Environmental Quality Service Council Institutional Controls Registry October 6, 2009 Peggy Dorsey Deputy Assistant Commissioner Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office of Land Quality.
Download ReportTranscript Environmental Quality Service Council Institutional Controls Registry October 6, 2009 Peggy Dorsey Deputy Assistant Commissioner Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office of Land Quality.
Environmental Quality Service Council Institutional Controls Registry October 6, 2009 Peggy Dorsey Deputy Assistant Commissioner Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office of Land Quality 1 Institutional Controls (ICs) • • Legal or administrative tool (paper) Used to cut off exposure to unacceptable risk posed by contamination left in place 2 IC Types • Environmental Restrictive Covenants (ERCs) • Legal document that stipulates restrictions and conditions that must be met and complied with by the property owner (current and future) in lieu of removal of contamination. • Signed by IDEM and property owner and owner has it recorded as part of deed record and runs with the land • Restrictions selected based on the site conditions (ex. do not use groundwater, no residential use) • Currently most common IC used in Indiana 3 IC Types • Groundwater ordinances (per HEA 1162) • Municipality can pass ordinance to restrict groundwater use • Municipalities must provide copy to IDEM (per HEA 1162) • Better definition of what needs to be sent would be beneficial to all • Area of coverage variable • Longevity of ordinance variable • Municipalities enforce them • Information devices (deed notices or signs) • Zoning ordinances • Easements 4 Remediation Program Responsibilities • The Remediation Program prevents, stops, or minimizes: – contamination that has been released into our water and soil – exposure to people – degradation to our natural resources • Allows for economic development and advancement 5 Prior to HEA 1162 • IDEM addressed contamination and tried to find a sensible approach to cleanup and risk • Unnecessary to remove every molecule of contamination in certain situations • However, it was necessary to manage contamination by allowing acceptable levels of risk while protecting human health and the environment. 6 Post HEA 1162 • IDEM’s approach to addressing contamination post P.L. 782009 (HEA 1162) • Approach to addressing contamination determined by site – May go directly to risk management of contamination and utilize Institutional Controls or Engineering Controls to prevent human exposure to contamination left in place ranging from free product to minimal amounts of contamination 7 Purpose of Institutional Controls • Institutional Controls – A component of site-specific approach to address contamination and risk, or – Sole means of closure – designed to cut off exposure to the contamination left in place • Will be many more of them to keep track of • IC’s now play a more important role in risk management than before so to continue to protect people’s health it is critical to keep track of: – where contamination still remains in soil and water – what people can and cannot do with the soil or water on site – how the property can and cannot be used 8 Long Term Stewardship • The restrictions and conditions placed on the property and its use will remain in effect until new data provided to IDEM proves the risk has been mitigated and the Institutional Control is no longer necessary • Long Term Stewardship: Can’t walk away from them, they outline obligations to which the current property owner and all future property owners must adhere to be protective. (Part of the deal.) • Components of Long Term Stewardship: – – – – Implement the IC Track the information – Interim IC Registry created by IDEM Monitor – are conditions and restrictions still in place and in effect Enforce – if they aren’t, some action needs to be taken 9 Reason For IC Registry • To track when and where ICs established – Prior to 2008 IDEM had no comprehensive list of IC sites – The more contamination left in place, the higher the long term risk of exposure if ICs not monitored • Recommended by EPA – Study found lack of easily available information on ICs – Study found significant number of ICs not in place • IDEM research found less than 50% in deed record search – Majority of states now have registries • EPA Brownfield grant stipulates public record of IC sites; IC registries also eligible for EPA funding • No comprehensive federal registry • Provides notice to public and local government units 10 ERC Numbers by Program • Indiana Brownfields Program – 76 ERCs • LUST/ELTF SF – 207 ERCs • VRP – 31 ERCs RCRA VRP SCU LUST • SCU – 31 ERCs • Superfund/DERP – 41 ERCs • RCRA – Corrective Action – 7 ERCs BF APPROXIMATELY 400 ERCs TO DATE 11 IDEM IC Registry • Interim: Access Database – Rolled-out late 2008 – Information tracked includes county, city, address, types of restrictions, engineering controls, county recorder information – Linked to electronic filing cabinet (VFC) and Indiana Map – Summary report compiled from database and updated on IDEM website monthly – Limitations • No way to search (query) – sort function only • ERC boundaries not required so maps limited • Change in ownership not required • Long-term: TEMPO Software – IC module funded by EPA Brownfields grant – Development ~2010 12 IC Registry Summary Report Available on-line at www.in.gov/idem/5959.htm 13 14 15 16 IC Summary Report Contents County Site Name Address and City 17 Program ID OLQ Program Date Recorded IC Type 18 Affected Media Contaminant Class Restriction or Engineering Control Comments 19 Click ‘View’ to open document in VFC 20 21 Specific Restriction Language (no residential use, etc). 22 23 Click ‘Map’ to open aerial photo in IndianaMap 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 IC Challenges • Institutional Controls not effective if no one knows about them – New owners/tenants may be unaware of ICs – Administrative records may be lost (not recorded properly, property subdivided, etc.) – Local government units and decision makers (planning, zoning, building permits, etc.) may be unaware of contaminated sites – Environmental regulators typically not involved with local redevelopment projects 31 IC Failures • Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, “Do Not Dig” - contaminated soil excavated within 3 weeks of property transfer • State audits – Rhode Island audit results ~19% of IC sites out of compliance for technical reasons – Kansas audit • Some owners unaware of ICs • 12% improperly filed • 68% met all IC conditions – Records lost, not tied to property, not carried over when property subdivided 32 Indiana – IC Concerns • No comprehensive IC audit conducted to date; extent of compliance issues unknown • IC site numbers growing with higher levels of contamination remaining • Known Issues – SF sites: some ICs not yet in place – IDEM notified by property owner that ERC not found during title search/property transfer – Misc. recorder offices statements: cannot locate some ERCs in county records 33 Sites in IDEM Remediation Programs •Leaking USTs •Voluntary Remediation •RCRA Corrective Action •Superfund •Brownfields •State Cleanup 34 Future Institutional Controls Active Sites in IDEM Remediation Programs 2000 1500 1000 500 Remediation Program 35 Fu tur eE st. E RC s RC s lds Cu rre nt E Br ow nfi e nd Su pe r fu Cl ea nu p St a te VR P 0 US Ts •Est. 70% current sites will close with some type of ICs = 3100 2500 Le ak ing •~400 Existing ERCs Number of Sites •~3850 Current Active Sites 3000 After Site Closure • There are long-term costs associated with maintaining controls – – – – – Inspections Records management Operation/maintenance of engineered controls Replacement of engineered controls at end of life Property transactions (subdivision, redevelopment, etc) may require re-evaluation of ICs – Site construction (contaminated soil & water management) – Public/private party notification 36 Mechanisms for Long Term Stewardship • Government – Fees (flat or annual) paid to government entity to administer tracking, compliance and enforcement - not failure of EC • Private Company – Fees (flat or annual) paid to private entity to administer tracking and compliance – no enforcement or failure of EC • Owner – Periodically self-reports to government and pays for engineering inspection costs – not tracking or enforcement • Trusts • Financial assurance – Used by property owner to show adequate economic solvency should they need to cover all the costs associated with the maintenance and possible failure of Engineering Controls 37 Institutional Controls Trust • Trust – Owner pays a 1 time flat fee and the trustee (IDEM?) then is responsible to deal with the obligations of the IC and failures of ECs as well as tracking, compliance and enforcement – Proposed in 2009 - HEA 1162 – If established, IDEM and IFA agree that it should be administered by IDEM – Trusts not new to IDEM – currently manages several 38 Contact Information Peggy Dorsey Deputy Assistant Commissioner Office of Land Quality [email protected] (317) 234-0337 39