MCP Regulatory Reform

1. MCP Regulatory Reform Waste Site Cleanup Advisory Committee January 26, 2012

2. Background • MassDEP initiated effort to identify regulatory reform proposals in Spring 2011 • Sought proposals that • Respond to reduction in agency resources • Ensure same level of environmental protection

3. Commissioner’s Draft Regulatory Reform Plan • “Commissioner’s Draft Plan for Regulatory Reform at MassDEP” released Oct. 24, 2011 • 21 proposals • Public comments due Dec. 5, 2011 http://www.mass.gov/dep/about/priorities/regreform/rrapdraft.pdf

4. BWSC’s Formal Regulatory Reform Proposals Simplify Activity and Use Limitations (proposal #17) Eliminate Tier I Permits/Streamline Tier Classification & NRS (proposal #18)

5. Other MCP Amendments to be Packaged with Regulatory Reform • Vapor Intrusion •   LNAPL •   Standards Update • Miscellaneous

6. Public Comments - MCP Formal Reg Reform Proposals

7. Public Comments -Simplify AULs • Proposal to simplify AULs widely supported • Several comments emphasized the importance of AULs as an MCP tool; simplification should not compromise AUL communication function, should improve Post-RAO compliance

8. Public Comments -Simplify AULs • Involve real estate conveyance professionals in the development of revised forms • More efficient electronic submittal would be a plus, time/cost saver • Consider expanding scope to provide for Notices of AULs at federal sites

9. Public Comments - Eliminate Permits/Streamline Tier Class & NRS • Again, largely supported, but some concerns expressed • A few commenters concerned that eliminating permits would eliminate MassDEP’s ability to specify conditions on assessment and cleanup work

10. Public Comments - Eliminate Permits/Streamline Tier Class & NRS • NRS offers “At a glance” picture of the site that makes information accessible • Tier system has the advantage of labeling site as “top, middle, low” which is valued by the public • Don’t want to end up with Ad-hoc prioritization scheme that leads to inconsistency

11. Public Comments - Eliminate Permits/Streamline Tier Class & NRS • ELM commented that Tier I designation has been used as a measure of whether the state was cleaning up the most serious sites (State of the Environment Report) • Open to ideas to simplify; don’t want to lose ability to monitor progress

12. Topic-Specific Discussions AUL Streamlining Thurs., 2/9, 9:30-11:30 am Vapor Intrusion Thurs., 2/9, 1:00-3:00 LNAPL Thurs., 2/16, 1:00 – 3:00 pm MCP Standards Fri., 2/3, 10:00 am-noon Permit/Tier Class/NRS Wed., 2/8, 9:30- 11:30 am RSVP:BWSC.Information@state.ma.us

13. Introducing …the MCP Reg Reform Blog • BWSC has created a blog to provide information and get input on the MCP Regulatory Reform efforts at http://mcpregreform.wordpress.com/

14. Amendments/Issues under Consideration • Vapor Intrusion • Simplify AULs • Permit/Tier Classification/NRS • LNAPL • Standards Ben Ericson Liz Callahan Paul Locke Ken Marra Nancy Bettinger

15. Potential VI-Related Amendments • Develop New Closure Provisions for VI Sites • Clarify Paths to RAO and ROS • Considering new category of RAO (e.g., RAO-VI) • Will address: • Existing buildings with SSDSs • Create incentives to install SSDSs • Describe necessary safeguards on O&M • Future buildings (development sites) • Clearly flag VI as a potential concern for future construction • (Overlap with AUL reform)

16. Potential VI-Related Amendments, cont. • Encourage source control by clarifying requirement to “eliminate or control” • Reduce the frequency of Status Reports for SSDSs once shown to be effective • Amend CEP provisions to clarify conditions for closing IRAs to address CEPs

17. Simplifying AULs

18. Simplifying AULs - Initial Proposals • Changes discussed by MassDEP to date are both regulatory and eDEP-related • Focus on reducing unnecessary, redundant elements of the AUL, making compliance easier, improving public accessibility to AUL information

19. Simplifying AULs - Initial Proposals • Eliminate AUL Opinion • AUL Opinion is largely redundant with Form 1075; provide space on Form 1075 to narrate site-specific conditions and reason for the AUL (basis for AUL can be further narrated in RAO documentation) • Eliminating AUL Opinion eliminates need for BWSC 113A transmittal form • Eliminate Exhibit A (legal description of parcel) • - Is already part of the deed

20. Simplifying AULs - Initial Proposals • Provide drop down list of common consistent/inconsistent uses (retain “other” option) • Incorporation of AUL into future deeds (current requirement) – provide confirmation documentation to MassDEP • Create on-line form to update current owner contact information • Use transmittal form information to create web abstract of AUL information – public accessibility

21. Simplifying AULs – Next Steps • Meeting on Feb 9th • Discuss merit of MassDEP’s proposals • Gather suggestions & discuss other proposals

22. Eliminate Permits/Streamline Tier Class/NRS

24. Revisions to NRS – Tier Classification – Permits

25. Purpose of the Numerical Ranking System (NRS) Used to score a site and determine the appropriate Tier Classification Also, the NRS is useful for • Shaping the Phase I investigation objectives; • Highlighting exposures that may need immediate attention; • Summarizing preliminary site information in a standard format.

26. Purpose of Tier Classification Categorize sites on the basis of “importance” for the purposes of determining the appropriate level of DEP oversight. Also, Tier Classification is useful for • Targeting enforcement actions; • Considering public funding of cleanup; • Providing the public with a broad measure of the significance of a particular site and/or the universe of sites in the Commonwealth.

27. Purpose of MCP Permits 21E Permits "constitute permission from DEP for LSPs to conduct comprehensive assessments of sites and associated risks, and to plan and implement permanent solutions on the basis of these assessments.“ Also, Permitting is useful for • Clarifying who among multiple PRPs is conducting Response Actions • Indicating willingness and ability to do work • Providing vehicle for site-specific requirements

28. 2003 Streamlining Revisions • LSP Tier Classification Opinion using Numerical Ranking System (NRS) scoring retained • DEP retains the ability to reclassify • A Permit for Tier I sites still required one year from notification. • Review process for applications for Tier I Permits was simplified and streamlined... with 45 day (later reduced by 20%!) presumptive approval • DEP has ability to extend the review period • DEP approvals at Tier IA sites ONLY if DEP chooses • Tier 1A annual compliance fee set at a flat fee • Default Tier ID category created • Public Involvement requirements retained

29. What Next? – Preliminary Thoughts Retain useful aspects of NRS / TC / Permits while eliminating unnecessary aspects. • Replace presumptive approval permit application with “Permit By Rule” approach • Simplify site classification to a “Priority – Non-Priority” or “High-Medium-Low Priority” • Base classification on streamlined criteria, replacing quantitative NRS

30. Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPL)

31. 310 CMR 40.0996: • “The presence of non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPL) having a thickness equal to or greater than ½ inchin any environmental medium is considered to be a level which exceeds Upper Concentration Limits (UCLs)” and hence which prohibits the attainment of a Permanent Solution.

32. 310 CMR 40.0006: • This thickness is “as a continuous separate phaseas measured in a groundwater monitoring wellor otherwise observed in the environment.”

33. Multi-Phase Fluid Flow in Porous Media Fundamental More accurate Not necessarily simple

34. Guiding Principles • Keep it simple • Focus on MCP and PS • Clear, established, peer- reviewed, published works

35. Draft for intra-agency policy deliberation only. Do not cite or quote.

36. Next Steps • Regulatory Reform Meeting (Feb. 16, 1-3 pm) • ITRC Training (tentatively scheduled for Apr. 5 & 6) • Complete Guidance & Reconvene LNAPL Workgroup (TBD)

37. LNAPL • Ken Marra, P.E. • 617-292-5966 • Kendall.Marra@state.ma.us

38. MCP Standards

39. Proposed Revision of Toxicity Values for Method 1 Standards January 2012 Office of Research and Standards Nancy Bettinger 617-556-1159 nancy.bettinger@state.ma.us

40. Toxicity Value Revision • Identify the revised values: February 3 - Technical workgroup meeting to summarize and discuss changes under consideration • Develop proposed Method 1 Standards

41. Changes Under Consideration Planning changes based on: • Updated IRIS values – 11 chemicals • Updated CHEM/AAL values - 3 chemicals (Chemical Health Effects Methodology and Allowable Ambient Limits) • Updated DW Guideline – 1 chemical Proposing changes based on: • PPRTVs ~ 30 chemicals (EPA Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values)

42. PPRTVs • Are developed by EPA’s NCEA/Superfund Technical Support Center for use when an IRIS value is not available. • Have been used by EPA for several years. • Are now widely used by EPA, other states and the military in the absence of IRIS values • Documentation became available to the public early in 2011.