NJDEP Adopts Soil Remediation Standards

On June 2, 2008, NJDEP has recently adopted soil remediation standards (N.J.A.C. 7:26D) in order to implement the provision of the Brownfield and Contaminated Site Remediation Act. Under the rule, minimum residential and non-residential direct contact soil remediation standards have been established to replace the previous Soil Cleanup Criteria (dated May 12, 1999).

In a deviation from the proposed rules, the NJDEP did not adopt the minimum impact to groundwater soil remediation standards. According to the NJDEP, the impact to GW will be developed on a site-by-site basis with new guidance materials being issued.

The NJDEP has instituted a 6-month grace period for the implementation of the Remediation Standards (the cut-off date for this grace period is December 2, 2008). After which, the following applies:

  • The person responsible for conducting the remediation must remediate a site:
    1. To the remediation standards at N.J.A.C. 7:26D and the impact to ground water soil remediation standards developed on a site-by-site basis pursuant to Brownfield and Contaminated Site Remediation Act; or
    2. To the Soil Cleanup Criteria (SCC) that were in effect prior to June 2, 2008 when:
      1. The remediating party has submitted a remedial action workplan or a remedial action report before December 2, 2008 that establish the SCCs as the standards for the site;
      2. The remedial action workplan or a remedial action report is in compliance with the Technical Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:26E-6; and
      3. The SCC for the site are not greater by an order of magnitude or more, than the soil remediation standards adopted by N.J.A.C. 7:26D.
  • A remedial action workplan (RAWP) or a remedial action report (RAR) will be considered in compliance with the Technical Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:26E-6 when the Department has reviewed the report and has:
    1. Approved the RAWP or RAR; or
    2. Issued a Notice of Deficiency (NOD) and the remediating party rectifies all deficiencies to the Department’s satisfaction within the timeframe specified by the Department; and
    3. The remedial action is conducted within the timeframe specified in the RAWP.
  • A remedial action workplan (RAWP) or a remedial action report (RAR) will not be considered in compliance with the Technical Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:26E-6 when the Department has reviewed the report and has issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to the remediating party. Under this situation, the remediating party must remediate the site to the remediation standards at N.J.A.C. 7:26D and the impact to ground water soil remediation standards developed on a site-by-site basis pursuant to N.J.S.A. 58:10B-12a.

In addition, sites previously remediated with institutional controls (Deed Notices), will be required to compare concentrations of COCs left in place in soil with the new Remediation standards in their next biennial certifications. If there is a change in standards by an order of magnitude or more, then an evaluation for the protection of human health and the environmental must be conducted, and any necessary remediation done. A courtesy rule document has been issued.

Some key changes within the document are:

    • Some residential standards for VOCs have changed. Including:
      1. decreases for benzene, TCE, PCE, and vinyl chloride;
      2. increases for ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes;
      3. the NJDEP will now establish Site-Specific impact to groundwater soil standards on a case by case basis; and
      4. the NJDEP is now in the process of releasing guidance documents for the establishment of impact to GW standards.

 

    • Some residential standards for SVOCs have changed, including:
      1. decreases for benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, and (benzo(b)flouranthene; and
      2. increases for anthracene (from 100,000 ppm to 17,000 ppm) and naphthalene (from 230 ppm to 6 ppm).

 

    • Several changes for metals have occurred, including:
      1. decreases for selenium and vanadium;
      2. increases for antimony, beryllium, copper, cadmium, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc; and
      3. notably, thallium has change from 1,000 ppm to 5 ppm.

 

    • Several SVOCs and metals now have non-residential standards higher then residential standards due to NJDEP calculation assumptions (inhalation exposure due to dust generated during truck traffic), including:
      1. acenapthylene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, phenanthrene, cobalt, and manganese.

 

  • Some minor changes to the residential standards for agricultural contaminants have occurred, including:
    1. arsenic (from 20 ppm to 19 ppm), dieldrin (0.042 ppm to 0.040 ppm), and toxaphene (from 0.1 ppm to 0.6 ppm).

More information about the rule can also be found at the NJDEP Site Remediation Program Web Page.

PADEP Institutes New Management of Fill Policy

On August 7, 2010, the PADEP released new interim guidance pertaining to its Certification of Clean Fill Form. This new guidance requires that before clean fill that has been affected by a spill or release may be placed on a property, Form FP-001 must be provided to the Department certifying the origin of the fill material and results of analytical testing to qualify the material as clean fill.

The form must be filed with the regional office of the Department where the receiving site is located. If the fill is from a regulated site, the form requires that the fill be identified as such, and that contact information for the overseeing regulatory agency be provided.

This means that if fill is being transported from a regulated site out of state (such as from New Jersey), then the form will need to include all applicable NJ regulatory agency information, NJ oversight contact information, and site identification qualifiers (such as site ID numbers). In addition, the form requires that copies of all analytical reports be included when the form is submitted to the regional PADEP office where the receiving site is located. In addition, the PADEP is requiring both the sender and receiver of the fill material to certify “under penalty of law” that all of the information regarding the fill is true and correct.

In summary, the state of Pennsylvania has not banned the importation of fill material, it is just increasing regulations surrounding importation in order to better protect human health and the environment. Importation is still permitted as long as the fill material meets the standards for Clean Fill in the Management of Fill Policy, and all of the proper forms have been completed.

Guidance documents and technical tools are available for download on the PADEP’s Land Recycling website.

Increase Protection from Lead-Paint Poisoning

As of July 6, 2010, a new EPA rule has been implemented requiring all contractors performing repair, renovation, or painting work in homes built before 1978 to follow lead-safe work practice requirements.

The rule removes a provision from existing regulations allowing owner-occupants of pre-1978 homes to “opt-out” of having their contractors follow lead-safe work practices if there were no children under six years of age in the home.

In April 2008, the EPA issued the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP). This required the use of lead-safe work practices in pre-1978 homes, but included the opt-out provision. This opt-out provision has been removed in the new rule. In addition, the new rule makes the RRP consistent with statutory requirements. The RRP rule also requires certification of training providers and lead-safe work practice certification for individuals involved in the construction and remodeling industry.

Because of concern that contractors in some areas may have difficulty accessing training classes, the EPA announced that it will provide renovation firms and workers additional time to obtain training and certifications so that they may comply with the new lead rules. Accordingly, Enforcement action for violations of the rule’s firm certification requirement will be delayed until October 1, 2010. Enforcement action for certification requirements against individual renovation workers will not be taken if they apply to enroll in certified renovator classes by September 30, 2010 and complete the training by December 31, 2010.

The EPA will continue to take enforcement actions against renovation firms and individuals who do not comply with the RRP work practices and associated record-keeping requirements. The lead-safe work practices include dust control, site clean up and work area containment. It is important that contractors take proactive steps to protect children, families, and themselves while they take the training and file the appropriate paperwork.

Additional information on the lead RRP program can be found at the EPA’s lead page.

NJDEP UST Fund Updates

Through the Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Remediation, Upgrade and Closure Fund (UST Fund), The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) Site Remediation Program (SRP) released, on June 8th, 2010, an updated version of the UST Fund application and instructions, FAQs, and Project Summary Sheets.

The updates to the application include revised information and calculations, and are intended to make completing the forms easier. The newly updated forms can be found at the UST Fund website.

In addition to these recent updates, effective July 1, 2010, the UST Fund that is utilized for Grants and Loans will no longer be available for any Remediation activities, including UST Closures, on Regulated tanks. This deadline does not affect new applications for Unregulated tanks (including all residential heating oil tanks), or Supplemental applications for Regulated or Unregulated tanks.

For more information, please visit the NJDEP’s SRP Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA) Web site.

NJ Releases Remedial Action Permit Guidance

In order to help the Licensed Site Remediation Professionals (LSRPs) determine when (or if) a Remedial Action Permit is required the NJDEP has released guidance in February 2010 specific to both soil and groundwater conditions. The guidance is not intended to supersede any rules or regulation.

  1. Soil Permit Procedures
    If, during the course of a site investigation, contamination in soil is found to exist above the NJ remediation standards, then the next step will be to remove the source material and determine the nature and extent of on-site and off-site contamination.The LSRP and remediation party would work together in order to determine the appropriate remedial actions that should be taken. If the remediating party and their LSRP decide to perform a limited restricted use remediation or a restricted use remediation, then they must employ engineering and/or institutional controls as a remedy for soil contamination and obtain a remedial action permit.

    When to apply for the permit:
    Any engineering controls and deed notices must already be in place before application for the soil remedial action permit occurs.

  2. Groundwater Permit Procedures
    If, during the course of a site investigation, contaminates are found to be exist in groundwater at levels above the NNJ Ground Water Quality standards, then identification and removal of the source material must occur, and a remedial investigation performed in order to determine the nature and extent of off-site contamination.The LSRP and remediation party would work together in order to determine the appropriate remedial actions that should be taken. The NJDEP encourages the establishment of a Classification Exception Area (CEA) as early as possible as the remediating party is required to submit the CEA information along with the Remedial Action Workplan (RAWP).

    When to apply for the permit:
    Towards the end of the remedial action, the ground water remedial action permit can be applied for if any of the following conditions are met:

    1. Ground Water Remedial Action Permit for Natural Attenuation:
      1. Eight (8) consecutive quarterly rounds of ground water samples need to be collected; and a decreasing trend in the contaminant levels established before any application is submitted to the Department.
      2. Source material needs to have been removed, treated or contained.
    2. Any other Ground Water Remedial Action Permit (including active ground water systems used to remove contaminant mass, maintain hydraulic control of ground water contaminants) requires that the remediating party:
      1. Design and construct the system;
      2. Obtain the necessary permits for the system (air permit, NJPDES, etc.);
      3. Demonstrate that the system is both functional and operational and meets the goals of the remediation (this process will typically take approximately one-year);
      4. Source material has been removed, treated or contained; and
      5. Calculate and establish financial assurance for the operation and maintenance of the system for the period that the system is operating.
  3. Financial Assurance for both Soil and Groundwater Engineering Controls
    Whenever an engineering control is used, the remediating party must establish financial assurance. This financial assurance must be in place before completing the permit application. In addition, the financial assurance must be in place for the duration that the engineering control is in place. If it is determined that the control will always be required, then this equates to a 30-year period of financial assurance.

For the most up to date and completed information regarding this new guidance, please visit the NJDEP’s SRRA page, and download the soil remedial action permit guidance and groundwater remedial action permit guidance.

NJ Drafts Immediate Environmental Concern Guidance

As a result of the newly enacted Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA), the NJDEP has released draft guidance to assist in the mitigation of Immediate Environmental Concern (IEC) conditions.

The IEC guidance was designed to aid remediators, Licensed Site Remediation Professionals (LSRPs), and environmental consultants in addressing the more common types of IEC conditions. IEC case requirements apply directly to the person responsible for conducting the remediation, while consultants and LSRPs will be communicate with the IEC case manager and provided the Department with necessary information to ensure compliance.

Three categories of IEC conditions have been identified within the guidance:

  1. Potable Water IEC – A condition wherein contamination associated with a discharge of a hazardous substance at levels at or above the Class II Ground Water Remediation Standards exists in potable wells. Additionally, an IEC condition exists when contamination above federal and state drinking water standards (Maximum Contaminant Levels) is found in surface waters used for public water supplies.
  2. Vapor Intrusion IEC – A condition exists when a hazardous substance discharge results in indoor air contaminant levels above the Department’s Indoor Air Screening Levels. More rarely, vapor intrusion conditions can occur when harmful or toxic subsurface contaminants have migrated into an occupied or confined space. This intrusion can produce an atmosphere that results in unacceptable human health exposure, an oxygen-deficient atmosphere, or cause physical damage to essential underground services such as phone lines carrying 911 communications.
  3. Direct Contact IEC – A condition wherein soil contamination exists in the upper two feet of the soil column at concentrations above the acute health effect levels; and there is actual (or a potential for) human contact via dermal contact, ingestion or inhalation.

The IEC guidance identifies two critical components to remediating an IEC condition: receptor control and source control. Both components have specific timeframes that must be adhered to regarding notification, remedial action, and reporting. Both components must be completed in order for an IEC case to be closed.

For the most up to date information regarding this new guidance, please visit the NJDEP’s SRRA page, and download a copy of the IEC Guidance.

NJ Memorandum of Agreement Process Discontinued

As a result of the May 2009 Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA), the NJDEP has discontinued the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) process.

The SRRA (previously detailed by REPSG here) amended the Brownfield and Contaminated Sites Act. Under section 30a, the SRRA includes a provision that establishes an “affirmative obligation on persons to remediate any discharge for which they would be liable pursuant to the Spill Compensation and Control Act,” therefore eliminating the need for a “voluntary cleanup program.”

Furthermore, section 30b of the SRRA requires responsible parties undertaking a remediation to proceed through the process without waiting for the NJDEP’s approval (unless otherwise directed by the Department). 12/1/2009

Following the requirements set forth in the SRRA, all new (begun after November 3, 2009) remediation cases that are subject to Section 30 of the SRRA will need to be performed by a Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP); while all remediation cases, including those currently under DEP oversight, will need to be performed by a LSRP after May 07, 2012.

The NJDEP still requires that cases subject to the Industrial Site Recovery Act (ISRA) Rules or the Underground Storage Tank Rules continue to utilize the forms found within the ISRA and UST online documentation.

PADEP Proposed Stormwater Management Rules

On October 31, 2009, that Pennsylvania Bulletin published information regarding proposed changes to how the State addresses the Clean Streams Law and the Federal Clean Water Act.
11/8/2009
The notice is targeted to those individuals who have applied for a new, amended, or renewed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.

Changes to NPDES renewal applications include a tentative determination to reissue these permits for 5 years, subject to effluent limitations and monitoring requirements.

For applications for new NPDES permits (and renewal applications that include major changes) the PADEP has tentatively decided to include effluent limitations, along with other terms and conditions.

If finalized, major changes to the permitting process will include:

  • The codification of the Department’s current requirement that a Post-Construction Stormwater Management (“PCSM”) Plan be submitted with an NPDES permit application for stormwater discharges during construction activities.
  • The inclusion of a mandatory riparian forest buffer zone in areas located within 150 feet from any side of a body of surface water indicated to be an “Exceptional Value” (EV) zone. With limited exception, development within riparian forest buffer zones will be prohibited.
  • The development of a new option for low impact projects that are located outside of an identified EV watershed zone; and which meet other eligibility requirements.
  • The installation of additional erosion and sedimentation control requirements in conjunction with agricultural activities.

In addition to these, and other changes to the rule, individuals applying for permits can expect application fees to increase significantly. The cost of a general NPDES permit will increase from $250 to $2,250; while the cost for individual NPDES permits will increase from $500 to $5,000.

For more information, please visit the PADEP’s Watershed Management webpage.

NJ Public Notification & Outreach

In an effort to maintain early, two-way communication with residents, business owners, and local officials about Site remediation activities that could potentially affect them, the NJDEP has adopted amendments to the Technical Requirements for Site Remediation (N.J.A.C. 7:26E).

The NJDEP recognizes that an effective outreach and notification program helps to create a forum in which information may be shared, and community concerns addressed early on in the remediation process. This early level of communication can translate to a savings of both time and money, and help to build community support.

To help establish this community forum, the Department is requiring that any person responsible for conducting a remediation of a contaminated Site perform public notification and outreach at the onset of a remedial investigation phase.

The NJDEP has compiled a list of FAQs, and also developed the guidance to help responsible remediation parties comply with the new amendments:

EPA’s New Lead Renovation, Repair, and Safety Rule

On April 22, 2008, the EPA issued a new rule regarding the use of lead-safe practices, along with other actions, specifically aimed at preventing lead poisoning. on 7/2/2009 (596 reads)

In April 2010, under this rule, any renovations, repair, and/or painting projects – performed by contractors – that disturb lead-based paint in child-care facilities, schools, and homes built before 1978 will need to be certified and follow specific practices in order to prevent contamination from lead. This rule will apply to the following paid renovators/contractors working within the above locations:

  • Renovation contractors;
  • Maintenance workers in multi-family housing; and
  • Painters and other specialty trades.

Between now and April 2010, the EPA is recommending that anyone conducting renovations, repairs, and/or painting projects which disturb lead-based paint in the above specified locations, follow the follow lead-safe practices:

Contractors, firms, and renovators may begin the certification process on October 22, 2009. Renovators need to undergo eight hours of initial training, and must become certified by April 22, 2010. Certified renovators are responsible for training other employees and for overseeing work practices and cleaning in order to maintain compliance with the new rule.

For additional information on the EPA’s new lead rule, please visit their website.

NJ Site Remediation Reform Act (SRAA)

A new Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA) was signed into law on May 7th, 2009 by NJ Governor Jon Corzine. The SRAA places the primary oversight responsibility for the majority of remediations into the hands of environmental consultants (such as REPSG) who will need to become Licensed Site Remediation Professionals (LSRPs) by a newly formed licensing board, thereby privatizing the clean-up process and streamlining the NJDEP’s oversight process. Important portions of the SRRA are detailed below:

  • The NJDEP will issue temporary licenses until such a time as the LSRP board has been established and its regulations developed;
  • With limited exception, all remediations must use an LSRP (subject to a three year phase-in period, depending on the nature of the case);
  • The LSRPs will essentially assume the NJDEP’s SRP oversight and closure authority for most cases; however, the NJDEP will retain primary oversight of certain categories of cases;
  • Some new limitations will be imposed on the selection of the remedial action to be used for sites with certain sensitive land uses (such as residential or educational areas) and for direct oversight cases;
  • Mandatory timeframes for initiating and completing various remediation activities will be established by the NJDEP;
  • A permitting program for the monitoring and maintenance of engineering and institutional controls will be established; and
  • The statute of limitations for claims by the State for natural resource damages associated with many sites will be extended.

Accompanying the SRRA, Governor Corzine issued an Executive Order which requires the NJDEP to annually file reports on LSRP program progress. Additionally, the order requires that all documents submitted to the Department by LSRPs be made available on the Internet.

The Executive Order also requires the Department to increase its oversight of any site containing groundwater contamination above remediation standards, or for sites that may be used for residential or educational purposes. The Executive Order also requires the auditing (by the NJDEP) of case documents submitted by all LSRPs during the next 2 years; with the SRRA only requiring audits of at least 10% of all LSRP submittals completed annually. This is meant to help insulate “an LSRP’s professional judgment from economic pressures to the maximum extent practicable;” allowing for the minimization of the role of cost as a factor in the remedy selection process.

Set up for the temporary licensing program for LSRPs is required to be completed by the Department within a period of 90 days; with the development of interim program rules to be completed within 6 months, prior to the formal promulgation of the SRRA’s regulations.

Additional information on the SRRA is available at the NJDEP’s SRP web site; with a helpful presentation concerning the SRRA available for download here.

DNREC Changes UST Regulations

Delaware’s Underground Storage Tank (UST) regulations were completely revamped last year and became effective January 11, 2008. In order to comply with the Federal Energy Policy Act (EPCT) additional changes are now proposed within the draft.

The draft UST regulations and a spreadsheet listing the changes are available at DNREC’s Division of Air and Waste Management website. A public hearing is scheduled for April 21, 2009 at DNREC’s Lukens Drive Office.

The most significant changes in the current draft include:

  • the addition of an operator training program;
  • prohibition of new USTs within specific distances from public, industrial or domestic wells;
  • retrofit/upgrade requirements;
  • a new option for modified inventory for used oil USTs; and
  • changes in routine inspection frequency to a range of 28-31 days.

NEW ASTM Vapor Intrusion Standards

Vapor intrusion occurs when off-gases from soil and groundwater contamination migrate into indoor air at occupied structures. Previously this hazard drew little attention, but in the last few years it has become a hot-button issue in the field of environmental due diligence and regulation compliance. REPSG’s due diligence group has evaluated the current ASTM Standard E 2600-08, “Standard Practice for Assessment of Vapor Intrusion into Structures on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions,” and also the planned revisions to this standard which are due out in May 2009. These reviews are integral to keeping REPSG’s approach to Potential Vapor Intrusion (pVI) issues at remediation sites and in due diligence studies on course.

BACKGROUND
The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) Rule (40 CFR Part 312) set the standard for conducting Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) to meet the test of the so-called “innocent purchaser defense” under the federal Superfund (or CERCLA) program. The purpose of performing an ESA is to allow the user to assert liability protections under Superfund. The AAI regulation references ASTM E 1527-05 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) Process” (Phase I ESA), indicating that it may be used to comply with the requirements of AAI.

AAI and ASTM E 1527-05 establish a standard, minimum baseline that is considered reasonable to provide a user with information about the environmental quality of a property. The main difference between AAI and ASTM E 1527-05 is that the AAI regulations include only contaminants that are CERCLA hazardous substances included in the federal Superfund program. Petroleum compounds are explicitly excluded from consideration under AAI but the potential for liability in other federal and state petroleum contamination laws and regulations are considered in Phase I ESAs.

The ASTM vapor intrusion assessment standard, ASTM E 2600-08, was developed with the intention of creating a standard procedure to assess vapor intrusion as it relates to property transactions. Vapor intrusion as a potential recognized environmental condition (REC) is not new and is considered to be incorporated into indoor air quality as a ‘non-scope consideration,’ in the same way as asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paint, mold, etc.

UPCOMING REVISIONS TO ASTM E 2600-08
Potential revisions currently under consideration by the ASTM Vapor Intrusion Task Group include:

  • Clarifying that the prescriptive part of the standard, Tiers 1 and 2, constitute VI screening which is only a part of the full VI assessment;
  • Clarifying that a pVIC only identifies the potential for vapors to reach the sub-surface of the target property, and does not necessarily result in an indoor air quality problem;
  • As a non-scope consideration under E 1527, a pVIC should not necessarily create a REC on the target property (it is a business risk);
  • Reword what is required under Tier 1 and Tier 2 so that it is easier to understand;
  • Eliminate the secondary area of concern (AOC) as it is unnecessary; and
  • Include a flowchart of Tier 1 and Tier 2 screening.

A revised E 2600 is expected to be approved in the fall of 2009 and would be published by ASTM toward the end of the year.

PRACTICAL APPLICATION
Concerns about vapor intrusion from soil and/or groundwater contamination at a site are not new, although the issue is receiving more attention. REPSG has consistently emphasized a pragmatic, fact-based, cost-conscious approach to this issue. We generally recommend that the mitigation of potential vapor intrusion issues be designed into development or redevelopment plans. There are several techniques that can be employed including engineering and/or institutional controls, as well as constructing structures that are intrinsically safe (e.g., elevated structures with ventilation between occupied areas and the ground).

Mitigating vapor intrusion concerns can be accomplished at developed sites through the installation of ventilation systems and sub-slab depressurization systems, similar to those used for mitigating radon, as well as sealing cracks and openings in structures to eliminate vapor pathways. The selection of the most appropriate measure takes careful consideration of the nature of the contaminant, the soil types present, and many other factors. REPSG’s decades of experience in facilitating the redevelopment of industrial sites gives us a substantial advantage in dealing with this issue.

To date, one of the most effective engineering controls employed by REPSG to mitigate vapor intrusion concerns during redevelopment has been the utilization of intrinsically safe building design. For a recent major project in Wilmington, Delaware, REPSG utilized the combination of a soil gas vapor membrane and intrinsically safe building designs, which was successful in eliminating human exposure to contaminants, and allowed for the safe redevelopment of the site for residential use.

Emergency Response News Brief (HQ)

(Washington, D.C. – Jan. 30, 2009) Emergency Response News Brief (HQ): EPA Seeks Additional Review, Extends Effective Date of Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Requirements. Consistent with the Office of Management and Budget’s January 21, 2009 memorandum regarding regulatory review, EPA is extending by 60 days the effective date of the December 5, 2008 Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) final rule.

The amendments will now become effective on April 4, 2009.

On December 5, 2008, EPA published in the Federal Register a rule to amend the SPCC regulations. The regulations contain requirements for oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response to prevent oil discharges to navigable waters and adjoining shorelines. Through the December regulation, EPA sought to encourage greater compliance with the SPCC regulations by clarifying regulatory requirements, tailoring requirements to particular industry sectors, and streamlining certain requirements for facility owners or operators subject to the rule.

In addition to extending the effective date, EPA is also providing a 30-day public comment period for the December 5, 2008 SPCC final rule. While the agency will accept public comment on all aspects of this rule, EPA is particularly interested in comment on the requirements for produced water containers at oil production facilities and the criteria for identification of qualified oil production facilities eligible to self-certify their SPCC plans. In addition, EPA is requesting public comment on the 60-day extension of the effective date of the December 5, 2008 final rule. Comments are due 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register.

The agency is also reviewing the dates by which owners or operators of facilities must prepare or amend their SPCC plans, and implement the plans. EPA intends to address these compliance dates in a separate notice.

Neither this extension, nor the December 5, 2008 final rule remove any regulatory requirement for owners or operators of facilities in operation before August 16, 2002 to maintain an SPCC plan in accordance with the SPCC regulations.

More information about SPCC regulations: http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/spcc

NJDEP Releases New Petroleum Analysis Requirements

NJDEP has lowered the organic compound health value from 10,000 mg/kg to 4,800 mg/kg and has implemented a new ecological screening value. This change must be considered for all plans and reports submitted after March 17, 2009 or additional costs for resubmittal will result. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (418.1) analysis is no longer acceptable for No. 2 heating oil/diesel fuel assessments. Details below.

Any value exceeding the 4,800 mg/kg human health based criterion will require further evaluation to determine the need for additional delineation and potential remedial action.

For concentrations above 1,000 mg/kg, the current requirement to analyze for volatile organic compounds plus 10 tentatively identified compounds (VO+10) is being discontinued. In its place, the NJDEP will require that a base neutral compounds plus 15 tentatively identified compounds (BN+15) analysis of 25% of the samples exceeding the 1,000 mg/kg concentration threshold. Of particular concern are the base neutral compounds naphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene.

Analysis methods acceptable by the Department for no. 2 fuel oil and/or diesel fuel oil are SW-846 Method 8015B – Diesel Range Organics and the Department’s OQA-QAM-025, and/or their latest versions or equivalents.

Ecological Based Screening Value:
A new ecological screening value of 1,700 mg/kg is applicable to all petroleum hydrocarbon discharges if a sensitive environmental receptor is potentially impacted, as determined by a baseline ecological evaluation. In this case, an ecological risk assessment will need to be conducted for the purpose of establishing a site-specific ecological criterion. The maximum allowable site-specific ecological criterion is 4,800 mg/kg.

Future Plans:
Currently under development at the NJDEP is a site-specific approach using an Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon (EPH) method, which will be used to replace the 4,800 mg/kg value. The public and regulated community will be notified via the Department’s website when the EPH Method becomes available and the site-specific approach implemented.