1. Following a LII audit of remedial action, which consists of Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) implemented as a comprehensive response action, DEP issued a NOAF that did not identify any violations of the requirements applicable to comprehensive response actions. The audit included a review of the inspection and monitoring (I&M) reports on file. Lines of evidence used as the basis for selecting MNA as a remedial alternative include analytical data that demonstrates a clear and meaningful trend of decreasing contaminant mass and/or concentration over time at appropriate monitoring points. Sentinel monitoring points were identified between the contamination and nearby receptors. Monitoring occurs on a semi-annual basis. (West Springfield, RTN 1-00222, February 16, 2005)

Level III Audits for February 2005:
DEP completed Level III audits and issued NOAFs at nine sites in February 2005. Seven NONs were issued with DEP's findings. Level III audits of interest in February 2005 include:

1. In September 1998, DEP received notification of a leaking underground gasoline storage tank at a school bus terminal. Used since the 1960s, the school bus terminal is located in a sparsely populated section of town with the nearest private drinking water well located approximately 250 feet crossgradient of the site. Assessment of the nature and extent of the identified release was approved as an Immediate Response Action (IRA). The site was classified as Tier II in 1999. Following Tier Classification, a release Abatement Measure (RAM) was conducted inclusive of in-situ treatment of contaminated groundwater by bioremediation. More than 10,000 gallons of nutrient and microbial solutions have been applied to the area. In June 2003, DEP received a combination RAM Completion Statement, Phase II Assessment, Phase III Evaluation, and Class C response Action Outcome Statement (RAO). DEP issued a NOAF/NON, which determined that response actions were not performed in compliance with the requirements of the MCP. DEP noted: a) a failure to support the RAO with sufficient assessment and evaluation of soil media at the source area; b) failure to identify and evaluate remedial action alternatives in sufficient detail and evaluate the selection of the proposed remedy, and to show how the selected remedy is likely to result in the reduction and/or control of OHM to a degree and in a manner such that the requirements of a Class A RAO will be met; c) failure to provide a plan which presents definitive and enterprising steps to be taken toward achieving a Permanent Solution; d) failure to conduct Post-RAO operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OMM) activities in accordance with MCP requirements; and e) failure to make timely submittals, including submittal of an IRA Completion report. Within a specified timeframe, DEP required submittal of the IRA Completion Report, a revised Phase II documenting additional assessment activities, including a revised risk characterization and revised Phase II, and submittal of applicable OMM reports. (New Marlborough, RTN 1-12416, NON-WE-05-3A020, February 09, 2005)
   
   
2. DEP received a Phase I report and Tier Classification for a leaking underground storage tank site (UST) in April 2003. Response actions conducted at the site included UST removal, soil excavation, and environmental sample collection and analysis. Soil removal was conducted as a Release Abatement Measure (RAM), which was ongoing at the time of Tier Classification. Soil samples collected during RAM activities indicated concentrations of petroleum compounds approaching Upper Concentration Limits (UCLs). A grab water sample was obtained from the excavation at a bedrock surface approximately 5 feet below grade. Petroleum compounds were identified in the sample. Soil was removed up to 650 feet from the UST location. Based on topography, the Phase I report infers groundwater and runoff flow likely discharges to surface water at a pond and a wetland approximately 100 feet from the identified disposal site. Monitoring wells were not installed as part of the Phase I. The Phase I report contains a justification that monitoring wells "are not warranted given the shallow depth of ledge with saturated flow along the ledge, the floating nature of the oil contamination and the low probability of encountering a meaningful fracture." DEP issued a NOAF/NON, which determined that response actions were not performed in compliance with the requirements of the MCP. DEP noted that with groundwater and soil showing evidence of contamination extending over a distance of 650 feet and with the potential to impact surface water, a minimum of three monitoring wells should have been installed to assess groundwater. In addition, DEP noted several elements of the Numerical Ranking System Scoresheet that were scored incorrectly such as failure to score for evidence of contamination for both groundwater and/or surface water, and the presence of a wetland less than 100 feet from the site. Within a specified timeframe DEP required a revised Phase I and NRS. In addition, DEP requested the installation of monitoring wells during Phase II investigations. (Charlton, RTN 2-14282, 2-14529, NON-CE-05-3A020, February 18, 2005).

Helpful Hints
It has come to DEP's attention that there may be misinformation within the regulated community regarding the time period for audit of a site with an Activity & Use Limitation (AUL). DEP's audit period for sites with AULs has never been limited. Specifically, in 1993, the MCP provided a 5-year time period (from date of RAO submittal) to initiate a random or targeted audit for any site including sites with AULs. MCP changes enacted in 1997 added a provision to "initiate at any time Random Audits to determine compliance with Activity and Use Limitations in effect" at a site. This provision was again modified in October of 1999 to include either a Random or Targeted Audit of any site subject to an AUL. Therefore, at no time since 1993 has a site with an AUL been limited for audit by an audit time period.

Furthermore, the Brownfields Act (Chapter 206 of the Acts of 1998, Section 43) requires that DEP conduct targeted audits of all sites for which an AUL has been recorded or registered. In addition, DEP conducts periodic reinspections of AUL sites to ensure compliance with the AUL obligation and maintenance conditions.