SECTION I

OVERVIEW

p. I-4

Discusses that a "site" is a distinct area (3-D) of contamination and can include soil AND groundwater. DEP MAY approve the soil and gw to be considered as two separate sites for practical reasons. Key word here is APPROVE. Without that approval, remediators will have to assess contamination across media and present total extent of contamination. Could be significant for gasoline UST work..

I-4

Statement that the more extensive the site characterization, the more extensive the liability protection. Along with that thought, there is the flexibility that a remediator may "choose" to characterize a specific contaminant down to a lower level (say 1/10^th the MSC, or to the PQL), and result in a larger area in which his liability relief applies to. Likewise, that remediator may or may not choose to characterize some of the constituents which are present in the "spill" but are not considered to be a major risk., in which case the liability relief may or may not include these chemicals.

Throughout

There is a lot of emphasis on site characterization. This is because the DEP is not getting very good site characterizations being submitted in the Act 2 program.

P. I-9 to 18

Expanded section explaining site characterization requirements, including an example.

p. I-11

States a minimum standard for characterizing soils: "[characterize a substance]…sufficiently below the standard to insure that all areas containing regulated substances at or above the selected standard have be adequately characterized…." Remediators determine what level below the standard they wish to characterize too.

Alerts remediators that one round of gw samples showing concentrations below a standard does not constitute "attainment". See the last point in example.

Lists data objectives for site characterization, and ties this into the requirement for fate and transport analysis (another item deficient in many Act 2 submittals).

p. I-13-18

Example of applying site characterization to a site.

Illustrates concepts

• Soil characterization could be done either at the "minimum" level of effort and show two distinct "hot spots", or more broadly showing contamination across the entire property.
• How to apply the censor concentration level to characterize groundwater under various conditions on and off the source property. Specifically, (a) if assessment indicates that plume off the source property is at concentrations below the standard, then the remediator characterizes plume on the source property and shows attainment at the property boundary (POCs); (b) if plume goes into residential and non-residential areas, the censor level changes with the applicable standard for that land use; (c) if concentration off the source property are above the standard then characterization must continue off the source property- and further, if the contamination includes organic constituents, the censor level should be the PQL. [although not stated, the attainment would have to show in those off source areas to be at or below the standard].
• If both rounds of site characterization of gw are below the selected standard, then the remediator may ask DEP to reduce the number of attainment samples from 8 to as low as 2 (being the 2 used for site characterization) using justification provided for in Section 250.704(d).

p. I-18

Dealing with separate phase liquids on sites. This section makes the point that SPL represents a continued source and is not desirable AND must be addressed as applicable under Chapter 245 (storage tank regulations). The standard under 245 is to remove to the "maximum extent practicable". The Department urges this to be applied at Statewide health standard sites.

Provides relationship between SPL and various Act 2 standards

• BACKGROUND- essentially one has to show that they didn’t contribute any additional mass to the SPL plume.
• STATEWIDE HEALTH- in a matter-of-fact way, the section states that the original expectation of establishing the SHS MSCs was to eliminate the possibility of SPL at the POC and therefore DEP is simply going to impose the "rule" that if you have SPL present at the POC, you cannot attain the SHS standard. It goes further and says that attainment includes demonstrating that one would be able to attain the standard in the future, and if SPL is present anywhere on the source property, this "demonstration" of future attainment (essentially a fate and transport analysis) becomes more difficult. So, again DEP urges remediators to do there best to remove the SPL (to the maximum extent practicable).
• SITE-SPECIFIC- SPL can remain as long as standard can be attained ( which includes no violation of the Clean Streams Law).

p. I-21

Points out some information important to liability protection.

• Remediator may choose to submit an NIR for a specific spill or chemically distinct area of the property—and not aways the whole property. (some regional staff have been requiring the whole property to be address in one NIR)
• In cases where the contamination (e.g. plume) extends to more than one property, it is wise to include the names of those other property owners, because Act 2, Chap. 5 gives liability protection to the owners as well as those who have contributed to the cleanup.

p. I-23

Text which includes notice requirements for non-use aquifer requests as per the new revision to Chapter 250.

SECTION II

REMEDIATION STANDARDS

p. II-3-4

Updated checklists for background standard including requirement to CALCULATE THE MASS OF CONTAMINANTS REMEDIATED at the site using procedure in Section IV.C.

p. II-5-8

Clarification on where POC is under background standard. In some cases a remediator has a choice in the area of POC and respectively gets a larger area of liability relief.

Throughout all 3 standards

Requirements for a format change in final report to include a SUMMARY, also checklists required.

p. II II-23-24

Use of checklists and requirement to calculate MASS of contaminant remediated.

p. II-27-28

Method to apply the SPLP alternative soil-to-groundwater method. This was developed by the Standards Subcommittee of the CSSAB and presented to the full Board (last year or year before).

p. II-28-

Minor changes to EXAMPLE of selecting MSCs

p. II-33-35

Several changes in section on non-use aquifer to coincide with the proposed changes in the regulations, Chapter 250:

• Public notice is required per 250.5
• Remediators may rely on an area DEP as designated as "nonuse aquifer certification area" (used to be called "precertification").
• Remediator may rely on a municipal ordinance as satisfying 250.303(c ) (1) and (2).
• Municipal authorities and political subdivisions may apply for a non-use aquifer certification area , which essentially involves demonstrating that the conditions of 250.303 (c )(1) and (2) are met within a chosen geographic area.
• Non-use aquifer requests MUST be submitted in conjunction with an NIR. This is significant because some remediators ask for the non-use designation and then never submit an NIR.
• A non-use aquifer standard final report must include a post-remediation care plan which includes a means of determining if the area of interest continues to meet the conditions of 250.303(c).

p. II-35- 39

Example of applying the non-use aquifer designation process. Specifically determining the area 1000 feet down gradient.

p. II-36

Clarifications to the ecological screening process:

• A remediator still must comply with the US Endangered Species Act.
• Remediator has the option of using 10^th the MSC in lieu of doing the eco screen.

p. II-43

Clarification that CPECs on site are only of concern if they are related to releases at the site.

p.II- 46-48

Various clarifications in the eco screening process:

• Reference areas must be areas w/o contamination
• Even if you "pass" test of less than 20% difference in density of species of concern or 50% in diversity or extent of habitats of concern, the presensepresence of exceptional value wetlands , like fenderallyfederally -designated species, would trigger further evaluation.

p. II- 60-61, 63

Listing of appropriate statistical tests for SHS now includes the "no exceedance test" in cases where no full site characterization was performed.

p. II-63-64

Requirements of plan when non-use aquifer standards are part of final report. Include:

• Procedures for how the demonstration that, criteria (250.303(c)) continue to be met.
• Report details and schedule for submitting to DEP

p. II-68

Risk assessment flowchart. This was presented and revised after comments from more than one full CSSAB meeting.

p. II-69-70

Revised checklists, including calculation mass of contaminants remediated, and use of the final report summary.

p. II II-75-78

Guidance on how to deal with plumes (in various situations) which go off the source property, have no other pathways except ingestion, and are in an area of public water.

• The existence of a public water supply in an area may be sufficient to document that both the current and "probable future" ingestion exposure pathway is not complete. However, the text states that in these situations, some form of institutional control (or, not written, but intentedintended) post remediation monitoring such as checking drilling permits, water supply billings etc.
• Outlines case where property adjacent to the source property is open field with no current gw ingesting pathways but future use is probable. Therefore some other method may be needed to protect.
• Cases where no current or future use. Therefore only some form of post remedial action needed.
• Cases where ingestion pathway exists but it is within the allowable risk range.

p. II II-79-80

Process for determining appropriate toxicity values for risk assessment. As developed by the CSSAB and given to the DEP.

p. II-96

Suggested outline for a cleanup plan

p. II-98-99

Suggested outline for a final report under the site-specific standard

p. II-101

Allowing the flexibility of using a residual risk assessment as an alternative to demonstrating attainment of numerical standards.

p. II-101

Stresses requirement for fate and transport analysis.

p. II II-104

Suggested outline for a combined RI and final report

p. II-108-113

New section on institutional controls and other post remedial obligations. **** important as policy ***

Provides a menu of various controls a remediator may use at his preference. The risk the remediator takes is that the control used will not work and the remedy will fail.

p. II- 114

Explicitly states that the owner of a property is a responsible person, and therefore it is not wise to purchase a property until an SIA agreement is reached.

p. II-117

Provides more guidance on what should be included in the baseline investigation under SIA.

p. II-118

Provides direction on what, as a minimum, immediate, direct or imminent threats include.

p. II-121-129

Guidance on what should be included in the baseline remedial investigation.

SECTION III

RELATIONSHIP ot TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES

p. III-2-6

NEW section text on Solid Waste Facilities

**** important new policy ****

p. III III-7

Deletion of sampling guidance for determining compliance with non-point source discharges to streams. The DEP will examine this issue over time.

p. III-9-18

Changes in the regulated tanks guidance.

SECTION IV

GENERAL GUIDANCE

Pl. IV-1

Uses of fate and transport guidance under Act 2

p. IV- 7

Elements of fate and transport guidance

p. IV-9

Minimum data needed for fate and transport analysis

p. IV-13-15

Changes in DEP spreadsheet of fate and transport analysis

p. IV-30

Including "no exceedance" as a statistical method when full site characterization has not been done.

SECTION V

ATTACHMENTS

p. V-6

Use of "short list" of petroleum products

p. V-14

Guidance for determining chemicals of concern when doing a site-specific cleanup or a combination of standards including site-specific.

• Act 2 cleanup using only the site-specific standard, use the EPA region III RBC screening procedure. (this screens out chemicals which are not considered not to be a significant risk)
• Act 2 cleanup using combination of Statewide health and site-specific standards. In this case chemicals with maximum site concentrations at or below the SHS MSCs can be carried through and demonstrated as meeting the SHS. The other chemicals are carried through and site-specific numeric standards calculated.

p.V-47- 58

NEW section ****

Describes rationale behind the SHS ecological screening process.

Remainder

New forms and checklists for use by the remediator.

THE FOLLOWING CHANGES WERE MADE SINCE THE FEB 22, 2001 CSSAB MEETING

SECTION II

p. II-33

Section 4(a) modified for clarity

p. II-35

Section 4(e) "within the property" changed to "within the site"

p. II-76-77

Section 5(i) Groundwater – modified last sentence for clarity

Section 5 (ii) changed last sentence for clarity

Section 5(iv) modified for clarity

Section 5 (v) modified for clarity

p. II-107

Changed "noncomplete" to "incomplete"

p. II-108-109

Section 9 changed title and sections (a) and (b) for clarity

Section 9(c) modified – (iv) local ordinance to remove grandfathering restriction

Section 9(c) modified – (v) groundwater restriction zone title changed