verifications & audits - epoc and audit 9... · verifications and audits course 9/14/2017 3...

Verifications and Audits Course 9/14/2017

1

Verifications & AuditsSeptember 2017

Course Agenda

08:15 – 08:30 INTRODUCTION

08:30 – 09:15 TYPES OF VERIFICATIONS, APPLICABILITY + NUANCES

09:15 – 09:20 Q&A

09:20 – 09-30 PROCESSING VERIFICATIONS

09:30 – 09:35 Q&A

09:35 – 09:55 AUDIT SCREENING – VERIFICATION FORMS

09:55 – 10:00 Q&A

10:00 – 10:15 BREAK

10:15 – 11:30 AUDIT SCREENING - VERIFICATION REPORTS

11:30 - 11:45 Q&A

11:45 – 11:55 Audit Process

11:55 – 12:00 Q&A

12:00 – 13:00 LUNCH

13:00 – 13:15 CASE STUDY INTRODUCTION

13:15 – 15:15 AUDIT ASSESSMENT AND DISCUSSION

15:15 – 15:30 BREAK

15:30 – 17:00 AUDIT ASSESSMENT AND DISCUSSION

17:00 – 17:15 WRAP UP


2

Course Presenters

Robert Robinson

Mr. Robinson is a Supervising Environmental Analyst and has been with the DEEP for 30 years. He is Supervisor of

the North Central District in the Remediation Division of the Bureau of Water Protection and Land Reuse. He has

been the DEEP lead for LEP Verifications since the inception of the LEP Program and the promulgation of the

RSRs. He created the Verification Forms and established the Audit Program in 1996, and has maintained the

currency of the program. Mr. Robinson was the lead for the Site Characterization Guidance Taskforce and the

Verification Report Guidance workgroup. He holds a B.S. in Geology from the University of Pittsburgh at Bradford.

Claire Quinn

Ms. Quinn is an Environmental Analyst III and has been with DEEP since January of 2011. She is the Remediation

Division coordinator for both the Audit Program and Compliance & Enforcement. She coordinates the

processing, screening, and audits for all verifications received by the Remediation Division. She holds a B.S in

Environmental Science from Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennyslvania, a Masters in Environmental Science from

Ateneo Pontifico Regina Apostolorum in Rome, Italy, and a Graduate Certificate in Environmental Education

from the University of Idaho.

Verifications & AuditsExecutive Summary

A Verification is the culmination of:

site characterization completed in accordance with prevailing standards and guidelines,

the implementation (and completion) of remedial measures,

groundwater monitoring, and

Your demonstration of compliance with the RSRs, as an LEP.


3


An Audit is the Department’s mechanism, under statutory authority, to :

evaluate the quality of the Verification,

examine the source and usability of data,

determine if the final CSM has been validated, and

determine if your application of the RSRs were correct.


The intent of this course is to present and discuss :

the various types of Verifications,

the nuances of each type of Verification,

the level of documentation necessary to support each type of Verification, and

what DEEP does with a Verification upon receipt.


4


We will explain:

the processing of a Verification,

how a Verification is screened (and selected for an audit), and

what the process of an audit entails.

We will then present Case Studies for you to audit individually. We will reconvene to discuss the results of your technical screens.


This course is not intended to present / discuss the SCGD, the process of conceptual site modeling, or how to apply RSR provisions.

This course will include discussion of the Department’s expectations for the documentation to support each Verification, using the Verification Report Guidance Document (VRGD) as the baseline for documentation.


5

Overall Metric (as of 6/30/17)

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Verifications 3 20 23 22 25 17 37 28 40 49 75 49 77 53 41 59 75 89 117 118 99 64

3

2023 22

25

17

37

28

40

49

75

49

77

53

41

59

75

89

117 118

99

64

Annual Verifications

Verifications

Types of Verifications:

Applicability and Nuances

There are 22 types of Verifications, each type has a Verification Form on the Remediation Division webpage.

Each one is applicable to a specific scenario

Although most information is identical to all, each one has specific nuances


6

Types of VerificationsType Property Business Only

Form I x x

Form II x x

Form III

Final x x

Portion x x

Interim x x

Form IVSupporting x x

Final x x

133y Property

133x

Property

Portion

Interim

Release Area

BRRP

Property

Portion

Interim

RCRA Final

Verification Forms (VF)

The main purpose of the VF:

Mechanism to convey your Verification

your signature and seal

Transmittal form for the Verification Report

1st document used to screen validity of Verification


7

Verification Forms (VF)


Identify the site

Identify the Remedial Program

Provide Compliance statement by you (“Verification”)

Investigative

Remedial

Present applicability of Verification

Identify all provisions used in the RSRs, and for which location

Verification Report (VR)

The purpose of the VR is to:

Present your Final (and validated) CSM

document and discuss in detail all RSR provisions you used to achieve compliance.

Present and discuss COMPLIANCE DATA

Provide Maps, figures, tables, graphs


8

Generics of Verification Forms

All Verification Forms (VF) include:

Site identifiers

Specific compliance statement

Signature, date, and Seal

Whether or not there has been a previous verification

Significant Environmental Hazard info

Confirmation of public notice of remediation

Receptors [cultural setting]

Signature of Certifying Party, VRP Applicant, or BRRP Eligible Party, as appropriate

Certification

Receptors

RemediationSoil Groundwater

Compliance History

LEP Verification

Site Information

Verification Form Outline


9

RemediationSoil

• Release Determination• Exemptions• Compliance Measures• Application• Background• Direct Exposure Criteria • Pollutant Mobility Criteria • Other Provisions• LNAPL


RemediationGroundwater

• Impact Determination and Plume Investigation• Application• General Compliance• Incidental Sources• Background• GWPC• SWPC• Volatilization Criteria• Other Provisions



10


Release Determination and Investigation

No Releases to Soil …

Releases to Soil compliance measure NOT required

Releases to Soil compliance measure REQUIRED


Releases to Soil Compliance Measure REQUIRED

Criterion Exceeded

Category of COC Compliance Measure

PMC Non-chlorinated VOCs In-situ

GA Chlorinated VOCs Excavation / On-site re-use

GB Metals Excavation & removal

DEC PAHs Engineered control

Res SVOCs ELUR

I / C PCBs RSR exemption

Petroleum Hydrocarbons Use of RSR Alternatives

Pesticides / Herbicides Use of 95% UCL

Other


11


Groundwater Impact Determination and Plume Investigation

No Releases to Groundwater

Releases to Groundwater compliance measure NOT required

Releases to Groundwater Compliance measure REQUIRED


Groundwater Impact Determination and Plume Investigation

No Releases to Groundwater

And soil remediation for PMC was not required. Therefore groundwater compliance monitoring was not required.

However, soil remediation for PMC was required. Therefore groundwater compliance monitoring was required.


12


Releases to Groundwater Compliance Measure Required

Criterion Exceeded Category of COC Compliance Measure

Background non-chlorinated VOCs Pump & Treat

GWPC Chlorinated VOCs Air Sparging / Vapor extraction

SWPC Metals Dual-Phase

VolC PAHs Monitored natural attenuation

SVOCs ELUR

PCBs RSR exemption

Petroleum Hydrocarbons Use of RSR Alternatives

Pesticides / Herbicides Plume containment to mitigate off-site migration

Other:


All provisions used must be checked, and all release Areas where these provisions were used must specifically indicated.

At the back end of all VF’s

Receptors section

Certification box


13


In addition to Generic requirements: ELUR

Must identify whether an ELUR had been previously recorded. If yes

Dates

Purpose

Confirmation that the Financial Surety Mechanism (if required) is still in place and valid

Form I Verification

No release of hazardous waste

Remediation of hazardous substance

A previous verification for the establishment may be relied upon to support a subsequent Form I filing and verification

only if there had been no release of hazardous waste, at any time

You are to indicate if any of the conditions or controls that may have been used with any such previous verification has changed


14

Form I Verification


Only 2 options

1. No release to soil subsequent to previous VALID verification for release of haz substance only

2.Release and remediation of hazardous substance

Form II Verification

Must ID the primary Rem#

May ID other filings (Rem#) that will be closed under verification


Has the 3 generic options --- with a twist on the No Release option:

No release to soil

subsequent to previous VALID Final verification


15

Form III Verification

Must ID the primary Rem#

May ID other filings (Rem#) that will be closed under verification

Designate a particular date for compliance

Date of Form III Filing

Date of complete Phase II Whichever is later

Date you signed and sealed verification

Form III – Portion Verification

Requirements to support a Portion Verification are no different than Final Form III Verification

Complete characterization

RSR compliance

There are additional documentation requirements to identify the Portion.


16

Form III – Portion Verification

May only apply to 1 Rem#





Portion VerificationsType Property Business Only

Form I x x

Form II x x

Form III

Final x x

Portion x x

Interim x x


Final x x

133y Property

133x

Property

Portion

Interim

Release Area

BRRP

Property

Portion

Interim

RCRA Final


17

Portion Verifications:Most Proper Application

The Department’s understanding of the Legislature’s original intent to provide the option for a Portion Verification was:

1. Remediate and verify a transferrable lot of land of the original parcel; +/or

2. Provide ability to cut liability of Transferor (CP) from operational issues related to transferee, +/or

3. Mark a stepped progress towards site remediation.

Portion Verifications:Most Proper application

Back forty

BuildingPortion


18


Footprint of the building

Building

Portion


Area of active transferee operations

Building

Portion


19

Portion Verifications:Improper Application

The portion of the Establishment or the property [meaning any release(s) or

release areas within such portion] must meet full compliance with the RSRs.

Not acceptable:

Plume migrating from portion

has not been addressed Portion

Portion Verifications:

Improper Application

Plume present in Portion. LEP attributes to an on-site release outside of the

Portion, so groundwater compliance not pursued or achieved.

The Upgradient Policy does not apply to the on-site release. The

Background Concentration for Groundwater (22a-133k-1(a)(5)) does

not apply.


20


Round hole in square peg approach.

How would a survey be completed?


Multiple portion approach.

CGS:

§22a-134a(g)(2)(A)

§22a-133x(4)

§32-769(j)(2)(C)

specifically reference the remediation for a portion of the property.


21

Portion Verifications:Audit Flag

Swiss cheese approach.

Portion

Portion Verifications:Obligations

Property Transfer Form III [22a-134a]

The Form III filing will remain open, and the Certifying Party will remain obligated by law to comply with all applicable requirements of 22a-134a until a Final Form III Verification is submitted for the entire establishment.

The physical and environmental relationship of the Portion to the entire establishment is to be discussed in Final Verification.

Voluntary Remediation [22a-133x]

There are no further VRP obligations of the applicant; however, a Portion Verification will not support a future filing of a Form II for the entire property.


22

Portion Verifications:Obligations

BRRP

Unlike the ‘Portion’ options provided in 134a and 133x, all of theinvestigation and initiation of remediation milestones for the entireproperty that was originally accepted into the BRRP must be met prior tothe submittal of a Portion Verification.

The eligible party must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the DEEPCommissioner that they will complete the remediation of the remainderof the property originally accepted into the BRRP in accordance with theremediation schedule.

Form III – Interim Verification

May only apply to 1 Rem#

Identify if the Interim Verification applies to:

the establishment (property or business) or

Portion of the establishment






23

Interim VerificationsType Property Business Only

Form I x x

Form II x x

Form III

Final x x

Portion x x

Interim x x


Final x x

133y Property

133x

Property

Portion

Interim

Release Area

BRRP

Property

Portion

Interim

RCRA Final

Interim Verifications:Definition per §22a-134(28) and

§22a-133x(2)

Investigation is complete;

Standards for Soil Remediation have been achieved; and

Groundwater Remediation Standards have not been met, but a groundwater remedy is ongoing.

Groundwater Compliance Monitoring is not considered a “Remedy”


24

Interim Verifications:

Statutory requirements for specific documentation of applicability and obligations

These requirements will be discussed later this morning

In addition to the ongoing remedy for a plume(s), there may have been other plumes that achieved compliance or other reasons for compliance monitoring.

Demonstrate effectiveness of soil remedial action for PMC

The application of the RSRs for these other plumes are included on the same Verification Form

Interim Verifications: Obligations

Property Transfer Form III [22a-134a(g)(1)(D)]

Voluntary Remediation [22a-133x(4)(e)]

BRRP [32a-769(j)(4)]

Until the Groundwater Remediation Standards have been achieved, the CP, VRP applicant,+/or the BRRP eligible party shall:

Remain obligated to operate and maintain the groundwater remedy,

Prevent exposure to the plume, and

Submit annual status reports on the groundwater remediation

The Form III filing will remain open


25

Form IV Verification - Supporting

Rem # is assigned when IV filed, so

lot, block, map identifiers on each page


Date of Form IV Filing

Date of complete Phase II

Whichever is later


has to post-date filing


Applicable Form IV scenario:

Investigation complete

All Standards for Soil Remediation have been achieved (with perhaps the recording of an ELUR)

And:

Groundwater monitoring compliance has not been completed, +/or

Monitored natural attenuation is ongoing, +/or

Recordation of an ELUR


26


C. Application of Standards for Soil Remediation


B. Application of Groundwater Remediation Standards

…


27



…




28

Application of Groundwater

Remediation Standards

Form IV Verification - Final

The Final Form IV VF is pretty straight forward.

Documents completion of the Form IV requirements

Recording of ELUR

Completion of MNA

Groundwater Compliance Monitoring


29

VRP 133x Verification

VRP Verification options are similar to the PTP Form III

Property

Portion

Interim

Property

Portion

with the additional option to submit a verification for a

Release Area.

VRP 133y Verification

Remediated or remediation not required

ELUR declaration

Not necessary to achieve compliance

Will be executed and recorded

Has been approved by an LEP and recorded


30

BRRP Verification

BRRP Verification options are similar to the PTP Form III

Property

Portion

Interim

Property

Portion

Verification to property boundaries

RCRA Verification

Investigation and remediation of subject FACILITY

And further verify compliance with:

EcoRisk Assessment completed

Pb concentration consistent with EPA + DEEP standards

Site-specific QAPP fully documented

Public Participation provided


31

Verification Metric: 1/1/06 – 6/30/17

Type & Total

Type Received PendingNo-Audit

LetterNotice of

Audit

Form I 13 2 7 4

Form II 80 19 41 20

Form III

Final 550 80 395 75

Portion 29 6 21 2

Interim 11 5 3 3

Verification Metric: 1/1/06 – 6/30/17

Type & Total

Type Received PendingNo-Audit

LetterNotice of

Audit

Form IVSupporting 67 6 39 23

Final 40 3 34 3

133y Property 16 - 9 7

133x

Property 43 8 31 4

Portion 1 - 1 -

Release Area 9 3 6 -


32

Types of Verifications:

Applicability and Nuances;

Metrics

Processing Verifications

Admin Review

NOI

Screen

Lite

Technical

DEEP Response

No-Audit

NOA

Rejection (sans Audit)


33

Verification Processing - Admin

All Forms are checked for completeness:

If not complete, Notice of Insufficiency sent

SITEID

REM#Signature

& Date

Verification Report

Verification Form:

Notice of Insufficiency Statistics

Former Verification Forms:2015 – June 2016 45% incomplete or inaccurate

Current Verification Forms (posted August 2016):

August 2016 – August 2017 50% incomplete or inaccurate

Results in extended resources for DEEP Results in extended liability exposure to CP because

Verification incomplete Results in Red Flag for selection of Audit

Indicator of potential inattention to detail in Verification Report


34

Form III Verification Form – Incorrect

DATES

MM/DD/YR is required

“Filed” = Date received by DEEP

2 or 4 digit year is OK

The Date Filed is stated on DEEP’s Acknowledgment Letter that the Form III filing was complete


application

DO NOT CHECK ALL THREE


35


application

Whichever is later

VERIFICATION PROCESSING - ADMIN

•Administrative ReviewData

management

•All verifications forwarded to Audit Program Coordinator

Streamlined Screening

Process

•DEEP no longer conducts technical screening on all verifications

Due to maturity of LEP Program

and confidence of stakeholders


36

VERIFICATION Screening Process

Knowledge and fact check

Degree of historical DEEP involvement

Black & white application of RSRs

Self-implementing options used

Documentation of Commissioner approvals

Identification of yellow flags

VERIFICATION Screening Process

Some Not Screened

•May still include query of District Supervisor or staff if receipt of verification raises a concern

Some Screened

•Screening process has been LEAN’ed

•Global to specific

•Case-by-Case


37

VERIFICATION PROCESSING - TECHNICAL

If identified for standard Screening:

Verification package forwarded to District Supervisor for assignment to staff

Staff completes standard Screening in accordance with established protocol

Review of Verification Report

VERIFICATION PROCESSING -

RECAP

All Verifications go through Administrative Review for completeness

Some verifications only receive knowledge and

fact check

No Audit Letter issued

Some are screened more

thoroughly for

technical merit or RSR

application

Notice of Audit issued


38

Processing Verifications

Audit Screening – Verification Forms

Subsequent to, or simultaneously with the Admin Review:

Information presented in VF is screened for Yellow Flags

Inconsistencies

Erroneous dates

False statements

Yellow Flags necessitate additional look at VR


39


Example #1

Be mindful that this is an actual VF (redacted).

Conduct Screen as a Peer Review.


1. LEP did not provide a complete date for the filing of the Form III in the first

line of Part II.

2. LEP indicated in Part III.A.2 (page 2) that the concentration of all substances

in soil were < criteria before remediation.

Yet, LEP then indicated in the next subsection (Part III.A.3) that metals

exceeded the GA PMC.

3. LEP indicated in Part III.B.2 (page 8) that there releases to groundwater, butall detections were < criteria before remediation.

Yet, LEP then indicated in the next subsection (Part III.B.3) that metals andPAH’s exceeded the GWPC and SWPC.


40


4. LEP did not indicate in Part III.B.8 whether Background was the default

criteria or if GWPC was applicable at site [site is in GA].

5. LEP indicated in Part IV that a SEHN had been filed, and a Certificate of

Closure had been issued on 8/24/10.

However, DEEP has no clue where that date came from. The SH was

reported on 6/9/10 (Acknowledged 6/18). The COC was issued on

4/28/15 (well after this verification was rejected 2014).


Example #2

Be mindful that this is an actual VF (redacted).

Conduct Screen as a Peer Review.


41


1. LEP indicated on the Verification Form, Part III.A.3 (page 2) that PAH’s in soil

exceeded the GB PMC and the Residential DEC, and that the compliance

measure was excavation and removal.

This is in direct contrast to LEP’s verification statement (Part II: Verification;

page 1) that the establishment was in compliance with the RSRs without

requiring remediation.

Per VR, 2 remedial excavations had been conducted


2. LEP indicated on the Verification Form, Part III.B.1 (page 8) that all potential

releases to groundwater had been investigated … and that groundwater

had not been impacted from on-site releases.

However, LEP indicated on the Verification Form (Part IV: Receptors; page

13) that the depth to groundwater was unknown.

In fact, per VR, LEP did not collect any groundwater data to determine if the

groundwater had been impacted by any release. This is in direct contrast

with LEP’s verification statement that the parcel had been investigated in

accordance with prevailing standards and guidelines.


42


3. LEP did not indicate on the VF, Part III.B.6 (page 9) that groundwater monitoring was conducted for any purpose.

In accordance with Section 22a-133k-3(g)(1)(A) of the RSRs, “Groundwatermonitoring shall be conducted in accordance with this subsection for anygroundwater plume and for any release area remediated in accordancewith sections 22a-133k-1 through 22a-133k-3, inclusive, of the [RSRs] …”

As identified earlier, LEP stated compliance measure was excavation andremoval.


Background – Soils

Background concentration in soil 22a-133k-2(a)(2)

Notice is required to be submitted to the Commissioner if background conditions are

applicable at the project site. Checking this box may be considered such Notice.

Section 22a-133k-2(a)(2) of the RSRs provide prerequisites to demonstrate a background

condition exists, and all must apply.

Details related to the use of Background are discussed at Page#/Section # in the VR:

In many cases, we will check thePage reference to confirm thatdiscussion was included in thereport.


43


B. Significant Environmental Hazard

Was a significant hazard, as defined in §22a-6u identified?

Yes No

Significant Hazard Notification filed? Yes No N/A

What type(s) of hazard(s) were identified?

Date of Commissioner’s Certification for Abatement:

OR

Date of Commissioner’s Memorandum of Resolution:

REALLY

IMPORTANT

Audit Screening – Verification FormsB. Significant Environmental Hazard

Date of Commissioner’s Certification for Abatement: ORDate of Commissioner’s Memorandum of Resolution:

99% of time, SEH‘s are to be closed prior to rendering verification.

The exception is a hazard condition may be considered “mitigated” when thesource of pollution and the groundwater plume have been remediated toapplicable RSR criteria, yet pollutants remain in the drinking water receptor atconcentrations below the Drinking Water Standard established by DPH.

this is the only scenario in which mitigation is acceptable for verificationinstead of closure.


44

Audit Screening – Verification FormsB. Significant Environmental Hazard

If you are in position to render a verification, and DEEP has not

generated memo, the SEH must be resolved prior to

verification.

Date of Commissioner’s Certification for Abatement: ORDate of Commissioner’s Memorandum of Resolution:

This is a misleading term that will be rectified with the next VFRevisions.

A SEH Resolution Memo is generated by DEEP for the file, and isused for Cold Cases – after DEEP has assessed the case anddetermined that the SEH has been resolved.


Incidental Sources

DEC / PMC not applicable22a-133k-2(b)(4)

22a-133k-2(c)(5)

Incidental release due to normal operation of motor vehicles

A result of normal paving and maintenance of pavement


45


Incidental Sources

2a. Groundwater Compliance not applicable – Incidental Sources 22a-133k-3(f)

Release Area (RA) ID #’s or Site-Wide

Trihalomethanes resulting from releases of drinking water from public water supply system, orMetals, petroleum hydrocarbons, or semi-volatile substances, provided such pollution is due to:

Incidental release due to normal operation of motor vehicles

A result of normal paving and maintenance of pavement


80% RulePMC not applicable to substances other than VOCs

(The following must apply)22a-133k-2(c)(4)(C)

80% of RA subject to infiltration for at least 5 years, or (I)

Concentration of substance and extent of plume will not increase if anthropogenic feature removed, (Commissioner approval) (II)

Approval date(s): Copy(s) of Approval(s) must be attached to VR

AND one or more of the following apply (4)(C)(ii):

GA: The GWPC and the SWPC has been achieved for 4 consecutive quarters

GB with GA concerns (groundwater in an Aquifer Protection Area or used as a source of public drinking supply): The GWPC and SWPC has been achieved for 4 consecutive quarters.

GB: The SWPC has been achieved for 4 consecutive quarters

AND all of the following must apply:

The groundwater sampling locations are representative of the plume and the areal extent of the plume that exceeds applicable criteria is not increasing over time

The concentration of substances is not increasing over time, and

The groundwater samples were collected from locations most likely to have been impacted by release

If the Commissioner did not approve this application, therefore self-implementing

…


46


95% UCL

We will check

your discussion

in VR,

data set, and

analyticals.


7. Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (NAPL)Applicable

Release Area (RA) ID #’s

LNAPL removed to maximum extent practicable

22a-133k-2(g)

Any other NAPL removed to maximum extent prudent

22a-133k-2(g)

Discussed in the VR in Section **, page **.


47


III.B.2 - Groundwater Compliance

Compliance samples were collected during 4 sampling events that reflect seasonal variability

Completed in 1 yearCompleted in 2 years

A substance was detected in any one seasonal quarter > criteria

Explained in VR, in Section **, page ** .

We will check your discussion in VR andthe analyticals – if indicated.


If there are inconsistencies

If the ‘fact check’ is inconclusive

If the appropriate VR references and discussions are lacking …

Full technical screen of VR will be initiated


48


BREAK

Photo by Rob – 8/16/16


49

Documenting your Verification


Mechanism to convey Verification

Identify all provisions used in the RSRs, and for which location

Transmittal form for the Verification Report

The purpose of the Verification Report:

Presents Final (and validated) CSM

Discusses all RSR provisions used to achieve compliance

Presents and discusses COMPLIANCE DATA


50

Where Can I Find This Guidance?

Where Can I Find This Guidance?


51

Verification Report Guidance Document

(VRGD)

Provides guidance Re:

Type and degree of information that is expected to be included in a Verification report

Relevant info that supports the applicability and use of the RSRs

Verification Report

Presents relevant info regarding the environmental setting;

Presents your Final conceptual site model (CSM);

Discusses all remedial actions completed;

Provides written detail of all provisions used to achieve compliance;

Discusses the “compliance” data used to apply those provisions, and the usability of such data


52

Verification Report

Key Elements:

Intro

Final CSM

Receptors

Remedial Actions

Demonstration of Compliance

References

Verification Report

It is not the purpose of the verification report topresent all data and information that has beencollected or generated.

Only relevant information is necessary to support your final and validated CSM


53

Verification Report

the multitude of iterations of the CSM

or

the minutiae of the characterization process

Your validated understanding of site conditionsthat are used to make decisions on the need forremediation.

Verification Report (“VR”)

Please submit only ONE (1) hard copy

of the Verification Report.

space in the public file room is limited

Please do submit copy of report(s) on CD

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.illustrationsof.com/1064439-royalty-free-books-clipart-illustration&sa=U&ei=thjgUqnzKoaTkQfA8oCQDg&ved=0CEIQ9QEwCThQ&usg=AFQjCNG9_to-zLGe1PW4u1CWrR-lImecbg

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.illustrationsof.com/1064439-royalty-free-books-clipart-illustration&sa=U&ei=thjgUqnzKoaTkQfA8oCQDg&ved=0CEIQ9QEwCThQ&usg=AFQjCNG9_to-zLGe1PW4u1CWrR-lImecbg


54

VR - Intro

Purpose

Type of verification and applicability of such

Identification of the CP / RP / Property owner / etc.

Identify Regulatory program under which the verification wasrendered

Identify any previous verifications for the site and discuss therelevance to current verification

VR - Phase I

We do not expect or desire the Phase I ESA to be imbedded in the VR.

If not on file, it may be submitted with the VR as a stand alone report for the file.

But do not back reference the Phase I ESA in order to obtain the relevant info expected in the VR.


55

VR: Ph-1 Findings - Top 5

Physical and cultural environmental setting

AOC’s

COC’s (for ea. AOC)

Your conclusions on the Phase I findings and the applicability of the Ph-1 for the foundation of the Final CSM

Your confirmation that most current Ph-1 remains applicable at time of verification.

VR: Ph-1 Findings - AOCs

SCGD provides examples of the types of AOCs that should be identified and evaluated.

A VR that presents the main operating structure on the site as a single AOC will prompt technical screen.

A verification that does not rely on direct sampling inside the main operating structure [“black box”] will prompt an Audit.


56

VR: Ph-1 Findings - COCs

If it has been identified that chlorinated solvents were a COC:

We will be concerned if other peripheral contaminants of emerging concern were considered and/or evaluated.

Such as:

1,4-dioxane


If PFASs (e.g. PFOA or PFOS) could be COCs based on site history and operations, they should be included in site characterization.

We will check if this evaluation was carried through the characterization process.

PFASs must be addressed as Additional Polluting Substances at Remediation Sites.

OR calculate Site-Specific Criteria for DEEP review and approval


57

DEEP Emerging Contaminants Webpage


If chlorinated VOC’s were a COC,

We will look to see if TCE was identified as a COC, and if there was any analyses for TCE.

If TCE was detected in groundwater or soil vapor, DEEP encourages early action to evaluate and address the TCE in light of the February 2015 joint DPH/DEEP guidance.

http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2715&q=581988&deepNav_GID=1626

http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2715&q=581988&deepNav_GID=1626


58


If chlorinated VOC’s (TCA, TCE) were a COC,

We will look to see whether or not 1,4-dioxane was included in any analyses.

And if detected, did you obtain Commissioner approval for APS.


59

VR: Phase I

It is expected that the Phase I ESA used as a basis for the investigation of the site +/or used to support your verification ..

Be in full conformance with the SCGD

VR: Phase I

If your verification is based primarily on the ASTM Standard Practice for Phase I ESA’s ...

You will receive a Notice of Audit or a straight Rejection of Verification (influenced by other significant data gaps)


60

VR: Phase IThe ASTM Standard Practice for Phase I ESA’s is not all inclusive

of the expectations for completing a Phase I in accordance with the SCGD

The SCGD states, in part, that while the ASTM Standard Practice for Phase I ESA’s and EPA’s “All Appropriate Inquiries” rule under CERCLIS provide some useful protocols to complete a Phase I, they may not be all inclusive of the requirements for performing a Phase I ESA in accordance with the SCGD

The focus of an ASTM based Phase I is to identify Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs)

However, REC’s are not all-inclusive of AOC’s (as defined in SCGD)

VR: Phase IIn addition,

Many conditions that are considered AOC’s in the SCGD are considered as de minimus conditions in the ASTM standard practice.

Conditions determined to be de minimus are not recognized environmental conditions, so therefore would not be evaluated as an AOC.

If you use an ASTM Standard Phase I that has been completed, ensure that this is subsequently enhanced with an acceptable Phase I completed in accordance with the SCGD.


61

VR: Ph-2 Findings

We do not expect or desire the Phase II report to be attached to the VR.

If not on file, it may be submitted with the VR as a stand alone report for the file.

But do not back reference the Phase II report in order to obtain the relevant info expected in the VR.

VR: Ph-2 Findings

A Form III Verification may be back-applied to the date of the Phase 2 (ie: all releases existing at the establishment/property at the time the Phase 2 was completed)

Therefore,

It is important that the Phase 2 report is on file (or submitted with the VR).

It is important that the VR documents the “relevant” findings.


62

VR: Ph-2 Findings

If it has been determined that a release occurred:

Need to ID all Release Areas that existed at the establishment / property at that time.

It is not necessary nor expected that you present data or a discussion of the iterative CSM in this section of the report.

VR: Ph-2 Findings

If it has been determined that a release DID NOT occur at an AOC:

Potential release mechanisms

Expected contaminant migration pathways

Expected fate and transport of COC(s)

sampling data, lines of evidence, and means used to support conclusion of no release

SAMPLING RATIONALE


63

VR: Sampling Rationale

Presentation of Sampling Rationale for all ‘Compliance data’ isessential

Sampling rationale includes discussion related to:

why specific samples were collected from a particular location ordepth, and

why that particular data point represented the area of concern and/orrelease area.

Without this information, the data is unreliable to demonstrate compliance and cannot support Verification

VR: Sampling Rationale

The lack of adequate discussion =

Notice of Audit


64

VR: Ph-3 Findings

Nature of Release(s)

Release mechanisms and timing

Contaminant migration

Fate & Transport of each substance

Nature, degree, and 3-D spatial and temporal extent

Sampling rationale

VR: Ph-3 Findings

Discussion Groundwater Investigation

MW installation and construction

necessary to demonstrate representation

If micro wells used as ‘compliance’ wells, discuss why such wells can be used for compliance purposes

This expected discussion is overlooked many times. The SCGD points out that micro-wells are acceptable for investigative purposes, but they are considered more as a screening tool, not compliance.


65

VR: Ph-3 Findings

Discussion of Groundwater Investigation

Summary of sampling techniques

how techniques and methodologies appropriate to meet DQO’s

If samples filtered, discuss why filtered samples were necessary and why filtered samples can be used for compliance purposes.

VR: Ph-3 Findings

Discussion of Groundwater Investigation

Hydrogeology

Hydrology

Discuss how all relevant and compliance data points are representative for their intended purpose

Discuss what the intended purpose was.

Present your conclusions and discussion on significance of any data gaps


66

VR: Ph-3 Findings

maps / figures

planar

cross-sectional

scaled

tables

legible

VR: Ph-3 Findings

Goal of a Phase 3:

define the extent and degree of releases and

obtain an adequate seasonal and dimensional understanding of the hydrology and plumes.

Basis for decision-making: Remedial actions or Compliance measures

Your discussion of what data and how it is used to apply

specific criterion of the RSRs should be presented in the

Demonstration of Compliance section of the VR.


67

VR: Receptor Assessments

Describe each receptor survey +/or assessment that was completed, including:

Rationale for determining “at risk” / “not at risk” receptors

Was sampling required? Why? Why not?

Receptor sampling results

Conclusions, and

Any measures taken to mitigate/abate exposure pathways


Likewise, you should provide rationale for not completing a receptor survey or assessment

Especially if a plume had migrated off site.


68

VR: Sensitive Receptors

Drinking water supply wells

Vapor Intrusion Pathways

Land Use

Surface Water


If a Significant Hazard had been reported:

You are expected to provide summary of the hazard condition and the actions taken to abate or mitigate the hazard.

Include or reference appropriate documentation that the hazard has been resolved.

You should present this information in context of your verification


69

VR: Significant Environmental Hazard

SEH must be resolved prior to verification or the verification will be rejected.

Closure:

hazard condition has been abated and Certification of Abatement has been issued.

Mitigated:

source of pollution – and the plume – have been remediated to applicable RSR criteria, yet pollutants remain in the drinking water receptor at concentrations below the Drinking Water Standard established by DPH.

You should provide evidence that pollutant levels in the water supply well are, and are expected to remain, below DWS.

VR: Ecological Receptors

If Identified:

Discuss level of assessment and purpose

Scoping level

Screening level

Site-specific risk assessment

And provide summary of findings


70

VR: Remedial Actions

The VR is to include a discussion of Remedial Actions

Description of the remedial activities;

Duration of remedial activities; and

Analytical results of all confirmation sampling and groundwater monitoring that demonstrates success


Provide your evaluation of historical remedial activities conducted at the site, and put this in context of your Final CSM

Describe the approach to remediation and your rationale for such approach

Talk of the date remediation was initiated and the process of Public Notification of Remediation

Discuss the significance of any comments received, and the comments were addressed.


71


Discuss the date remediation was completed and your justification for determining completion

Discuss your rationale for confirmation sampling

Density

Frequency

Locations

Depths

Maps, figures, and tables

Note: the application of your compliance data should be discussed in the “Demonstration of Compliance” section of your VR.


There are actually a good percentage of verifications that did not rely on remedial actions to achieve compliance.

For Remedial Actions:

More common use of remedial excavations, SVES, In-situ treatment, etc.

Very rare use of GW pump & treat

A great percentage of verifications rely solely upon RSR provisions to achieve compliance.


72


Using RSR exemptions, controls, +/or use restrictions that leave pollution in place …

Need a good discussion on:

The measures that have been put in place to ensure the exposure pathway to the pollution has been mitigated +/or the pollution is not a continuing source of groundwater pollution, and

The context and applicability of the compliance measure

VR: Demonstration of Compliance

Not intended that you repeat your Final CSM and Relevant information previously discussed

This section is intended for you to present and discuss the data that was used to demonstrate compliance with every criteria of the RSRs that you indicated on the VF.

And to explain how you used the data to apply specific RSR provisions


73


You should discuss in detail how you applied all provisions of the RSRs that you marked on the Verification Form

You should present all ‘compliance data’ and

Discuss why such data is usable for compliance purposes

Discuss how such data was used to apply the provisions

You should discuss how specific Commissioner Approvals or notices were germane to your verification


You should discuss in detail your groundwater compliance monitoring program.

Key Requirement = Representative (3-dimensional)

Discuss how the wells used for compliance purposes are appropriate for that purpose

And in context of your CSM

Discuss how the completed groundwater monitoring achieved the seasonal compliance requirements


74


Engineered Controls (EC)

Even though Approved by Commissioner, discuss the particulars of the EC

How it achieves the goals of mitigating exposure pathways

The relationship of the EC to other release areas

The maintenance & monitoring requirements of the EC and the necessary restrictions [ELUR]

The particulars of any necessary monitoring requirements

Document the Financial surety Mechanism and how it will be maintained

Discuss how the EC supports your verification


If an ELUR was recorded:

Discuss the purpose of the ELUR

Discuss how the ELUR achieves compliance

Discuss and document the financial surety mechanism that has been established

If not established, explain why not necessary

Provide the site map depicting the subject area

Discuss the ELUR and subject area in context of the site

Ensure that a copy of the Certificate of Title is attached to the VR.


75


Policy on Up-Gradient Contamination

If you declared the presence of a site COC in groundwater as an up-gradient /background condition… you must:

Demonstrate that your site characterization wassufficient to demonstrate that an on-site release didnot contribute to the encroaching plume?

Demonstrate that your groundwater sampling pointsare representative of all plumes and that seasonal datahas been collected to adequately support conclusions


Background

Literature related to regional background expectations and guidance is not sufficient to apply the RSR.

Actual on-site data will be required to support any background conclusion

soil or groundwater


76


If it is obvious that the data you present (or don’t present) clearly indicates that compliance has not been achieved or demonstrated:

Rejection of Verification

Generally without

audit meeting

VR: QA/QC

An evaluation of the quality of data, especially Compliance Data, in relation to its intended purpose (compliance with specific criterion) is important for you to make decisions directly related to Verification.

You are expected to document and discuss in the VR findings on their data quality assessment and data usability evaluation, including data usability worksheets.


77

VR: QA/QC

Perform/Document DQA/DUE Process

Review QA/QC

Look beyond narrative and review laboratory data

Assess the quality of the data

Evaluate the usability of the data

Demonstrate and document an understanding of the quality and usability of the data for reporting purposes

VR: QA/QC

DEEP has provided the following guidance documents:

Laboratory Quality Assurance And Quality Control Guidance, Reasonable Confidence Protocols (RCP’s) [Effective 11/2007]

Data Quality Assessment and Data Usability Evaluation (DQA/DUE) [Effective

5/2009]

Importance Of Communication Between The Environmental Professional And The Laboratory During The DQA/DUE Process [Effective 3/2017]


78

VR: Verification Specifics

Form III Verifications – Applicability

Provide sufficient discussion and rationale for the decision to back-apply your verification to the date of the filing or the Phase 2.

If a Final Form III Verification relies upon a previous “Portion” or “Interim” verification, the physical and environmental relationship of the Portion +/or Interim verification to the entire establishment is to be discussed in Final Verification.


79


Form IV – Supporting

Pending ELUR

Discuss the purpose and applicability of the pending ELUR

Document that the property owner will accept concept and record the ELUR

Provide documentation [draft?] of the Public Notice of Intent

Provide site map locating the Subject Area

Discuss status of the draft ELUR

VR: Verification Specifics Form IV – Supporting

Groundwater Compliance Monitoring

Demonstrate that the MWs are representative of RA(s) and plume(s)

Demonstrate you have an appropriate seasonal and dimensional understanding of the groundwater and the plume(s)

Demonstrate that all substances in the plume(s) are in steady or diminishing state

Document that sensitive receptors are not at risk

Discuss the groundwater monitoring plan and schedule


80

VR: Verification Specifics Form IV – Supporting

MNA

Demonstrate and document that the MNA approach is appropriate for the environmental setting:

COC’s and plume geometry are diminishing;

The attenuation process

destructive/non-destructive

geochemical footprints

etc

The attenuation conditions are sustainable; and

Estimated duration of attenuation rates for all COC’s


MNA

You must also demonstrate an appropriate understanding of the F&T of all applicable substances

You must demonstrate that any sensitive receptors located within 500’ of the plume, including vapor intrusion, drinking water, and surface water are not or will not be at risk

Present and discuss your monitoring plan and schedule.


81


“Portion” & 133x “Release Area”

Must be clearly defined with

an accurate survey

VR to include the survey and

Provide a detailed discussion of the physical and environmental parameters of the ‘Portion’ or RA


Interim Verifications

Should include a dedicated section in the VR

Identify the groundwater remedy

Discuss why the remedy is appropriate for the environmental setting


82

Interim Verifications:Documentation of Groundwater Remedy

Present the Plans & Specs of the selected remedy;

Discuss why the selected remedy is appropriate for the environmental setting;

Explain the operation and maintenance requirements of the remedy; and

Document that there are no current exposure pathways to receptors


“No Current Exposure Pathways”

Exposure pathways from contaminated groundwater to receptors:

drinking water;

surface water; and

vapor migration into indoor air


83

Interim Verifications:No Current Exposure Pathways

For Drinking Water:

Demonstrate that there are no drinking water receptors located within 500’ hydraulically downgradient of a groundwater plume that exceeds Groundwater Protection Criteria (GWPC).

Or

if there are drinking water receptors present within 500’, but outside of the delineated plume area, you must demonstrate via continued monitoring that there is no pathway to exposure, or

if there are drinking water receptors present within 500’ and within the delineated plume area, you must demonstrate with ongoing monitoring and treatment, if necessary, that any exposure pathway has been mitigated.


For Drinking Water (cont):

If a significant environmental hazard is present, it must be in a mitigated status with regular hazard reporting.

For Surface Water:

Demonstrate that there is no groundwater plume with concentrations that exceed the Surface Water Protection Criteria (SWPC) or an alternative SWPC - as described in RCSA section 22a-133k-3(b)(3) - that is discharging or will discharge to surface water.


84


For Indoor Air: Demonstrate that there are no occupiable structures overlying or located

within 15’ of a groundwater plume containing volatile organic substances that exceeds applicable VolC for Groundwater or Soil Vapor.

OR

If there are such structures, you must demonstrate that vapors are currently mitigated now and will continue to be in the future.

If a significant environmental hazard is present, it must be in a mitigated (controlled) status with regular hazard reporting.


If MNA is the selected ongoing groundwater remedy:

You must demonstrate that the MNA approach is an appropriate remedy

Reference previously identified documentation requirements


85

Verification Report:

Documentation & Screening

Audit Flags

An NOA will likely be issued if:

If your VR is a data dump, or

includes insufficient documentation to support your verification, or

the relevant information is buried in minutia


86

Audit Flags

Examples of Insufficient documentation:

Incomplete or missing VR

Lack of discussion of relevant information or insufficient detail

Apparent significant data gaps in final CSM, or an invalidated CSM

Review of referenced reports or file info necessary to understand relevance of your verification

Expected receptor surveys/assessments not completed

Apparent misapplication of RSRs, or the application of provisions not explicit

Obvious or apparent violations of applicable statutes and/or regulations

Audit Flags - Example

Relevant information is buried in minutia

“Verification Report” was essentially a summary, and the relevant information was imbedded in a voluminous report containing all the minutia related to the investigation of the site (Volume I and Volume II).

In order to obtain particulars about the LEP’s sampling rationales for compliancedata, the usability of such data, and how the LEP applied specific provisions ofthe RSRs to demonstrate compliance data, the LEP required stakeholders tocross-reference the other sections of the report.

The “verification Report” should be a stand-alone report.

In order to evaluate the validity of this verification, the entire volume of the verification package had to be reviewed. This is akin to a full technical review.


87

Audit Flag - Example

Final Form III Verification submitted for releases at time of complete Phase II.

To achieve compliance with Soil Criteria, ELUR processed (~ 2yrs) and recorded. Restricted residential land use.

Upon recordation, LEP rendered verification.

Unbeknownst to LEP, land owner leased on-site building for magnet school.

LEP did not conduct site recon prior to verification to confirm land use consistent with ELUR.

Audit Flag - Example Former dry well (for compressor blowdown condensate)

Seasonal low water table ~ 23’ bg (GA area)

Excavated to 5’ bg

1 soil sample collected from bottom of excavation

Analyzed per 418.1 (TPH @ 400 ppm)

LEP opinion = worst case scenario. NFA

DEEP:

Release expected and confirmed

Characterization 1 soil sample is not representative of release area

RSRs insufficient data to apply soil standards

PMC applies to seasonal low water table

DEC applies to 15’ bg


88

AUDIT PROCESS

1. Notice of Audit

• Letter sent in the mail to LEP and CP

• Summarizes potentially significant data gaps identified in screening

• Proposes time and date for audit meeting

AUDIT PROCESS

2. Audit Meeting

• Additional info may be presented

• Discuss apparent data gaps identified by DEEP

• Discuss validated CSM

•relevant findings

•thought processes

•sampling rationale

• Discuss application of RSRs

• Open to all stakeholders


89

AUDIT PROCESS

3.Supplemental Information

• May be applicable/acceptable

• Confirmation sampling of specific issue, if questionable

• No additional investigation of AOCs accepted that were not originally included in site characterization

AUDIT PROCESS

4.Technical Review

• Further technical review of information presented and discussed during audit process

5. Audit Report

• Details process and any outstanding issues

6. Audit Findings

• Formal letter

• Details Statutory requirements, if any

• Audit Report attached


90

DEEP DECISION-MAKING

Audit Response Document

Accepted

Rejected

Combined 70+ years of experience imbedded in DEEP response to verifications

Staff

Audit Program Coordinator

District Supervisor

Assistant Director

Audit Metric: 1/1/06 – 6/30/17

Type Received Audited A / R / O

Form I 13 4R = 2A = 2

Form II 80 20O = 5R = 7A = 8

Form III

Final 550 75O = 6R = 34A = 35

Portion 29 2 R = 2

Interim 11 3 R = 3

Type Received PendingNot

AuditedAudited

Accepted/Rejected/Ongoing

Form I 13 2 7 4R = 2A = 2

Form II 80 19 41 20O = 5R = 7A = 8

Form III

Final 550 80 395 75O = 6R = 34A = 35

Portion 29 6 21 2 R = 2

Interim 11 5 3 3 R = 3


91

Audit Metric: 1/1/06 – 6/30/17

Post-Audit – if Accepted

What happens to verification/case after audit is complete?

Final Verifications NFA

Interim Verifications continue GW remedy (with annual reporting)

Portion VerificationsNFA at Portion – must be presented in context of whole for Final Verification

IV-Supporting Verifications

complete outstanding action (MNA, compliance monitoring, ELUR)


92

Post-Audit – if Rejected

What happens to verification/case after audit is complete?

Final VerificationsRevised schedule requested to complete investigation +/or remediation

Interim VerificationsRevised schedule requested to complete investigation +/or remediation

Portion VerificationsRevised schedule requested to complete investigation +/or remediation

Supporting Verifications

CP must file Form III, ECAF, + filing fee

Audit Process:


93

Case Study #1

Be mindful that this is an actual VF (Identifiers have been changed).

Assume all expected supporting documentation was also provided (Phase I EDR report, raw lab data, etc.)

Conduct Technical Screen as a Peer Review.

Purpose: Determine if Verification appears valid or if Audit may be necessary

Identify data gaps that appear to be significant

Determine if RSR application appropriate

Determine if Compliance Data support LEP’s application of RSRs


94

Case Study

Use Audit Report for discussion of case study results

See copy of such in p:/audit/presentation folder

Photo by Rob – 8/17/16


95

Case Study #2

Be mindful that this is an actual VF (Identifiers have been changed).

Assume all expected supporting documentation was also provided (Phase I EDR report, raw lab data, etc.)

Conduct Technical Screen as a Peer Review.

Purpose: Determine if Verification appears valid or if Audit may be necessary

Identify data gaps that appear to be significant

Determine if RSR application appropriate

Determine if Compliance Data support LEP’s application of RSRs

Case Study

Use Audit Report for discussion of case study results

See copy of such in p:/audit/presentation folder


96

Verifications & AuditsSeptember 2017