In This Issue

• President's Message
• PFAS Analysis of Drinking Water by EPA Method 533
• Temporary Solutions: 2018-2019 NOAFs and Draft MCP Amendments
• Review of FY18 NOAFs for LNAPL
  
• Lessons Learned from MNA- and ROS-related NOAFs
  
• Findings From FY18 Risk Characterization NOAFs

The LSPA would appreciate your feedback on the articles included in the July 2020 newsletter. Please send your comments and questions to [email protected].

President's Message 

Greetings to everyone in this physically distant and new "normal" time. It is an understatement to say that A LOT has changed since the last LSPA newsletter.  

Michele Paul, LSP, President

Back to top

PFAS Analysis of Drinking Water by EPA Method 533

By Jim Occhialini, Vice President, Alpha Analytical, and LSPA Technical Practices Committee

EPA METHOD 533: “DETERMINATION OF PER- AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES IN DRINKING WATER BY ISOTOPE DILUTION ANION EXCHANGE SOLID PHASE EXTRACTION AND LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY/TANDEM MASS SPECTROMETRY”.

This new Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) analytical method was released by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in December 2019; it includes some significant improvements over the existing EPA PFAS drinking water procedure, Method 537.1. 

There are two primary procedural differences between the two methods:

1. Method 533 incorporates the use of extracted internal standards as part of an isotopic dilution quantification approach whereas Method 537.1 does not. The use of the isotope dilution technique reduces the overall uncertainty associated with the analysis. 
2. Method 533 uses a weak anion exchange (WAX) solid phase extraction (SPE) cartridge instead of the polystyrene divinylbenzene (SDVB) used in Method 537.1.  The use of the WAX SPE cartridge in Method 533 allows for additional PFAS compounds to be determined, particularly short chain PFAS not amenable to Method 537.1 analysis.

Method 533 lists 25 PFAS compounds that can be analyzed and Method 537.1 lists 18 PFAS compounds. It should be noted that not all 18 of the Method 537.1 compounds can be determined by Method 533, even though it has a 25-compound list. The Method 533 list contains 14 Method 537.1 compounds, plus 7 additional compounds that are on U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and other compound lists, as well as 4 totally new PFAS compounds that were previously not on any PFAS analytical list.  Therefore, the maximum number of PFAS compounds that drinking water can be analyzed for using both Method 537.1 and Method 533 is 29. It should be noted that the 6 PFAS compounds listed in the updated December 2019 MCP Method 1 standards and the proposed Massachusetts MCLs are included in both methods, the new Method 533 and Method 537.1.  Please see the EPA table that lists the PFAS compounds amenable to each drinking water method.

Another significant difference between the two methods is the holding times required by each. Method 533 allows for 28 days to extraction and another 28 days to analyze, whereas Method 537.1 only allows 14 days to extraction and another 28 days to analyze.  There are different preservatives used as well: ammonium acetate is used for Method 533 and Trisma® is used with Method 537.1.

Method 537.1 and Method 533 are primarily limited to clean water applications. For all other cases, where non-potable water, soils, or tissues need to be analyzed, another analytical method will need to be utilized. This is also the case when there are additional specific PFAS compounds that need to be included that are not on either method’s target compound list.  Given that Method 533 has just been released, it may not yet be available for laboratory certification in specific states; practitioners interested in using this method for drinking water compliance in a specific state should inquire about laboratory certification status.   

Back to top

Temporary Solutions: 2018-2019 NOAFs and Draft MCP Amendments 

 By James H. Zigmont, LSP, P.G., CDM Smith, and Loss Prevention Committee

The Loss Prevention Committee’s review of enforcement notices involving Temporary Solutions from fiscal years (FY) 2018 (July 2017 through June 2018) and 2019 (July 2018 through June 2019) identified 23 disposal sites in each of the two fiscal years that were recipients of Notices of Audit Findings (NOAFs), Notices of Noncompliance (NONs), or Administrative Consent Orders with Penalties (ACOPs). As in FY 2017, some NOAFs found no violations relating to sites with Temporary Solution status. For FY 2018, five of the 23 notices identified no violations; for FY 2019, there were nine notices involving no violations. There were eight such notices out of 29 Temporary Solution sites reviewed for FY 2017.

As part of its review of NOAFs, the Committee looks for possible enforcement differences among the MassDEP regions. A review of the number of enforcement notices involving Temporary Solution sites as performed by MassDEP regions is summarized as follows:

Remarkably enough, the number of enforcement notices for each of the past two years is identical for each of the four MassDEP regions. Differences among the regions in FY 2017 and FY2016 can be explained in part by the issuance of NONs as form letters for failure to submit 5-year Periodic Reviews by Western Region (FY2016) and Northeast Region (FY2016 and FY2017). Similar form letters were not issued by any of the regions in FY2018 and FY2019. Aside from these statistics, there were no regional patterns of MassDEP review that could be termed substantive. 

Consistent with past years, the most typical violations in FY2018 and FY2019 involved the failure to maintain compliance with Post-temporary Solution regulations. For FY2018, 11 of the 18 sites cited for violations fall into this category; for FY2019, 10 of the 14 sites cited for violations similarly were in non-compliance with Post-temporary Solution regulations. Violations included failure to submit Post-temporary Solution Status Reports (310 CMR 40.0898), Remedial Monitoring Reports (310 CMR 40.0898), and 5-year Periodic Reviews (310 CMR 40.1050(4)(b)). A number of NONs cited the failure to perform Post-temporary Solution operation, maintenance, or monitoring as proposed in the Temporary Solution Statements.  

Earlier MassDEP presentations forecasting the now‑issued 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) indicated that the Department recognizes the challenges of the current Temporary Solution regulations, and that they are the basis for a wide variety of response actions with different objectives.   The Committee’s experience in reviewing audit findings is that there is a recurring set of Temporary Solution regulations subject to common non-compliance. These are summarized as follows:

• 310 CMR 40.0560: Response Action Deadlines and Requirements for Tier Classified Disposal Sites – general Tier Classification requirements not specific to Temporary Solution status but cited for those instances where Post-temporary Solution remediation is performed without active Tier Classification status.

• 310 CMR 40.0897: Post-temporary Solution Operation, Maintenance and/or Monitoring – requirements by which operation, maintenance, and monitoring of a Comprehensive Remedial Action must be performed following submittal of a Temporary Solution Statement, including a reference to reporting obligations.

• 310 CMR 40.0898: Post-temporary Solution Status and Remedial Monitoring Reports – reporting obligations for those Temporary Solution sites that are performing Active Operation and Maintenance (O&M).

• 310 CMR 40.0956: Substantial Hazard Evaluation – requirements for determining a condition of No Substantial Hazard in support of a Temporary Solution Statement.

• 310 CMR 40.1050: Temporary Solutions – general requirements for achievement of Temporary Solution status. 

• 310 CMR 40.1067: Remedial Actions After a Permanent or Temporary Solution Statement has been Submitted to the Department – specific to Temporary Solutions, Post-temporary Solution remedial actions must be conducted under a valid Tier Classification or Extension thereof (310 CMR 40.1067(7)).

Not addressed in the above citations is the requirement that every 5-year Periodic Review (310 CMR 40.1050(4)(b)) include an update of the Substantial Hazard Evaluation. Indeed, this requirement is not directly stated anywhere in the MCP, either in current or proposed amendment versions, but is sometimes cited in audit findings.  Its requirement is based on the definition of a Substantial Hazard Evaluation, which includes an assessed exposure period from the time of notification to 5 years into the future (310 CMR 40.0956(1)(b)). There were no such violations cited in the FY2018 enforcement notices and only one in FY2019. However, there were numerous instances of failure to submit a 5-year Periodic Review during both fiscal years.

A key element to compliance, under both the current MCP and the proposed amendments, is proper management of Active O&M performed as Post-temporary Solution response actions. For Post-temporary Solution compliance, Active O&M, regardless of the objective of the Temporary Solution, i.e., a Permanent Solution or maintenance of a condition of No Substantial Hazard, requires six-month reporting of Post-temporary Solution Status Reports and Remedial Monitoring Reports (310 CMR 40.0898). 

For those sites assigned Temporary Solution status and for which no Active O&M is performed, the proposed MCP amendments would require that status reports be submitted annually (310 CMR 40.0898(1)(b)). However, MassDEP recognizes that in some circumstances the content of annual status reports may not be worth the administrative costs of report preparation. In response and based on “considerations including but not limited to the stability of disposal site conditions and current and foreseeable disposal site risk,” proposed MCP amendments would allow Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) to propose lesser reporting frequencies up to the five-year term required for Periodic Reviews (310 CMR 40.0898(1)(c)). Proposals would be subject to a 21-day presumptive approval period. During a March 26, 2020, Advisory Committee meeting, MassDEP stated that it would use its discretion to require reporting at a frequency greater than once in five years if appropriate, e.g., if the PRP needs to be “re-engaged.” If approved, the reduced frequency will apply to reporting only; monitoring frequency and reporting content will remain as is necessary to meet Post-temporary Solution objectives. 

With regard to the requirements of Tier Classification for Temporary Solution sites, the proposed MCP amendments allow that as long as a valid Tier Classification or Extension thereof was in effect at the time the Temporary Solution Statement was filed, the submittal of Post-temporary Solution Status Reports in compliance with 310 CMR 40.0898 will effectively maintain Tier Classification (310 CMR 40.0560(7)(d)(3), 40.0898(1)(e), and 40.1050(4)(c)).

Back to top

Review of FY2018 NOAFs for LNAPL

By Wesley Stimpson, LSP, Loss Prevention Committee and LSPA Past President

Each year the LSPA’s Loss Prevention Committee searches the eDEP files, downloads and visually scans Notices of Audit Findings (NOAFs) and Administrative Consent Orders (ACOs) and organizes them in broad categories.  This article provides selected information believed to be helpful to the professional practice derived from the Light Nonaqueous Phase Liquid (LNAPL) category for MassDEP’s fiscal year 2018 (July 2017-June 2018).

Sixteen documents were reviewed in this category in which LNAPL was present and a major contaminant at the disposal sites.  Fifteen of the documents were NOAFs and one was an ACOP (Administrative Consent Order with Penalty) associated with one of the NOAFs.  Five of the NOAFs indicated that the work reviewed did not require additional response actions; these were primarily field audits for remedial systems inspections (RSI), review of remedy operations status (ROS), and site conditions related to Activity and Use Limitations (AUL). 

NOAFs of Note

CEP Not Addressed

Two of the audits resulted in the Department invalidating the submittal.  Both cases involved the filing of a completion report without undertaking the required evaluation and control of a possible Critical Exposure Pathway (CEP). 

The first case was an audit of a 2017 IRA Completion (IRAC) report where 0.06 feet of LNAPL was documented to be present in a groundwater monitoring well approximately 10-20 feet from a multi-family residential building; the depth to groundwater was approximately 7 feet below the ground surface (bgs).  Appropriate notification was made and an IRA undertaken.  The LSP removed LNAPL from the well, demonstrated that it did not return and decommissioned the well.  Ultimately a volume of soil around the well 14 ft by 15 ft by 6 ft deep was excavated.  The soils from the bottom and sidewalls were screened with a PID and a maximum total VOC concentration of 85.9 ppm was measured. 

The IRAC report concluded that the IRA had sufficiently assessed the initial reporting condition.  The Department did not agree and considered the elevated headspace reading to be an indication of “a potential discharge of vapors into a Residential Dwelling” per 310 CMR 40.0313(4)(f)3.  It determined that an additional evaluation of a possible CEP needed to be undertaken before a valid IRAC report could be filed.

In the second case, a 2017 IRA Completion Statement was audited for an IRA reported in 2011 at a gasoline station site.  Over the years of investigation, LNAPL was confirmed to be present and C₅ to C₈ aliphatics were documented as being present in groundwater and in below-slab and indoor air samples collected in and near occupied dwellings adjacent to the site.  Various LNAPL and vapor recovery actions had been undertaken over the years, including Soil Vapor Extraction, Multi-phase Fluid Extraction, and Enhanced Fluid Recovery.  In addition, a significant amount of LNAPL identification, groundwater quality, and sub-slab and indoor air quality data was obtained. For the completion report, an assessment of risks in the residential structures was undertaken and it was concluded that Imminent Hazard conditions did not exist.

The NOAF pointed out that since the concentration of C₅-C₈ aliphatics in the sub-slab soil gas exceeded the Residential Sub-Slab Soil Gas Screening Values, and the concentration of C₅-C₈ aliphatics in the indoor air exceed the Residential Threshold Values, it should have been concluded that Critical Exposure Pathways (CEPs) exist at both residences.

As specified by 310 CMR 40.0414(3) and (4), an IRA is presumed to require the elimination, prevention, and/or mitigation of a CEP, and pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0427(1)(c) an IRA cannot be considered complete until time-critical measures addressing the elimination, prevention, or mitigation of CEPs have been documented with an LSP Opinion concluding that the CEPs have been eliminated or that further response actions will address the CEP.  The LSP did not address the presence of a CEP in the submittal and therefore did not meet this requirement.

NOAFs Involving 2014 MCP NAPL Changes and 2016 LNAPL Guidance

Two NOAFs provided some insight as to how the Department is looking at the implementation of the 2016 LNAPL Guidance. Both involved the level of effort applied to evaluating the feasibility of recovering LNAPL with micro-scale mobility.

In the case of the first submittals, the parties involved with the site could not come to agreement on the execution and recording of an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL), and therefore the submitted document was filed as a Temporary Solution, but set up to support a Permanent Solution once the AUL issues could be resolved.

The audit took exception to the Temporary Solution Statement because it did not include a plan of definitive and enterprising steps to be taken toward achieving a Permanent Solution. Specifically, the Temporary Solution Statement did not include a plan to resolve ownership issues and signatory authority for filing of the Notice of Activity and Use Limitation (AUL). 

In addition, the Department pointed out that while not required for the Temporary Solution, it did not consider that the information provided in the document adequately demonstrated that NAPL with Micro-Scale Mobility had been removed to the extent feasible necessary to support the filing of a Permanent Solution, should the AUL issue be resolved. 

The feasibility evaluation contained in the Temporary Solution indicated that a pump and treat system had operated at the site for 18 years, followed by the installation of skimmers and absorbent booms into specific recovery wells when the LNAPL thicknesses were too small for the skimmers to operate. It did not reference the LNAPL recovery curve analysis provided in a previous RAM Status report and graphically summarized as an attachment in the Temporary Solution Statement.  This graphic demonstrated the declining effectiveness of the recovery operations.

The TSS stated that the LNAPL was not acting as a source of ongoing contamination to the surrounding environmental media, and was stable.  It pointed out that the site is a very busy office complex and additional excavation and/or installation of an additional remedial system would be extremely disruptive to the existing owner. Further, the additional remedial measures would not be able to reduce the residual petroleum constituents remaining in the portion of the site of concern. The submittal stated, based on this completed feasibility evaluation, that additional response actions were not required to obtain a Permanent Solution with Conditions.

The Department recommended that relevant Department guidance be consulted for assessing NAPL removal feasibility to determine what demonstrations will be needed to support the filing of a Permanent Solution.

The second Department opinion on the content of a feasibility evaluation necessary when NAPL with micro-scale mobility is present was provided in the findings of an audit of a Permanent Solution with Conditions.  The feasibility evaluation in the document stated that while technically LNAPL at the site could be physically recovered, either by hand-bailing or using a vacuum truck, it was not economically feasible as there was no additional benefit to be gained by recovering the LNAPL since it is located ~18-20 feet below the ground surface within a public right-of-way, and there is no threat of migration to private/public water supplies or threat to indoor air. Based on the fact that the LNAPL did not exhibit macro-scale mobility and the LNAPL plume was shrinking, the TSS concluded that the cost of additional recovery/remedial measures would far outweigh the benefit of any additional recovery that could be accomplished. Therefore, it was concluded that LNAPL with microscale mobility had been recovered to the extent feasible, and no specific recovery scenarios were evaluated.

The Department’s audit pointed out that for a Permanent Solution, response actions must ensure that for the foreseeable future, all NAPL with Micro-scale Mobility is removed if, and to the extent, feasible  based upon consideration of Conceptual Site Model (CSM) principles and the evaluation needed to comply with 310 CMR 40.0860. MassDEP pointed out that the LNAPL Guidance says CSM documentation at NAPL sites must be based on the principles of fluid flow in porous media (FFPM), describing the presence, distribution, behavior, and stability of the NAPL present. It went on to point out that such FFPM-based Lines of Evidence are primarily quantitative in nature and include metrics such as NAPL transmissivity, estimates of recoverable NAPL using Recovery Decline Curve Analysis, and the site-specific calculation of residual NAPL saturation.

Because the metrics provided in the document audited were limited and semi-quantitative in nature, MassDEP judged that the infeasibility of LNAPL recovery at this site had not been conclusively demonstrated.  The NOAF went on to say that whether the costs of NAPL recovery are worth the benefits of recovering it, 310 CMR 40.0860(5)(b) & (7) state that the factors to be considered include determinations of the incremental cost of NAPL recovery, long-term operation and maintenance costs, and the incremental benefits of environmental restoration and monetary and non-pecuniary values. As described above, the evaluation of costs and benefits provided were qualitative in nature and therefore did not fully meet the requirements of the MCP.  A 90-day period was established for the PRP to revise and resubmit the document.

Back to top