Blog

An SPCC Primer in 969 Words

What is SPCC?

SPCC means Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure.  The SPCC regulation is issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in 40 CFR 112.  The SPCC regulation contains requirements for oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response to prevent oil discharges to navigable waters and adjoining shorelines.

What facilities need an SPCC Plan?

When evaluating if a facility needs a SPCC Plan, there are many different factors that come into play.  Let’s start with a few of the basics.

In order to need an SPCC Plan, all the following criteria must be true:

  • The facility or part of it is considered non-transportation-related;
  • The facility is engaged in drilling, producing, gathering, storing, refining, transferring, distributing or consuming oil;
  • The facility could reasonably be expected to discharge oil in harmful quantities into navigable waters or adjoining shorelines; and
  • The total aboveground oil storage capacity is greater than 1,320 gallons or the total underground oil storage capacity is greater than 42,000 gallons of oil (the storage capacity does not include containers less than 55 gallons, permanently closed storage capacity, motive power containers, or exclusive wastewater treatment containers).

What is Considered a Navigable Water Under SPCC?

One of the above criteria requires the potential for oil discharge to a “navigable water”.  A navigable water is defined by the 1972 Clean Water Act as the following:

  • Interstate waters;
  • Intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams which are utilized by interstate travelers for recreational or other purposes; or
  • Intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams from which fish or shellfish are taken and sold in interstate commerce.

In simpler terms, if a facility has the potential discharge to a larger body of water, it is most likely navigable.  If a facility has the potential discharge to a small body of water (brook, roadside ditch or wetland) and that water eventually runs to another larger body of water, the smaller body of water is likely considered navigable.  A facility doesn’t have to be right next to the body of water either.  If the oil discharge could reach the water body via a storm drain or other mechanism, the facility meets the above “reasonably expected” criteria.

What is Considered Oil Under SPCC?

It is also important to understand that oil, as it’s defined in the regulation, comes in many different forms including:

  • Petroleum Based Oils – Gasoline, diesel fuel, motor, heating, aviation fuels, and hydraulic fluid;
  • Non Petroleum Oils – Animal-based, vegetable, biofuels, seed, nut, fruit and kernel; and
  • Oil Containing Products – Oil-based paints, thinners and inks, petroleum-based parts, and roofing tar

 What are the 3 Types of SPCC Facilities?

If a facility needs an SPCC Plan, it will be classified into one of 3 types of facilities:

  • A Non-Qualified Facility.
  • A Tier I Qualified Facility; or
  • A Tier II Qualified Facility.

The significance is that the allowed method of preparing an SPCC Plan for each type of facility is different.  An SPCC Plan for a Tier I qualified facility the simplest to prepare, followed by an SPCC Plan for a Tier II facility with an SPCC Plan for a non-qualified facility the most time-consuming to prepare.  It is also important to note that if the facility is a farm, there are a number of exceptions to the regulations above.

The following table contains the criteria to classify facilities into Tier I Qualified Facilities and Tier II Qualified Facilities.

If the facility total aboveground oil storage capacity is 10,000 gallons or less…
And… And the facility has… Then the facility is a:
In the three years before the SPCC Plan is certified, the facility has had no discharges to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines as described below:

  • A single discharge of oil greater than 1,000 gallons, or
  • Two discharges of oil each greater than 42 gallons within any 12-month period.
No individual aboveground oil containers greater than 5,000 gallons; Tier I Qualified Facility: 
Complete and self-certify Plan template (Appendix G to 40 CFR part 112) in lieu of a full PE-certified Plan or other self-certified SPCC Plan.
Any individual aboveground oil container greater than 5,000 gallons; Tier II Qualified Facility:
Prepare a self-certified Plan in accordance with all applicable requirements of §112.7 and subparts B or C of the rule, in lieu of a PE-certified Plan.

Source: Environmental Protection Agency

If a facility doesn’t meet the criteria of a Tier I or Tier II Qualified Facility because it has more than 10,000 gallons of aboveground petroleum storage or it has had oil spills that meet the above criteria, then it is a Non-Qualified Facility.

What are the Types of SPCC Plans?

Tier I and Tier II Qualified Facilities have the option to prepare “self-certified” SPCC Plans. What that means is that:

  • You are familiar with the SPCC requirements;
  • You have visited and examined the facility;
  • The Plan has been prepared in accordance with accepted and sound industry practices and standards and with the rule requirements as described above;
  • Procedures for required inspections and testing have been established;
  • The Plan is being fully implemented;
  • The facility meets the qualifying criteria;
  • The Plan does not deviate from rule requirements except as allowed and as certified by a PE; and
  • Management approves the Plan and has committed resources to implement it.

Tier I facilities can prepare an SPCC Plan using a relatively simple template provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Tier II facilties must prepare an SPCC Plan in accordance with all applicable requirements of §112.7 and subparts B or C of the rule.  However, the plan does not need to be certified by a Professional Engineer.

A Non-Qualified Facility needs an SPCC Plan prepared in accordance with the applicable requirements of §112.7 and subparts B or C of the rule and the SPCC Plan must be certified by a Professional Engineer.

Need More Information?

If you need more information about SPCC Plans, please contact Omni Environmental Group at 978-256-6766 or Info@OmniEG.com.  Also visit the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SPCC website.

 

An LSP’s Opinion: Changes to Activity and Use Limitations Under the New MCP

In late June, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection issued a revised Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP: 310 CMR 40.0000).  The revisions included a number of changes about how Notices of Activity and Use Limitations (AULs) are prepared, recorded and applied.  Omni Environmental Group has summarized a few of the more significant changes below.

  1. Exhibit C to the AUL (formerly called the Activity and Use Limitation Opinion) no longer needs to repeat verbatim the prohibited uses, allowed uses and limitations which are included in the main body of the AUL text.  Exhibit C is now intended to be strictly a narrative explaining the AUL and discussing, in relatively plain English, what the contamination is, where the contamination is and why the AUL is needed.  In addition, Exhibit C no longer needs to be signed by a Licensed Site Professional.
  2. With the elimination of the Activity and Use Limitation Opinion in the AUL, transmittal form BWSC-113A is no longer required to be part of the AUL.
  3. Both the newly revised version of the MCP and the older version of the MCP require that AULs be incorporated in full or by reference into future deeds, leases, mortgages. etc.  The new MCP revisions require that each time a deed conveying record title for a property is recorded, a copy of the new deed is submittted to the MassDEP within 30 days by either the grantor and grantee.  The main AUL form which gets recorded at the Registry of Deeds (Form 1075) now includes language to this effect at the top of the first page of the form.
  4. The revised AUL form also has standardized language that must be included if the AUL is used to support the use of an Active Exposure Pathway Mitigation Measure (such as a subslab depressurization system) as part of a Permanent Solution with Conditions.  The new standardized language includes a number of requirements to ensure the system is operating and that notification and corrective action is taken if the system is not operating.
  5. The  use of AULs is now allowed on Federal Superfund sites.  Any existing land use controls in the Superfund Record of Decision must be incorporated into the AUL. However, a number of typical AUL components are not required to be used at Superfund sites under the new MCP revisions, including the use of the main AUL form (Form 1075).  The components which are not required are described at 310 CMR 40.1070(4).

This is a brief summary of the key revisions about how AULs are prepared, recorded and applied under the MCP.  Omni Environmental Group will get into some of the details of revisions to other key areas of the MCP in future blog postings.

In the meantime, if you need more information about how the MCP revisions might affect you, please contact Omni Environmental Group’s Licensed Site Professional (LSP) at 978-256-6766 or Info@OmniEG.com.

“An LSP’s Opinion” is an occasional feature here in the Omni Environmental Group blog where we talk about the Massachusetts Contingency Plan along with the roles and responsibilities of Licensed Site Professionals.

 

A Simple Explanation of Vapor Intrusion

Vapor intrusion has been a hot topic lately with many states as well as the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopting or proposing new policies.  We would like to take credit for the following simple explanation of the basics of vapor intrusion but it was written by the EPA.

“Vapor intrusion generally occurs when there is a migration of volatile chemicals from contaminated groundwater or soil into an overlying building. Volatile chemicals can emit vapors that may migrate through subsurface soils and into indoor air spaces of overlying buildings in ways similar to that of radon gas seeping into homes. Volatile chemicals may include volatile organic compounds, select semivolatile organic compounds, and some inorganic analytes, such as elemental mercury, radon, and hydrogen sulfide.

In extreme cases, the vapors may accumulate in dwellings or occupied buildings to levels that may pose near-term safety hazards (e.g., explosion), acute health effects, or aesthetic problems (e.g., odors). Typically, however, the chemical concentration levels are low or, depending on site-specific conditions, vapors may not be present at detectable concentrations. In buildings with low concentrations of volatile chemicals, the main concern is whether the chemicals may pose an unacceptable risk of chronic health effects due to long-term exposure to these low levels. A complicating factor in evaluating the potential chronic risk from vapor intrusion is the potential presence of some of the same chemicals from emission sources in the building (e.g., household solvents, gasoline, cleaners) that may pose, separately or in combination with vapor intrusion, a significant human health risk.

The simple conceptual model of the vapor intrusion pathway that is presented in Figure 1 illustrates a source of contamination in soil and groundwater and the upward movement of VOCs from this source toward and into buildings.”vapor_intrusion

Do you need more information or have questions about vapor intrusion?  Contact Omni Environmental Group at 978-256-6766 or Info@OmniEG.com.

An LSP’s Opinion – The New and Improved MCP

In case you haven’t already heard…the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has revised the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP; 310 CMR 40.0000 if you want all the details).  The new MCP includes some fairly significant revisions.  The key areas of the regulation which have been revised include the following:

  • Source control – New requirements to address sources and migration.
  • Managing non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) – Sites can now be closed with more NAPL present if the NAPL is shown to be stable.
  • Vapor intrusion – An area of numerous changes including notification, assessment and closure.
  • Permanent Solutions and Temporary Solutions – Replacing the Response Action Outcome Statement, mostly in name rather than content.
  • Tier Classification – The Numerical Ranking Scoresheet has been eliminated (yeah!) along with the initial Tier I permit application.
  • Activity and Use Limitations – Simplified.
  • Numerical Standards (including Reportable Concentrations and Method 1 risk characterization standards) – 21% went up (less stringent), 10% went down (more stringent) and 69% stayed the same.

Most provisions of the new and improved MCP take effect June 20, 2014.  However, there are certain portions that took effect as of April 25, 2014 including:

  •  The new Reportable Concentrations for Oil and Hazardous Material in groundwater or soil listed in the Massachusetts Oil and Hazardous Material List at 310 CMR 40.1600;
  • The elimination of the requirement to submit an initial Tier I Permit Application, formerly 310 CMR 40.0704; and
  • Who may conduct an initial Tier Classification of a disposal site in accordance with the Tier Classification Process and Basis for Tier Classification in 310 CMR 40.0510 and 310 CMR 40.0520, respectively.

Omni Environmental Group will get into some of the details of revisions to the key areas outlined above in future blog postings.

In the meantime, if you need more information about how the MCP revisions might affect you, please contact Omni Environmental Group’s Licensed Site Professional (LSP) at 978-256-6766 or Info@OmniEG.com.

“An LSP’s Opinion” is an occasional feature here in the Omni Environmental Group blog where we talk about the Massachusetts Contingency Plan along with the roles and responsibilities of Licensed Site Professionals.

Who’s Responsible For Doing The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment?

Who should perform (and who should pay for) the Phase I environmental site assessment?  Is it the buyer of the property?  Or is it the seller?  Or is it the lender?  Omni Environmental Group gets this question all the time.

The answer is…it depends. Any of these 3 parties can do the Phase I.  And each of them has their own motivation. Let’s look at each individually.

The seller:  We tend to see this less frequently than the buyer or the lender.  The primary motivation is to make the property more marketable. This is especially true on higher risk properties – think gas stations, dry cleaners and industrial properties.  Phase I’s on higher risk properties are most likely going to find Recognized Environmental Conditions that require follow-up soil or ground water testing.  In some cases, especially with smaller properties, the deal isn’t big enough to motivate buyers to invest the kind of money up front that soil and ground water testing requires.  As a result, sellers may do the assessment to make the property more attractive to a wider range of potential buyers.

The lender:  The lender frequently arranges for the Phase I to be performed.  Generally, the larger the lender, the more likely this will be.  Lenders usually have staff who are knowledgeable in the ASTM International Phase I standard, they may know industry practices, they may have their own internal standards and they may have Phase I consultants with whom they’re comfortable. Their motivation is typically their own future financial interest in the property.  The lender wants to make sure the property isn’t contaminated to the extent that they wouldn’t be able to recover the amount of their loan if they were forced to foreclose on the property.  The lender may initially pay for the Phase I but, if the deal goes through, the Phase I is part of the closing costs paid by the buyer.

The buyer:  It’s also common to see the buyer arrange for the Phase I to be performed. Often, the reason the buyer seeks out a Phase I is because the lender says they need one!  This tends to be the case more with smaller local and regional lenders.  Sometimes we see buyers performing the Phase I simply because they want to know that the property they’re getting is not contaminated and that they’re not buying someone else’s problem (smart buyer!).  A buyer may also want to look at potential liabilities that aren’t included in the standard Phase I ordered by a lender.  These may include things like asbestos or PCBs in building materials.  Both of these may not concern a lender and are outside the scope of the ASTM International Phase I standard.  However, they may significantly affect a buyer’s ability to renovate a building or sell a property in the future.

Parties involved in the transaction should keep in mind the motivating factor for doing the Phase I.  If a seller performs it, the buyer and lender may want to get their own expert to review the data and validate the seller’s conclusions and opinions.  If the lender has their consultants provide the Phase I, buyers should remember that the lender’s interests and risk tolerances may not necessarily be the same as their own.  For example, the buyer may be concerned with potential problems which are smaller than those which would concern a lender.

There are many reasons for doing a Phase I.  Any party in the transaction can do the Phase I and any party can address any identified Recognized Environmental Conditions.  Who does it and who pays are often open to negotiation and are all part of the deal!.

 

 

An LSP’s Opinion – MassDEP’s Similar Soils Provision Guidance

Under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP; 310 CMR 40.0000), there’s 4 basic criteria that must be met in order for a Licensed Site Professional (or LSP) to transport soil from a disposal site (I.e., a hazardous waste site) without prior notice or approval from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP).  These 4 criteria are:

  1. The managed soil must not be a hazardous waste under state or federal regulations.
  2. The managed soil must have concentrations of oil or hazardous materials less than their associated Reportable Concentrations.
  3. The managed soil must not create a condition at the receiving location which would require notification to the MassDEP (i.e., soil acceptable for use at an industrial site being reused at a residential site).
  4. The soil at the receiving site must not have contaminant concentrations that are “significantly lower” than the contaminant concentrations in the soil being brought to the receiving site.

These criteria are specified at 310 CMR 40.0032(3).

In October 2013, the MassDEP issued the Similar Soils Provision Guidance.  The guidance is to clarify the last bullet above – that is, at what point does the soil at the receiving site have “significantly lower” contaminant concentrations than the soil being brought in from the disposal site.

The Similar Soils Provision Guidance recognizes several approaches to address the “significantly lower” evaluation criteria required by the MCP. These approaches include the following:

  • Assume the soils at the receiving site are naturally occurring background concentrations. The most practical way of evaluating this is to compare concentrations in the managed soil with the MassDEP’s May 2002 Background Levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Metals in Soil guidance.
  • Sample soils at the receiving site.  The sampling plan would need to include a sufficient number of discrete soil samples to understand the concentrations and distribution of oil and/or hazardous materials throughout the receiving site. This data can then be used in a “rule of thumb” comparison which is outlined in the Similar Soils Provision Guidance document to simplify the evaluation.
  • Provide technical justification for an alternative approach. The MassDEP recognizes that adequate analytical and non-analytical information may be available for both the managed soil and the receiving site whereby it sufficient to conclude that the not “significantly lower” criteria is met.

This may be potentially significant guidance.  A lot of soil, especially from urban redevelopment projects, with contaminant concentrations less than the Reportable Concentrations is reused as cover material in landfills when it could be reused at other locations.  The past lack of clear guidance on how to interpret the “significantly lower” criterion have made soil generators choose landfill reuse as a more conservative and safe measure. This issuance of the Similar Soils Provision Guidance may allow this type of soil to be more readily reused at other locations.  Time will tell how this gets put into practice.

The MassDEP cautions that the Similar Soils Provision Guidance is not applicable to the transport of soil from locations other than disposal sites regulated under the MCP or to the management of soil considered Remediation Waste under the MCP.

If you need more information about how the Similar Soils Provision Guidance might help you, please contact Omni Environmental Group’s Licensed Site Professional (LSP) at 978-256-6766 or solutions@www.omnieg.com.

“An LSP’s Opinion” is an occasional feature here in the Omni Environmental Group blog where we talk about the Massachusetts Contingency Plan along with the roles and responsibilities of Licensed Site Professionals.

 

3 Key Changes in the New ASTM Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Standard

ASTM International issued a revised version of E1527 Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process in November 2013.  Omni Environmental Group has compared the new Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) standard to the 2005 Phase I ESA standard and the following are the 3 key revisions to the standard:

  1. The purpose of a Phase I is to evaluate a property for the presence or likely presence of petroleum products or hazardous substances under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release or a material threat of a release.  In the past, there have been different interpretations whether potential migration of vapors is a release and included within the scope of the Phase I ESA.  The new revisions define “migrate” and “migration” to include the movement of petroleum products and hazardous substances in any form, including vapor in the subsurface.  The Phase I revisions serve to clarify that vapor migration onto a property constitutes a “release” within the meaning of the Phase I ESA standard.  It’s important to note, however, that the Phase I ESA standard does not require identification or evaluation of vapor intrusion (i.e., the migration of vapors into a building) but only vapor migration onto the subject property.
  2. The new revision to the Phase I ESA standard requires the Environmental Professional to review applicable local, state or federal records if the environmental database summary report indicates such records are present for the subject property or for an adjoining property.  If the Environmental Professional believes such a review is not necessary, perhaps the type of record is not likely to change the outcome or the record is not reasonably ascertainable, then the Environmental Professional must include the justification for not reviewing the records in the Phase I report.
  3. The revised standard establishes a new “controlled” Recognized Environmental Condition (or CREC) and revises the definition of the existing historic Recognized Environmental Conditions (or HREC).  HRECs include properties where site remediation has occurred and the environmental case “closed” where the closure allows unrestricted property use.  CRECs include properties where contamination is present but future exposure to the contamination is controlled through an activity and use limitation or deed restriction.

The revised standard generally contains modest changes intended to clarify ambiguities and unclear language in the 2005 Phase I ESA standard and to provide more consistent reports from different providers of Phase I Environmental Site Assessments.  Omni Environmental Group will elaborate on the practical effect of these 3 key changes in a future post.

If you have any questions about how these changes may affect environmental due diligence for your property, please contact Omni Environmental Group at 978-256-6766 or Info@OmniEG.com.

 

EPA Issues Draft Vapor Intrusion Guidance

The EPA has issued 2 (long awaited) draft final vapor intrusion documents for public comment.  These guidance documents are intended to help ensure vapor intrusion assessment and mitigation actions to protect human health are undertaken in a technically, scientifically and nationally consistent manner.

The guidance documents describe EPA’s current recommendations for how to identify and consider key factors when assessing vapor intrusion, making risk management decisions, and implementing mitigation pertaining to this potential human exposure pathway.  They’re intended for both residential and non-residential buildings that may be impacted by vapor intrusion from subsurface contamination.

All Compounds

The first document is entitled: Final Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapor Intrusion Pathway from Subsurface Sources to Indoor Air.

The broad concepts of this guidance document are generally applicable to petroleum hydrocarbons.  However, it’s intended more to apply to compounds other than petroleum (like chlorinated solvents), other compounds when they’re mixed with petroleum, and petroleum from refineries and terminals.  It’s not intended to apply to petroleum releases from underground storage tanks (USTs).  Which is why the EPA also issued….

Petroleum From USTs

The second draft document is entitled: Guidance for Addressing Petroleum Vapor Intrusion at Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites.

This guidance focuses on USTs, typically located at gas stations and non-marketing facilities regulated under Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.  This guidance describes how to address risks solely from petroleum hydrocarbon vapors as a result of USTs.

Combined these two documents give us 294 pages of vapor intrusion guidance.  Enjoy!  The EPA is seeking public input on the vapor intrusion guidance through May 24, 2013.

 

 

 

An LSP Opinion – The End of the RAO Statement

Response Action Outcome Statements (RAO) Statements are the endpoint of the site assessment and remediation process under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP).  It’s the point at which you say “there’s no risk – I’m done”.  As part of their proposed MCP revisions, the MassDEP is proposing to eliminate RAO Statements.  They’re not actually eliminating the endpoints.  They’re just considering changing the names and categories since RAO is not intuitive for many people (we agree).

The proposed new terms/categories are:

  • Permanent Solution with No Conditions
  • Temporary Solution
  • Permanent Solution with Conditions

Permanent Solutions with No Conditions will include sites where remaining contamination does not pose a risk to human health or the environment without limitation. That is, there is no risk to human health in the future regardless of what the property is used for (like a residence, school or day care) or how accessible the contamination becomes (for example if pavement overlying contamination is removed).

Temporary Solutions will include sites where a Permanent Solution is not currently feasible because contamination can’t be readily cleaned up or it can’t be cleaned up in a reasonably timely manner to allow a Permanent Solution to be achieved.  This may include sites where the contamination poses a risk but it isn’t accessible (for example beneath a building) or the type and extent of the release precludes achieving a Permanent Solution any time soon (for example a large chlorinated solvent release).

Permanent Solution with Conditions will include sites where remaining contamination does not pose a risk to human health or the environment but… (you guessed it) there are some conditions that apply to the closure.  This category includes closures with Activity and Use Limitations (deed restrictions or “AULs”), as well as other specific site conditions for which AULs are not required but the site conditions warrant consideration of the information in the closure documentation to ensure there is no risk to human health in the future.  These conditions include:

  • residual groundwater contamination at undeveloped sites that may pose a potential risk of vapor intrusion into buildings constructed in the future;
  • the presence of soils at the site with contamination attributable to “historic fill;”
  • elevated contamination remaining under roadways; and
  • “best management practices” to be taken for gardening at a site with residual contamination.

This is a new concept wherein the category of closure and the associated documentation is deemed sufficiently protective of public health without the added notice provided by an  AUL.  The thinking is that parties involved with the property in the future will see the category of closure, understand there are conditions related to the closure and educate themselves about what those conditions are and how to protect human health.

The MassDEP is accepting public comments on these proposed changes to the Massachusetts Contingency Plan through Friday May 17, 2013.

If you’re wondering how the proposed changes may affect you, please contact Omni Environmental Group’s Licensed Site Professional (LSP) at 978-256-6766 or Info@OmniEG.com.  Read more about our LSP services and a summary of the proposed MCP revisions.

“An LSP Opinion” is an occasional feature here in the Omni Environmental Group blog.  We’ll talk about the Massachusetts Contingency Plan along with the roles and responsibilities of Licensed Site Professionals.

 

An LSP Opinion – 5 Proposed Changes to the Mass. Contingency Plan

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) is proposing some significant changes to the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP).  The MCP is the regulation which governs the assessment and remediation of contaminated sites in Massachusetts.

The proposed changes to the MCP encompass these 5 areas:

Permits, Tier Classification and the Numerical Ranking System – The MassDEP proposes eliminating Tier permits and using a much simplified process to classify sites as either Tier I or Tier II based on whether disposal site conditions meet any one of 4 criteria.

Activity and Use Limitations – The MassDEP proposes eliminating the AUL Opinion from the Notice of AUL and allowing the use of Notices of AUL at federal Superfund sites.

Vapor Intrusion and Site Closure Provisions – This is the area with the biggest changes.  The proposed changes clarify when a site with vapor intrusion can be closed and provides a clear pathway to close sites with an active subslab depressurization system (used to mitigate vapor intrusion).  Site closure categories and terms will be simplified to include either a Permanent Solution or a Temporary Solution.  Permanent Solutions will either be a Permanent Solution with Conditions or a Permanent Solution with No Conditions.  A Permanent Solution with Conditions will include sites with AULs and subslab depressurization systems.

Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid and Source Control – The MassDEP proposes eliminating the Upper Concentration Limit for NAPL of 1/2-inch and using more specific performance standards to demonstrate source elimination or control, not just for NAPL but for all oil and hazardous materials.

Numerical Standards and Risk Characterization – The MassDEP proposes changes to select numerical standards (Reportable Concentrations and Method 1 Standards) to reflect current information about chemical properties and toxicity.

“An LSP Opinion” will be an occassional feature here in the Omni blog.  We’ll talk about the Massachusetts Contingency Plan along with the roles and responsibilities of Licensed Site Professionals.  Next time, we’ll discuss some of these proposed MCP changes in more detail.

Have MCP or LSP questions?? Contact us at 978-256-6766 or Info@OmniEG.com.