• 1
  • 2
  • 3

Am I Eligible for a Site Cleanup Subaccount Program (SCAP) Grant?

What is Site Cleanup Subaccount Program (SCAP)

We have a client who was the operator of a dry cleaner. Before he retired, he had already faced the consequences of being the responsible party for tetrachloroethylene (PCE) release from his operation. He did what was required by the local oversight agency and received a closure letter.

Our client had been retired for some time, living on a fixed income, when he got a letter from the local oversight agency he had dealt with while in business. The letter said that an investigation down the street from his former dry cleaning business found PCE, and they pointed the finger at the retiree. He replied with the truth; “I don’t have the money.”

That didn’t stop the oversight agency. The next letter told our client to apply for a SCAP grant. The regulator was referring to the Site Cleanup Subaccount Program (SCAP) run by the California State Water Resources Control Board (Board). Of course, our client had no idea what SCAP was and called with a host of questions.

What is Site Cleanup Subaccount Program (SCAP)?

SCAP is a funding program established by California Senate Bill (SB) 445, allowing the Board to issue grants for the cleanup of surface water or groundwater contaminated with human-made chemicals that harm, or threaten to harm, human health and the environment (e.g., fish, animals).

Who is a SCAP Grant For?

An applicant must meet three conditions to be eligible for a SCAP grant:

  1. The applicant must have a site with surface water or groundwater contaminated by human-made chemicals.
  2. The contamination harms or threatens to harm human health and the environment.
  3. The site is under regulatory oversight for cleanup.

SCAP grants are awarded to responsible parties (those named by the Board as responsible for a release), public agencies, public utilities, non-profit organizations, tribes, and mutual water companies. The grant applicant(s) must show they lack sufficient financial resources to perform the required work. This means the applicant must provide certain financial records. For example:

  • Individuals – individual income tax returns for the most recent three years.
  • Businesses – business income tax returns for the most recent three years; Secretary of State documentation identifying the business and authorized signatories.
  • Trusts – income tax returns of the trust and trust documents
  • Limited Liability Corporations (LLC) – income tax returns of the LLC and identification of the partners who receive income from the LLC.

In addition to financial information, the Board also asks for a scope of work, cost estimate, and duration of the proposed project. 

The financial information, project budget, and project duration are used to make a preliminary determination of the ability of the applicant to pay for the project. The Board uses The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Penalties and Financial Model to estimate the applicant's available cash flow for the duration of the project.

Aerial view of the levee improvements at the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal, formerly known as Steelhead Creek, which flows into the American River in Sacramento County, California. By 2013, Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) and the state completed 18.3 of the 42 miles of levee improvements required to meet current flood control standards. The Natomas Basin is surrounded by 42 miles of levees that provide protection from the American River, Sacramento River, Natomas Cross Canal and Natomas East Main Drain Canal. Photo taken October 24, 2013.Paul Hames / California Department of Water Resources, FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY

What Cleanup Projects are Eligible for a SCAP Grant?

Cleanup projects are eligible when they:

  • Provide cleanup to remove the harm or threat of harm to human health and the environment;
  • Are not eligible for other Division of Financial Assistance funding programs; and
  • Emphasize cleanup.

What are the Factors for Consideration for Awarding a SCAP Grant?

SCAP requires the Board to weigh the following considerations for awarding a grant:

  1. The level of threat to human health, safety, and the environment from surface water or groundwater contamination at the location.
  2. Whether the location is in a small or financially disadvantaged community.
  3. The cost and potential environmental benefit of the investigation or cleanup.
  4. Whether there are other potential sources of funding for the investigation or cleanup. 
  5. Any other information the Board identifies as necessary for consideration.

There is no other guidance provided by the Board regarding how the five considerations are appraised, but there is a list of sites that received a SCAP grant. We took a sample of those sites, reviewed site characteristics as they relate to the five considerations, and summarized our findings as five rules of thumb.

Awarding a SCAP Grant: Rule of Thumb 1

Rule of Thumb 1 - The location of a contaminated site poses an immediate or imminent threat to human health, safety, and the environment (aquatic and terrestrial); or the site has significantly high PCE and TCE concentrations (>100,000 ug/m3) in soil vapor that pose an immediate threat or strong potential threat to human health, safety, and environment.

To get information for the sample sites, we reviewed case files uploaded to GeoTracker, the Board’s database of contaminated sites. Dry cleaners topped the list recently of awarded grants with at least 10 grants from a total thirteen sites awarded SCAP grants. One site was designated as a “Brownfield” site. While SCAP is not exclusively for dry cleaners, the list of awarded grants leans heavily in that direction. For the sites we reviewed, contaminants of concern were mostly long-lasting compounds such as methyl tertiary butyl ether (MtBE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), and trichloroethylene (TCE).

There were a few sites where petroleum hydrocarbons (gasoline and diesel) were the contaminants of concern, and while the impact did not cause immediate threat (ongoing exposure to contamination), it did leave the sites with an imminent threat (strong potential for exposure) to human health and the environment. In one case involving petroleum hydrocarbons, the location of the impact threatened surface water and levy construction that if left undone would have caused an immediate threat to human health, safety, and the environment due to flooding.

In the case of MtBE, contaminant levels in groundwater were moderate, but the Board suspected that MtBE-impacted groundwater infiltrated an unused water supply well that connected upper water zones to deeper water zones. MtBE-contaminated water moving from shallow to deeper zones was considered an imminent threat to human health and safety. 

For most of the sites we reviewed, groundwater was impacted by PCE and TCE, but it was the concentrations in soil vapor that created a threat  to human health. In these cases, PCE concentrations in soil vapor easily exceeded 100,000 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3). For perspective, the Tier 2 commercial environmental screening level (ESL) published by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Board for PCE in subsurface vapor is 67 ug/m3. In some cases there was vapor intrusion into occupied spaces (immediate threat), and in other cases there was imminent threat of vapor intrusion. In all the solvent cases reviewed there was either an immediate or imminent threat based on exceedingly high PCE and TCE concentrations in soil vapor beneath occupied buildings.

Awarding a SCAP Grant: Rule of Thumb 2

Rule of Thumb 2 - The location is disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution and with population characteristics that make them more sensitive to pollution.

Over half the sites reviewed were categorized as disadvantaged or severely disadvantaged, a term used for water management and other public agency planning. The designation stems from digital map screening tools that help identify communities unequally challenged by multiple sources of pollution and with population characteristics that make them more sensitive to pollution. This information is available for sites on GeoTracker and is found under the” Community Involvement” tab on a site’s index page.

For sites that were not listed as disadvantaged or severely disadvantaged, it was unclear how this consideration was factored into the decision to award a SCAP grant; however, that does not mean the sites were not in a small or financially disadvantaged community.

Awarding a SCAP Grant: Rule of Thumb 3

Rule of Thumb 3 - The scope of work, duration, and cost of investigation and/or cleanup is reasonable and necessary to fix an immediate or imminent threat to human health, safety, and the environment.

This factor was difficult to discern from the available information. For all the sites reviewed, there was a lack of funds available to meet the regulatory directive and applicants had provided financial information, project scope of work, project duration, and project cost.

While the financial and project information were not available for our review, it was clear for most of the sites that contamination level or the location posed an immediate or imminent threat to human health (e.g, vapor intrusion), safety (e.g, risk of flooding), and the environment (e.g., poison fish). Since the environmental threat was immediate or imminent, action was necessary. SInce removing the immediate or imminent threat is beneficial and the cost is approved by the Board, the cost is reasonable.

Sites reviewed with SCAP grants had a scope of work, duration, and cost estimate that were necessary and reasonable to fix immediate or imminent threat to public health.

Awarding a SCAP Grant: Rule of Thumb 4

Rule of Thumb 4 - Applicants must show there is no other funding available to meet regulatory directives by providing financial information along with the project scope, duration, and cost estimate for investigation and/or cleanup. 

SCAP applicants were awarded grants because they showed there were no other sources of funding, including their own resources, to meet a regulatory agency directive. They showed there were no other sources of funding by providing financial information along with the project scope, duration, and cost estimate for investigation and/or cleanup. There is no broad consideration for this factor. A financial model is used by the Board as part of the assessment process. 

Awarding a SCAP Grant: Rule of Thumb 5

Rule of Thumb 5 - Applicants should engage in routine communication with SCAP and respond quickly and accurately to information requests.

Obviously, it’s hard to know on a site-by-site basis what other information the Board might consider in its deliberations. In some cases regulators make recommendations for a grant based on data not previously considered by the Board. The Board recommends routine communication and responding quickly and accurately to information requests.

Am I Eligible for a SCAP Grant

We looked at who a SCAP grant is for, what projects are eligible for a grant, and the five considerations weighed for awarding a grant. We have the experience to be your partner in the SCAP process. If you are interested in SCAP, contact us for a free consultation.