Strategies to Increase LUST Cleanups

Introduction

EPA works with state, territorial, Tribal, and industry partners to clean up releases from regulated USTs and to develop strategies to clean up stalled or legacy UST releases. Left unattended, releases can contaminate soil, groundwater, surface water, or indoor air. To better understand the issues associated with LUST site cleanups, EPA conducted analyses and published a national backlog study in 2011. More recently, EPA issued a policy statement that encourages implementing agencies to evaluate their old and new UST releases based on current and potential threats of exposure. EPA is also involved in training efforts related to ASTM’s Moving Sites to Closure standard. The policy paper and the Moving Sites to Closure standard can help states to prioritize higher risk sites and to address lower risk sites that may be stalled.  

• National Backlog Study.
• EPA Policy Statement - Reassessing Exposure Threats from Petroleum UST Releases.
• ASTM's E3488-25 Standard Guide for Moving Sites to Closure for Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Releases Note that industry codes and standards are copyrighted and are available only from the developing organization. These codes and standards must be purchased directly from the developing organization.

State Successes

Many states use innovative approaches to accelerate the pace of cleanups at UST release sites. Some examples of past state successes are below.  For more information, contact the relevant state UST programs. You can find contact information via our online Contacts Directory.

• Colorado
• California
• Oklahoma
• Minnesota

---

Colorado's RBCA and "SMART" Approach

Summary

Closing sites with offsite contamination can be a challenge for state leaking underground storage tank programs. To address this issue, Colorado enhanced its Tier I and Tier II risk based corrective action criteria by establishing Tier III and Tier IV options that allow for site closure in situations where contamination extends beyond the property boundary as long as certain conditions are met. Doing so helped them close older sites that were difficult to close under their Tier I and Tier II criteria, even after years of active remediation efforts. 

Colorado’s SMART approach to cleaning up LUST releases encompasses: 

• Specific — targeting the treatment area and clearly stating technology-specific end points. 
• Measurable — using performance metrics that demonstrate progress toward the end point. 
• Agreed upon — ensuring responsible party, cleanup consultant, and state regulator understand, accept, and agree on concerns, goals, objectives, treatment areas, metrics, and end points. 
• Realistic — demonstrating the ability to achieve objectives. 
• Time based — targeting a date to achieve the remedial end point. 

To reach closure, Colorado uses the treatment train concept of sequencing remedial technologies and continuous re-evaluation during site remediation.

Results 

• Closing 365 releases during FY 2020 means Colorado has closed 95 percent of their reported confirmed releases since the start of the federal underground storage tank program in 1988. 
• Since October 2014, Tier III and Tier IV closures have made up over 10 percent of Colorado’s total closures in that time. These sites would have been extremely difficult to close or otherwise not closed. 

• Colorado has been able to allocate limited resources to higher-risk sites.

  

Lessons Learned 

• Make an extensive effort to inform and educate affected parties and the general public about the RBCA process. Colorado’s Oil and Public Safety Division website highlights impacted areas on a map. 
• Most people are more concerned with property devaluation; they generally accept that health risks are adequately addressed. If exposure pathways change, OPS reserves the right to reopen an investigation, which comforts landowners. Colorado notifies offsite property owners at least 30 days prior to anticipated site closure. The state shares current and anticipated exposure and risk information and provides an opportunity for offsite owners to notify OPS about additional exposure pathways that would change the risk evaluation. If the state does not receive additional information, they close the site. This reduces transaction costs and expedites closures. 
• Sequencing multiple remedial technologies based on remedial objectives can improve efficiency and lead to quicker closure. 
• Manual bailing, absorbent socks, and other techniques to recover minor amounts of light non-aqueous phase liquid accumulating in wells is ineffective in reducing overall risk because those techniques typically only address the small amount of LNAPL that is easily collected. Instead, Colorado focuses on reducing the toxicity of LNAPL by remediating the source where most of the hydrocarbon mass is and degrading chemicals of concern, mainly BTEX and other aromatics, via mechanical, chemical, or biological means. 
• Monitored natural attenuation sites do not always progress as expected. Colorado created a model to predict expected reductions over time. A site may require active remediation if it does not meet calculated milestones.

Background

• Colorado uses fate and transport modeling, empirical data, and other lines of evidence to support Tier III and Tier IV closure criteria, which apply to public roadways and to private property, respectively. 
• Colorado adopted Closure Tiers.  Tier I means that chemicals of concern meet Tier I RBSLs screening levels with no offsite impacts. Tier II means that COCs are at concentrations that are protective of human health and the environment (Tier II site-specific target levels); No offsite impacts. Tier III means that COCs meet Tier III RBSLs with offsite impacts. Tier IV means that COCs meet Tier IV RBSLs with offsite impacts.
• For sites that cannot achieve Tier I or Tier II closure criteria, Colorado can apply Tier III or Tier IV closure criteria if: 
  • Free product was removed to the maximum extent practicable. 
  • Past efforts were properly implemented. 
  • Feasible technologies were already tried. 
  • Access and cost were considered, and the anticipated costs outweigh the benefits of further cleanup efforts. 
  • Future risk reduction was determined unlikely.
• Colorado adopted Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council’s LNAPL principles and recommendations in 2015, leading to closures with measurable LNAPL present if recovery is negligible and there are minimal or manageable health risks receptors. Colorado also adopted the Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council and EPA's petroleum vapor intrusion screening criteria in 2014 to assess vapor exposure pathways quickly. 

• Treatment trains set forth a plan at the beginning of the cleanup to use multiple treatment technologies in succession or in multiple contaminant areas to reach closure.

  

---

California's Impressive Backlog Reduction and Continuing Efforts to Increase UST Release Site Cleanups.

Summary

In 2009, California’s leaking underground storage tank backlog was the second largest in the nation. Since then, they reduced their backlog by over 9,200 releases through a variety of policies, improvement plans, and initiatives and they continue to look for ways to close LUST sites.   

Implementing the state’s low-threat closure policy (policy) in 2012 is central to California’s success. The policy establishes both general and media-specific criteria. If both the general and applicable media-specific criteria are satisfied, then California considers the LUST case a low threat to human health, safety and the environment, and can likely be closed. California used contractor support to evaluate backlog sites against the policy, and this led to many closures. USEPA Region 9 used a portion of the state’s LUST cleanup grant in the form of in-kind assistance to fund the effort.

More recently, California and USEPA Region 9 created a stalled case team to identify barriers and focus on sites across the state. The team includes water quality, financial assistance, and enforcement staff from the central state office; program managers and case workers from state regional offices; USEPA Region 9; and USEPA contractors. In 2018, each regional office identified 15-25 stalled sites, and the team developed individual case strategies for each with actions assigned to the state or regional office, USEPA Region 9, or its contractor. The team continues to check in with each regional office every 3-4 months and tracks all sites until closure.

Additional efforts include:

• Creating a new enforcement team with a dedicated attorney, technical staff, and USEPA-funded geologist or engineer to pursue enforcement where initial efforts failed to spur progress.
• Working to improve the effectiveness of funding programs for releases ineligible for California’s Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund, in particular the Emergency, Abandoned and Recalcitrant Account Program (state lead) and the Orphan Site Cleanup Fund.
• Focusing on over 400 military LUST cases to organize records, group closable and non-closable cases, and press military branches on their sites that need investigation and remediation.

Results

From 2012 to 2020, California reduced its backlog of releases by more than 65 percent, from 7,703 to 2,544.

California’s policy resulted in closing over 1,000 releases a year for three consecutive years from 2012 to 2015.

California’s stalled case team expanded their efforts from 175 to 314 sites. They closed 73 and are currently working on 241. Of those 241 sites, 27 are now in or proceeding toward enforcement; 63 have now secured funding and 34 more have funding applications pending; and 30 are now in closure. State regional offices recommended most of the 139 cases added to the stalled case initiative in 2019 and 2020, which indicates that the initiative is a success. 

Lessons Learned

• California found that the policy was effective in promoting consistent closure criteria for low-threat releases, but implementation and acceptance across the state required strong leadership from the state’s central office and took time. The central office’s use of contractors to review cases helped expedite the effort.
• Business as usual was not an effective approach to addressing stalled sites. Additional effort and leadership involvement were required. Contractor assistance is particularly helpful for atypical and time-sensitive tasks.
• Sites outside urban areas are a challenge. Legislative changes to the Orphan Site Cleanup Fund eliminated requirements that releases must be brownfields projects in urban areas. As a result, California can now address orphan releases in addition to urban brownfields.
• California improved their efficiency by transforming their UST Cleanup Fund’s initial technical case review document into a draft scope of work. This reduced back and forth negotiations, rework, and associated contracting wait times for releases paid for by the Emergency, Abandoned or Recalcitrant Account Program. 

Background

The policy ensured regulatory agencies could use available money and other resources to clean up the highest threat releases, particularly those without viable responsible parties. California regulators are ensuring that by closing lower threat releases, they can focus on higher priority releases.

California estimated the time for closure of 67 percent of their remaining open releases is within five years. This data does not include military cases but does include federal exempt tanks, such as heating oil. 

California has several funding options to close LUST releases: 

• UST Cleanup Fund—Reimburses eligible petroleum UST corrective action costs for UST owners and operators.
• Emergency, Abandoned, and Recalcitrant Account Program—Pays for state lead petroleum UST cleanups when the site is abandoned, there is an imminent threat that requires emergency action, or the responsible party is recalcitrant. This program includes a cost recovery component. 
• Orphan Site Cleanup Fund—Reimburses eligible petroleum UST corrective action costs for property owners who did not own or operate the USTs.
• Site Cleanup Subaccount Program—Provides grants for corrective action costs related to cleaning up groundwater or surface waters impacted by human-made contaminants. This program includes an ability to pay component. 

• Proposition 1 Groundwater Sustainability Program—Provides grants and loans for protecting and cleaning up groundwater previously or currently used as drinking water. 

  

---

Oklahoma Reduced Legacy Releases By 86 Percent Since 2005. 

Summary

Oklahoma applied four overarching strategies to reduce the number of legacy releases – open leaking underground storage tank (LUST) releases on the books prior to 2000.  

1. They modified policies, rules, statutes, and increased their state fund cap which allowed them to continue spending money on legacy releases. 
2. They developed cost and payment procedures that streamlined the overall funding process and clearly communicated these procedures to their regulated community.
3. They fully applied the Oklahoma Risk-Based Corrective Action methodology to identify sensitive receptors and pathways, model reasonable exposure pathways of concern, institute engineering controls where warranted, and apply long-term monitoring for plume stability. 
4. They continued to invest in technology to enhance their database and online corrective action portal and made process improvements for efficient paperless tracking and automated processes. 

Results 

• Oklahoma adopted ORBCA in late 1996, which required a Tier 1A assessment report for every active release case.  This led to assessment report submissions for review through 2002 and resulted in the closure of many cases due to lack of risk exposure.
• From 2005 to 2020, Oklahoma decreased its backlog of legacy releases from 422 to 58, an 86 percent reduction. Since the beginning of the federal underground storage tank program in 1988, Oklahoma has cleaned up 94 percent of their reported confirmed releases.
• Oklahoma prioritized filling data gaps on legacy releases and applied risk-based corrective action to close many of them. This included identifying exposure pathways and monitoring to determine the likelihood of exceeding risk-based screening levels.
• Oklahoma established and periodically updates its unit cost structure and added it to the corrective action portal which helped expedite case closures, particularly legacy releases.

Lessons Learned

• Increasing the state fund’s cap from to $1.5 million to $2.5 million allows Oklahoma to continue spending on legacy releases that are not moving forward and implement cleanup technologies that didn’t exist years ago. 
• Establishing explicit timeframes for the cleanup process and following up when they are not met keeps sites moving. 
• Automating the submittal and approval of work plans, purchase orders, claims, and technical reports through Oklahoma’s online portal and PIMS (Petroleum Information Management Systems) database results in an improved process for state staff and external users. The PIMS database also tracks case related activities and alerts appropriate regulatory staff when there has been no activity after one year.
• Streamlining case funding procedures and working with the regulated community eliminates long negotiations, leading to the quicker allocation of money for cleaning up a LUST release. 
• Employing engineering controls to eliminate receptor pathways helps close sites. Oklahoma offers to connect homes to public water supply, reimburse for the cost to plug water supply wells potentially impacted, and compensate citizens $1,000 for the loss of use of their water well. This $1,000 compensation is intended to help offset water bills for a year.

Background

• Oklahoma’s robust and well-established risk based corrective action program, ORBCA, is central to their success at closing LUST sites. Its protective measures include searching for sensitive receptors within 660 feet of LUST releases and identifying and screening utility manways within 330 feet to effectively evaluate the risk posed by the release. Conducting a thorough site conceptual exposure model as well as long term monitoring and employing engineering controls helps identify and evaluate pathways of concern. 
• Oklahoma’s PIMS database improved efficiency on many levels. It streamlined their budgeting process and provided real time status of their state fund budget down to the release level, enabling them to make funding decisions quicker. 
• In 2013, Oklahoma launched their Corrective Action Portal to receive online submissions from owners and operators as well as licensed environmental consultants. It allows for fast submissions of work plans, purchase orders, change orders, technical reports, and claims. The portal contains validations and business rules that ensure quality and consistent data. PIMS and the portal operate as one seamless process.

---

Minnesota Commits to Continuous Improvement and Reducing the Number of Legacy Underground Storage Tank Releases. 

Summary

• In 2013, Minnesota began a focused examination of active leaking underground storage tank releases that were more than ten years old and pre-dated their current investigation and corrective action policies. Since the project’s inception, Minnesota has identified 238 active sites meeting the project’s criteria and are defined as legacy releases.
• Minnesota identified site challenges, examined their internal processes, and evaluated causes and barriers at their identified legacy releases in order to develop solutions focused on progressing legacy releases towards site closure.
• They developed an array of project management solutions including creating site-specific implementation plans and milestones, developing innovative review approaches for complex releases, and redistributing the state’s workload in order to provide greater resources on legacy sites.

Results

• As of October 2020, Minnesota reduced the number of active legacy releases from 238 to 67.
• Minnesota has 388 remaining open releases as of October 2020. Since the beginning of the federal underground storage tank program in 1988, Minnesota has closed 97 percent of their reported confirmed releases. 

Lessons Learned

• Management engagement, timelines, and check-ins – Program managers meet with project staff every six months for updates on each legacy site, routinely evaluating their progress. In between updates, the project staff work on a specific timeline created at the beginning of the project for the day-to-day oversight of each site. 
• Spread the wealth – Minnesota redistributed the state’s workload and provided additional support by spreading the complex legacy LUST releases among their case managers. 
• Add technical support as needed –The program occasionally elects to involve a third-party state contractor during the review of legacy release sites to add additional technical expertise in developing solutions for these releases.
• Tweak controls – In order to adequately address risks and impacts based on geology and groundwater usage, Minnesota updated their groundwater policy to include additional requirements for sensitive groundwater conditions. These include wellhead protection areas, shallow bedrock, soul-source aquifers that are the only available drinking water source, and shallow sand and gravel aquifers.
• Make it easier to do source removal – They clarified their guidance on soil excavation to increase the amount of source allowed to be removed without approval at the start of a cleanup. They also added that excavation should occur when there is petroleum-saturated soil present during tank removal.
• Train staff and play to their strengths – Minnesota re-educated staff on enforcement tools and corrective action options, while also making a conscious effort to utilize staff strengths and experiences in assigning and reassigning difficult sites.

Background

• Minnesota created a temporary cross-sectional review team at the start of the project to analyze and categorize the legacy LUST releases. The categories included: current policy provides a path to closure; additional assessment or remediation needed; and complex LUST releases. The complex LUST release category included complex geology, sensitive ground or surface water areas, poor performance of remediation systems, and administrative or legal issues.
• Program managers developed the Site Decision Committee, a rotating selection of site reviewers that includes hydrologists and project managers. The Site Decision Committee presents recommended next steps on each site to managers, which ultimately provides feedback on the best path forward.