NFA Letter Template: Tips and Hints to Reduce Comments CP Annual Training October 27, 2015 Sydney Poole – DERR.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Site Characterization Instructional Goal: Upon completion of this topic the participant will better understand the need to identify and evaluate various.
Advertisements

Technical Requirements for Site Remediation Backbone of New Jerseys Site Remediation Program.
THE CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL A Visual Journey Though Data and Time October 29, 2013.
PHASE II ESA 2014 ESA GUIDELINES. PHASE II ESA 2014 ESA GUIDELINES PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES –PATH 2 AND 3 PROJECTS –PATH 4 AND 5 PROJECTS W/ WORK.
Case Study of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion at a Dry Cleaner Site Amy Goldberg Day AEHS Annual East Coast Conference on Soils, Sediments.
COMPARISONS OF SUB-SLAB SOIL GAS MEASUREMENTS TO MODELED EMISSIONS FROM SUBSURFACE CONTAMINATION by John A. Menatti and Robin V. Davis Utah Department.
2014 Vapor Intrusion Guidance Amendments Discussion Points Waste Site Cleanup Advisory Committee Meeting May 22, 2014.
Vapor Intrusion. What is Vapor Intrusion? The migration of volatile chemical vapors from the subsurface to overlying buildings.
Understanding the MRBCA Program UST Program Implications Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund May 2004.
BoRit Superfund Site Timeline
Remediation Programs Update MSECA Quarterly Meeting March 13, 2012.
VRP Checklist Presented by: Rob Timmins – Remediation Project Officer William Lindsay – Remediation Project Officer Chris Evans – Remediation Project Officer.
TITLE OF PROJECT PROPOSAL NUMBER Principal Investigator PI’s Organization ESTCP Selection Meeting DATE.
1 Public Lands Advocacy HOW TO REVIEW A FEDERAL PLANNING DOCUMENT.
Importance of Quality Assurance Documentation and Coordination with Your Certified Laboratory Amy Yersavich and Susan Netzly-Watkins.
Vapor Intrusion Workgroup July 29,
EnviroSense, Inc. An Overview of Environmental Factors in Developing Brownfields Sites in Massachusetts Presented By: Eric S. Wood, P.Hg., PG, LSP President.
Vapor Intrusion Guidance Proposed Updates
Return of DQOs - Data Interpretation and Risk Assessments Amy Yersavich, Susan Netzly-Watkins and Mike Allen.
VAP Environmental Covenant Guidance 2015 CP Coffee - July 14, 2015 Sue Kroeger, Ohio EPA Legal Office.
Rev: Section 6 Alternative Fall Protection.
Detect Limits as Representation for a Standard VAP Rule Discussion Dawn Busalacchi Risk Assessor, DERR, Central Office VAP Rule Discussion Dawn Busalacchi.
Common Issues for Exposure Scenarios without GNS VAP CP Summer Coffee July 14 th, 2015 Mike Allen Ohio EPA CO- Supervisor
Module 4: Getting Ready: Scoping the RI/FS. 2 Module Objectives  Explain the purpose of the scoping phase of the RI/FS  Identify existing data which.
Overview of US EPA’s Vapor Intrusion Guidance VAP CP Summer Coffee July 14 th, 2015 Carrie Rasik Ohio EPA CO- Risk Assessor
College of Engineering Oregon State University DOE’s Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to Biota: Derivation of Screening and Analysis Methodologies.
DTSC VAPOR INTRUSION GUIDANCE California Industrial Hygiene Council 16 th Annual Conference Dan Gallagher Department of Toxic Substances Control California.
BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW Dawn A. Ioven Senior Toxicologist U.S. EPA – Region III 4 April 2012.
1 of 35 The EPA 7-Step DQO Process Step 4 - Specify Boundaries (30 minutes) Presenter: Sebastian Tindall Day 2 DQO Training Course Module 4.
Exposure Assessment by Multi-media modelling. Cause-effect chain for ecosystem and human health as basis for exposure assessment by multi-media modelling.
Contaminated land: dealing with hydrocarbon contamination Assessing risks to other receptors.
Discerning Background Sources from Vapor Intrusion Jeffrey Kurtz, Ph.D. and David Folkes, PE EnviroGroup Limited Denver Boston Albuquerque Seattle Colorado.
New NFA Review Process Updates CP Coffee April 13, 2015.
Fairbanks Areawide Industrial Reclamation Project ADEC AREAWIDE MANAGEMENT GOALS Janice Wiegers ADEC.
Voluntary Action Program Updates Certified Professional Coffee July 14, 2015.
Draft Policy for Assessing & Managing Contaminants in soil: a progress report WMINZ Conference, 15 October 2009 James Court and Howard Ellis Ministry for.
SITE STATUS UPDATE TOP STOP PETROLEUM RELEASE SITE GUNNISION, UTAH Morgan Atkinson – Division of Environmental Response and Remediation, Project Manager.
USEPA Region 2 Vapor Intrusion Study Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site March 4, 2009.
Environmental Covenant Guidance Certified Professional Coffee April 13, 2015 Sydney Poole – DERR-VAP Sue Kroeger – Legal.
Preparing a Site Conceptual Model. Typical Site Management Problems: Site complexities  Complicated hydrogeology  Multiple contaminants of concern (COCs)
September 18, 1998 State of Illinois Rules and Regulations Tiered Approach to Corrective Action (TACO) Presented by The Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Technical.
1 of 27 The EPA 7-Step DQO Process Step 5 - Define Decision Rules (15 minutes) Presenter: Sebastian Tindall Day 2 DQO Training Course Module 5.
7th Avenue and Bethany Home Road Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund Site February 19, 2013.
Vapor Intrusion Guidance Updates VAP CP Training October 27, 2015 Audrey Rush Ohio EPA DERR
Conceptual Site Models Purpose, Development, Content and Application CP Annual Training October 27, 2015.
Voluntary Action Program Updates Certified Professional Training October 27, 2015.
Common VAP Risk Assessment Issues Certified Professional Annual Training October 2015 Mike Allen.
HAPPY HALLOWEEN 2015 CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL ANNUAL TRAINING Sue Kroeger and Sue Netzly-Watkins, Ohio EPA Opening the covenant crypt…
Update: AUL Guidance Revisions Summary of Comments June 23, 2011 Peggy Shaw Workgroup Chair.
LDEQ RECAP.
Protection of ground water meeting UPUS Determining ground water zones – Ground water definition – Determining how many zones Examples POGWMUPUS and GW.
SABR Updates Amy Yersavich, Ohio EPA VAP Certified Professional Annual Training October 27, 2015.
FAIR Meeting April 6, Groundwater Results – Fall 2003 Benzene ND 1,000 ug/L Product.
How does the VAP handle COCs that have left the VAP Property? Certified Professional Coffee February 24, 2016 Sydney Poole DERR-VAP.
Long-Term Management of Contaminated Soil and Groundwater – Iwilei District, Honolulu April 16, 2015.
 Clean Water Act 404 permit  Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water 401 water quality certification  Ohio Revised Code 6111 – Placement of dredged materials.
The World of AUL Presentation by: Atul Pandey, P.E. PANDEY Environmental, LLC 2016 Ohio Brownfield Conference April 7, 2016.
Risk CHARACTERIZATION
Welcome to the World of AUL Avoiding the voidance of your CNS.
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
Proposed Plan for No Further Action
Anniston PCB Site Review of Risk Assessments for OU-1/OU-2
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
Welcome.
Hold Your Breath—Ohio EPA’s TCE Initiative
FAQs for Evaluating the Soil-to-Groundwater Pathway
HSRA Rule Change Reflect changes in scientific understanding since 1994 Provide Consistency in Cleanup Standards Reduce risk from contaminated sites Correct.
Brownfield Corrective Action with Revised RRS
Institutional Controls At Voluntary Cleanup Sites
Preparing a Site Conceptual Model
Presentation transcript:

NFA Letter Template: Tips and Hints to Reduce Comments CP Annual Training October 27, 2015 Sydney Poole – DERR

General Maintain consistency within document and between Executive Summary and Tables – Begin each NFA letter (also OMP, RMP) with a fresh template, rather than copying previous NFA. – Have a second set of eyes look at the letter. Make sure Section D includes ALL docs relied upon (e.g., asbestos abatement report, BUSTR NFAs)

Identified Areas Section 2.1, Table, Maps Maintain consistency in document and tables Explain any changes in IA designation between Phase 1 and Phase 2. Clearly identify the IAs with their corresponding EU in both text and table. Provide a map of the IA and EU areas. Reminder: Asbestos in a building is not an IA. Asbestos is only an IA if it is released to environmental media.

Phase II Property Assessment Section General Reminder: Sample for COCs expected based on Phase 1.

Ground Water Section 2.5 When ground water meets UPUS: – no need to rely on being in a USD – no need for ground water use restriction – Must demonstrate protection (Section 3.5) Class B – Describe how classified – Yield determination, not being used – Yield + comparison to lower zone – Yield + shallow depth (<15’ bgs)

Ground Water Section 2.5 Note any irregularities in the ground water zones, such as: – Note if top and/or bottom of ground water zone varies across the property. – If confined ground water zone, note that top of water level in well is different than where water encountered during drilling. State the number of rounds of sampling in the text, or ensure figures are clear.

Vapor Intrusion Sampling Section 2.5 Summarize VI sampling methodology – How many rounds – Sample depth (exterior) – Length of sampling (for exposure time) Note: Two rounds of exterior soil gas sampling are recommended for collection when eliminating vapor intrusion as an exposure pathway - (May 2010 VI guidance) – Weather (rain)

Receptors and Pathways Section 3.1 Include all on and off property receptors. Include all potential media (ground water, soil, surface water, sediment) Provide an accurate conceptual site model. Include all ground water pathways, including: Construction, dermal, inhalation. Ground water to surface water – meet OMZA. Reminder: Meeting applicable standards does not render a pathway “Incomplete”

Modeling Section 3.2 Clarify if default or site-specific input parameters were used If site-specific parameters used, explain how they were developed If using a model that is out of the ordinary, include a description of the model and why it was used

Multiple Chemical Adjustment Section 3.3 MCA and pathway summation for each pathway and receptor in each EU or IA is required in most cases. – Exception: you have only one chemical; COC is TPH or lead; or presumptive remedy. Verify that your remedy meets a target risk of 1E-5 and a hazard of 1 for all receptors.

Ecological Risk Assessment Section 3.4 Summarize the progression through the steps of the risk assessment. State whether generic standards are met or if an ecological risk assessment was performed under Rule 9. Reminder: Include surface water and sediments as important ecological resources. – Sediment is only evaluated when it is tied to a surface water body.

Ground Water Protection Weight of Evidence Demonstration Too little – “WoE demonstration performed” Too much – Multiple pages of data and explanation Just right – Briefly summarize lines of evidence in one sentence each, as outlined in OAC (F)(3)(b) or (F)(4)(a)(ii), as necessary.

Section 3.5 – EXAMPLE COCs in upper ground water zone (SVOCs, metals) tend to sorb to soil particles and are not mobile in the subsurface. The contaminant sources on the property are all greater than 75 years old. Site investigations determined that at least 30 feet of unfractured silty clay exists between the upper ground water zone and next expected ground water zone. SeSoil modeling indicates contaminants will not infiltrate to the lower ground water zone.

Remedy Section 4.0 Remedy is needed for any complete pathway that does not meet applicable standards. Be clear about what constitutes a remedy (determining background or 95% UCL determine applicable standards, not a remedy) Describe the remedy and any remedy verification sampling.

Table 4.1 –”Summary” table Better name: “Representative COC concentrations before active remedy completed to achieve applicable standards” Only need to include COCs exceeding applicable standards, not below background or meeting C/I (noted in asterisk below table)

Tables 4.1 & Remedial Activities Example Soil meets Commercial/Industrial GNS Ground Water exceeds UPUS on property, meets at property boundary. Indoor air exceeds applicable standards, Liquid Boot installed.

Table 4.1 IA / EUMediaRepresentative COCs prior to remediation (ug/m 3 ) Applicable Standard (ug/m 3 ) Method Used for Deriving Applicable Standard Method of Achieving Compliance with Applicable Standard IA 3 - Office Indoor Air Toluene50,00022,000Generic Standard Passive barrier

Type of RemedyIA or EU Applies to COCs AddressedPathway(s) Addressed Commercial/Industrial AUL Property wideMetals, TolueneDirect contact with soil by commercial or industrial workers Ground water use restriction Property wideTolueneOn property potable and non- potable use of ground water Passive barrierIA-3TolueneVapor intrusion to indoor air Table 4.2

RMP Section 6.0 Include sentence in text describing area to which RMP applies, and demonstrate C/E standards are met in other areas. If the RMP is only for 2-10’, demonstrate the 0-2’ interval meets applicable standards. Remember that C/I remedy is not a remedy for C/E worker, RMP still needed

Activity and Use Limitations Section 7.0 Describe the delineation of the AUL area, if less than entire property

Modified Residential Properties Note Land Use Control in AUL (7.0), also Phase II (2.5) – note POC on soil table, discuss modified residential and POC in text Receptors & Pathways (3.1) – note modified residential receptor in table & text

Exposure Point Concentration Tables Exposure Point Concentration by media and receptor – follow example tables Clarify what blank table cells represent (not sampled, non-detect, etc.) If non-detects are not included in the table, include footnote in table stating that.

How To Respond Respond to INOD letter as part of addendum, in a point-by-point written narrative response. Include CP affidavit. Update Executive Summary as needed. Work with Legal to update EC, OMA, RMP as needed.

Questions?