PROPOSED RULEMAKING
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY BOARD
[25 PA. CODE CH. 250]
Administration of Land Recycling Program
[30 Pa.B. 3946] The Environmental Quality Board (Board) proposes to amend Chapter 250 (relating to administration of land recycling program). The amendments provide up-to-date scientific information on toxicity and other parameters of substances and corresponding changes along with corrections to the Statewide health standard medium specific concentrations (numeric standards). The amendments also propose policy clarifications and changes raised as issues during the Department of Environmental Protection's (Department) 1998-99 land recycling program evaluation.
This proposal was adopted by the Board at its meeting of June 20, 2000.
A. Effective Date
These amendments will go into effect upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin as final rulemaking.
B. Contact Persons
For further information Thomas K. Fidler, Chief, Division of Land Recycling and Cleanup Program, P. O. Box 8471, Rachel Carson State Office Building, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8471, (717) 783-7816, or Kurt E. Klapkowski, Assistant Counsel, Bureau of Regulatory Counsel, P. O. Box 8464, Rachel Carson State Office Building, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8464, (717) 787-7060. Information regarding submitting comments on this proposal appears in Section I of this preamble. Persons with a disability may use the AT&T Relay Service by calling (800) 654-5984 (TDD users) or (800) 654-5988 (voice users). This proposal is available electronically through the Department's Web site (http://www.dep.state.pa.us).
C. Statutory Authority
This rulemaking is being made under the authority of sections 104(a), 301(c) and 303(a) of the Land Recycling and Environmental Remediation Standards Act (35 P. S. §§ 6026.104(a), 6026.301(c) and 6026.303(a)) (Act 2). Section 104(a) authorizes the Board to adopt Statewide health standards, appropriate mathematically valid statistical tests to define compliance with Act 2 and other regulations that may be needed to implement the provisions of Act 2. Section 30l(c) of Act 2 authorizes the Department to establish by regulation procedures for determining attainment of remediation standards when practical quantitation limits set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have a health risk that is greater than the risk levels established in section 301(c) of Act 2. Section 303(a) of Act 2 authorizes the Board to promulgate Statewide health standards for regulated substances for each environmental medium and methods used to calculate the standards. This rulemaking is also being made under the authority of section 105(a) of the Solid Waste Management Act (35 P. S. § 6018.105(a)) (SWMA). Section 105(a) of the SWMA grants the Board the power and duty to adopt the rules and regulations of the Department to carry out the provisions of the SWMA.
D. Background and Purpose
Aside from minor typographical or technical corrections to the 1997 rule, there are two basic reasons for the changes in this regulatory proposal. The first is more up-to-date scientific information on parameters which effect the calculation of the Statewide health standard medium-specific concentrations (MSCs). The second is policy clarifications or developments which the Department determined would improve implementation of the Statewide health standard and attainment provisions in the rule.
The Cleanup Standards Scientific Advisory Board (CSSAB) was consulted on the proposed changes. The Department has incorporated into this proposal language suggested by the CSSAB. On February 3, 2000, the CSSAB voted to recommend approval of the proposed regulation package.
E. Summary of Regulatory Requirements
Subchapter A. General Provisions 1. Section 250.1. Definitions.
A definition has been added for the term ''agricultural purposes'' to clarify what they are and that they include food processing. The term is used in § 250.303(c)(1) (relating to aquifer determination; current use and currently planned use of aquifer groundwater). Its scope is important in the nonuse aquifer determination because groundwater usage for drinking water and agricultural purposes are protected.
2. Section 250.5. Public notice by applicant.
The proposal contains a new requirement for newspaper and municipal notices when a request for determination of nonuse aquifer area is made. These edits are made in conjunction with the changes proposed in §§ 250.6 and 250.303.
3. Section 250.6. Public participation.
Changes are proposed to provide for public participation when request is made for nonuse aquifer determination. Municipalities and public water suppliers will have the opportunity to comment on the nonuse aquifer designations made by the Department. In cases where municipalities propose to ''precertify'' areas as meeting nonuse aquifer provisions of § 250.303, a public participation plan is required. These edits are made in conjunction with the changes proposed in §§ 250.5 and 250.303.
Subchapter C. Statewide Health Standards 1. Section 250.303. Aquifer determination; current use and currently planned use of aquifer groundwater.
The proposal includes three changes to this section. Since the determination of nonuse aquifer status affects the use of groundwater in an area, the Department feels it is important that the local municipality and public water supplier be given an opportunity for participation prior to the Department making the determination. The nonuse aquifer designation under the Statewide health standard is based on a number of factors, one of which is that there are no water supply wells in the area defined in the regulations. The proposed changes are made in conjunction with changes in §§ 250.5 and 250.6.
The proposal modifies § 250.303(b) to specify that the conditions of subsection (c) are met 1,000 feet downgradient of all points of compliance plus any areas to which the contamination would reasonably migrate at levels above the MSC for groundwater used or currently planned to be used. The proposal deletes the reference in the 1997 rule that specifically required the conditions to be met ''within the property.'' This phrase is unnecessary because the sentence goes on to include ''. . . any additional areas where the contamination might reasonably migrate at concentrations that exceed the MSC for groundwater used or currently planned to be used.'' Furthermore, the effect of the present wording is to ''disqualify'' properties which may be relatively large compared to their contaminant plumes, because the nonuse criteria (such as, must be greater than 1/2 mile from a municipal well which is in the upgradient direction) apply to the entire (large) property even if the contamination could not reasonably ever migrate to every part of it.
A new section is proposed for the regulation to provide for a process whereby municipal authorities, political subdivisions or Commonwealth agencies could ''precertify'' that a given area meets the requirements for nonuse aquifer designation in § 250.303(b). This would expedite land reuse in urban areas where nonuse aquifer criteria clearly apply. Precertification in advance of any NIR would greatly aid any remediator considering applying Act 2 nonuse aquifer standards in these areas. A public participation plan is required as part of this process.
2. Section 250.304. MSCs for groundwater.
The 1997 rule did not establish a hierarchy for the use of sources of data for aqueous solubility used to calculate the caps for the groundwater MSCs. Section 250.304(f) is proposed to be revised to provide such a hierarchy. This hierarchy was developed in close consultation with the CSSAB. The CSSAB also provided a methodology for selecting the appropriate solubility value as follows:
If the values in the first two references agree within 5%, then the lower of the two values is used.
If the values in the first two references do not agree within 5%, or there are not two values in those references, then the next reference is consulted, until two values within 5% are found. The selected value is the median of all values examined.
If none of the values for a compound agree within 5% from all references, then the selected value is the median of all values examined.
3. Section 250.311. Evaluation of ecological receptors.
The third step of the ecological screen evaluates whether Constituents of Potential Ecological Concern (CPECs) are present on the site. A number of CPECs (such as iron) occur naturally and were not originally intended to be included in the evaluation of the presence of CPECs. The proposal amends subsections (c) and (d) to clarify that the evaluation of CPECs on a site includes only those associated with the releases at a site.
Subchapter G. Demonstration of Attainment 1. Section 250.703. General attainment requirements for soil.
The proposal amends this section to make it clear that attainment tests for soils are applied to the volume of soil initially found to be exceeding the selected standards unless that soil is removed from the site. If the contaminated soil is removed from the site, attainment sampling is applied to the base of the excavation outlined by that volume of soil.
2. Section 250.707. Statistical tests.
The Department is proposing new wording to this section to address small excavation cleanups of petroleum releases where no prior site characterization is performed. The proposal establishes a quick, clear, nonexceedance demonstration test that could be applied in these situations. This would include sites such as tank sites or spills along highway interstates. Commonly on these small sites excavation is conducted prior to any site characterization sampling. The sampling conducted is at the end of the excavation and is simply to confirm that the excavation is complete. Although such an approach eliminates the site characterization sampling which would typically be required, a nonexceedance test is applied to the excavation attainment samples. This will save time, money and will be more practically applied for remediators of small excavations. Optionally, a remediator could fully characterize the site prior to excavation, and ultimately apply any of the statistical tests provided for under § 250.707.
Appendix A Tables 1--5, and Table 6 The 1997 rule contained a finite listing of MSCs for regulated substances in Appendix A, Tables 1--4 and in Table 6, Threshold of Regulation Compounds, for substances that had no toxicology information available (Table 6 substances). For some Table 6 substances, toxicology information has become available from the sources listed in § 250.605 (relating to sources of toxicity information) since 1997. For those substances, MSCs under Tables 1--4 have been calculated, appropriate chemical properties added in Table 5, Physical and Toxicological Properties, and those substances have been removed from Table 6. Additionally, several substances that were not included in either Tables 1--5 or Table 6, but which did have toxicology information available, were recommended for inclusion in Tables 1--5 by the CSSAB. Finally, several typographical errors were corrected.
This proposal amends Table 5, Physical and Toxicological Properties, to incorporate updates in toxicity values. These updates in toxicity values can be classified into four categories:
1. New toxicity values that are different from what are presented in Table 5 of the 1997 rule. These are new values developed by the EPA and other agencies since the final-form regulations were promulgated in 1997.
2. Toxicity values for new regulated substances proposed to be added to the current Statewide health standard tables.
3. Toxicity values for the Table 6 substances. Table 6 substances did not have toxicity values available when the final-form regulations were promulgated in 1997. Due to continuous development of toxicity values by the EPA and other agencies, some of the Table 6 substances may have toxicity values now. This proposal contains new MSCs for these substances.
4. Additional toxicity values for the compounds on the current Statewide health standard tables. For some regulated substances, the MSCs in the 1997 rule were developed based on carcinogenic effects only because no toxicity values based on noncarcinogenic effects were available when the final regulation was promulgated in 1997. When additional appropriate carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic toxicity values have been developed since 1997 for regulated substances that are on the current Statewide health standard tables, the Department is proposing to use these new toxicity values to make changes in existing MSCs.
Table 1--MSCs for Organic Regulated Substances in Groundwater The 1997 rule contained groundwater MSCs for individual PCB aroclors. The CSSAB recommended that the EPA MCL for total PCB be included in Table 1, in addition to the individual PCB aroclors. Section 303(b)(3) of Act 2 requires MCLs established by the EPA to be the MSC for groundwater in aquifers used or currently planned to be used for drinking water or agricultural purposes.
Table 2--MSCs for Inorganic Regulated Substances in Groundwater The 1997 rule applied the groundwater MCL for total chromium in calculating the generic numeric soil to groundwater value for chromium III, but did not do so in calculating the generic value for chromium VI. The CSSAB recommended that the calculation for chromium VI be changed to be consistent with the calculation for chromium III, by utilizing the EPA MCL for total chromium for both.
F. Benefits, Costs and Compliance
Executive Order 1996-1 requires a cost/benefit analysis of the proposed rulemaking.
Benefits
Remediators will benefit from the additional flexibility being proposed for demonstrating attainment on groundwater cleanups and in cases where small excavation of soil cleanups are performed. The remediators will also benefit from having information and standards that incorporate more current scientific information than was available when the final-form regulations were promulgated in 1997. The public will benefit from the increased opportunity to participate in the designation of nonuse aquifer areas. Local governments will benefit from their ability to provide comments on nonuse aquifer area designation decisions and in their ability to ''precertify'' areas in their community as meeting the nonuse aquifer conditions of § 250.303.
Compliance Costs
These proposed amendments do not directly increase costs of compliance. Indirectly, there may be increased costs in some areas and decreased costs in other areas. Increased costs for remediators will occur in cases where the local municipality requests a public involvement plan in the designation of a nonuse aquifer area. These costs will be related to the development of a public participation plan, interaction with the municipality and project delays related to the additional time required to have the municipality involved in the process. Decreased costs will occur associated with the demonstration of attainment of a standard in cases of minor groundwater or soil contamination.
Compliance Assistance Plan
The land recycling program regularly provides outreach in two areas: updates to the technical guidance manual supporting Chapter 250, and in annual client workshops where training on the regulations, guidance and policies takes place.
Paperwork Requirements
No new paperwork is required by this proposed rulemaking. Additional paperwork will be required when an area-wide determination of nonuse aquifer status is voluntarily sought under § 250.303. It should be noted, however, that a determination will ultimately lead to a reduction in paperwork for remediators who wish to use the area-wide nonuse aquifer determination in future cleanups.
G. Sunset Review
These regulations will be reviewed in accordance with the sunset review schedule published by the Department to determine whether the regulations effectively fulfill the goals for which they were intended.
H. Regulatory Review
Under section 5(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5(a)), on July 11, 2000, the Department submitted a copy of these proposed amendments to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and the Chairpersons of the House and Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committees. In addition to submitting the proposed amendments, the Department has provided IRRC and the Committees with a copy of a detailed regulatory analysis form prepared by the Department in compliance with Executive Order 1996-1, ''Regulatory Review and Promulgation.'' A copy of this material is available to the public upon request.
Under section 5(g) of the Regulatory Review Act, if IRRC has objections to any portion of the proposed amendments, it will notify the Department within 10 days of the close of the Committees' review period. The notification shall specify the regulatory review criteria which have not been met by that portion of the proposed amendments to which an objection is made. The Regulatory Review Act specifies detailed procedures for review, prior to final publication of the amendments, by the Department, the General Assembly and the Governor of objections raised.
I. Public Comments
Written Comments--Interested persons are invited to submit comments, suggestions or objections regarding the proposed amendments to the Environmental Quality Board, P. O. Box 8477, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8477 (express mail: Rachel Carson State Office Building, 15th Floor, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101-2301). Comments submitted by facsimile will not be accepted. Comments, suggestions or objections must be received by the Board by September 27, 2000 (within 60 days of publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin). Interested persons may also submit a summary of their comments to the Board. The summary may not exceed one page in length and must also be received by September 27, 2000 (within 60 days following publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin). The one-page summary will be provided to each member of the Board in the agenda packet distributed prior to the meeting at which the final regulation will be considered.
Electronic Comments--Comments may be submitted electronically to the Board at RegComments@dep.state. pa.us and must also be received by the Board by September 27, 2000. A subject heading of the proposal and a return name and address must be included in each transmission. If an acknowledgment of electronic comments is not received by the sender within 2 working days, the comments should be retransmitted to ensure receipt.
JAMES M. SEIF,
ChairpersonFiscal Note: 7-356. No fiscal impact; (8) recommends adoption.
Annex A
TITLE 25. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
PART I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Subpart D. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
ARTICLE VI. GENERAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
CHAPTER 250. ADMINISTRATION OF LAND RECYCLING PROGRAM
Subchapter A. GENERAL PROVISIONS § 250.1. Definitions.
In addition to the words and terms defined in the act, the following words and terms, when used in this chapter, have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
* * * * * Agricultural purposes--Commercial agricultural activities, including, but not limited to, irrigation of crops, watering of livestock, and food production, processing or packaging.
* * * * * § 250.5. Public notice by applicant.
* * * * * (d) At the same time a request for a nonuse aquifer designation under the Statewide health standard is made to the Department, the remediator shall send notice to every municipality and community water supplier servicing the area requested for designation as nonuse under § 250.303(b) (relating to aquifer determination; current use and currently planned use of aquifer groundwater). The notice shall include a copy of the request for determination of nonuse aquifer submitted to the Department.
(e) Upon receipt of a request for a nonuse aquifer designation, the municipality and community water supplier shall have 45 days to indicate to the Department and the remediator any information relevant to the requirements of § 250.303.
§ 250.6. Public participation.
* * * * * (e) A public involvement plan shall be developed by the person making a precertification determination request under § 250.303(f) (relating to aquifer determination; current use and currently planned use of aquifer groundwater) in conjunction with all municipalities serving the proposed nonuse aquifer area. The public involvement plan shall be implemented prior to submission of the precertification request to the Department. The public involvement plan shall contain at a minimum:
(1) A notice published in a local newspaper of general circulation and provided to the applicable municipality by letter. The notice to the municipality shall be made by the person initiating the request for nonuse aquifer determination. This notice shall provide a brief description of the area for which the nonuse aquifer designation is being requested.
(2) A public involvement plan with a 90-day comment period. The comment period shall be initiated at the time of the newspaper publication. The nonuse aquifer precertification request may not be submitted to the Department until the conclusion of the 90-day comment period. Comments received during the comment period shall be responded to and provided with the precertification request.
(3) Public access at convenient locations for document review.
(4) Designation of a single contact person to address questions from the community.
(5) A location near the proposed nonuse aquifer designation site for any public hearings and meetings that may be part of the public involvement plan.
Subchapter C. STATEWIDE HEALTH STANDARDS § 250.303. Aquifer determination; current use and currently planned use of aquifer groundwater.
* * * * * (b) All groundwater in aquifers is presumed to be used or currently planned for use. The Department may determine, in writing, based on a demonstration by the person remediating the site that groundwater is not used or currently planned to be used, if the public participation requirements of §§ 250.5 and 250.6 (relating to public notice by applicant; and public participation) are met, and if the requirements in subsection (c) are met within the site on the property and within a radius of 1,000 feet downgradient of the points of compliance plus any additional areas to which the contamination has migrated and might reasonably migrate at concentrations that exceed the MSC for groundwater used or currently planned to be used. Methods appropriate for determining current or currently planned future use may include door-to-door surveys, verifying community water system billing records and interviewing community water system suppliers with regard to their currently planned future groundwater use.
(c) The following requirements shall be met within the area described in subsection (b):
(1) No groundwater derived from wells or springs is used [or currently planned to be used] for drinking water or agricultural purposes.
* * * * * (4) There are no currently planned future uses of the groundwater in that area by any community water supplier or use for agricultural purposes.
* * * * * (f) After receipt of a nonuse aquifer determination request, and receipt of the required public involvement plan, the Department may make a ''precertification'' determination that a specific geographic area meets the conditions of subsection (c). Only municipal authorities and political subdivisions are eligible to request this determination. If a municipal ordinance exists which provides for the fulfillment of all aspects of subsection (c), the person applying for a nonuse aquifer designation may use the existence of such an ordinance to demonstrate that the requirements of subsection (c) have been met. A determination made under this subsection expires after 3 years and may be updated at any time additional relevant information comes to the attention of the Department. At the end of the 3-year period, the applicant may request a renewal of determination from the Department.
(g) Public participation requirements of § 250.6(e) shall be met on all ''precertification'' requests.
§ 250.304. MSCs for groundwater.
* * * * * (f) In addition to the requirements in this section, the MSCs are further limited by solubility as identified in Appendix A, Table 5. The solubility limits are derived from the [following] references in subsection (g), which are keyed to the numbers in Table 5[:]. The following procedure was used to determine the appropriate solubility value for each regulated substance: where multiple sources are cited in Table 5, the value for the solubility limit is the median of the values in the indicated references.
(1) Using the hierarchy established in subsection (g), the first two references were consulted. If the solubility values agreed within 5%, the selected value is the lower of the two values.
(2) If the values in step (1) did not agree within 5%, the next references in order were consulted until two values that did agree within 5% were found. The selected value is then the median of all the values consulted.
(3) If none of the values in all of the references in subsection (g) agreed within 5%, the selected value is the median of all values in all references.
(g) The references referred to in subsection (f) are:
[(1) Howard, P. H. 1991. Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data for Organic Chemicals. Vol. III, Pesticides. Lewis Publishers.
(2) Lyman, W. J., W. F. Reehl, and D. H. Rosenblatt. 1982. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods. McGraw-Hill Book Co. N. Y.
(3) Mabey, et. al. 1982. Aquatic Fate Process Data for Organic Priority Pollutants. SRI. EPA Contract Nos. 68-01-3867, 68-03-2981.
(4) Milne, G.W.A., Ed. 1995. CRC Handbook of Pesticides. CRC Press, Inc.
(5) Montgomery, J. H. 1991. Groundwater Chemicals Desk Reference. Vol. II. Lewis Publishers.
(6) Montgomery, J. H., and L. M. Welkom. 1990. Groundwater Chemicals Desk Reference. Vol. I. Lewis Publishers.
(7) Montgomery, J. H. 1993. Agrochemicals Desk Reference, Environmental Data. Lewis Publishers.
(8) National Library of Medicine (Grateful Med). Hazardous Substances Databank.
(9) Nirmalakhandan, N. N., and R. E. Speece. 1988a. Prediction of Aqueous Solubility of Organic Chemicals Based on Molecular Structure. ES&T 22:328-337.
(10) Nirmalakhandan, N. N., and R. E. Speece. 1988b. Prediction of Aqueous Solubility of Organic Chemicals Based on Molecular Structure. 2. Application to PNAS, PCBs, PCDDs, etc. ES&T. 23:708-713.
(11) Sax, N. I. 1989. Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. Seventh Edition. Vol. 1-3, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
(12) Environmental Protection Agency. Undated. IRIS--The Integrated Risk Information System.
(13) Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Physical/Chemical Properties and Characterization of RCRA Wastes According to Volatility. Office of Air Quality and Planning and Standards. EA 450/3-85-007.
(14) Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Database of Chemical Properties for SARA. Section 313 Chemicals.
(15) Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Handbook of RCRA Groundwater Monitoring Constituents: Chemical & Physical Properties. 40 CFR Part 264, Appendix IX. Office of Solid Waste. Permits and State Programs Division. EPA 530-R-92-022.
(16) EPA. 1994. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA 540-R-94-009.
(17) Verschueren, K. 1977. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
(18) Windholz, M., ed. 1976. The Merck Index. 9th Ed. Merck and Co.]
(1) Lide, D. R., ed. 1996. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 77th Edition. CRC Press.
(2) Budavari, S., ed. 1996. The Merck Index 12th Ed. Merck and Co.
(3) Perry, R. H., et al. 1997. Perry's Chemical Engineer's Handbook. 7th ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
(4) Howard, P. H. 1991. Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data for Organic Chemicals. Vol. III Pesticides. Lewis Publishers.
(5) Verschueren, K. 1977. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
(6) MacKay, D., et al. 1997. Illustrated Handbook of Physical-Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate for Organic Chemicals. 5 Volumes. Lewis Publishers, New York.
(7) Montgomery, J. H. 1991. Groundwater Chemicals Desk Reference. Vol. II. Lewis Publishers and Montgomery, J. H., and L. M. Welkom. 1990. Groundwater Chemicals Desk Reference Vol I. Louis Publishers.
(8) Milne, G.W.A., ed. 1995. CRC Handbook of Pesticides. CRC Press, Inc.
(9) National Library of Medicine (Grateful Med). Hazardous Substances Databank.
(10) EPA. 1994. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA 540-R-94-009.
(11) Mabey, et al. 1982. Aquatic Fate Process Data for Organic Priority Pollutants. SRI. EPA Contract Nos. 68-01-3867, 68-03-2981.
(12) Montgomery, J. H. 1993. Agrochemicals Desk Reference, Environmental Data. Lewis Publishers.
§ 250.311. Evaluation of ecological receptors.
* * * * * (c) If none of the criteria in subsection (b) are met and if no Constituents of Potential Ecological Concern (CPECs) associated with a release at the site, as identified in Appendix A, Table 8, are detected onsite, an onsite evaluation shall be conducted to document any indications of ecological impact. Ecological impacts requiring more detailed evaluation exist if there are differences of greater than 50% in the density or diversity of species or habitats of concern when compared with nearby reference areas representing equivalent ecological areas without contamination, if available. This evaluation shall also document the presence of threatened and endangered species and exceptional value wetlands. If no ecological impacts requiring further evaluation are identified, and no threatened and endangered species exist within a 2,500-foot radius of the site and no exceptional value wetlands exist on the site, no further evaluation is required and that determination shall be documented in the final report.
(d) If none of the criteria in subsection (b) are met and if CPECs associated with the release at the site are detected onsite or ecological impacts requiring more detailed evaluation, threatened and endangered species, or exceptional value wetlands as identified in subsection (c) exist, a detailed onsite evaluation shall be conducted by a person qualified to perform environmental risk assessments to document any substantial ecological impacts. Substantial ecological impacts exist if there are differences of greater than 20% in the density of species of concern or greater than 50% in the diversity and extent of habitats of concern when compared with nearby reference areas representing equivalent ecological areas without contamination, if available. If there are no substantial ecological impacts identified and there are no threatened or endangered species on or within a 2,500-foot radius of the site and no exceptional value wetlands on the site, that determination shall be provided in the final report.
* * * * *
Subchapter G. DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT § 250.703. General attainment requirements for soil.
* * * * * (b) The [volume] location of soil to which the attainment criteria is applied shall be determined by circumscribing with an irregular surface those concentrations detected during characterization which exceed the selected standard. Where this soil is to be removed from the site, the attainment applies to the base of the excavation outlined by that irregular surface.
* * * * * § 250.707. Statistical tests.
* * * * * (b) The following statistical tests may be accepted by the Department to demonstrate attainment of the Statewide health standard. The statistical test for soil shall apply to each distinct area of contamination. The statistical test for groundwater will apply to each compliance monitoring well. Testing shall be performed individually for each regulated substance identified in the final report site investigation as being present at the site for which a person wants relief from liability under the act. The application of a statistical method shall meet the criteria in subsection (d).
(1) For soil attainment determination at each distinct area of contamination, subparagraph (i), (ii) or (iii) shall be met in addition to the attainment requirements in §§ 250.702 and 250.703 (relating to attainment requirements; and general attainment requirements for soil).
* * * * * (iii) [For sites that qualify as localized contamination sites under the document entitled ''Closure Requirements for Underground Storage Tank Systems'' (DEP Technical Guidance Document No. 2530-BK-DEP2008), where samples are taken in accordance with that document that result in fewer samples being taken than otherwise required in this section, no sample may exceed the Statewide health standard.] For sites with a petroleum release where full site characterization has not been done in association with an excavation remediation, attainment of the Statewide health standard shall be demonstrated using the following procedure:
(A) For sites where there is localized contamination as defined in the document ''Closure Requirements for Underground Storage Tank Systems'' (DEP technical document 2530-BK-DEP2008), samples shall be taken in accordance with that document.
(B) For sites not covered by clause (A), samples shall be taken from the bottom and sidewalls of the excavation in a biased fashion that concentrates on areas where any remaining contamination above the Statewide health standard would most likely be found. The samples shall be taken from these suspect areas based on visual observation and the use of field instruments. If a sufficient number of samples has been collected from all suspect locations and the minimum number of samples has not been collected, or if there are no suspect areas, the locations to meet the minimum number of samples shall be based on a random procedure. The number of sample points required shall be determined in the following way:
(I) For 250 cubic yards or less of excavated contaminated soil, five samples shall be collected.
(II) For each additional 100 cubic years of excavated contaminated soil, one sample shall be collected.
(III) For excavation involving more than 1,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil, the Department will approve the confirmatory sampling plan.
(IV) Where water is encountered in the excavation and obvious contamination is observed or indicated, soil samples collected just above the soil/water interface shall meet the MSC determined by using the saturated soil component of the soil-to-groundwater numeric value.
(V) Where water is encountered in the excavation and no obvious contamination is observed or indicated, a minimum of two samples shall be collected from the water surface in the excavation.
(C) All sample results shall meet the Statewide health standard.
(iv) For sites where there is a release to surface soils resulting in excavation of 50 cubic yards or less of contaminated soil, samples shall be collected as described in subparagraph (iii)(B), except that two samples shall be collected.
* * * * *
APPENDIX A
Table 1--Medium-Specific Concentrations (MSCs) for Organic Regulated Substances in Groundwater
USED AQUIFERS
CASRN
TDS <= 2500
TDS > 2500
NON-USE AQUIFERS REGULATED SUBSTANCE
R
NR R
NR
R NR ACENAPHTHENE 83329 2,200 G [3,500] 3,800 S [3,500] 3,800 S [3,500] 3,800 S [3,500] 3,800 S [3,500] 3,800 S ACENAPHTHYLENE 208968 2,200 G [3,900] 6,100 [S]
G[3,900] 16,000 S [3,900] 16,000 S [3,900] 16,000 S [3,900] 16,000 S ACEPHATE 030560-19-1 76 G 300 G 7,600 G 30,000 G 76 G 300 G ACETALDEHYDE 75070 19 N [57] 52 N 1,900 N [5700] 5,200 N 19 N [57] 52 N * * * * * ACETONITRILE 75058 [58] 1,700 N [120] 3,500 N [5,300] 170,000 N [12,000] 350,000 N [680] 17,000 N [1,200] 35,000 N * * * * * AMMONIA 007664-41-7 30,000 H 30,000 H 3,000,000 H 3,000,000 H 30,000 H 30,000 H AMMONIA SULFAMATE 007773-06-0 2,000 H 2,000 H 200,000 H 200,000 H 2,000 H 2,000 H * * * * * ANTHRACENE 120127 [43] 66 S [43] 66 S [43] 66 S [43] 66 S [43] 66 S [43] 66 S * * * * * BAYGON (PROPOXUR) 00114-26-1 3 H 3 H 300 H 300 H 3,000 H 3,000 H BENOMYL 017804-35-2 1,800 G 2,000 G 2,000 S 2,000 S 1,800 G 2,000 S BENTAZON 025057-89-0 1,100 G 3,100 G 110,000 G 310,000 G 1,100 G 3,100 G * * * * * BENZIDINE 000092-87-5 0.0029 G 0.01 G 0.29 G 1 G 3 G 11 G All concentrations in µG/L
R = Residential
NR = Non-Residential
M = Maximum Contaminant Level
H = Lifetime Health Advisory Level
G = Ingestion
N = Inhalation
S = Aqueous Solubility Cap
[Continued on next Web Page]
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
