Cleanup Program
David Anderson | Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Working with DEQ—Understanding the Spectrum of
DEQ's Programs May 2016
Oregon Brownfields Conference
6
Where does DEQ come in? • DEQ does not generally review Phase 1 reports. • Reporting requirements.
– A release from a regulated UST is required to be reported. – Releases from non-UST sites are not required to be
reported but are recommended and encouraged. • Unless the site is a high priority, most sites can
perform assessments without DEQ oversight. • After determination of need to work with DEQ.
– à Paperwork
7
Site Intake Process • Paperwork can include a cost recovery
agreement, example invoice, and deposit request.
• The deposit is not the cost to complete. • Information packet and/or website for
program information. • All sites/projects are placed on a “Waiting
List” for assignment of a DEQ project manager.
10
Basic Steps for Cleanup • Site Assessment / Phase 1 ESA / Phase 2 ESA
– Reason to suspect contamination? Yes/No – RECs assessed for releases & potential risk? Y/N
• Remedial Investigation – Nature, Extent, Migration – Risk Evaluation
• Cleanup Planning – Feasibility Study / Corrective Action Plan
• Remedial Action (CU)/Corrective Action (Tanks) • No Further Action determination
11
“NFA”
Statutory Authority ORS 465.230 - Removal of facilities from
inventory; criteria.
Regulatory Authority 340-122-0071 – Site Evaluation 340-122-0072 – Preliminary Assessment 340-122-0250 - Corrective Action Plan
12
No Further Action (“NFA”) • Letter stating that DEQ has evaluated information
available on the site and that, to the best of DEQ’s knowledge, no further cleanup actions are required (no unacceptable residual risk).
• NFA letter can be comprehensive or “partial”.
• Conditional NFA letter if remedy includes ongoing risk management elements.
• Does not remove liability, but can help relieve fears of unanticipated costly environmental cleanups.
• Provides some certainty to banks and investors who typically dislike risk.
13
Types of NFAs NFA Anyresidualcontamina5onposesnounacceptablerisk
CUNFAappliestophysicaladdressorfacility(taxlot)LUSTNFAappliestoreleasefrompetroleumUST
Par5alNFA Appliestopor5onofsiteorspecificmedia
Condi5onalNFA Requiresengineeringorins5tu5onalcontrols(EES)RetainonCRLandInventory(CUonly)CNFAstypicallynotspecifiedonLUSTsites
Cer5ficateofComple5on(NottrueNFA)
Remedialac5onspecifiedinRODiscompletePPAs,ConsentOrders/Judgments,etc.OQenequaltoNFA
13% 87%
CUSites Uncondi5onal Condi5onal
14
“Comfort Letters”
• Public specific – Off site impacts; adjacent property/ROW
• Lender specific – Indication of working with DEQ and/or in a
program • Program specific
– Dry Cleaner fund – Spill Program
15
DEQ Bottlenecks
• Real or perceived to getting to anticipated endpoint (e.g. Site Closure/NFA) – Schedule – Funding – Perception
• DEQ has had a feedback mechanism for most programs – Communication with DEQ PM – Survey
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001
LUST VCS/SRS ICP
DEQ Oversight Costs
LUST ICP VCS/SRS
25thPercen5le $1,000 $2,000 $3,000
Median $3,000 $4,000 $8,000
75thPercen5le $8,000 $10,000 $20,000
Maximum $70,000 $100,000 $407,000
ProjectsNFA’ed2004-2013
17
Project Assignment
• Intake coordinators for each region for both Cleanup sites and LUST sites;
• Currently a waiting list for most regions – Succession planning at DEQ
• High/med/low environmental priority – highest risk sites are going to be worked on
first • Property transactions/schedule conflicts
– Let us know
18
Successful Approaches
• Communicate early and often with DEQ, consultant, attorney.
• Program information packet and DEQ website.
• Select a good consultant. • Insurance evaluation for site? • Record reviews and available information. • Recognize multiple pathways to cleanup.
19
Successful Cleanup • Prevent or minimize future releases & migration of
contaminants in the environment.
• Identify acceptable risk levels and move to risk-based cleanup – protect present & future human health & the environment.
• Use institutional and engineering controls in remedies (e.g., leave contamination in place).
Land and Water Use
HillCreek(ESAsteelhead?)
Drinkingwaterprovidedby200-userCo-op
Formergasolineservicesta5on(ZonedRuralCommercialDistrict)
Groundwaterflowdirec5on
Privatewellss5llexist
ReasonablyLikelyLandandWaterUses
ü CommercialandResiden5al
ü GWdischargetocreek(DWusenotlikely)
Risk Pathway Determination HHCOCs=TPHGxandVOCs
ü Trenchworkerscenarioü Residen5alvaporintrusionEcoCOCs=None
ü AWQCsnotexceeded
ü EPATierIIlevelsslightlyexceededinMW5(decreasingover5me)
23
Coopera5veFunding
PCESoilVaporAboveResiden5al(1,900ug/m3)
PCESoilVaporAboveOccupa5onal(47,000ug/m3)
26
Useful Websites • Environmental Cleanup:
• www.deq.state.or.us/lq/cu/index.htm
• Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: • www.deq.state.or.us/lq/tanks/lust/index.htm
• Prospective Purchaser Agreements: • www.deq.state.or.us/lq/cu/ppa.htm
• DEQ Databases including Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) and Environmental Cleanup Site Information (ECSI):
• www.deq.state.or.us/news/databases.htm