About GEC

• Who We Are
• Our Mission
• Contact Us
• Newsletter

• Recent Newsletters
• 2006 Spring Newsletter
• 2005 Fall Newsletter
• 2005 Spring Newsletter
• 2004 Winter Newsletter
• 2004 Fall Newsletter
• 2004 Summer Newsletter
• 2004 Winter Newsletter
• 2003 Fall Newsletter

Home > About GEC > Our Mission

GEC Newsletter—Fall 2005

In this Issue...

• Proposed Revisions to ASTM Transaction Screen Standards
• New Computer Drafting Capabilities Assist in Large Brownfield Site Development Project
• Final Wave 2 Revisions to Massachusetts Contingency Plan

 

Proposed Revisions to ASTM Transaction Screen Standards

The task group for ASTM 1528 (Environmental Site Assessments: Transaction Screen Process) recently issued comment on the proposed and revised standard. With changes to the ASTM Standard for Phase I Site Assessments likely to change as a result of the pending All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) standard, a looming question is where the Transaction Screen will fit in the due diligence process.

The memorandum states what is somewhat obvious to those familiar with the proposed AAI and the level of effort associated with typical due diligence - that compliance with E-1528 will not achieve CERCLA liability protections. Despite that fact, the Transaction Screen remains a valuable assessment tool for those relatively low-risk projects where the level of effort associated with a Phase I consistent with AAI may not be appropriate or necessary. As stated in the memorandum "[t]he issue is not the Transaction Screen versus the Phase I, but performance a Transaction Screen versus doing nothing".

As proposed, the revised Transaction Screen is a simpler standard and one that will not require "environmental professionals" for completion, as the current standard requires. This may broaden the use of the Transaction Screen but may also have the effect of reducing the quality of the investigation as less qualified individuals are tasked with conducting the work. Further, GEC sees the possibility for less-than-objective evaluation of properties as lending institutions ask those with a direct interest in securing a loan to complete the Transaction Screen. GEC believes that larger lending institutions with in-house environmental risk staff will start or continue to complete the Transaction Screens in-house while smaller institutions may continue to rely on outside firms to complete a simpler and cheaper Transaction Screen.

New Computer Drafting Capabilities Assist in Large Brownfield Site Development Project

GEC has upgraded its computer drafting software to the latest Autodesk technology including Land Desktop, Survey and Civil 3D. With this come greater exceptional project design capabilities.

With Autodesk Land Desktop and Autodesk Survey we have the ability to create terrain modeling with coordinate geometry using real-world coordinate systems as well as topographic analysis and volume totals. We can more efficiently create base plans and figures from data captured in the field saving time and money.

Autodesk Civil 3D is the latest and most advanced civil engineering tool in computer drafting and design. It streamlines all aspects of final design production as well as analyzes contours, slopes and watershed areas, road modeling, and balances cut/fill volumes in grading and layout piping projects. This software is faster and more accurate due to the use of dynamic engineering models.

To compliment the new software GEC also improved our plotters. This new equipment can product many more engineering drawing per hour than our previous system.

GEC is currently utilizing these new and exciting capabilities in the redevelopment of a Brownfield project in eastern Massachusetts. A former town landfill, sand and gravel operation, and fuel distribution company site is proposed for redeveloped into a Planned Village Development with residential and commercial uses. GEC's new computer software and hardware is essential to producing accurate state-of-the-art plans and specifications, including roadway layouts, sewer and water piping details, landfill capping design, and building details, to name a few. With our new drafting capabilities design plans can be more easily modified and proofed in a timely manner, as is typically necessary during the permitting process. Streamlining the development of accurate as-built plans on such a large project will significantly lower the overall project cost.

For more information about our computer drafting capabilities please contact Jason Fortin at 781-356-9140. For more information regarding the redevelopment project please contact Brian Donahoe.

Final Wave 2 Revisions to Massachusetts Contingency Plan

Wave 2 revisions to the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) are nearing completion, and should be issued soon. Currently the final regulatory changes are being reviewed by the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP), followed by the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. At the soonest, the new regulations could be published in early October, with an effective date three months later. However, the release date may actually be later.

Some of the more significant changes to the MCP are described below:

• The Wave 2 revisions significantly expand the public involvement activities including
  
  1. Currently legal notices are used to inform the public of key milestones in MCP response actions for a site. The Wave 2 revisions require that advertisements published in the local news section of newspapers, rather than legal notices. If the newspaper does not allow advertisements or the cost of the advertisement is more than 20% higher than the cost of the legal notice, a legal notice can be published in lieu of the advertisement.
  2. The revisions require that property owners be notified of the results of analyses of samples obtained from their properties. This change would exempt the owner from notification requirements so long as MADEP was previously notified of the disposal site.
  3. A Release Notification Form must be provided to local officials within 7 days of submission to the MADEP.
  4. Property owners must be notified of the inclusion of their property within the boundaries of a disposal site at the completion of Phase II and upon submittal of a Class A or B Response Action Outcome.
  5. The revisions expand public involvement activities for non-Public Involvement Plan sites to allow for a public repository for documents and public comment periods.

• The current MCP allows only public entities, such as redevelopment authorities, local, state or federal authorities or agencies, to conduct response actions under a Special Project Designation. This designation allows greater flexibility in meeting MCP deadlines. The revised regulations expand the list of eligible entities to include private parties that offer a public benefit, such as economic development, public housing, recreation, etc. The parties must have community written support.

• The Wave 2 revisions provide for a notification exemption for arsenic in soil and groundwater, and beryllium in soil, for areas where these levels are naturally high including Worcester County (arsenic) and Boston Blue Clay (arsenic and beryllium).

• Wave 2 revisions require Remedial Monitoring Reports monthly for Imminent Hazards and Conditions of Substantial Release Migration and every six months for other remedial systems.

• Wave 2 revisions split Class C Response Action Outcome (RAO) (Temporary Solution) into two subcategories. Class C-1 indicates Substantial Hazards are eliminated; no Permanent Solution exists; and requires periodic evaluation. Class C-2 means Substantial Hazards are eliminated; a Permanent Solution is feasible; and requires continuing response actions toward a Permanent Solution. Existing Class C RAO's will be classified as C-1 until MADEP hears otherwise.

• The Wave 2 revisions include substantial changes to the numerical standards including the Method 1 Risk Characterization Standards, Upper Concentration Limits and Reportable Concentrations. MADEP will allow for a three month transition period from the time the new standards are published until their effective date. In the interim, the new Method 1 Standards can be used under a Method 2 Risk Characterization. These changes could have a significant affect on on-going response actions, especially where the revised Method 1 Standards are lower than the current standards. All sites with on-going MCP response actions should be evaluated to determine what affect, if any, these changes will have on the need to remediate.

1. Most of the revised GW-1 groundwater standards (protective of drinking water) are lower than the current GW-1 standards.
2. The revised GW-2 groundwater standards (protective of indoor air impacts) are both up and down. Common hazardous materials with significantly lower revised GW-2 standards include: chlorobenzene; 1,4-dichlorobenzene; cis-1,2-dichloroethene; trans-1,2-dichloroethene; 2-methylnapthalene; naphthalene; and trichloroethene.
3. Many of the S-1, S-2 and S-3 soil standards are lower, mostly due to increased consideration of the leaching potential (to groundwater) of oils and hazardous materials. The Direct Contact Method 2 soil standards are mostly higher than the current standards. The direct contact standards do not factor in leaching potential.
4. Upper Concentration Limits are a mixed bag, some are up and some are down.

• The Wave 2 revisions contain a provision requiring use of the MADEP's toxicity values over other sources of toxicity values, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). When they differ, the MADEP's toxicity values are usually more conservative than the USEPA's and may result in a higher cancer or non-cancer risk estimate. All sites with on-going MCP response actions should be evaluated to determine what affect, if any, these changes will have on the need to remediate.

[September 2005]