Out of sight, out of mind was long the policy for leaking underground storage tanks - a particularly unsexy topic despite the acronym they give rise to. (That would be LUST.)
But leaking tanks are a sure-enough environmental menace. Think about what gets leaked. Underground storage is the rule at gas stations, for example, and has been for decade upon worrisome decade. That has meant plenty of time for tanks to corrode.
A conscientious owner will have old tanks replaced before they begin to leak their toxic contents. What happens, though, if a facility using underground tanks goes out of business, without the resources to undertake a pre-emptive clean-up? What happens if tanks rust out prematurely or simply without anyone realizing it? The stage is set for a major pollution episode, with property values and human health at risk. Certainly health is at risk if gasoline seeps into the groundwater and shows up in nearby drinking water wells.
An N&O article yesterday pegged the number of sites in North Carolina contaminated from leaking underground tanks at more than 6,500. All those sites need to be cleaned up, but the money to finance those efforts is tight - so tight that dealing with the known contamination would take another 25 years, given the projected cost of $513 million. And that's after $441 million already has been spent in the past couple of decades to clean up the mess from leaking tanks.
Ask yourself whether, for someone owning property next to the site of a LUST, 25 years sounds like an acceptable time frame for addressing the problem. We didn't think so.
As things stand, the clean-up program is financed through a state fund. The fund derives its revenue from fuel excise and inspection taxes and from fees on commercial tanks. The General Assembly from time to time has raised taxes to put some additional money in the pot.
The principle is sound - there is a public benefit when pollution of the soil and groundwater is removed, and the revenue has a user-pays component. But when the scope of the contamination still to be dealt with is considered, the need for a larger bankroll becomes clear. Or possibly, the need for a different approach, at least when it comes to new tanks.
In the view of some environmental advocates, the state should switch from paying for LUST clean-ups out of a public fund to requiring tank owners to insure themselves against clean-up costs. And a legislative program evaluation suggests a five-year transition to private insurance.
Such a transition makes sense, if it would maintain a higher degree of accountability for tank owners. Presumably owners with good records would avoid the highest insurance rates.
As new tanks go in the ground - and has anyone noticed a shortage of new gas stations in North Carolina? - steps also should be taken to ensure that the best, most corrosion-resistant materials are used, and that thorough records are kept of tanks' locations. Transferring ownership of property where underground chemical storage tanks have been utilized should trigger a review of the tank installation and of any liability on the seller's part.
There have been far too many instances when pollution from leaking tanks has spread across property lines, disrupting people's lives and dealing them an unfair financial blow. For them, when the tap water started to taste like gasoline, it was too late. It's not too late, though, for legislators to get a better handle on this hazard in the interest of protecting many other North Carolinians.
