Many
readers will recall it was the petroleum industry who went to the Missouri
Legislature in 1995 and persuaded it to pass a law requiring that cleanup
standards be "risk-based".
Change
has obviously been a long time coming. But the need for it has not
diminished over time. As you read this article, the new guidance should
be "on the streets," and MDNR should be announcing training sessions
for environmental consultants to teach them how to do a proper risk
analysis and how to report their results to the state.
With
anything new, there is a chance for misperceptions, miscommunications
and misinformation. My conversations with folks over the last few
months have identified several "myths" in people's minds about what
"risk-based corrective action", or MRBCA, really is. Read on.
Myth:
PSTIF used to pay for "cleanups"; now it's only going to pay for "MRBCA."
The
statement makes no sense. Every tank site cleanup has left behind
some petroleum constituents in the soil and/or subsurface water --
at levels that posed little or no risk. Every cleanup ever done was
"risk-based". The new guidance and rules simply provide a more scientific
and defensible way of determining what levels of which
chemicals pose an unacceptable risk.
In
some cases under the new guidance, the cleanup standard for certain
chemicals will be lower than under the previous guidance. In
other cases, after a scientific analysis of the risks, it may be apparent
that a higher number is still "clean". The point is that the numbers
will be scientifically determined based on the characteristics of
the chemical and the property, including the type and thickness of
soil, depth to groundwater, and other factors.
Myth:
A Tier 1 cleanup is "lower risk" than a Tier 2 cleanup.
False.
Tiers 1, 2 and 3 are based on the same underlying values and calculations
for toxicity, exposure and risk. They are equally protective
of human health and environment.
Because
a Tier 2 cleanup may be more cost-effective, the PSTIF may
ask your consultant to "do a Tier 2 analysis." Doing so does not
mean your property will be any less "clean".
Myth:
Any site not cleaned up to residential levels will require a deed
restriction.
False.
Because
some consultants are familiar with the MDNR's Voluntary Cleanup Program,
they have assumed this myth will be true for tank sites under the
new MRBCA Guidance and Rules. It is not. No such requirement exists.
Myth:
PSTIF will no longer pay for excavation of contaminated soil.
Excavation
of contaminated soil will still be an option for achieving the required
cleanup. As always, PSTIF will pay for it, if it is the most cost-effective
solution.
Myth:
DNR or PSTIF is trying to control how properties are used.
False.
Property owners will continue to have control over the use of their
properties. Under the new guidance/rules, however, cleanup requirements
will be tailored to how the property is currently being used and what
the "reasonably anticipated future use" of the property is.
Myth:
The new guidance will require so much site assessment that it will
not save PSTIF any money.
Experience
indicates otherwise. States who have implemented RBCA have reported
real cost savings for their tank funds. And Missouri has worked hard
to assure that consultants can do site characterizations and risk
assessments efficiently and expediently. Customized software will
be available to help in this regard.
We
are projecting MRBCA will generate real cost savings for the PSTIF,
primarily from two types of situations. One involves properties where
there is shallow water, usually in the top 20-30 feet of the ground,
that contains a remnant of petroleum. Under the old guidance, there
was almost no way to ever get a "No Further Action letter" for that
site. Consequently, the PSTIF continued to pay the owner's consultant
year after year to check the monitoring wells and see how much natural
attenuation had occurred. No "cleanup" was being done, other than
that accomplished by natural processes. But the PSTIF has spent millions
of dollars at hundreds of sites - "watching Mother Nature work".
The
new guidance will give us a way to determine whether the remaining
petroleum constituents pose any risk to human health and the environment.
If not, DNR will issue a "No Further Action letter" and we can close
our claim.
We
also expect cost savings from the new standards for "total petroleum
hydrocarbons," or TPH. "TPH" is a name for a family of carbon compounds.
Some are toxic, some are harmless. Dried oak leaves, analyzed by a
lab, will yield 18,000 ppm TPH. Obviously, dried oak leaves would
not be considered hazardous to your health. But the old guidance usually
said anything over 200 ppm TPH had to be cleaned up!
This
sometimes caused the excavation of soil 15, 20 or 30 feet deep where
old, substantially degraded gasoline or diesel fuel was lodged in
the soil, even though the hydrocarbons from the petroleum product
were essentially harmless.
For
this reason, the standards are being changed so we know more about
what chemicals are present, and the cleanup can be tailored
to address real risks. In some cases, this may mean a high
"TPH number" poses no risk. So the PSTIF will only pay to dig up or
otherwise remediate soil where it is really necessary.
Any
change takes time, education and information. This will prove true
as we implement risk-based corrective action standards in Missouri.
My
advice? Two things:
(a) Make sure the consultants you are listening to have been
adequately trained and understand Missouri's new cleanup process,
and
(b) Don't jump to conclusions!
(Article published in the December 2003 issue of “Pipeline” - the magazine of the Missouri Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association)
Back
to Top
