Upload
joanna-smith
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Waste Site Cleanup Advisory Committee Meeting Waste Site Cleanup Advisory Committee Meeting AgendaAgenda
April 25, 2013, MassDEP, One Winter Street Boston9:30 am General updates - Assistant Commissioner Ben Ericson
10:00 Forms/guidance to be updated to support MCP amendments- Liz Callahan/Paul Locke
10:15 Gardening BMPs & outreach/implementation - Paul 10:30 Consideration of new approaches to define & evaluate
short-term risk/Imminent Hazards under the MCP (Note: longer term discussion; not part of the current amendments) - Paul
11:00 Source control scenarios & proposed provisions - Liz 11:30 Adjourn
1
Amendment Implementation Amendment Implementation – Guidance & Form Updates
• Timeframes – by effective date, close to effective date, can wait
2
Guidance Revision PrioritiesGuidance Revision Priorities
• LNAPL amendments – revisions to the VPH/EPH guidance (2002) or separate document LNAPL Workgroup
• Interim Final Vapor Intrusion Guidance (2011)• Draft AUL Guidance (2010) - finalize;
incorporating earlier public comment and changes to reflect amendments
• New Q&As to assist in implementation of amendments
3
Other Guidance UpdatesOther Guidance Updates
• Retire NRS Guidance Manual • Lower priority - Update references/terminology
in other guidance, old Q&As, fact sheets and technical updates
4
Forms/Database...Forms/Database...
5
Permanent Solutions With Conditions But No AUL
For Potential Gardening Exposures
Issue #1: What Are the Recommended BMPs?
Other People’s Information
We don’t have to… don’t want to… reinvent the wheel or BMPs…
just Google® it
Issue #2: What Is DEP’s Enforcement Angle?
• As Proposed, the MCP would REQUIRE that the Permanent Solution Statement contain RECOMMENDATIONS for the use of Gardening BMPs under certain conditions.
• The relevant question is:“Does the PSS contain the appropriate BMP
recommendations?
DEP’s Goal is to educate & inform & minimize potential exposures where the direct contact
risks are already demonstrated to pose NSR, and the incremental exposure – even without BMPs – is thought to be minimal but difficult to quantify.
Question for Public Comment:Would the proposal do this?
Source Elimination/ControlSource Elimination/Control
• Source elimination or control is an existing requirement (40.1003(5))
18
Why Change It?Why Change It?• Other proposed amendments – Permanent Sol’n
with Active Pathway Elimination Systems and elimination of the LNAPL UCL - remove requirements that now define the endpoint for cleanup
• Providing more specificity re: adequate source control intended to ensure that the source is stable, prevent occurrence of new/unforeseen exposures after Permanent Sol’n and minimize the time period for existing impacts
19
Some MCP Context Some MCP Context • Difference between source elimination/control
for sudden releases versus historical sites• Other MCP requirements:
– expedite source elimination and control activities...
2- and 72-hour notifications trigger Immediate Response Actions, SRM & CEP require response
– aim at ensuring adequate temporal/spatial characterization of site conditions and risk, e.g., nature and extent, CSM, risk characterization, representativeness
20
Source Elimination/ControlSource Elimination/Control• Provide basic definition of “Source of OHM
Contamination” – refers to the original OHM release location and/or
contaminated media from which OHM can migrate
• Source of OHM Contamination shall be eliminated, if feasible
• If not feasible, then Source must be controlled; performance standards for “Source Control” are specified
Proposed DefinitionProposed DefinitionSource of OHM ContaminationSource of OHM Contamination
means a point of discharge of OHM into environmental media and/or OHM within environmental media, that is migrating or likely to migrate in a dissolved or vapor state or as a separate phase liquid. Sources of OHM 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; and5. Nonaqueous Phase Liquids.
Source Control Source Control Performance StandardsPerformance Standards
• 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
Scenario #1
OVERBURDEN
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
TANK
#1
OVERBURDEN
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
LEAK
TANK
#1
OVERBURDEN
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
LEAK
TANK
#1
OVERBURDEN
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
TANK
#1
OVERBURDEN
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
• Tank removed• Soil removed
#1
OVERBURDEN
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
• Tank removed• Soil removed
#1
OVERBURDEN
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
• Tank removed• Soil removed
#1
Scenario #2
OVERBURDEN
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
TANK
#2
OVERBURDEN
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
LEAK
TANK
#2
OVERBURDEN
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
LEAK
TANK
#2
OVERBURDEN
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
TANK
#2
OVERBURDEN
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
TANK
#2
OVERBURDEN
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
#2
• Tank removed• Soil removed
OVERBURDEN
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
#2
• Tank removed• Soil removed
Public Water
SSDS
Scenario #3
OVERBURDEN
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
TANK
#3
OVERBURDEN
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
LEAK
TANK
#3
OVERBURDEN
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
TANK
#3
OVERBURDEN
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
#3
• Tank removed• Soil removed
OVERBURDEN
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
#3
• Tank removed• Soil removed
OVERBURDEN
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
#3
• Tank removed• Soil removed
OVERBURDEN
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
#3
• Tank removed• Soil removed
Public Water
SSDS
OVERBURDEN
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
#3
• Tank removed• Soil removed
Public Water
SSDS
BEDROCK
#3
• Tank removed• Soil removed
Public Water
SSDS
BEDROCK
#3
• Tank removed• Soil removed
Public Water
SSDS