Text Box: Text Box: Page #
Text Box: Volume 8, issue    3

  MONITORING EVERY FIVE YEARS??

The recent proposal for monitoring of groundwater in Site 78 at a frequency of every 5 years has prompted a response from the USEPA (August 26, 2009) that compares the monitoring precedents set for other areas where long-term monitoring is a component of the remedy. 

 

Volleys of comments were exchanged back and forth between the USEPA and the Army regarding Site 78. The USEPA approved the most recent round of comments with the exception of that pertaining to the monitoring frequency for MNA ( monitored natural attenuation ) related to the remedy (comment 33). Initially the Army proposed the following : “Monitoring events would be performed quarterly for the first year, semi-annually during year 2, annually for years 3 through 5,

and once every 5 years until completion.”  The USEPA

countered that any frequency less than annually was unacceptable. To this the Army responded that the proposed frequency was consistent with that for MNA in the Area E Record of Decision and in the Area D (Remedial Design) RD. The USEPA responded by noting that in accordance with Area B, the case for less frequent monitoring for MNA should be made in the 5-year review, not before remedy implementation. The Army’s next response was that the proposed monitoring frequency is consistent with that approved for Area E and Area D RDs and that the frequency was selected to be consistent with other sites where previous agreements have been made in the RODs. The last comment made was issued from the USEPA on August 26, 2009. The USEPA again reiterated that the frequencies were not consistent between Area E, Area D, and Area B; and that the frequencies of

monitoring have been inconsistent between the ROD (Record of Decision) and the RD for a given site. To support its contention the USEPA included the  table on the following page (which is taken directly from the August 26, 2009 letter to the Army).

 

In the closing of the August 26, 2009 letter the EPA reiterates its request that long-term MNA sampling frequency for Site 78 follow the more recent precedent set by the RD for Area B and E. To be specific — sample annually and conduct five year reviews. Adjust sampling only if warranted and approved by the regulators.

 

The Army states that it has agreed to the monitoring frequency for Site 78 as was noted in its September 1st.cover letter to the USEPA that accompanied the revised and final feasibility study for Site 78.

On June 26, 2009 the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response transmitted a CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980) policy directive entitled “Summary of Key Existing EPA CERCLA Policies for Groundwater Restoration” to Superfund National Policy Managers in Regions I through X. The document was described as a

 

 compilation of some key existing EPA groundwater policies to assist EPA Regions in making groundwater restoration decisions pursuant to CERCLA and the NCP.” 

 

It is guidance on how the EPA intends to interpret and implement the NCP. The guidance presents the

 

 key overall principles for groundwater remedial actions, as well as

 

 

important concepts related to the following:

 

  • Whether CERCLA remedial action is warranted
  • Appropriate role of institutional controls (ICs)
  • Groundwater classification and beneficial use policy
  • Remedial action cleanup levels
  • Groundwater point of compliance.”

 

 Basically the guidance follows the “fundamental tenet of the NCP” to return usable groundwaters to their beneficial uses wherever practicable.

 

 There are “five key principles that stem from the overarching expectations for groundwater restoration.”  The key principles are

 

 

 

summarized below:

  • If groundwater that is a current or potential source of drinking water is contaminated above protective levels, restore that aquifer to beneficial use (e.g., drinking water standards) whenever practicable.
  • No migration and no further contamination of aquifer or other media.
  • Technical impracticability waiver and other waivers may be considered.
  • Early actions should be considered as soon as possible.
  • ICs should not be relied upon as the only response to contaminated groundwater or as justification for not taking action under CERCLA.

 

  NEW OSWER DIRECTIVE

PAERAB Home Next Page Previous Page