July, August, and September Level II Audits:

MassDEP completed Level 2 (L2) audits and issued Notices of Audit Findings (NOAFs) at 74 sites between July and September 2006.  Twenty-seven Notices of Noncompliance (NONs) were issued, together with MassDEP's findings.  L2 audits of interest between July and September 2006 include:

1.   MassDEP completed a L2 audit of a Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL) recovery system operating under Remedy Operation Status (ROS).  The system has been operational for over three years.  MassDEP 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 MCP.  Through its audit, MassDEP noted that product thickness in the recovery wells has not been significantly reduced over the three-year operation of the recovery system, indicating the need to evaluate for either a continuing source or a more aggressive remedial system, which should be designed to achieve a permanent solution.  MassDEP required an evaluation for a continuing source, and a reevaluation of the need to enhance the recovery system currently in place to achieve a Permanent Solution as required in 310 CMR 40.0893.  MassDEP required submittal of the evaluations in a required status report.  (Worcester, RTN 2-0013422, NON-CE-06-3A151, September 05, 2006) 

2.  MassDEP completed a L2 audit of a remedial action consisting of oxygen sparging and monitored natural attenuation operating under ROS.  The enhanced bio-remediation (oxygen sparging) with MNA were implemented at this site as a Comprehensive Response Action in July 2002, which replaced an AS/SVE system that was activated in April 1999.  Response actions are designed to address a release of gasoline to site soils and groundwater, and to surface water and sediments within an abutting wetland area.  The site is located within a Zone II water supply area.  The remedial system consists of nine oxygen sparge wells and two 400-lb. oxygen canisters.  I&M activities include monthly system maintenance and quarterly groundwater monitoring/sampling.  Samples are analyzed for volatile organic aromatics, MTBE, iron, sulfates and nitrates.  MassDEP 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 MCP.  Through its audit, MassDEP noted that dissolved petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in groundwater located downgradient from the main building have not been significantly reduced since oxygen sparging began in 2002.  In particular, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) concentration trends observed for several monitoring wells, including RW-2, RW-4, and WP-4, appear to be static over several monitoring periods.  MassDEP noted that although the sparging system appears to be successfully oxygenating the groundwater, (1) the distribution of sparge points may be insufficient to reduce petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations, and/or (2) as indicated by nitrate concentrations detected in groundwater, contaminant biodegradation processes may be limited by the availability of adequate nutrients.  Within a specified time period, MassDEP required submittal of a revised ROS Opinion that meets the requirements of 310 CMR 40.0893(2), or termination of the ROS in accordance with 310 CMR 40.0893(6).  (Sheffield, RTN 1-12725, NON-WE-06-3A083, September 21, 2006)  

July, August, and September Level III Audits:

MassDEP completed Level 3 (L3) audits and issued NOAFs at 45 sites between July and September 2006.  Twenty-eight NONs were issued with MassDEP's findings.  L3 audits of interest between July and September 2006 include: 

1.   The disposal site is a former gasoline dispensing and service station that was converted to an oil change and lubrication station in 1989.  A series of investigations by numerous consultants have identified petroleum and chlorinated solvents in groundwater at the site.  Response actions have included soil and groundwater sampling, underground storage tank removal and injection of remedial additives.  The site is within a Zone II of several municipal wells and within 500 feet of a private irrigation well.  Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) is the selected remedial alternative currently used at the site.  A Class C Response Action Outcome (RAO) Statement for a Temporary Solution was submitted to MassDEP in August 2000.  In August 2005, MassDEP received the required Periodic Evaluation of the Temporary Solution.  MassDEP issued an NOAF/NON concluding that the Class C RAO and Periodic Evaluation were not in compliance with MCP requirements and required additional response actions.  MassDEP noted the following: a) the extent of release had not been defined because no monitoring wells are located downgradient of the source areas including the former gasoline underground storage tank (UST) area, the former heating oil UST area or the area of the former waste-oil UST; b) a conservative estimate of the exposure point concentrations (EPCs) was not calculated because soil samples collected from outside release areas were used to calculate the EPCs: c) analytical data used in support of the recommendations, conclusions or Opinions was not scientifically valid and defensible because information regarding sample preservation was not included with the analytical results for aqueous samples from three sampling events; d) post-RAO operation, maintenance and/or monitoring activities did not include efforts to correct problems when performance monitoring indicated that the remedial action was not performing as designed because the Periodic Evaluation indicated that MNA was not currently effective and that remedial actions would be modified to include dewatering and soil excavation to achieve a Permanent Solution.  However, two monitoring reports submitted after the periodic evaluation indicated that no conditions or problems existed that required correction with respect to the effectiveness of MNA.  Given that MNA is not currently effective at the site, remedial actions at the site need to be re-evaluated.  Within a specified timeframe, MassDEP required installation of a downgradient monitoring well and submittal of an updated Phase III Remedial Action Plan per 310 CMR 40.0850 and a Phase IV Remedy Implementation Plan per 310 CMR 40.0870 detailing response actions to be taken to achieve a Permanent Solution, given that MNA is not currently effective at the site.  (Bedford, RTN 3-002012, NON-NE-06-3A122, July 14, 2006).

2.  In June 2002, a "120-day" notification for the presence of petroleum and lead in soil was submitted to MassDEP for a currently vacant property that was formerly used to store tannery waste and may have been used for illegal dumping.  Response actions conducted at the site included the execution of 25 test pits, installation of four soil borings, and completion of three monitoring wells. Soil samples were collected, inspected and field screened with a photoionization detector (PID) from the bottoms and sidewalls of each of the test pits. Soil samples were collected from four of the 25 test pits and three of the soil borings and submitted for analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (EPHs) and eight RCRA Metals. In addition, groundwater samples were collected from each monitoring well and submitted to the laboratory for the same analysis. A Release Abatement Measure (RAM) Plan for the excavation of impacted soils at various locations at the site was submitted to MassDEP in April 2003. In July 2005 RAM activities commenced and approximately 113 tons of petroleum and lead impacted soil was removed from the site and disposed of via a Bill of Lading (BOL). Post excavation soil samples were collected, inspected, and field screened from the north and south sidewalls, and bottoms of each excavation. The soil sample(s) collected from the base of each excavation was submitted to the laboratory for the analysis of EPH and total lead. In July 2005, MassDEP received a RAM Completion Report and Class A-2 RAO Statement with a 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. Through its audit, MassDEP noted several concerns with the characterization of the site including a) potential areas of concern on the property that were not evaluated; b) various chemicals associated with tannery waste and car batteries (which were found buried at the site) were not evaluated and technical justification was not provided to support their omission; c) visible soil contamination was not analyzed during assessment and technical justification was not provided to support its omission; d) the full horizontal extent of metal contamination was not delineated at the site.  In addition, MassDEP noted that the RAM was initiated more than one year after its presumptive approval and analytical results for the presence of EPH in the excavation bottoms exceeds the relative percent difference (RPD), which was not addressed in the RAO report.  Within a specified timeframe, MassDEP required submittal of a revised RAO that complies with the MCP or retraction of the RAO and performance of additional response actions.  (Taunton, RTN 4-17154, NON-SE-06-3A043, September 8, 2006).

July, August and September 2006 Helpful Hint:

Q: 310 CMR 40.0891(3) states that an operation, maintenance and/or monitoring (OMM) plan shall be updated if modifications to remedial systems or programs are made.  How should these modifications be made?  Is submittal of a letter stating what was changing and why acceptable or should it just be mentioned in the next status report?  If not part of the status report, is there a BWSC form for such a submittal?

A: Pursuant to 40.0891(3), "Operation, maintenance and/or monitoring activities shall follow the OMM plan developed as part of the Remedy Implementation Plan (RIP) in Phase IV under 310 CMR 40.0874(3)(d)..."  Therefore, modifications to the OMM plan must occur as a modification of the RIP, using form BWSC108, Box 10 - Submit a Modified Phase IV Remedy Implementation Plan

July, August and September 2006 Observations and Notes:

Of the 27 L2 Audit NOAF/NONs issued between July and September 2006, MassDEP cited 37 violations of the MCP.  The most common violation(s) cited were: a) 310 CMR 40.0311(7), failure to report any release of OHM, in any quantity or concentration, that poses or could pose an Imminent Hazard as described at 40.0321 and 40.0950; b) 310 CMR 40.0313(3), failure to notify of a release (requires 72 hours notice) of OHM that results in an exceedance of RCGW-1 within:(a) Zone I; (b) 500 feet of a private well; and c) 310 CMR 40.0412, failure to conduct an Immediate Response Action as required. 

Of the 28 L3 Audit NOAF/NONs issued between July and September 2006, MassDEP cited 62 violations of the MCP.  The most common violation cited was 310 CMR 40.0904(2)(a), failure to define the horizontal and vertical extent and concentrations of oil and/or hazardous materials in all evaluated media.

COMING SOON: 2006 Updates to the Level 1 Audit Technical Screening Forms, which will be posted on the Audit Program website. 

A complete Audit Program Fact Sheet together with a recently updated compilation of Helpful Hints is located on MassDEP's Audit Program website at: http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/compliance/audits.htm.