Posted on Tue, Aug 25, 2009 @ 09:13 AM
By John Bailey, Environmental Compliance Advisor, Triumvirate Somerville
Preliminary Response Actions-Part I
The Massachusetts Contingency Plan (310 CMR 40.0000) “the MCP” allows three main types of preliminary response actions at disposal sites. These are Limited Removal Actions, Immediate Response Actions and Release Abatement Measures. The regulations related to Limited Removal Actions are described below.
Limited Removal Actions (“LRA”) are described in section 40.0318 of the MCP. LRA’s are restricted to the removal of contaminated soil. While performing a LRA contaminated soil can be removed from a site under certain conditions without notification or reporting to the MA DEP, or direct oversight by the MA DEP.
LRAs can be conducted for soil that would be a “120 Day Notification” release if the volume of contaminated soil is less than 100 cubic yards for oil or waste oil contamination, or 20 cubic yards for contamination by other hazardous materials.
LRAs cannot be conducted for releases requiring “2 Hour” or “72 Hour” notification, or after the MA DEP has been notified of a release.
All excavation activities related to the LRA must be conducted within 120 days of obtaining knowledge of the release, and all contaminated soil generated must be managed in accordance with the remediation waste management procedures detailed in section 40.0030 of the MCP. Management of remediation waste typically requires transportation using a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, or a MA DEP Bill of Lading form signed by a Licensed Site Professional, and recycling or disposal at a permitted facility.
Look for future engineering blogs about MCP Preliminary Response Actions, Immediate Response Actions, Release Abatement Measures, and other topics. Please contact Triumvirate’s Engineering group for more information, we have Licensed Site Professionals and Environmental Engineers ready to answer your questions.
Posted on Thu, May 14, 2009 @ 12:41 PM
By John Bailey, Environmental Compliance Advisor
The Massachusetts Board of Fire Prevention Regulations, 527 CMR 9.07 Section P, now requires third party inspections of underground storage tanks (USTs). The regulations require all owners or operators of USTs have inspections performed by third party inspectors. Inspections are required upon installation for new USTs, and prior to August 8, 2010, and every three years thereafter, for existing USTs.
Note that farm or residential USTs of 1,100 gallons capacity or less used for storing motor fuel for noncommercial purposes, and residential or commercial USTs storing heating oil (fuel oil) for consumptive use on the premises are exempt from these third-party inspection requirements.
The inspector determines that the following systems are appropriate, in place, and operational is conducted: corrosion protection; overfill prevention; spill prevention, tank and piping release detection; and secondary containment.
In addition to an inspection of the UST systems, documentation reviewed during the inspection includes: current licenses, permits and registration forms; copies of the manufacturers operating instructions and current inspection and testing records for leak detection and monitoring systems; evidence of financial responsibility; records of any release reporting and investigation; and temporary or permanent closure records.
The inspector is required to submit copies of the inspection form to the State Fire Marshall and to the head of the local fire department within 14 days of completing the inspection.
Many other changes went into effect on April 1, 2008 when these changes were announced. A summary of the changes is available at the website of the State Fire Marshall. Please contact Triumvirate's engineering services group with questions about your facilities' USTs.
Posted on Wed, Apr 08, 2009 @ 12:23 PM
By Michael Bricher, Senior Environmental Engineer
Over the past two years, there has been an increase concern from the regulatory community, its Licensed Site Professionals (LSPs), and environmental attorneys regarding Mass DEP's implementation of vapor intrusion requirements at Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) sites.
Over a 100 MCP audited sites have been recently re-opened by Mass DEP due to potential vapor intrusion concerns which include some sites that have been closed for more than 15 years. As a result, the responsible parties have been required to perform additional environmental response actions at a significant expense. In many cases, the audited sites were closed out in accordance with the regulations that applied at that time.
As a result of Mass DEP's revised approach and more stringent requirements (some of which are still in draft) to address potential vapor intrusion, there's much more uncertainty concerning what it takes to achieve MCP closure for VI sites. For example:
• Can you really rely on vapor intrusion modeling now?
• Do you need Mass DEP review and approval of every vapor intrusion site in order to be comfortable that real closure has been achieved?
In response to the increasing degree of uncertainty from the public regarding Mass DEP's policies for addressing potential vapor intrusion at MCP sites, Mass DEP has convened an Indoor Air Workgroup to develop an Updated Vapor Intrusion Guidance Document. In order to stay current with Mass DEP's approach and requirements for potential vapor intrusion, Triumvirate recommends that you review the latest draft version of the Assessment section in the New Vapor Intrusion Guidance (dated March 27, 2009). The link is provided below:
http://indoorairproject.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/assessment-text-draft-3-27-093.doc