Amendments Liz Callahan, Acting Div. Director, Policy & Program - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Overview: Proposed MCP Amendments

Liz Callahan, Acting Div. Director, Policy & Program Planning MassDEP, Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup

LSP Association Meeting April 9, 2013

Proposed MCP Amendments

• More Ways to Achieve Closure:
• Vapor Intrusion
• Petroleum sites (LNAPL)
• Closure with conditions but no AUL
• Process Improvements:
• Eliminate Tier I Permits
• Simplify Tier Classification
• Streamline AULs, Notices of AULs on NPL Sites
• More Transparent Closure Terms
• Updated Standards

3

Public Hearing Draft Format

• Organized by topics
• Permit/Tier Classification
• AULs
• Vapor Intrusion & Closure
• NAPL & Source Control
• Miscellaneous & Cross-Referencing
• “Notes to Reviewers” describe intent of

amendment and seek input on proposal/alternatives

Public Comment Process

• Public Hearing Draft is available for review, along

with supporting documents at

http://www.mass.gov/dep/service/regulations/newregs.htm#proposed

• Written Comments Due COB Friday, May 17, 2013
• 4 Public Hearings to hear/receive testimony

(CERO 4/3 at 5pm; Boston 4/4 at 9:30 am; SERO 4/9 at 9:30 am; WERO 4/10 at 9:30 am)

4

• Consider proposals with your current and past

sites in mind

– Does it raise any unforeseen issues that should be addressed/clarified? – Does it make sense/help/hurt – be specific – Provide site examples

• Provide specific language for revisions and

explain why it is better/issue you are trying to address

5

Written Comments - What’s Very Useful to MassDEP...

Fees, Other Amendments?

• Fee Changes – to be determined
• Fee change effective date a consideration

relative to effective date of MCP amendments

• Fee package is a vehicle for other MCP

amendments not previously proposed

6

Eliminate Permits/Streamline Tier Classification

Permit Amendments

• No Tier I permit; same process for both Tiers
• Uniform extension timeframe of 2 years
• Retains provisions to restart clock for Eligible

Persons/Tenants (currently 40.0570)

• Special Project Permits retained
• DEP has authority to require approval upon

notice to PRP

Tier Classification Amendments

• Phase I still the basis for Classification; still
• ccurs one year from notification
• NRS scoresheet replaced by “Tier I Criteria”

>> directed at concerns that MassDEP considers for closer review/potential

• versight
• No subclasses of Tier I, except Tier ID

(defaults)

Proposed Tier I Criteria

One or more of the following exist at time of Tier Classification –OHM above RCGW-1 in a Zone II, IWPA or within 500 feet of a private drinking water supply well –Presence of an Imminent Hazard –IRA where remedial action is required –IRA to address a CEP is required

10

Tier Classification Amendments

• Once Tier I criterion condition is addressed,

site may be reclassified (would likely be automatic with receipt of subsequent transmittal forms)

12

AULs Amendments

13

• Eliminate separate AUL Opinion; incorporate

information into Form 1075

• Require documentation be sent to MassDEP

when AUL is incorporated into a deed

• Revise Amendment form so resulting doc.

presents all inconsistent/consistent Activities & Uses

• CERCLA Adequately Regulated provisions at

40.0111 and 40.1070 are amended to provide for use of Notices of AUL at CERCLA sites

AULs Amendments

14

Vapor Intrusion-Related Amendments

(in addition to Source Control and Closure proposals)

15

VI-Related Amendments

• Incorporate VI considerations more clearly in Phases

I & II; add CSM definition/documentation

• Clarify VI-related SRM conditions - when to look

(that trigger 72 hr notification)

• CEP amendments

*New definitions of Residential Dwelling & Living or Working Space (exclude incidental use of one hr or less) *Reduced IRA Status Report frequency for non-IH CEPs *Clearer provisions for completing IRAs to address CEPs

• Permanent Solution with Conditions for Active SSD

Systems (operated under permit)

16

Closure

• More Transparent Terms
• More Options

17

TEMPORARY SOLUTIONS PERMANENT SOLUTIONS

PERMANENT SOLUTION With NO CONDITIONS PERMANENT SOLUTION With CONDITIONS NATURAL BACKGROUND NSR for Residential/ Unrestricted NO AUL REQUIRED ACTIVITY & USE LIMITATION AUL & ENGINEERED BARRIER AUL & PERMIT NOTHING FEASIBLE

NOT TEMPORARY NOR PERMANENT SOLUTIONS

Former C-2 RAOs Sites in ROS

Permanent Solution with Conditions No AUL Required

4 Types -

• Non-commercial gardening in residential settings

addressed qualitatively & recommending BMPs

• Elevated OHM attributable to Anthropogenic

Background

• Residual contamination within a public way or

within a rail right-of-way

• Absence of an occupied building, but OHM in

groundwater greater than GW-2 levels (future VI concern)

Permanent Solution with Conditions No AUL Required

• Makes you ask... “What Conditions?”
• Label intended to flag concerns related to

residual contamination

• Assumes easy & known access to MassDEP files,

both at time of closure and into the future

Non-Commerical Gardening – Related Amendments

• Produce consumption pathway removed from

calculation of Method 1 Standards

• Provide for a qualitative risk assessment of

gardening pathway in Subpart I

• Allow use of “assumed future practices, controls or

conditions” for limited specified circumstances (gardening)

• MCP would require recommendation of gardening

BMPs in Permanent Solution closure statement

• Quantitative assessment would still be available to

screen out pathway

Gardening BMPs

• Use of BMPs for gardening is becoming more widely

recognized and promoted, particularly in urban areas

• Promotion of BMPs for gardening is becoming more

common for non-MCP issues, like lead paint, pesticides

• By incorporating BMP recommendation into

Permanent Solution documentation, MassDEP aims to make property owners are AWARE of issue… use

• f BMPs then becomes an informed choice.

Anthropogenic Background/Historic Fill

22

Background Clarifications

(Subparts I & J)

• OHM at or below Background are not included

in MCP Risk Characterization

• Background includes both Natural and

Anthropogenic Background

23

Proposed Definition -

Background

means those levels of oil and hazardous material that would exist in the absence of the disposal site of concern, including both Natural Background and Anthropogenic Background.

24

Proposed Definition -

Natural Background

means those levels of oil and hazardous material that would exist in the absence of the disposal site of concern, are ubiquitous and consistently present in the environment at and in the vicinity

• f the disposal site of concern, and attributable

to geologic or ecological conditions.

25

means those levels of oil and hazardous material that would exist in the absence of the disposal site of concern and which are:

(a) attributable to atmospheric deposition of industrial process or engine emissions; (b) attributable to Historic Fill; (c) associated with sources specifically exempt from the definitions of disposal site or release as those terms are defined in MGL c. 21E and 310 CMR 40.0006; (d) releases to groundwater from a public water supply system; or (e) petroleum residues that are incidental to the normal

• peration of motor vehicles.

Proposed Definition -

Anthropogenic Background

means non-indigenous material, deposited to raise the topographic elevation of the site that: (a) may contain metals and/or semi-volatile compounds (excluding PCBs)

typical of weathered materials, including construction and demolition debris, dredge spoils, incinerator residue, fly ash, coal ash, wood ash or other non- hazardous solid waste material (b) was contaminated prior to emplacement; (c) is not connected with the operations at the location of emplacement; (d) is not hazardous waste, chemical production waste, or waste from processing of metal or mineral ores, residues, slag or tailings; and (e) was not a result of illegal disposal of waste material at the time of placement.

Proposed Definition –

Historic Fill

• For Active Exposure Pathway Elimination

Measures (e.g., active sub-slab depressurization systems)

• AUL to provide notice of obligations
• Permit to operate the system

28

Permanent Solution with Conditions AUL & Permit

29

• 21 day presumptive approval
• Standardized permit conditions
• No renewal required
• Who can hold permit?
• Person taking Response Actions
• Property owner
• Either/Both
• Certification of Acceptance by non-Permitee

property owners

What About the Permits? (40.0700)

Updated Method 1 Standards

30

Method 1 Standards - Proposed Revisions

• Update toxicity values
• Update indoor air background
• Remove produce consumption exposures
• Remove “sludge” criteria for Pb, Zn and PCBs
• Change S2 and S3 background levels to

‘concentrations associated with fill material’

• Simplify and update the RAFs
• Correct hardness-based NRWQC calculations

Pb – Proposed Method 1 S-1 Standard

• Propose maintaining current S-1 Pb standard of

300 mg/kg (based originally on “sludge”)

• Establish a bifurcated S-1 Pb standard

– 200 mg/kg (95th percentile of natural background); – 300 mg/kg

• Pb concentrations that meet 300 mg/kg, but

exceed 200 mg/kg  Permanent Solution with Condition that BMP recommendation is included in the Permanent Solution documentation

Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPL/DNAPL) and Source Elimination/Control

Ken Marra, BWSC, PPD

310 CMR 40.0996:

“The presence of non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPL) having a thickness equal to or greater than ½ inch in any environmental medium is considered to be a level which exceeds Upper Concentration Limits (UCLs)” and hence which prohibits the attainment of a Permanent Solution.

310 CMR 40.0006:

This thickness is “as a continuous separate phase as measured in a groundwater monitoring well or otherwise observed in the environment.”

Multi-Phase Fluid Flow in Porous Media or LNAPL Conceptual Site Model (LCSM)

Fundamental More accurate Not necessarily simple

• Keep it simple
• Focus on MCP and PS
• Clear, established, peer-

reviewed, published works

Guiding Principles

Proposed MCP Changes

• Eliminate ½ inch UCL
• Correct NAPL definition (eliminate “continuous”)
• Define “Stable” and “Non-stable” NAPL
• Reference LCSM principles (site characterization

and remediation “to the extent feasible”)

• Revised Source Elimination/Control Provisions

addressing range of source issues, including NAPL and limiting exposure potential (e.g., vapor intrusion)

38

Proposed Definitions 40.0006

Conceptual Site Model or CSM means a site-specific description of how contaminants entered the environment, how contaminants have been and may be transported within the environment, and routes of exposure to human and environmental receptors that provides a dynamic framework ... LNAPL Conceptual Site Model and LCSM each means a Conceptual Site Model which includes the body of fundamental scientific principles describing the behavior of fluid flow in porous media necessary to assess LNAPL in subsurface strata. (See also Conceptual Site Model).

39

40

Nonaqueous Phase Liquid and NAPL each means oil and/or hazardous material that is present in the environment as a continuous separate phase liquid. The existence of NAPL in subsurface strata is indicated by its presence in a well, excavation

• r any other subsurface depression.

Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid and DNAPL each means NAPL that has a specific gravity greater than one. Light Nonaqueous Phase Liquid and LNAPL each means NAPL that has a specific gravity equal to or less than one.

Proposed Definitions ...

Non-Stable NAPL means a NAPL that is: (a) migrating along or within a preferred flow path; (b) discharging or periodically discharging to a subsurface structure, utility or surface water body; or (c) spreading or expanding laterally or vertically as a bulk fluid through or from subsurface strata. Stable NAPL means NAPL that is not Non-Stable NAPL.

41

Proposed Definitions ...

42

Residual LNAPL Saturation means the range of LNAPL saturations greater than zero up to the LNAPL saturation at which LNAPL capillary pressure equals pore entry

• pressure. It includes the maximum LNAPL saturation

below which LNAPL is discontinuous and immobile under the applied gradient. Transmissivity and Tn each means the rate at which a liquid of the prevailing kinematic viscosity is transmitted through a unit width of the formation under a unit hydraulic gradient. It is equal to an integration of the hydraulic conductivities across the saturated part of the formation perpendicular to the flow paths.

Proposed Definitions ...

Proposed Language - Notification

40.0313: Releases Which Require Notification Within 72 Hours (1) a release to the environment indicated by the presence of a subsurface Non-Aaqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL) in a groundwater monitoring well, excavation, or subsurface depression having at a measured thickness equal to or greater than 1/8 1/2 inch; 40.0315: Releases Which Require Notification Within 120 Days ... (4) a release to the environment indicated by the presence of a subsurface Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL) having a measured thickness equal to or greater than 1/8 inch and less than 1/2 inch.

43

Proposed Language –

Phase I & II Assessments

• Incorporate LNAPL Conceptual Site Model

(LCSM)

44

Proposed Language

Risk Characterization – Method 3 UCL

40.0996 (6) The presence of non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPL) having a thickness equal to or greater than 1/2 inch in any environmental medium shall be considered a level which exceeds Upper Concentration Limits.

45

Source Elimination/Control

• Provide basic definition of “Source of OHM

Contamination” that refers to the original OHM release location and/or contaminated media from which OHM can migrate as a bulk material.

• Source of OHM Contamination shall be eliminated, if

feasible.

• If elimination is not feasible, then Source must be

controlled; performance standards for “Source Control” are specified.

46

Intent -

Proposed Def.- Source of OHM Contamination

means a point of discharge of OHM into environmental media and/or OHM within environmental media, that is migrating or is likely to migrate in a dissolved or vapor state or as a separate phase liquid. Sources of OHM Contamination may include, without limitation:

• 1. leaking storage tanks, vessels, drums and other containers;
• 2. dry wells or wastewater disposal systems that are not in

compliance with regulations governing discharges from those systems;

• 3. contaminated fill, soil and sediment;
• 4. sludges and waste deposits; and
• 5. Nonaqueous Phase Liquids.

47

Source Control Performance Stds.

• Absence of Non-Stable NAPL
• Removal of LNAPL to extent feasible (using

LCSM principles)

• OHM plumes in any media not expanding
• Absence of DNAPL constituent

concentrations greater than 1% of their solubility limit

48

49

(c)Parties conducting response actions shall seek to eliminate each Source of OHM

• Contamination. In cases where such

elimination is not feasible, response actions shall control each Source of OHM Contamination...

40.1003(5)(c)

50

(c) ... control of each Source of OHM Contamination requires:

• 1. the absence of unpermitted releases of OHM to the

environment;

• 2. the absence of any Non-Stable NAPL;
• 3. the removal of any LNAPL to the extent feasible, based

upon cost-benefit analysis using current LCSM principles which may include, but are not limited to, Transmissivity, Residual Saturation, and/or decline-curve analysis;

• 4. the absence of any DNAPL constituent concentration

greater than 1 percent of its solubility limit; and

• 5. demonstration that OHM plumes in any environmental

media are not expanding.

51

Questions?