Status More on gardening pathway & historic fill proposals – situations addressed under the “Permanent Solutions with Conditions (No AULs)” MCP Public Hearing Draft

Status/Public Comment Process Awaiting final ok to publish Public Hearing Draft When available, you will receive notice from BWSC.Information with link to draft with public hearing dates/locations and public comment deadline

MCP Amendments related to Gardening Pathway & Historic Fill

PERMANENT SOLUTIONS PERMANENT SOLUTION With CONDITIONS NO AUL REQUIRED AUL & PERMIT PERMANENT SOLUTION With NO CONDITIONS NATURAL BACKGROUND Unrestricted RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITY & USE LIMITATION AUL & ENGINEERED BARRIER

Permanent Solution with Conditions No AUL Required 4 Types - Non-commercial gardening in residential settings addressed qualitatively & recommending BMPs Elevated OHM attributable to Anthropogenic Background Residual contamination within a public way or within a rail right-of-way Absence of an occupied building, but OHM in groundwater greater than GW-2 levels (future VI concern)

Permanent Solution with Conditions No AUL Required Makes you ask... “What Conditions?” Label intended to provide enough notice so that an AUL is not required Assumes easy & known access to MassDEP files, both at time of closure and into the future

Gardening Pathway Home gardening is very popular activity and growing – Gardening is consistent with residential use – US National Gardening Association estimates 75% households do some kind of gardening – MA residents survey - gardening second only to walking/ running as outdoor activity (EOEEA 2012) Gardening exposure potential – Direct contact exposure (dermal, incidental ingestion, inhalation of soil dust) – Produce consumption OHM may be naturally occurring or contaminant; contaminant may be MCP regulated or exempt

Gardening Pathway Quantitative Assessment Results raise questions Natural background levels (e.g., arsenic and lead) for gardening risk estimates considered an “Imminent Hazard” under the MCP. Produce consumption risks in some cases are calculated to be higher than risks from more direct exposure via dermal contact and incidental ingestion.

Quantitative Assessment Issues, cont. OHM transfer from soil to plants is highly variable; can’t accurately predict plant concentrations from soil concentrations. MassDEP published plant uptake factors for 10 contaminants; limited data for other contaminants that may pose risk via produce consumption. CONCLUSION - quantitative approach used in the produce consumption model may be more appropriately used as a conservative screening tool for ruling out exposures of concern, rather than predicting potential exposure and risk and the need for site- specific response actions under the MCP.

GARDENING –Related Amendments Gardening pathway removed from calculation of Method 1 Standards Provide for a qualitative risk assessment of gardening pathway in Subpart I Allow use of “assumed future practices, controls or conditions” for limited specified circumstances (gardening) MCP would require recommendation of gardening BMPs in Permanent Solution closure statement Quantitative assessment would still be available to screen out pathway 10

Categories of Permanent Solutions (2) Permanent Solution with Conditions shall apply to disposal sites where:... (b) a level of No Significant Risk exists and will be maintained for all current and foreseeable future use of the site, considering one or more of the following: 1. assumed limitations on future site activities or uses that require Activity and Use Limitations, as specified in 310 CMR ; or 2. current or future site activities, uses or conditions that do not require an Activity and Use Limitations pursuant to 310 CMR (3)(c).

1. the recommendation of Best Management Practices for non- commercial gardening in a residential setting to minimize and control potential risk qualitatively evaluated pursuant to 310 CMR (3)(c); 2. the concentrations of OHM at the disposal site are consistent with Anthropogenic Background levels; 3. the location of residual contamination within a public way or within a rail right-of-way; or 4. the absence of an occupied building or structure in an area in which the groundwater would otherwise be classified as GW-2 pursuant to 310 CMR (6), and where the residual concentrations of OHM in the groundwater exceed the GW-2 standards published in 310 CMR (2); (3)(c) Activity and Use Limitations shall not be required but may be used [when]...

1.the recommendation of Best Management Practices for non-commercial gardening in a residential setting to minimize and control potential risk qualitatively evaluated pursuant to 310 CMR (3)(c); (3)(c) Activity and Use Limitations shall not be required but may be used...

(6) Identification of Site Activities & Uses (6) Examples of Site Activities and Uses associated with Human Receptors include, without limitation: (a) the use of a building as an office, store or residence; (b) the use of water as drinking water, for washing floors or watering lawns; (c) the cultivation of fruits and vegetables destined for human consumption (e.g., gardening or farming) and the cultivation of ornamental plants; (d) the excavation of soil; (e) recreational activities, such as playing baseball, swimming, fishing and hiking; (f) leisure activities, such as picnicking, sunbathing and entertaining.

(3) The reasonably foreseeable Site Activities and Uses shall include any possible activity or use that could occur in the future to the extent that such activity or use could result in exposures... except that:... (b) specific Site Activities and Uses which would be reasonably foreseeable pursuant to 310 CMR (3) may be eliminated from further consideration through the use of Activity and Use Limitations...; and (c) specific Site Activity and Uses which would be reasonably foreseeable pursuant to 310 CMR (3) may be addressed qualitatively in the Risk Characterization in accordance with 310 CMR (3)(c) and 310 CMR (2)(b)2. New! (3) Identification of Site Activities & Uses

Gardening BMPs Use of BMPs for gardening is becoming more widely recognized and promoted, particularly in urban areas Promotion of BMPs for gardening is becoming more common for non-MCP issues, like lead paint, pesticides By incorporating BMP recommendation into Permanent Solution documentation, MassDEP aims to make property owners are AWARE of issue… use of BMPs then becomes an informed choice.

Concerns about BMP Approach While BMP awareness is growing, it has a way to go and may be uneven across Commonwealth Without an AUL, there is no direct notice to subsequent property owner – not all residential property purchases are familiar with MCP files/can be expected to find/read them 17

Pb – Proposed Method 1 S-1 Standard Method 1 revisions remove produce consumption exposures & “sludge” application criteria Propose maintaining current S-1 Pb standard of 300 mg/kg (based originally on “sludge”) Establish a bifurcated S-1 Pb standard – 200 mg/kg (95 th percentile of natural background); – 300 mg/kg Pb concentrations that meet 300 mg/kg, but exceed 200 mg/kg  Permanent Solution with Condition that BMP recommendation is included in the Permanent Solution documentation

Method I Table Footnote ¤ - The Lead soil standard of 200 mg/kg may be used to demonstrate a condition of No Significant Risk for a Permanent Solution with No Conditions pursuant to 310 CMR (1). The Lead soil standard of 300 mg/kg may be used to demonstrate a condition of No Significant Risk for a Permanent Solution with Conditions pursuant to 310 CMR (2)(b).

Proposed Definition - Background means those levels of oil and hazardous material that would exist in the absence of the disposal site of concern, including both Natural Background and Anthropogenic Background. 20

Proposed Definition - Natural Background means those levels of oil and hazardous material that would exist in the absence of the disposal site of concern, are ubiquitous and consistently present in the environment at and in the vicinity of the disposal site of concern, and attributable to geologic or ecological conditions. 21

means those levels of oil and hazardous material that would exist in the absence of the disposal site of concern and which are: (a) attributable to atmospheric deposition of industrial process or engine emissions; (b) attributable to Historic Fill; (c) associated with sources specifically exempt from the definitions of disposal site or release as those terms are defined in MGL c. 21E and 310 CMR ; (d) releases to groundwater from a public water supply system; or (e) petroleum residues that are incidental to the normal operation of motor vehicles. Proposed Definition - Anthropogenic Background

means non-indigenous material, deposited to raise the topographic elevation of the site that: (a) may contain metals and/or semi-volatile compounds (excluding PCBs) typical of weathered materials, including construction and demolition debris, dredge spoils, incinerator residue, fly ash, coal ash, wood ash or other non-hazardous solid waste material; (b) was contaminated prior to emplacement; (c) is not connected with the operations at the location of emplacement; (d) is not hazardous waste, chemical production waste, or waste from processing of metal or mineral ores, residues, slag or tailings; and (e) was not a result of illegal disposal of waste material at the time of placement. Proposed Definition – Historic Fill

Background Clarifications (Subparts I & J) OHM at or below Background are not included in MCP Risk Characterization – Replace the provisions that equate “Background” with “No Significant Risk” with a statement that OHM “need not be included in the disposal site Risk Characterization” if it is at or below Background. OHM at or below Background do not require further Response Actions Includes both Natural and Anthropogenic Backgrounds 24

Permanent Solution with Conditions No AUL Required 4 Types - Non-commercial gardening addressed qualitatively & recommending BMPs Elevated OHM attributable to Anthropogenic Background Residual contamination within a public way or within a rail right-of-way Absence of an occupied building, but OHM in groundwater greater than GW-2 levels (future VI concern)

Looking Ahead to the Public Comment Period... During public comment period, BWSC is considering holding more focused discussions to gather feedback on specific proposals. e.g., – Gardening, BMPs – Historic Fill – Others, TBD Focus would be on practical application – What questions come up when I try to apply these changes to actual sites?