1.   MassDEP completed a LII audit of Class C Post-RAO Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring (OMM) activities, including monitoring of groundwater and private drinking water supply wells, and issued a Notice of Audit Finding (NOAF)/Notice of Noncompliance (NON).  The NOAF/NON concluded that response actions were not performed in compliance with the requirements of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) and requested additional follow-up.  Specifically, there is a drinking water supply well at the site, a non-community public water supply well serving a fast-food restaurant, and several other private wells serving residences surrounding the source property.  In November 2001, MassDEP received a Phase III (PHIII) Remedial Action Plan (RAP), which concluded that natural attenuation was not appropriate for this site because it would not achieve a timely Permanent Solution and because it was not deemed effective for methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE).  Instead, the PHIII RAP selected source area soil excavation in combination with bioremediation via the application of oxygen releasing compounds.  In November 2001, MassDEP also received a Phase IV (PHIV) Remedy Implementation Plan (RIP), which provided a detailed proposal to implement the bioremediation proposal and an OMM Plan for groundwater and drinking water supply wells.  However, in May 2003, MassDEP received a Class C Response Action Outcome (RAO), indicating that active bioremediation was not undertaken, and that natural attenuation would address the remaining contamination at the site.  As the result of an October 2005 site inspection, MassDEP noted: a) although the Tier IC permit had expired, assessment activities continue to be performed as comprehensive response actions; b) a March 2005 sample collected from the on-site drinking water well contained 0.7 parts per billion (ppb) methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), which is defined by the MCP as a Substantial Release Migration (SRM), requiring oral notification to MassDEP and the performance of an Immediate Response Action (IRA).  Moreover, site conditions appeared substantially the same as in 2001, and no rationale was provided for the contradicting conclusions in the Phase III and IV reports as opposed to the RAO with regard to the effectiveness of natural attenuation and the need for active bioremediation; d) neither the PHIV OMM Plan nor the proposed sampling plan in the Class C RAO had been implemented.  Within a specified timeframe, MassDEP required submittal of a Tier I Permit Extension Application, implementation of the bioremediation as proposed in the PHIII RAP and as designed in the PHIV RIP, submittal of a Phase IV Final Inspection Report and Phase IV Completion Statement, including the proposed bioremediation, and submittal of a PHV IM Report documenting quarterly monitoring.  (Mendon, RTN 2-0011442, NON-CE-05-3A124, November 3, 2005) 

2.   MassDEP completed a LII audit of dual-phase (vapor and groundwater) extraction and treatment system, and issued a NOAF/NON for failure to engage or employ a Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Operator having a currently valid certification of Grade 2 or higher, as defined in 257 CMR 2.12, to ensure the proper operation and maintenance of the treatment works.  During the inspection, MassDEP noted that a copy of the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Operator's license provided during the inspection indicates that the license was not valid throughout the required three-month inspection periods following the initial commencement of discharges.  MassDEP required that a licensed WWTP be hired to inspect the system and submit a report within 21 calendar days.  (Wellesley, RTN 3-12667, NON-NE-05-3R085, November 29, 2005) 

Level III Audits for November 2005:
MassDEP completed Level III audits and issued NOAFs at 19 sites in November 2005.  Eight NONs were issued with MassDEP's findings.  Level III audits of interest in November 2005 include: 

1.   In February 2000, MassDEP was notified of the sudden release of approximately 839 gallons of No. 2 fuel oil from an underground storage tank (UST).  On the same day, MassDEP received a complaint from a local wastewater treatment plant of fuel oil odors in the intake water at the plant in the vicinity of the release.  MassDEP verbally approved an IRA Plan consisting of removing the UST and excavating up to 25 cubic yards of contaminated soil.  In April 2000, MassDEP received a written IRA Plan and IRA Status Report indicating the UST was removed.  No contaminated soils were removed at that time.  The written IRA Plan limited future IRA activities to installation of soil borings and monitoring wells.  Provisions for soil excavation or source removal were not included in the plan.  The plan was presumptively approved in May 2000.  In April 2001, MassDEP received a Phase I Site Assessment (PHI) and Tier Classification, which identified a further potential indoor air migration pathway assessment for evaluation, but did not indicate that further soil excavation will be conducted as an IRA.  In May 2001, MassDEP issued an Interim Deadline letter to the potentially Responsible Party (PRP) requiring submission of an IRA Status Report.  In August 2002, MassDEP received a second IRA Status Report documenting the excavation and disposal of a reported 66.22 tons of contaminated soils from the former UST location, approximately two years and four months after the underground release.  In May 2003, MassDEP received a Class A-2 RAO Statement.  MassDEP issued a NOAF as well as an Administrative Consent Order with Penalty (ACOP)/NON), concluding that response actions were not performed in compliance with the requirements of the MCP.  MassDEP noted: a) the IRA soil excavation was not conducted in a timely manner and modification of the written IRA Plan was not submitted or approved prior to the excavation; b) MassDEP did not receive four IRA status reports; c) MassDEP did not receive an IRA Status Report as required by an Interim Deadline; d) MassDEP did not receive a Tier Classification Submittal or RAO within one-year of release notification; and e) the PHII Report and PHIII Report were not submitted within two years of the effective date of Tier Classification.  MassDEP entered into an agreement for a $2,580 penalty.  In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to correct the violations.  (Clinton, RTN 2-0013152, ACOP-CE-05-3A026, November 7, 2005).

2.   In May 1992, MassDEP issued a Notice of Responsibility (NOR) for a release of gasoline at a municipal site, which was subsequently classified as a Tier II disposal site in November 1998.  Gasoline had been detected as a non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) layer in groundwater monitoring wells at the site.  NAPL was first observed in October 2000 during PHII investigations.  An IRA was initiated to address the NAPL.  The IRA was completed in November 2001.  Intermittent gauging for NAPL was conducted between October 2002 and July 2004, with no measurable detections.  Nearly 7 feet of NAPL was again observed in July 2004.  Since October 2000, gasoline constituents have also been detected in the surface water of an unnamed stream that runs along the western property boundary.  In January 2003, MassDEP was notified of a condition of Substantial Release Migration (SRM), consisting of dissolved gasoline in surface water.  MassDEP approved as an IRA quarterly sampling of surface water for one year, and an evaluation of the catch basins and storm drain system at the site.  In May 2001, MassDEP received a PHII Report and PHIII Report.  MassDEP issued an Administrative Consent Order (ACO)/NON concluding that response actions were not performed in compliance with the requirements of the MCP and requested additional follow-up.  MassDEP noted that: a) the monitoring wells at the site are not appropriately located to assess impacts from the release to groundwater and migration pathways to surface water; b) a Stage I Screening of environmental risks was conducted, which indicated "a potential risk to the environment" was present; however, instead of conducting a Stage II Environmental Risk Characterization (ERC), additional sampling was proposed to confirm the Stage I results, prior to potentially undertaking a Stage II ERC.  The proposed additional sampling was not performed, and a Stage II ERC was not completed; c) the PHIV OMM Plan submitted in November 2001 specified quarterly analysis of groundwater, surface water, and sediment, which has not been conducted on a quarterly basis; d) 6-month Phase V status reports have not been received by MassDEP since 2003; e) IRA activities to address SRM conditions are not being conducted in accordance to the approved plan, f) MassDEP was not verbally notified of the July 2004 release of NAPL that had a measured thickness equal to or greater than 0.5 inches, however, learned of the condition through an IRA status report for the SRM condition; and g) method detection limits on laboratory analytical data sheets periodically exceeded Method 1 standards for samples where there is no detected concentration of contaminants.  MassDEP required submittal of a plan outlining steps to assess the source and extent of NAPL; submittal of a plan outlining the steps to determine the source and migration pathway for contamination detected in the stream, with a more complete assessment of the storm drain system, including quarterly sampling and analysis of the stream; submittal of a revised PHII report that includes the findings of the additional assessment actions, and a revised Risk Characterization, including a Stage II ERC if required, submittal of a revised PHIII that evaluates all remedies to reduce or eliminate the NAPL and eliminate any discharges to the stream; and submittal of a revised PHIV.  (Northampton, RTN 1-00973, NON/ACO-WE-05-3A014, November 23, 2005).

Helpful Hint
Q: Do MassDEP cleanup standards exist for sediment?