Cleanup Standards Scientific Advisory Board Meeting

June 22, 2000

The following Cleanup Standards Scientific Advisory Board (CSSAB) Members were present:

Timothy Rea  
Dr. Thomas Yohe  
Dr. Ronald Buchanan  
Mark Mummert  
Donald Goodman  
Craig Robertson  
James Mattern  

 

The following Department of Environmental Protection staff were present:

David Hess Denise Chamberlain
Thomas Leaver Khatija Swaroop
Amy Randolph John Stephenson
James Shaw Michelle Moses
Samuel Fang Thomas Fidler
Justina Wasicek Bill Pounds
Randy Rousch Robert Gadinski
Robert Orwan Leslie Sarvis


Guests present:

Kandiah Sivarajah Pat Imperato
Steve Rhoads Eve Wiseman
Charlie Cole Chuck Campbell
Al Holmstrom  

Call to Order and Review of Meeting Minutes

Due to the absence of Mark Urbassik, Chairman, the meeting was called to order by Timothy Rea, Vice-Chairman. There are three presentations scheduled for this meeting, and he cautioned that it is important to stay on time.

Tom Fidler informed the Board that there were members of the Residual Waste Subcommittee [of( SWAC)] in attendance at this meeting, primarily for the discussion on the Board’s comments on the Safe Fill Policy and to become familiar with the status of that Policy.

The discussion on the Solid Waste Interface with Act 2 that is scheduled for discussion between 1:00 pm and 2:30 pm was moved to the morning session right after the discussion on Fill to take advantage of Bill Pounds’ presence and because Craig Robertson and other Board members may have to leave early.

The first order of business was the review of the minutes of the February 3, 2000 meeting. Jim Mattern commented that the minutes are transposed, and the format is wrong. There was a mix-up in the minutes in that the incorrect date waswere distributed to the Board, so he recommended that the approval of the minutes be tabled.

Mark Mummert recommended that the April 12 minutes be rewrittenrevised. Because of the many typos and misplaced words, the minutes do not make sense. He offered to give his marked-up copy of those minutes to the Department to make the necessary changes.

The approval of both sets of minutes was tabled until the next meeting.

Waste Interface Subcommittee Report on Fill Policy

The first report was from Ron Buchanan’s Waste Interface Ssubcommittee headed by Ron Buchanan. He reported that the subcommittee had a lengthy meeting on the proposed draft., Through much diligent effort and analytical thinking by a number of Board members, they came up with an alternative. Ron turned the discussion over to Craig Robertson to present the Board’s alternative to the Department’s proposed Fill Policy.

Craig reported that a subcommittee consisting of himself, Ron Buchanan, Jim Mattern, and Mark Mummert met to develop a recommendation for the issues they had been asked to address regarding the Safe Fill Policy. The result is a fairly simplified approach that dovetails with Act 2 and uses both standards and procedures and concepts developed by the Board and DEP for Act 2.

Summary

Craig Robertson summarized the highlights of the Board’s proposal as follows (this summary is keyed to the slides in Craig’s presentation attached to these minutes)::

Michelle stated that one of the exemption categories in the Board’s policy is "any other soils or soil-like material not currently managed as waste. She asked Craig and Jim to elaborate on what the Board’s intentions there were. Craig responded that is Category 6…for example, something that would fail a TCLP for a characteristic hazardous waste. Michelle said it is exempt from testing., and that is the point.

Al Holmstrom asked about the category of historic fill, which frequently has pieces of bricks or chuinks of concrete bigger than described in the regulation. Is this included in the definition of soil-like or is it excluded? Craig Craig Robertson responded that Act 2 has certain assumptions for exposure for direct contact, and certain assumptions for leachability ofleachability of regulated substances from soil based on normal character and texture of a soil as opposed to a waste. This becomes important when considering exposure from other materials. "It is hard to eat a brick". Since Under Act 2, exposure assumptions for ingestion are based on particle sizes that people get on their hands and out in their mouths. If someone found a brick with 1000 mg/kg arsenic, it wouldn’t matter, unless sit leached in some concentration. It would not be a problem based on the scientific assumptions we used for direct contact exposure. Also, the assumptions for soil-to-groundwater are based on a some assumption of naturally-occurring organic carbon in the soil. To apply a soil-to-groundwater standard to this material or use the Act 2 s/gwsoil-to-groundwater (s/gw) standards in any way, there has to be soil-like character to the material, i.e., there has to be a substantial amount of soil in the matrix…it can’t just be a pile of bricks. The Board doesn’t have a detaileda detailed explanation of how this determination is to be made, although it will surely be an important decision. The Board actually used the five categories the Department had in its PBR for contaminated soil. The Department probably has something in mind as to how to draw the distinction.

Bill Pounds clarified that they are clearly excluding waste, such as foundry sand, and fly ash and other materials whichmaterials, which are not soil. . Jim Mattern clarified that if it was deposited as fill prior to the trigger dates, and it is foundry sand or ash which has soil-like qualities, and it is not a waste pile or landfill, then maybe it qualifies. It is not Category 1 unless it is a mixture of soil and waste. Craig reiterated that these first five categories are not intended to be anything different than in the Department’s proposal for PBR. The Board did add a condition to category 5 that the material must be the result of an Act 2 remediation, which is not in the Department’s proposal.

Craig said that the Department is the final arbiter of what is waste, and what is waste mixed with soil.

The six categories of material are:

UPPER LIMIT OF UNREGULATED FILL

The Waste Interface Subcommittee began their process by first setting an upper limit for Unregulated Fill. The limit is the lesser of the Act 2 residential direct contact value form Act 2 and the residential soil to groundwater generic value, the receiving site background level, or the residential soil to groundwater value as determined by the SPLP methodology, whichever is greater. This is similar to the methodology for establishing the applicable SHS MSC under Act 2.

The 100 times the groundwater value was not included because both the 100 times groundwater value and the generic value are available under Act 2 for sites where there has been complete characterization of soils and groundwater. The Board reasoned that wWhen considering the movement of material from one site to another (e.g. receiving site is not an Act 2 site), there is is normally no groundwater investigation. The S/GW standards under Act 2 are bolstered in terms of their conservative nature by the fact that full characterization of groundwater is done. In the absence of full characterization, the Board feels scientifically on much firmer ground saying to only use the generic soil-to-groundwater value. This value is the result of an equilibrium leaching equation whichequation that is science- based, rather than being a multiplier of something else. The 100x number (for use as a soil-to-groundwater value) has some value as a standard when full characterization is done, but without a groundwater investigation, the appropriate approach is to use the value based on a scientifically-derived model. When asked by Bill Pounds, the Board members stated that they believe the generic value is protective in all cases when talking aboutin reference to the movement of material from one site to another. Especially since the values are capped at the level of the residential direct contact value.

Procedure for Determining if material is Unregulated

The Board recommends the following procedure for determining if a material meets the Unregulated Fill value:

Background Conditions

Bill Pounds asked if the receiving site background is far lower than the generic value, does this prevent the material from being placed on that site? Craig Robertson answered No, t,. The material may still be placed there. The receiving site background is an alternative to the generic value, to raise the number. It does not mean there must be a background condition in the soil in the receiving site in every case. Bill thinks this is an areasarea where there may still be a problem from a public policy standpoint, rather than a scientific one. The Department has a concern in asking for assistance in developing screening tools for fill. The Department made it clear that there are issues to be addressed with regard to Act 97, and one of which is hauling material from a contaminated site to an uncontaminated one, even if the science allows it. The Department is not arguing with the science, but there are still some policy issues to be addressed. Bill feels the Board did a good job meshing the fill regulations with Act 2, but there are some Act 97 issues that were overlookedto be addressed.

The Board did not choose to use the statewide background numbers contained in the Department’s proposal because after review and consideration, they decided they were not good numbers. The sources did not have sufficient information available to form a proper determination of a statewide background. It would have been a very convenient thing for Act 2 as well. The Board decided the proper way to determine background was on a site-specific basis.

UPPER LIMIT FOR FILL REGULATED UNDER PBR

The Board is makingmade a simple distinction between fill that is regulated and fill that is not regulated. F material is regulated, testing is required; unregulated means that it may be tested if desired, similar to the voluntary testing in the Department’s proposal.

Determination of the upper limit is made by comparing the nonresidential surface soil direct contact value and the total concentration that does not produce a leachate by SPLP that exceeds Chapter 287 limits and taking the lower number. The total concentration is to be determined by the procedure outlined in Act 2 for developing the alternative soil to groundwater value. This covers both organics and inorganics. This is a difference frorm the Department’s proposal for PBR. If there is no Chapter 287 limit, the nonresidential soil-to-groundwater standard is used. The question of which groundwater standard this refers to was asked, but not answered. (this is at about 57.7 on tape 1side A). The nonresidential standard was used because of the restriction that this material can only go to a commercial or industrial facility., and the residential numbers are already used to determine the upper limit on unregulated fill.

Michelle Moses asked that since under Act 2 a nonresidential cleanup requires a deed notice, how would that carry over tothis be addressed for fill?. Jim Mattern said that there is a Permit by Rule that would cover this, and that the receiving site would have to agree to the deed notice. Craig Robertson said that this is probably an issue to be addressed.

This upper limit is essentially what the Department had set as the limit for its General Permit. When the Board got to this point, there was no room leftFor this reason the Subcommittee felt there was no need for a General Permit, so it was eliminated.

TESTING AND ATTAINMENT PROVISIONS

These requirements for number of samples required are based on soil volume and parallel Act 2those in Chapter 250.

For less than 125 cubic yards, collect 8 samples. For fill they are analyzed as composites (except for VOCs), unlike under Act 2. Two of those eight samples must be selected by field screening methods for VOC analysis as discrete samples.

For volumes between 125 and 3,000 cubic yards, 12 samples collected are composited into three samples, ad three discrete samples are collected for VOC analysis.

For each additional 3,000 cubic yards, or part thereof, and three composites (meaning 12 discrete samples) and three discrete VOC samples.

Composite sampling is allowed under fill attainment, although the aAttainment criteria for composites are require that all constituents must be less than or equal to one-half the limit. Therefore, fFor a four-part composite, for example, this means that no sample may exceed the limit by more than two times. This is more conservative than the Act 2 75%/10x criteria which allow any one sample to exceed the standard by up to 10 times the standard.

Al Holmstrom commented that the mathematics don’t make sense, in that the composite result reflects the average value, and that doesn’t make sense to compare to one-half the limit. The Board members agreed to modify the proposal to say that if a composite result exceeds one-half the limit, there is an option to analyze the discrete samples that make up the composite and compare those results to the limit (not one-half).

A question was asked regarding what to do about hot spots. Craig Robertson answered that then you have knowledge of a spill or release and you are not just into the fill issue.

Michelle commented that for the way this is crafted, it is irrelevant, except in the case where someone has undergone an Act 2 cleanup, whether there was a spill or release. For instance with dredge material. There is no distinction of whether it is undergoing some kind of cleanup. So if a hot spot is being dredged and you moved the material under this policy, there is nothing here to say that you can’t. Craig responded that if there is knowledge of a spill or release, then there are other obligations. Craig Robertson suggested that iIf the testing shows that there has been a spill or release, then there are other parts of the law that determine what must be done. This policy is not intended to change any law. Michelle asked if there is a possibility that there could be a hot spot that might be placed improperly, even if the limit is not exceeded for any category of fill. The Board responded that of course it is possible but asked if regulations are written to eliminate every possible occurrence from happening. Craig commented that under Act 2, this policy, and every other program, the requirement is that the sampling be representative and that it is part of due diligence to ensure that it is. The scientific approach to the sampling and attainment criteria was designed with enough sampling in it, and enough safeguards and conservative attainment criteria, including a requirement for representative sampling. Tim Rea commented that another safeguard is the use of specific SW-846 test methods which have built-in requirements for sampling and quality control.

Bill Pounds mentioned that most times the material to be moved will be sampled at the truck, as part of the remediator’s due diligence effort. His concern is what happens when a sample exceeds the limit, and it must be addressed. The soil that is removed from a site must go through the same sampling and attainment protocol as soil that remains onsite as the result of an Act 2 cleanup.

A question was asked if additional language was going to be inserted regarding how to handle hot spots. Craig Robertson agreed to do this. Jim Mattern clarified that the question was when a hot spot is identified, what needs to be done?. His answer is that it depends on where the material came from, e.g., if there was a known spill or release or if it is totally new information (in which case there are the Clean Streams Law reporting requirements). This The proposed Fill Policy does not trump any other requirements. The Department can insert the new language to address this. If it is new information, then there are other obligations. under other environmental laws.

A SWAC member asked what happens in the case where material containing, for example, lead, with concentrations that meet the limit for Unregulated Fill, but when placed on the receiving site, the RDC limit is exceeded. If both the receiving site and the moved material were below the RDC, then the resultant mixture would also be below that value. It would require that one of the two would be significantly higher. The point was that there would not necessarily be a background study done on the receiving site

SAMPLE ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS

A question was asked as to how new substances would be added to the list. If the addition is a new compound being added to the Act 2 standards tables, it must be done by a regulatory amendment to the Aact 2 regulations. If it is an addition to the list of required substances to be tested for under the Fill regulations, it would require an amendment to those regulations. Tom Fidler clarified that on Tuesday of this week the Department proposed a change to the standards that were promulgated in 1997. We are adding 100 new substances and changing existing standards for 137 substances based on new toxicological information. This will be a continuing process in which the Board and any interested parties will be involved.

Justina Wasciek asked if commented that Act 2 is voluntary. You only need to test for those substances for which you want liability relief. But under the fill regulations, if there is a spill, testing is required for those specific substances in the spill. She sees those as two different protocols for sampling…under Act 2 it is voluntary, but under this proposal it would be mandated to screen for anything in the spill. She asked if there was a list of things substances that for which all soils must be screened for. Bill Pounds commented that the Department developed the screen primarily to limit the number of substances that must be tested for,…not the entire Statewide health list from Act 2. This is because there is no knowledge of a spill or release. The Department was looking for a screening tool that would identify the most commonly encountered substances if a material was to be voluntarily tested.

Craig Robertson commented that since Act 2 allows combining standards, just because something is a Category 5 soil doesn’t mean it might not also be a Category 1 or 2 soil. A remediator may end up doing the screening and some testing for specific regulated substances. Jim Mattern commented that the definition for Category 5 should just refer to soils contaminated by a known point source spill or release. There should be no limitation that the site undergo an Act 2 remediation.

A SWAC member expressed a concern about the potential for material having concentrations of pesticides other than those in Table 2 that are not being tested for when there is no evidence of a spill or release. Jim Mattern responded that although there is no requirement to test for these substances, the receiving site always has the right to require testing for any substance before allowing the material to be placed on his property.

TESTING EXCLUSIONS

Provides for exclusion from testing. There is no liability relief. If a wrong decision is made or someone does the wrong thing, then they are liable for it, just like under any other regulation.

The needrequirement for testing was excludinged fromfor the following

  1. All Category 6 material (material where there is no knowledge or evidence of a spill or release). (Another discussion ensued regarding what is meant by soil-like material that rehashed the earlier discussion)
  2. If the material is found to contain a mixture of soil and waste upon excavation, due diligence would include determining whether the waste was placed prior to or after 1980. The definition should say that if the waste is post-1980, it is not Category 6 and the policy doesn’t deal with it. These are waste issues that should have been dealt with through other available solid waste laws and regulations. Bill Pounds commented that under the Department’s proposal, if such pre-1980 material were to be moved offsite, testing would be required for the substances on Tables 1 and 2, and the material would have to go to another site under Permit by Rule.
  3. Removal of 1000 cubic yards or less of Category 1 or 2 material from an existing residential property of one acre or less. (These are materials that are historically contaminated). This is primarily a "grandfathering" of historic contamination, and is not intended to apply to new developments.
  4. Removal of material in all categories during utility trenching. Tom Yohe commented that if a utility finds contamination during trenching, they have an obligation to address it.
  5. Removal of de minimis quantities (£ 12 cubic yards) in all categories except Category 5. Craig Robertson mentioned that there was debate among the Board members whether this number should be 12 or 50.

Michelle Moses asked how the 1000 cubic yard exemption applies to a developer. Craig Robertson responded that it applies to the developer that subdivides lots that are one acre or less, and he wants to go in and dig a basement. It would have to be in a subdivision already on the books, because the definition says an existing residential property of less than one acre. Michelle asked if the property has to have been used as residential, or could it just be zoned for residential. Craig responded that it must be a residential lot, either already built on or just sitting there in a subdivision.

Material from sites that have undergone an Act 2 remediation are Category 5 (there is evidence of a spill or release) and are not eligible for any exemption from testing.

It was moved and seconded that the Board accept the Subcommittee report as amended. Motion carried.

Update on DEP Fill Policy by Bill Pounds

Bill Pounds reported that the Department is working to address all comments on the proposed Fill package. It will be difficult to meet the deadlines to get the revised package to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) in September. The Department must present it in September to keep it part of the Residual Waste Regulatory Basics initiative we mustand to get back to the EQB within two years of the closing date of comments, which was October 15, 1998. The October EQB meeting is one day after that.

Bill pounds reported on the public meetings that were held, and reviewed the comments received on the package, of which many reflected the same concerns as the Board expressed. He also indicated how the Department intends to respond to the comments.

Comments included:

Comments have convinced the Department that if it is possible to deal with material under a Permit by Rule, it may be possible to eliminate the General Permit.

Other comments received regarding the entire package:

DEP Present Position on Fill

For numeric criteria, the Department is looking at ten percent of the residential Statewide health standard (SHS), determined by using the higher of the soil to groundwater pathway values and comparing it to the direct contact value. For the organic carcinogens, the numbers will be calculated using the 10-6 cancer risk level. Dr. Sivarajah asked why use two different setsdifferent sets of guidelines [referring to Act 2 Standards]. for two different media, one for (?remediation – tape unclear) and one for drinking water or with Act 2(tape 2 side A number 29.6).There will be an inconsistency. Bill Pounds stated this is not inconsistent with Act 2. Tom Yohe commented that this is overly protective. Bill defended it on the grounds that it is being moved offsite. For metals the limit will be the default estimated background as long as it is not greater than the residential Statewide health standard.

Some of the considerations under Act 97 are not considered under Act 2, such as public nuisance type considerations such as odors, free liquids, the fact that the material may meet the Statewide health standard and still be offensive or still cause problems. Odor threshold levels are being considered, whether by establishing a number or by a subjective criterion such as presence of an odor.

If sampling shows contamination, Safe Fill does not apply.

Bill Pounds identified several types "f" material that the Policy will not apply to. The Department will develop a separate policy for dredge materials based on recommendations of a work group to be formed. This policy will focus on both sampling and management of the material. Another policy will be developed for onsite movement of pesticide contaminated soil in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture.

The Department is looking at not applying the Policy to residential properties (based on current use) where there is no evidence of a spill or release, and no nuisance or odor issues. It would also not apply to highway rights-of-way if the material is to be used within the right-of-way. Obviously, if there is evidence of a spill or release that will need to be addressed. This will possibly also be applied to railroad rights-of-way. It will not apply to trenching for piping or other underground utilities. The policy was never intended to apply to onsite movement of materials.

The Ddepartment is also looking at some limited exemptions to offsite movement of material where there is no evidence of a spill or release. There will be a screen that will sample, at a minimum, for lead and arsenic, which are the metals of most concern. If either of these is above Safe Fill standards, it will have to be used in a nonresidential location only.

The Department is considering eliminating the General Permit, and will expand the Permit by Rule to include four different scenarios. These include known areas of contamination (from urbanization); test for lead resulting from authorized agricultural practices, and which exceeds the Safe Fill standards; management of contaminated soil (historical fill prior to 1980) that will allow higher than the residential direct contact if institutional controls are used; and the movement of soils from one Act 2 site to another, similar to the old General Permit, but with fewer conditions.

The Permit Waiver language will probably be retained, as will the exclusion language in the definition of waste.

Two Comment Response Documents will be required. One will be done for the Regulatory Basics Initiative (RBI), which will address all comments received as part of the RBI. A second document will be on the Safe Fill Policy Package that had the 60-day comment period.

Most of the Safe Fill package will be incorporated into the regulations, and not much will remain as policy. The Permit By Rule language, and the standards to determine what is regulated and what is unregulated will be in the regulations.

Craig Robertson commented that the Board started out looking at the standards, and ended up also looking at the structure. It seems to him that the Department took the Board’s recommendations on the structure, but not on the standards. The ten percent factor is the single most significant difference between the two versions, and is truly unnecessary. He felt that it would not be useful to meet again unless the there is anything the Board could say to change the Department’s mind on the ten percent factor, and the 10–6 cancer risk level, and the statewide background numbers. Craig is concerned that the Department is still setting extremely low numbers, and the Board is unable to support the Department’s position. He sees no value in meeting again unless the Department is willing to change it’s mind on the ten percent factor, the 10–6 cancer risk level, and the statewide background. If the Department still intends to go forward with this proposal in its current form, the Board has no more role to play. Bill Pounds commented that one thing that Jim Snyder was very clear on was that he wanted the 10–6 cancer risk level. Another was that he felt that if material placed on another property has higher concentrations than background, but still within the Statewide health standard, that is acceptable.

Craig Robertson asked the question, and Bill pounds clarified that the ten percent factor applies to both organics and inorganics. Craig commented that at ten percent of the SHS, odor is not going to be much of an issue. Craig suggested the Department look at the two screening lists, and evaluate the effect of the ten percent factor.

Mark Mummert asked about the volume exclusion. Bill Pounds clarified that in this version it was eliminated because certain things had been excluded from being covered. Mark Mummert feels that the exemption of volumes up to very large ones (500 cubic yards) are reasonable because at those low volumes the risk of exposure is small. It is at the higher volumes that the risk of exposure becomes significant. Small volumes of soil violate the exposure assumptions that were used to derive the standards.

Al Holmstrom commented on concerns of the Solid Waste Subcommittee (of SWAC). Although they have not thoroughly discussed the issues, the subcommittee is generally supportive of aligning the numbers with Act 2. The subcommittee will bring the issues before the full SWAC and get the full Committee’s viewpoint. There are concerns to be addresseds, such as the hot spot issue; the question of the definition of residential, whether it applies to only single residences or to commercial residential unit that might be, for instance, built on a landfill; the concern of regulating through policy[rather than regulations]; the complexity of the policy is a concern for the average citizen

General Waste Management Interface with Act 2

Tom Fidler discussed the interface between Act 97 and Act 2. This basically applies to onsite management of waste as a part of an Act 2 cleanup. Guidelines for managing fill and waste in conjunction with a cleanup under Act 2 are the tTwo remaining issues that have delayed the issuance of the DEP’s final Technical Guidance Manual (TGM). are fill the interface of Act 97 with the Act 2 process. The Department has identified three scenarios.

If the material was disposed with a permit, and was closed under a plan provided to the Department and approved, that closure plan still applies. When closure is complete, Department approval would apply to proper management of that material. Act 2 would apply to any releases to soil or groundwater from that waste. The person operating under such an approved plan could apply to the Department for a modification based on this new guidance.

There are a number of similarities between Act 2 post-remediation care work and closure work under Act 97. Under Act 97 some of the monitoring and bonding requirements have similarities in Act 2 for some demonstration of the financial ability to deal with post-closure responsibility. And Act 2 also has attainment monitoring. The Department is trying to encourage waste management activities as part of Act 2 cleanups which would then be documented in the Final Report.

Also, for waste in this interim period, from 1980 until the adoption of regulations, there are a number of situations that can exist relating to liquids released to soil, solid materials released to soil where there is a matrix of soil and waste. Act 2 would be applicable to that material. This will be developed in the revision to the TGM.

Relief from liability would apply to the characterized area. Best Management Practices apply with containment remedies. If the waste/soil matrix is to be managed in place, the waste management criteria or guidance applies.

The Department has the authority to exercise enforcement discretion if it determines that the waste was not managed properly i.e., that it is not the result of normal operating procedures.

For solids, liquids, and sludges that are separate and distinct and not mixed with the soil media, it is a call within the Field Office whether the Act 2 process can be used or if Act 97 is the process that is applied. If the Act 2 process is selected, only the site-specific standard is available, because there is much more interaction with the Department during the process. The Department would be very prescriptive in the Best Management Practices that could be applied. A post remediation care plan may be required. Liability relief is available when the site-specific standard is attained.. If the Act 97 process is chosen, a closure plan must be approved as part of the cleanup plan, and all the submissions required by Act 97 must be made.

Vapor Intrusion into Buildings from Soil Contamination

Bob Gadinski, DEP, Northeast Regional Office (NERO), made a presentation on the issue of the potential for vapor migration into basements. The NERO has identified sites that have been shown to meet standards, but concentrations of vapors inside the buildings are at levels that cause concern.

The Regional Office has made some general observations regarding vapor intrusion:

Bob summarized the following cases:

CO Project, Lackawanna County

The issue of the inhalation pathway became apparent when the NERO began measuring various gases in connection with a carbon monoxide problem. A teenager was found unconscious in his bedroom, and the diagnosis was carbon monoxide poisoning. DEP staff measured 2700 ppm carbon monoxide, also found depressed levels of oxygen and elevated carbon dioxide in the home. Since the home is in the Scranton area where there is considerable underground mining, a mine fire was suspected, but was ruled out by the Office of Surface Mining. An investigation by DEP and EPA was initiated to determine the source of the gases. A Straddle Packer was modified so air sampling should be conducted at selected intervals using SUMMA canisters. In addition to the subject gases, this sampling also detected VOCs, with toluene having the highest concentration. These gases were also found in several homes suggesting that the source of the gases was from the subsurface. The benzene level in the homes exceeded the RBC (EPA Region 3 Risk-based Concentration) value.

Tranguch Tire Site

Another case was that of a gasoline release at the Tranguch Tire site. This began in 1990 with complaints of odors. In 1993 a home was found to have free product migrating through the foundation. The home was condemned by the local fire chief and the resident was asked to find alternative housing. The NERO outfitted the home with a false basement and installed a vapor recovery system. After subsequent air testing, the resident was allowed to return to the home. DEP also installed 20 vapor recovery systems on various houses,. Through the site characterization, four PRPs were identified. The Region is currently working with EPA to remediate the site using OPA funding. A vapor extraction system is in operation and the Region also hopes to do some additional remediation at this site.

In 1999, the displaceds resident passed away and the family requested that his home be screened for vapors prior to its sale to determine if the house was safe for occupancy. Summa CCanisters were placed in the basement and first floor. Results of the sampling were reviewed by the Department of Health and the levels were found to be minimal and not represent a health risk.

As a result of the sampling in the first home, other homeowners requested sampling, and it was discovered that the RBC levels were exceeded in most homes. The Department of Health recommended that any home showing exceedance of the RBC ERG have a vapor recovery system installed. EPA is currently expanding the sampling effort to determine the full extent of the problem. Through DEP sampling and investigation, a number of cases of leukemia have been identified in the area of the release.

PCE Dry Cleaning release Site

A third case involves a dry-cleaning operation where PCE was being dumped out the back door. The extent of contamination has been delineated, and the highest PCE concentration is 31 ppm in soils. An NIR was submitted for a site-specific cleanup using pathway elimination for soil only. An ASTM model showed that there would be no incursions into living spaces. The NERO had a problem with this determination because of the location of adjacent properties, and requested verification of the model. Summa canisters were placed in the adjacent pharmacy and bookstore buildings. PCE levels in each building exceeded the EPA ERG. There is also an exceedance for TCE. This did not validate the model results. It raises the question of whether the Department should require the installation of some mitigating measure such as vapor recovery. This is something that needs to be looked at jointly with the Department and the Board.

The remedy proposed was for pathway elimination by capping the contamination. It was further assumed that the floors of the buildings would also act as a cap to prevent the migration of vapors into the buildings. The data collected show this is not the case.

Industrial Engravings TCE Site

This is another site-specific pathway elimination site. It was an engraving operation. The sampling was done because the use of the property was being changed from industrial to residential. Characterization showed no PCE or TCE in concentrations exceeding the Statewide health standards. The only contaminant mass was in groundwater at a depth of about 35 feet. There were exceedances of the RBC in the office area of the building.

These are four sites where organic vapors are intruding into buildings. He recommends some kind of verification testing in buildings when models are used. He offered to provide more supporting data if the Board requests it. The NERO is finding some reason for concern.

Tom Fidler suggested that perhaps the next step would be a more detailed presentation be made to the appropriate subcommittee of the Board to see if further testing or evaluation may be needed.

Justina Wasicek commented that maybe the question is do we want to form a subcommittee to look at this. What this presentation brought out was that maybe we need to re-look at our assumptions and see if their predictions are being borne out in the field.

Al Holmstrom commented that he has worked with in-home testing over the last two years using some fairly large statistical designs. Most of the elevated concentrations were due to household activities such as storage of paints, lawn mowers, and gas cans. His point was that the source of the contamination must be determined, and it may not have anything to do with the incident being investigated.

Tim Rea commented that if there is a failure in the logic or approach used in the regulations, the Board needs to know that.

Other questions that have been raised are

Tom Fidler commented that what has been done here is to raise a flag. There may or may not be a problem. This issue was assigned to both the Process Validation and Risk Assessment Subcommittees. Bob Gadinski agreed to act as a resource person froorm the Department. Tim Rea suggested that if the Department has other site-specific cleanups involving chlorinated solvents, they should check to see if any Summa canisters were used.

Use of email by Board Members for Deliberations and Decisions

Tom Fidler reported that for the email issues, as far as subcommittee deliberations are concerned, there can be an exchange of information electronically to come to a position statement or a recommendation for the Board. Board deliberations and any decisions and actions should be done in a public forum. He did not feel it is wise to take an action to allow electronic ratification of Board positions.

Guidance Issues- Separate Phase Liquids

Tom Fidler also raised the issue of how the Department staff is reviewing information related to free product on a property. There may be inconsistencies throughout the state on this. The issue is can someone meet the Statewide health standard if free product is present. The Department tried to construct a process by way of solubility limits for groundwater standards and saturation caps for soils that would prevent attaining the Statewide health standard if the characterization showed they had free product on the property. The Department also requires attainment sampling at the groundwater interface with that material to hopefully not allowto prevent attainment of the standard. The process was designed to exclude someone, unless they removed the material, from attaining the standard, and push them into a site-specific cleanup. There is also an issue of how to sample at the point of compliance (POC) to ensure that the SPL is collected within the sample. John Stephenson presented the process the Department has designed and a discussion of how well it is working.

Things to think about regarding free product, or separate phase liquids (SPL):

Drawbacks to this approach:

An alternative approach is to go back to the prohibition by presence used by other states. This would say that the Statewide health standard is unavailable when free product is present. John Stephenson feels a discussion on what that means is needed. Does it mean that SPL cannot exist throughout the property, or just at the property line and beyond.

One of the problems with this approach is that disputes arise as to whether there is SPL present or not. This is the "flecks of sheen" issue. This may be resolved by sampling the water and the surface of the water table.

There is currently no guidance on the standard selection process onsite where there is SPL present. There is no guidance on how to sample to demonstrate attainment of the SHS when free product is present. This includes a protocol for sampling media when SPL is present.

There are implementation issues involved if the Department retains the present prohibition by analysis approach.

Sampling the free product involves four possible approaches, all of which it seems are being used around the state at this time:

The Department needs to resolve these issues and develop guidance.

Tom Yohe commented that the Board spent a great deal of time talking about SPL and the fact that cleaning it up presents more of a problem than not cleaning it up. Act 2 is concerned with using sites that are cleaned up. If something goes offsite, a person is still liable for it, and it must be addressed.

Tom Fidler commented that what John Stephenson is talking about is as much an onsite issue as an offsite one. There may be some cleanups going on to a residential standard where there is no deed notice required, and there is no perpetual acknowledgment that there could be something on that property. Another concern is for a protocol for sampling when SPL is present.

Of particular concern are the mineral oils and lubricating oils that do not have regulated substances in excess of the Statewide health standards. Can a property with such a product existing as free product be able to demonstrate attainment of the Statewide health standard? Tim Rea proposed the scenario of vegetable oil or mineral oil being released that is non-toxic from the point of view of looking at soil and groundwater. How is it to be addressed. Tim thought that it would be addressed under the residual waste regulations.

Tom Fidler said he really didn’t want to reopen the SPL issue because it was so hard to get through before, but he thinks there are some sampling issues to address. He asked how the Board for assistance in deciding how to address this in guidance. This issue was assigned to the Standards Subcommittee. The Department will frame the issue and talk to Jim Mattern about it. It could be discussed at the meeting on June September 28th.

Close of Meeting

There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned.

Summary of Motions made and Follow-up items for future Board Meetings

  1. It was moved and seconded that the Board accept the Waste Interface Subcommittee report as amended. Motion carried.
  2. A more detailed presentation of the Vapor inhalation data be made to the appropriate subcommittee of the Board to see if further testing or evaluation may be needed.
  3. Tom Fidler asked how the Board for assistance in deciding how to address the Separate Phase Liquid (SPL) in guidance. This issue was assigned to the Standards Subcommittee. The Department will frame the issue and talk to Jim Mattern about it.