138-4585-4492-abe4-7208bfe9371f&eroupld=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.ore/c/document librarv/eet 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.ore/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.ore/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
I Risk Level
Media
Standard
High
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
l/J
600
QJ
3
i/)
O
500
U
s-
O
400
CL)
-Q
E
300
3
z
200
100
'V 'V y* v ^ W
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
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.
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
• Media contaminated • Cleanup financing • Data management
• State regional backlogs • Number of releases per RP
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 _
O Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
1 r l.aJD |
1 Q7fi O Remediation
a, -v G Closed
¦3 10
C£
0
CD 5
01 D
<
1.936
2,431
A
•
1,976
•
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
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.
2,625
Releases 5 years old or
older in the Confirmed
Release stage
1,414
Releases 10 years old
or older in the Site
Assessment stage
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.eov/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
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.
Releases
2,007
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
Region Codes
ASH - Asheville
FAY - Fayetteville
MOR - Mooresville
RAL - Raleigh
WAS - Washington
WIL - Wilmington
WS - Winston-Salem
rOpen Releases"
Stage of Cleanup
_L
V"
Confirmed Release;
Site Assessment
i
Media y
1
Remediation
Media
Groundwater
Soil;
Unknown
—±—
Region
Priority
MOR; RAL;
WIL
*
Priority
1
ASH; FAY;
WAS
*
Priority
'Groundwater*
Unknown
ST-
State Fund
Eligible
Soil
Region
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
i.i
Open Releases
Median Age (Years) 14.1
Releases 6,330
Confirmed Release;
Site Assessment
Median Age (Years) 12.5
Releases 3,903
2.1
r Groundwater
\
Median Age (Years)
13.5
Releases
2,703
V
y
2.2
Soil; Unknown
Median Age (Years)
10.2
Releases
1,200
v
J
Remediation
Median Age (Years) 15.1
Releases 2,427
Groundwater;
Unknown
Median Age (Years)
Releases
15.3
l,93q/
S
Soil
"N
Median Ag
e (Years)
13.3
Releases
497
v
J
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
cn
<
15
10
1,910
1,122
1,587 ,
23
498
18
747
67
O
O Confirmed Release
O Site Assessment
O Remediation
¦ Closed
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
Unknown Age
18
<1%
< 1%
> 10 Years
1,636
86%
< 10 Years
271
14%
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
< 1%
< 10 Years
546
>10 Years / \ 49%
570
51%
Figure 10. Risk Level of Releases 10 Years Old or Older with Soil Impacts31
High
24%
Low
286
68%
Intermediate
35
8%
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 RPs to 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
STATE REGIONAL BACKLOGS
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
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
FAY
MOR
RAL
WAS
WIL
WS
State Backlog Contribution
10%
11%
18%
20%
11%
9%
21%
Cumulative Historical Releases
1,824
1,359
3,394
2,941
1,649
1,275
3,404
Closed Releases
1,175/64%
684/50%
2,241/66%
1,688/57%
958/58%
730/57%
2,027/60%
Open Releases
649/36%
675/50%
1,153/34%
1,253/43%
691/42%
545/43%
1,377/40%
Stage of Cleanup
Confirmed Release
342/53%
259/38%
432/37%
312/25%
145/21%
174/32%
272/20%
Site Assessment
155/24%
271/40%
366/32%
486/39%
284/41%
164/30%
250/18%
Remediation
152/23%
145/22%
355/31%
455/36%
262/38%
207/38%
855/62%
Media Contaminated
Groundwater
403/62%
536/80%
796/69%
853/68%
656/95%
447/82%
928/67%
Soil
246/38%
137/20%
349/30%
332/27%
35/5%
93/17%
424/31%
Unknown
0/0%
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 -
-Confirmed Release; •
Site Assessment
¦ Groundwater
- Soil;Unknown-
- Remediation -
Region Codes
ASH - Asheville
FAY - Fayetteville
MOR - Mooresville
RAL - Raleigh
WAS - Washington
WIL - Wilmington
WS - Winston-Salem
Groundwater;
Unknown
-Soil -
r MOR; RAL; WIL
\
Median Age (Years)
Releases
12.6
669
J
1.2
C ASH; FAY; WAS
\
Median Age (Years)
Releases
8.2
360
V
1.3
r ws
A
Median Age (Years)
Releases
3.8
171
J
1.4
r ws
A
Median Age (Years)
Releases
14.4
271
J
1.5
( MOR; RAL;WAS;WIL ^
Median Age (Years)
Releases
12.9
168
J
1.6
C ASH; FAY
\
Median Age (Years)
Releases
4.7
58
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
RELEASE PRIORITY
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.
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.ore/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
430
^ 10
363
83
CD
<
183
237
61
101
91
O
ii
17 6
O Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
O Remediation
¦ Closed
High
Intermediate
Low
Unknown
Figure 15. Age of Releases by Confirmed Risk and Stage of Cleanup
Confirmed Release; _
Site Assessment
-Groundwater
Soil;
Unknown Media
Federal Lead
- State Lead
-Unknown —
-ASH;FAY;WAS-
MOR;RAL;WIL -
Region Codes
ASH - Asheville
FAY - Fayetteville
MOR - Mooresville
RAL - Raleigh
WAS - Washington
WIL - Wilmington
WS - Winston-Salem
Low
Median A§
Releases
e (Years)
14.4
777
1.2
r Unknown Risk
Median A§
Releases
e (Years)
13.4
159
1.3
Intermediate
Median Ag
Releases
e (Years)
12.4
615
1.4
Median Ag
Releases
High
e (Years)
11.1
739
Low
>
Median A
Releases
*e (Years)
10.7
223
2.2
High; Intermediate ^
Median A
Releases
e (Years)
7.1
83
2.3
Unknown Risk
>
Median A
Releases
e (Years)
0.7
54
2.4
Low
N
Releases
224
2.5
Unknown Risk
Median Ag
Releases
(Years)
12.5
268
2.6
r High; Intermediate ^
Median Ag
Releases
(Years)
10.3
177
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
15
10
433
360
270
89 331 (0
0 •
1.742
1,269
1,715
O Confirmed Release
Site Assessment
O Remediation
o
-------
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
1.1
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.
r Not Yet Applied
"N
Groundwater
Eligibility
Status
Median Age (Years)
Releases
16.1
1,257
V
and Unknown
Media Releases
1.2
in Remediation
r Approved
Median Age (Years)
Releases
N
13.9
672
J
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
NUMBER OF RELEASES PER RP
North Carolina Finding
11 percent of releases are associated with 31
RPs each with 10 or more releases.
Potential Opportunity
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 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
Number
of
Releases
Number
of RPs
Gasoline Retail/
Distribution/Refining
409
19
Convenience Store
Chain
133
4
Government - State
109
4
Government - Federal
33
2
Government - Local
13
1
Utility
10
1
Total
707
31
GEOGRAPHIC CLUSTERS
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 Ail Open Releases by DENR Region
Greensboro Raleigh
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, 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. DEN R 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
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
CONCLUSION
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.
1 Data Element
North Carolina Data
Use in Analysis 1
Administrative Cost
Data were obtained from "Annual Report to the Environmental Review Commission: North Carolina General Assembly,"
available at http://www.wastenotnc.org/ust/docs/AnnualReport2007.pdf.
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
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.
State-wide standards examined in the
national chapter.
Closure Date
Data were obtained from the "CloseOut" field in the "tblUST_DB" file.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Confirmed Release Date
Data were obtained from the "DateReported" field in the "tblUST_DB" file.
Included in the calculation of release age.
Data Date
March 6, 2009, is used for all records. This is the date the data were obtained.
Included in the calculation of release age.
DENR Region
Data were obtained from the "ROCode" field in the "tblUST_DB" file. This field indicates the DENR regional office handling
the incident.
Examined in "Regional Differences"
section.
Easy to Close
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.
Examined in the "State Backlog Reduction
Efforts" section.
Federally-Regulated
LUST Releases
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.
Identifies the appropriate universe of
releases for analysis.
Free Product
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 not suitable for analysis.
Institutional and
Engineering Controls
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.
Examined in the "Cleanup Standards"
section and in the national chapter.
Latitude and Longitude
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.
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 "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.
No informative patterns were identified.
September 2011
NC-27
-------
Chapter Notes
State Summary Chapter: North Carolina
Data Element
North Carolina Data
Use in Analysis
Media
Data were obtained from the "Contamination" field in the "tblUST_DB" 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." "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.
Examined in the "Media Contaminated"
section.
Monitored Natural
Attenuation (MNA)
Data were obtained from the "TypeCAP" field in the "tblUST_DB" file. An "N" in this field indicates a release addressed by
natural attenuation.
No informative patterns were identified.
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
per RP
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.
Data not suitable for 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.
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.
No informative patterns were identified.
Staff Workload
Estimated by DENR staff.
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
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).
Variable in all analyses.
State Fund Eligibility
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
I Type
State Fund Eligible 1
DEDUCTIBLE ADJUSTMENT
Yes
ELIG. RE-EVALUATION
Yes
ELIGIBILITY
Yes
ELIGIBILITY
Yes
ELIGIBILITY
Yes
ELIGIBILITY RE-REVIEW
Yes
ELIGIBILITY-RESUBMISSION
Yes
ELIGIBILITY
Yes
ELIGIBILITY
Yes
ELIGIBILITY- DENIAL
No
ELIGIBILITY/DENIAL
No
1 Code
Media Type 1
GW
Groundwater
SL
Soil
NO
None
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.
I Report Name
Stage 1
(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
Site Assessment
Closure Report
Remediation
Corrective Action Plan - Natural Attenuation
Remediation
Corrective Action Plan - Soil
Remediation
Corrective Action Plan - Soil & Groundwater
Remediation
New Technology Cleanup Report
Remediation
Remediation Monitoring Report
Remediation
Remediation Monitoring Report (Initial)
Remediation
Site Cleanup and Site Closure Report (Low)
Remediation
Site Closure Report
Remediation
System Enhancement Recommendations
Remediation
NC-30
September 2011
------- |