Cleanup Program

David Anderson | Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Working with DEQ—Understanding the Spectrum of

DEQ's Programs May 2016

Oregon Brownfields Conference

2

What I’ll Talk About…

•  Process •  Outcomes •  Examples

3

Sites Statewide

4

Deschutes County

5

Sunriver

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.

Cleanup Process

DEQ’s View Public’s View

8

LUST Process

DEQ’s View Public’s View

9

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).

20

Example Sites

•  Site/slides with some specific real world examples of decision making

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)

24

Off Site Mitigation/Management

25

Development Modification

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