December 2002
Publication Number 02-09-043
In March of 1989, an innovative, citizen-mandated law went into effect in Washington. This law was passed by voters as Initiative 97, and changed the way hazardous waste sites are cleaned up in this state. The law is known as the Model Toxics Control Act (Chapter 70.105.D RCW), and from this, the Toxics Cleanup Program was developed.
There are two primary ways sites get cleaned up: through a formal process; or, independently. Under the formal process, there are several steps to cleaning up a site.
After a site is discovered, an initial investigation takes place which provides information to determine if the site needs emergency cleanup, additional investigation, or no further action. If further action is required, an assessment is conducted which may lead to ranking of the site. Ranking is done relative to other sites, and determines the relative risk the site may pose to human health and/or the environment. Sites are ranked to guide the program s use of resources.
The next step is a remedial investigation and a feasibility study to define the extent and magnitude of the contamination at a site. Potential effects on human health and the environment and alternatives for cleaning up the site are also evaluated. Public review and a comment period are required before a plan to clean up a site is finalized.
Sites are also cleaned up independently, without any assistance, approvals, or guarantees from Ecology about the completeness of the work being done. These sites are usually cleaned up more quickly and at a lower cost for the owner.
When Ecology s cleanup program was first established, only a few hundred sites had been identified. As of January 2002, over 9,000 contaminated sites or releases had been identified in Washington State. Initially, the program focus was on cleaning up the most contaminated sites in the state, and most of these have now been cleaned up.
The Toxics Cleanup Program focuses its attention on cleaning up sites that pose the greatest threat to public health or the environment. In addition to the sites where the program was formally involved with the cleanup, many cleanups statewide were proceeding independently of Ecology oversight. By 1993, the program had received notice of over 3,000 such independent cleanup actions along with requests for assistance. The program continued to focus on sites that posed the greatest risk, though at the same time, the environmental community and the program had concerns about the adequacy of sites cleaned up independently.
It became clear the program needed to address these growing requests for assistance. In order to respond to these needs as well as maintain higher priority cleanups, Ecology developed the Voluntary Cleanup Program and established a fee to allow Ecology to recover its costs in reviewing and evaluating independent cleanup reports.
Since October 1, 1997, changes in the state cleanup law allow the program to provide more assistance to persons conducting voluntary cleanups. The Voluntary Cleanup Program in Ecology s Toxics Cleanup Program provides services to site owners or operators who initiate a cleanup of their contaminated site. Voluntary cleanups are continuing to grow in popularity, with the unintended consequence of competing resources for staff time with high-priority cleanups.
Currently, Ecology regulates approximately 11,000 active tanks on over 4,000 different properties. The program emphasizes technical assistance to tank owners so that owners can achieve compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency s Underground Storage Tank regulations.
Over half of the cleanup sites in the state are from leaking underground storage tank sites. The number of releases from these tanks has been steadily declining over the last several years, from a high of 963 releases in 1990, to 43 by mid 2002. From these releases, there is now an accumulation of over 2,500 sites in the process of being cleaned up or waiting for cleanup.
There are several ways to get sites cleaned up in the Toxics Cleanup Program. The following briefly describes a few of those ways with more detail later in this report.
Remedial Action Grants provide dollars to local governments to clean up contaminated sites. Cleaning up contaminated sites is increasingly becoming the first step in the economic redevelopment process in the State of Washington. These sites were once seen as undesirable. Now, land near city centers is in demand, and when cleanup occurs, valuable land is restored and available for reuse, leaving more land for parks and green space. Economic benefits of redevelopment can create jobs and even improve a community s tax base. Approximately $20 million in grants are awarded to local governments each biennium.
Brownfields are properties that are abandoned or underused because of environmental contamination from past industrial or commercial practices. There has been an increased interest in brownfields redevelopment, leading the program to work more closely with the Department of Trade and Economic Development. In 2000, several state and local governments submitted and won a bid to EPA to establish a statewide revolving loan fund. These funds provide below-market interest rate loans for environmental cleanup of contaminated brownfields in the State of Washington.
Mega sites are contaminated sites that are often complex and costly to clean up, and can cover many square miles. Enforcement problems are likely, as well as the existence of complicated liability issues. The program is currently engaged in cleaning up contaminated yards around homes as part of a mega site, as well as investigating the possibility of low-level contamination throughout several counties.
Historically, Washington State has seen extensive mining. At this point there is no way to identify the exact number of abandoned mine sites, though one estimate shows there may be as many as 3,500 abandoned metal mines in Washington. During the current biennium, the program is working with other state and federal agencies to develop a protocol for identifying and addressing abandoned mine lands.
The Toxics Cleanup Program faces a number of new sites that pose cleanup challenges beyond the norm for the program. Below is a description of those challenges, with more detail further in this report.
The Toxics Cleanup Program is increasingly finding large areas (several acres too many square miles) with low-to-moderate levels of soil contamination that have been caused by a range of historical activities. A strategy is currently under development in the program to begin addressing this environmental problem.
At times, all of the contamination at a site cannot be cleaned up or removed. When this happens, restrictions are placed on future uses of the property. These restrictions, called institutional controls, are required to assure the continued protection of human health and the environment. They require a periodic review at least every five years.
As more sites get cleaned up, the program faces a growing backlog of sites that need periodic- and five-year reviews. This work load is significant because it impacts the program s ability to begin work on new sites.
Persistent, bioaccumulative toxins (PBTs) stay in the environment for a long time, accumulate in humans and animals, and are toxic. They are different from most other chemicals because they don t go away and can increase in concentration as they move up the food chain. While scientists once thought that pollutants would disperse in the environment, they are now finding that some pollutants can actually accumulate and increase in concentration. This accumulation is difficult to purge, and may be creating problem areas that pose risks to human health and the environment, similar to some cleanup sites today.
Stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows (CSOs) are potential sources of sediment contamination to state waters. CSOs are characterized by stormwater runoff from house roofs, parking lots, and streets that empty into the same sewer system that carries sanitary wastes to sewage treatment plants. Stormwater and CSO discharges are often untreated and may be located in quiet waters where sediments become readily contaminated.
These projects have the potential to create major work loads for staff. This is especially true in industrialized areas where state and local governments are exploring the purchase of properties for right-of-ways for their projects. The major challenge with these projects is that some of these properties are known or suspected of being contaminated, and the scope of the contamination and the potential health and environmental effects are often largely unknown. In addition, these projects are generally on tight schedules, which may be in conflict with the program s current high-priority cleanups.
Perchloroethylene, or perc, is a chemical that is carcinogenic and can cause major impacts to drinking water. It is associated primarily with dry-cleaning and old gas stations. It can significantly impact groundwater supplies because of its wide-spread use. Once it gets into the groundwater, it is difficult to locate and clean up, and may take decades to dissipate. It gets into the groundwater from leaks through joints and cracks in sewer lines, old septic systems, and floor drains or dumps.
The Model Toxics Control Act has a provision in it that established a funding source for the Toxics Cleanup Program to clean up contaminated sites. The funding source is called the Toxics Control Account, which is split into a state and local account.
The 1989-91 biennium saw the first State Toxics Control Account appropriations. Revenue to this account, though highly variable, has slightly increased overall since 1989. The funds are disbursed among several state agencies, with Ecology getting the largest share. It is from the State Toxics Control Account that the legislature has appropriated funding to the Toxics Cleanup Program.
The State Toxics Control Account is the primary source of funding for the Toxics Cleanup Program. The account funds 68.7 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) of the program s total 144.7 FTEs. Of Ecology s total share, the program has gradually received a smaller amount, from 50% in 1991 to 31% in 2000. The program has been able to maintain its staffing by applying for and receiving funding from other sources. In the next several years, this ability may begin to erode as the state s required match for the Environmental Protection Agency s cleanup projects begins to increase.
This increase may need to come from the program s core operating budget.
A stronger systems approach to cleaning up sites will be key to finding more permanent solutions for areas that have contamination. Instead of viewing a site as an isolated problem, a systems approach includes integrating source control and cleanup efforts as well as consideration of social and economic conditions surrounding a complex contaminated site. This leads to better long-term land use planning, recovery of contaminated sites for productive use, and cross-media environmental assessment.
When Initiative 97 initially was passed, it was envisioned that most cleanups would occur through a traditional enforcement approach. Today, cleanups are largely accomplished, not because of enforcement action, but instead voluntarily because of redevelopment opportunities. This shift to voluntary cleanup has occurred because redevelopment brings additional new resources for cleanup. Timing can be a critical element as many cleanups begin to include these real estate transactions and redevelopment opportunities. This creates a challenge for a program that is geared toward cleaning up higher priority sites according to rank.
The program has made remarkable progress in getting contaminated sites cleaned up in this state, yet the number of new and pending cleanup sites continues to grow. Parallel to this growth is the number of sites that have cleanup actions completed, yet need a periodic- or five-year review conducted to ensure the remedy is working. The program has completed cleanup actions on nearly 5,000 sites, and once thought that it would eventually work itself out of business. It has become more apparent that additional needs, including these periodic- and five- year reviews, and property sales, will continue to place demands on the program for some time to come.
The magnitude of the full cleanup perspective is beyond the scope of the Toxics Cleanup Program or Ecology alone. A broader view is needed to look at the connection among agencies, local governments, and communities. This broader view is continuing to build as the program works with other agencies to develop solutions for the long-term cleanup of sites. Extending this view to business and community activities would begin to balance the picture. It is this broader perspective that will help illuminate the consequences of multiple actions in a community, and ultimately bring about solutions to cleanup that are more permanent.
The Toxics Cleanup Program s highest priority has consistently been to clean up contamination and ensure that human health and the environment are protected. As the program evolves, so do solutions for how to achieve that highest priority. How to better deal with individual sites within the context of the bigger picture is moving to the forefront of current challenges. The bigger picture includes: community needs; multiple contamination sources; contamination spread over a wide area; and current activities that continue to contribute contamination to areas undergoing cleanup. The program s focus will include broader solutions for longer-term and more permanent cleanups in the State of Washington.
This report is available on Department of Ecology s home page on the World Wide
Web at http://www.wa.ecology/biblio/0209043.html.
For printed copies of this publication, please contact:
Department of Ecology
Publications Distribution Office
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, Washington, 98504-7600
(360) 407-7472
ecypub@ecy.wa.gov
Refer to Publication No. 02-09-043
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council