|
Audit Update for April 2006
April 2006 Level II Audits:
MassDEP completed Level II (LII) audits and issued Notices of Audit Findings (NOAFs) at 38 sites in April 2006. Sixteen Notices of Noncompliance (NONs) were issued, together with MassDEP's findings. LII audits of interest in April 2006 include:
1. MassDEP completed a LII audit of a Class C Response Action Outcome (RAO) submitted as a Temporary Solution for a release of gasoline from former underground storage tanks (USTs) and issued a Notice of Audit Finding (NOAF)/Notice of Noncompliance (NON), which concluded that response actions were not performed in compliance with the requirements of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP). As part of the audit, MassDEP sampled nine private drinking water supply wells in the vicinity of the disposal site. While sample results did not detect gasoline-related constituents in the nine wells, MassDEP noted that Inspection & Monitoring (I&M) Reports were not submitted and groundwater was not sampled in accordance with the Phase IV Operation Maintenance & Monitoring (OMM) plan. MassDEP required submittal of an I&M report that addresses all violations identified and required submittal of subsequent I&M Reports every 6 months as required. (Princeton, RTN 2-0000951 & 2-0012073, NON-CE-06-3A056, April 5, 2006)
2. MassDEP completed a LII audit of a groundwater recovery and treatment system at a disposal site in Remedy Operation Status (ROS) and issued a NOAF/NON, which concluded that response actions were not performed in compliance with the requirements of the MCP. The inspected remedial system consists of one recovery well that is pumped through a 200-pound low-pressure carbon unit that discharges to an upgradient discharge gallery. The system was operational on the day of the inspection. The inspection included on-site screening of the treatment system influent and effluent for contaminant concentrations with portable instrumentation and on site sampling of the system influent and effluent for analysis of Halogenated Volatile Organics via EPA Method 8010B. While analytical sampling results were consistent with previously submitted data, MassDEP noted that there was no procedure for identifying system malfunction and for communicating such malfunction to the system operator; and that the name and telephone number of the contact person are not visibly posted in the event of system malfunction. Within a specified timeframe, MassDEP required the provision of procedures or equipment for identifying system malfunctions and communicating such malfunction to the system operator, and posting in an accessible readily visible location the name and telephone number of the person to contact in the event of a malfunction. (Allston, RTN 3-19867, NON-NE-06-3R017, April 14, 2006)
April 2006 Level III Audits:
MassDEP completed Level III (LIII) audits and issued NOAFs at 21 sites in April 2006. Sixteen NONs were issued with MassDEP's findings. LIII audits of interest in April 2006 include:
1. In February 2006, MassDEP was notified of a release of fuel oil from a UST at a residential property. Response actions included excavation and disposal of 212 tons of impacted soil, and collection of nine post-excavation soil samples for analysis of volatile and/or extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (V/EPH). The average concentration of each analyte was used as an estimate of the exposure point concentration (EPC) in a Method 1 risk characterization. The EPCs were compared to Category S-2 soil standards. In March 2006, MassDEP received a Class A-2 RAO with the Method 1 risk characterization. MassDEP issued an NOAF/NON concluding that the RAO submittal was not in compliance with MCP requirements and required additional response actions. MassDEP noted that the current use of the property is residential, and the soil shall be classified as category S-1; this applies regardless of whether children currently reside at the property. Within a specified timeframe, MassDEP required submittal of a revised RAO that meets the requirements of the MCP, or an RAO Retraction accompanied by a Tier Classification Submittal. (Pittsfield, RTN 1-16068, NON-WE-06-3A028, April 04, 2006).
2. In November 2005, MassDEP was notified of a fuel oil release discharging to a storm drain and creating a sheen on a local river. The local Fire Department and MassDEP personnel applied absorbent material in the area of the release and to the discharge affecting the river. Subsequent response actions involved reapplying absorbent material, excavating contaminated soil, and sampling for residual contamination. In March 2006, MassDEP received a Class A-1 RAO Statement describing the release as a leak of heating oil to the ground from a supply line serving a 275-gallon Above Ground Storage Tank (AST). The RAO further states there was no evidence that the release impacted the river and a boom placed on the river was a precautionary measure. MassDEP issued an NOAF/NON concluding that the RAO submittal was not in compliance with MCP requirements and therefore was invalid. Through its audit, MassDEP noted that the release was from a dewatering pump feeding directly to a storm drain that empties to the river. MassDEP field notes documented discussions, which identified the need for changing oil-impacted booms in the river. Therefore, the submitted RAO does not accurately describe the release or subsequent response actions that occurred. Within a specified timeframe, MassDEP required a written response indicating an intention to comply with the Notice and submittal of an RAO that is in compliance with the MCP. (Sutton, RTN 2-0015999, NON-CE-06-3A076, April 20, 2006).
April 2006 Helpful Hint:
1. Q: How long should property owners retain MCP documentation such as Response Action Outcome Reports, Limited Removal Action Reports and/or Activity & Use Limitation records?
A: Record retention requirements are specified in the MCP at 310 CMR 40.0014, which mandates retention for a minimum of 5 years, or, if structures are in place to maintain a level of No Significant Risk, for the design life of those structures.
Beyond this "mandated" retention time, it would be advisable to maintain records for as long as practicable, because such information may provide valuable historical reference for future property buyers or for other purposes. Note that MassDEP retains summary information in its files on site cleanups indefinitely.
2. The April 2006 revisions to the MCP include various clarifications and changes to the requirements for performing public notification, as outlined in 310 CMR 40.1403. Paragraph (3)(e) of this section identifies the requirements for sending a notice of availability of all Phase Reports to city or town officials. LSPs should note, however, that this requirement does not apply to semi-annual status reports submitted to the Department for sites in Phase V, Remedy Operation Status, or Class C-1 Response Action Outcome. There is no need to send notification letters to public officials, or to DEP, when these reports are submitted.
April 2006 Observations and Notes:
-
Of the 16 Level II Audit NOAF/NONs issued in April, MassDEP cited 38 violations of the MCP. The most common violation cited was 310 CMR 40.0411(7), failure to "continually assess and evaluate release and site conditions in order to determine if an Immediate Response Action is required."
-
Of the 16 Level III Audit NOAF/NONs issued in April, MassDEP cited 51 violations of the MCP. The most common violation cited was 310 CMR 40.0904, failure to provide an "adequate characterization of the disposal site . . . a prerequisite to the characterization of risk of harm to health, safety, public welfare and the environment . . ."
-
-
MassDEP's Audit Program is in the process of updating its Level 1 - Technical Screening Audit Forms to incorporate regulatory changes promulgated in April 2006. Once complete, the updated forms will be posted on the Audit Program website. |
priorities & results
