Indiana Perspectives on the use of Institutional Controls and the need for Long-term Stewardship for LUST Sites

Transcription

1 Indiana Perspectives on the use of Institutional Controls and the need for Long-term Stewardship for LUST Sites 25 th National Tanks Conference and Expo Phoenix, Arizona September 14, 2015

2 Evolution of Risk-based Corrective Action at IDEM Version 1.0: 1994 UST Branch Guidance Target concentrations based on TPH in soil and MCLs in ground water; no consideration of post closure obligations

3 Evolution of Risk-based Corrective Action at IDEM Version 2.0: 2001Risk Integrated System of Closure (RISC) First step toward riskbased corrective action (RBCA) with reduction of contaminant concentrations to land-use based, default targets and post closure obligations with use of institutional controls (ICs) and engineering controls with Environmental Notice

4 Evolution of Risk-based Corrective Action at IDEM Version 3.0: 2009 House Enrolled Action 1162 Interim Guidance (IC ) The remediation and closure goals, objectives and standards for all remediation projects shall be based on background levels or risk based on current and expected future use of the site and shall give consideration to the use of Environmental Restrictive Covenants (ERCs) and Environmental Restrictive Ordinances (EROs)

5 Evolution of Risk-based Corrective Action at IDEM Version 3.1: 2012 Remediation Closure Guide (RCG) & Remediation Program Guide (RPG) - True RBCA using the conceptual site model (CSM) to evaluate exposure pathways (ground water, soil direct contact and indoor air) and less focus on target levels with use of ICs following the HEA 1162 directives

6 How is the CSM Approach different than before? CSM and Risk Assessment Identify exposure pathways and receptors Identify risk target levels based on land use and activities Does contamination pose unacceptable risk with our without ICs?

7 What are ERCs? Lists activity restrictions, e.g. land use, ground water use, etc. Lists engineering controls, e.g. barriers, vapor mitigation systems, etc. Signed by property owner and runs with the land Model language provided, but not required Closure approved after ERC is signed and recorded on deed Current property owner responsible for compliance with restrictions

8 ERC Challenges Current owner will not agree to an ERC when former owner is performing cleanup Off site property owners are rarely agree to restrictions on their property Ensuring proper legal description of parcel(s)

9 What are EROs? Municipally adopted ordinance controlling the use of ground water and protects from exposure Ordinance may already exist IDEM must provide notice to municipality if use of the ERO is proposed Municipality must provide notice to IDEM if the ERO is enacting, amending or terminating the ordinance

10 EROs Challenges Is the entire plume within ERO area? Is the plume with a wellhead protection area? Are there existing potable wells within the ERO area? No well-established communication process with local drinking water operators & planners What are the current and future ground water use plans?

11 Percentage of LUST Closures with Institutional Controls Percentage RISC HEA1162 RCG Year

12 Number of Institutional Controls as of September 2015 Brownfields, 315 LUST, 768 RCRA Corrrective Action/Closure, 71 State Cleanup, 112 Total = 1,665 Nearly 50% of closures are LUSTs Voluntary Remediation, 266 Federal Programs, 65 Solid Waste Landfills, 68

13 Development of IC Program growing number of IC sites No cross program tracking of ICs Records stored in different agency program files and databases

14 Development of IC Program mounting concerns about IC awareness Environmental agency typically not involved with local development and redevelopment projects Local government units, i.e., planning, zoning, permits, etc., may be unaware of contaminated sites Administrative records may be lost, e.g., property subdivided, etc. New owners or tenants may be unaware of ERCs

15 Development of IC Program 2008 IC Registry developed and electronic record storage began Nearly 1,700 ERCs recorded as of September 2015 IC Webpage -

16 Development of IC Program 2010 to present Design a comprehensive IC program that is robust with a broad range of knowledge, skills, and abilities

17 Comprehensive IC Program Design IC Long-term Stewardship Planning IC Policy and Implementation IC Outreach and Notice Tracking ICs Monitoring ICs IC Enforcement

18 What is needed for IC Program? A robust IC program should cover all these functional areas Managerial Project management Technical support, e.g., GIS Legal Compliance monitoring Enforcement

19 IC Policy and Implementation Most timeconsuming Individual site IC review and implementation IC Long-term Stewardship Planning Agency guidance Internal SOPs IC Policy and Implementa -tion IC Outreach and Notice Tracking ICs Monitoring ICs IC Enforcement

20 IC Policy and Implementation Lessons Learned Appropriate selection and documentation of restrictions are important. Some sites over-restricted. There is a tendency to be overly conservative. This leads to problems later with modification requests. For contract sales, sites both buyer and seller should sign the ERC.

21 IC Outreach and Notice Created IDEM website, IC Registry and linked to publicfacing GIS website Conducted staff training IC Long-term Stewardship Planning Need better communication with local government units IC Policy and Implementation IC Outreach and Notice Tracking ICs Monitoring ICs IC Enforcement Need external stakeholder training

22 Tracking ICs Create IC retention schedule (2009) Locate IC records in different remediation programs Develop IC Registry IC Policy and Implementation IC Outreach and Notice IC Long-term Stewardship Planning Tracking ICs Monitoring ICs IC Enforcement

23 Institutional Controls Registry Rolled out December 2008 Identifies sites subject to land use restrictions Virtual File Cabinet (VFC) Summary report Links to ERCs in VFC Links to IndianaMap (zooms to site) Long-term plan to include EROs

24 24

25

26

27 ERC and ERO Information Tools IDEM Institutional Controls Registry Database of sites with land use controls IndianaMap Statewide map viewer to show geographic location of sites IDEM Virtual File Cabinet (VFC) Online access to all IDEM public records

28 Tracking ICs Lessons Learned Originally used a single point - Should use polygons of entire parcel(s) from legal description The legal description of the affected parcel(s) must be independently verified early in the corrective action process as about 10% have errors If restrictions only cover a portion of the site, clear geospatial data must be provided. Must verify that land owner signed the ERC

29 Typographical errors in legal description

30 Legal description does not cover contaminated area

31 Tracking ICs GIS Polygons for Mapping

32 Monitoring ICs IDEM currently has no comprehensive IC monitoring program IC Long-term Stewardship Planning ~270 sites have had partial audits by inspection staff and interns IC Policy ~5-10% not complying with ERC or require additional follow-up and Implementation IC Outreach and Notice Tracking ICs Monitoring ICs IC Enforcement

33 Common issues Audit Findings Engineered barrier integrity problems Lack of notice to IDEM as required Other violations Residential use on nonresidential properties Water well use Many sites redeveloped that may or may not have had violation in soil handling

34 Indiana One-call System Feasibility Study Can Indiana s 811 system be used for IC monitoring? Challenges Mapping differences Cost of obtaining membership Lack of exact contamination locations, e.g. depth of contamination, etc. Costs and staff resources Benefits Increased awareness to external stakeholders May be able to tailor sites based on restriction type

35 IC Monitoring Challenges No dedicated funding for most IC activities after site closure Limited auditing planned Audit site selection based on known problems with specific types of restrictions Long-term stewardship needs will require agency resources Increased report review needs ERO communications with municipalities

36 IC Monitoring Challenges Large impact on staff resources Original project manager may have left Competes with active site caseload Redevelopment projects often require quick turnaround Complexity varies by site Confusion about what restrictions should remain in effect Some older site closure records do not indicate specific land use restrictions Past tendency to over-restrict sites Numerous instances of multiple ERCs recorded on properties without correctly terminating prior instrument

37 IC Enforcement Reviewing legal authority IC Long-term Stewardship Planning Senior management evaluating next steps IC Policy and Implementation IC Outreach and Notice Tracking ICs Monitoring ICs IC Enforcement

38 Near Term Planned IC Activities IC planning, implementation, and tracking continues ERC modification policy development Long-term stewardship plan development Audit ~15 sites; focus on engineered cap sites Follow up on audits and ongoing complaints received

39 Contact Information Craig Schroer, Chief Underground Storage Tank Branch Office of Land Quality (317)