Developing Soil Re-use Criteria in California for the Alameda Corridor Project
Carl Peter Ripaldi, URS Corporation, Los Angeles, CA

Asbestos in Soil: An Owner's Perspective
John M. O’Donnell, P.E., Division of Capital Asset Management, Boston, MA
Mark Roberts, P.E., Division of Capital Asset Management, Boston, MA  

Immediate Response Actions to Address Impacts to Residential Receptors
Janine Commerford, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Boston, MA 
Millie Garcia-Surette, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Lakeville, MA
Laurel MacKay, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Willmington, MA
Paul Locke, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Boston, MA
Gerard Martin, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Lakeville, MA

Army and Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Partnership for Compatible Training and Sustainable Environmental Protection in Cape Cod, Massachusetts
LTC Brian D. Rogers, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.  
COL Joseph Materia, Army National Guard - Environmental Readiness Center, Camp Edwards, MA
CPT Anthony Sciaraffa, Massachusetts National Guard, Milford, MA 
LTC Timothy A. Mullen, Massachusetts Air National Guard Headquarters, Otis ANGB, MA

Emerging Water Contaminants: Technical, Legal and Policy Challenges
Rula A. Deeb, Ph.D., Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Emeryville, CA 94608,
Michael C. Kavanaugh, Ph.D., P.E., Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Emeryville, CA  

Developing Soil Re-use Criteria in California for the Alameda Corridor Project

Carl Peter Ripaldi, URS Corporation, 911 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 800, Los Angeles, CA 0017-3437, Tel: 213 996-2444, Email: carl_ripaldi@urscorp.com

In California, there are ample regulations regarding the management and disposal of hazardous and contaminated soils as waste under the jurisdiction of CalEPA’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).  However, there is a lack of specific guidelines for contractors to use when it comes to evaluating the suitability of soils for re-use as fill.  Impacted soils may have trace amounts of contaminants that are not considered hazardous but may be regulated under these agencies depending on the circumstances. 

In some cases background levels of heavy metals or petroleum hydrocarbons may exceed waste discharge criteria (WDRs) established by the regulatory agencies presenting the possibility that native soils can’t be legally re-used as fill.  This presents a great dilemma to the construction industry regarding the establishment of acceptable re-use criteria for soils used as fill.  Typically, soil brokers check the soils only to see if they are below hazardous levels for the criteria pollutants established by the agencies. It also presents scenarios in which millions of tons of soils being re-used as construction fill may exceed acceptable contaminant levels resulting in the potential of cross contaminating building sites with soils believed to be clean but unacceptable under currently established regulations.  Such actions open up the possibilities of enforcement actions, penalties and fines under federal and California law.  They further cloud the acceptability of such sites for redevelopment by a skeptical general public.

The Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) dealt with these issues as it struggled with the need to re-use thousands of tons of impacted soils as construction fill within the project.  This became both a cost and schedule consideration.  Following considerable investigations, the establishment of background levels for metals and fuel hydrocarbons in native soils, the interpretation of existing regulations and waste criteria, and agency negotiations an acceptable criteria was established allowing for the re-use of considerable amounts of soils within the project confines.

The ACTA experience merits careful consideration by other projects in order to avoid regulatory actions, conserve resources, and facilitate construction.

Asbestos in Soil:  An Owner’s Perspective  

John M. O’Donnell, P.E., Deputy Director, Division of Capital Asset Management, One Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108, Tel: 617-727-4030, Email: john.odonnell@dcp.state.ma.us
Mark Roberts, P.E., Project Manager, Division of Capital Asset Management, One Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108, Tel: 617-727-4030, Email: mark.roberts@.state.ma.us

Most major construction sites in urban areas encounter contamination due to past industrial, retail, and/or residential uses of the property.  Typically, evaluation of contamination at these urban sites has focused on Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), petroleum and metals.  However, there has been an increased focus on asbestos in soil/fill due to historic demolition and urban contamination (e.g., automotive brake dust).  As contractors and developers gain experience in this area, they are testing for and identifying asbestos in the soils and fill on these properties.  As such, the presence of asbestos can have major cost and schedule issues for construction projects in urban environments.   The authors will present an overview of asbestos issues in soil and recount two case studies to illustrate the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Capital Asset Management’s experience in redeveloping urban properties in Massachusetts.

The paper will discuss the regulatory framework that relates to asbestos fibers in soil/fill and will include a discussion of applicable Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) and waste prevention regulations and policies.  Case studies will be used to illustrate discrepancies between the programs.  Analytical methods available for testing of asbestos-containing materials in soil and the potential inaccuracies of these methods will also be discussed, as well as a risk-based approach to developing site specific risk values. The paper will address these issues through case studies on actual urban construction projects.  Finally, the paper will identify areas that may need to be further evaluated or considered by the regulatory and regulated communities to improve addressing asbestos in soil.

Immediate Response Actions Designed to Address Impacts to Residential Receptors

Janine Commerford, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 1 Winter Street, Boston, MA  02108, Tel: 617 556-1121, Fax: 617 556-1049, Email: janine.commerford@state.ma.us
Millie Garcia-Surette, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 20 Riverside Drive, Lakeville, MA 02347, Tel: 508 946-2727, Fax: 508 947-6557, Email: millie.garcia-suretts@state.ma.us
Laurel MacKay, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 205 Lowell Street, Willmington, MA 01887,Tel: 978 661-7793, Fax: 978 661-7615, Email: laurel.mackay@state.ma.us
Paul Locke, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 1 Winter Street, Boston, MA 02108, Tel: 617 556-1160, Fax: 617 556-1049, Email: paul.locke@state.ma.us
Gerard Martin, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 20 Riverside Drive, Lakeville, MA 02347,Tel: 508 946-2799, Fax: 508 947-6557, Email: gerard.martin@state.ma.us

If Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) are unable or unwilling to conduct the response actions, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) may undertake or arrange for response actions as it reasonably deems necessary. In cases where significant evidence exists of an Imminent Hazard (IH) condition to public health, safety, welfare, or the environment from oil and/or hazardous materials at/or from a disposal site, the MADEP is required by statute to immediately ensure that action is taken to control the potential for health damage, human exposure, safety hazards and environmental harm through the appropriate measures. These measures may include, but not be limited to, limiting access to the site; evacuating the area or relocating residents; providing alternative water supplies; or taking other similar temporary action that will remain effective until other comprehensive remedial measures can be implemented by the PRP.  

Based on this requirement, the MADEP employs a standard approach to conducting IRAs to address residential receptors using state funds. This approach considers the circumstances under which the MADEP initiates the work, the types of response actions likely to mitigate the specific exposure, criteria by which the MA DEP would provide alternative housing (with re-entry strategy) and an exit strategy designed to outline when the MADEP completes the state-funded response actions. This presentation highlights selected case studies where the MADEP has initiated or conducted response actions to address impacts to residential receptors, including private water supply wells, indoor air and soil.   

Army and Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Partnership for Compatible Training and Sustainable Environmental Protection in Cape Cod, Massachusetts

LTC Brian D. Rogers, Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Environment, Safety & Occupational Health, 110 Army Pentagon, Washington, D.C.  20310-0010, Tel: 703-6951020, Fax: 703-614-5822, Email: brian.rogers@hqda.army.mil
COL Joseph Materia, Army National Guard – Environmental Readiness Center, Building 1017, S. Inner Road, Camp Edwards, MA 02524, Tel: 508 968-5106, Fax: 508 968-5144, Email: joseph.materia@ma.ngb.army.mil
CPT Anthony Sciaraffa, Massachusetts National Guard, Adjutant General’s Office, 50 Maple Street, Milford, MA 02757, Tel: 508-233-6555, Fax: 508-223-6554, Email: anthony.sciaraffa@ma.ngb.army.mil
LTC Timothy A. Mullen, Massachusetts Air National Guard Headquarters, 330 East Inner Road, Otis ANGB MA 02542-1320, Tel: 508-968-7250, Fax: 508-968-7269, Email: timothy.mullen@maotis.ang.af.mil

Historically, there has been much controversy over contamination of groundwater supply in the Upper Cape and the effects of past military training. The need for military training and environmental protection led to divisiveness between the military and the communities located adjacent to the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR).  Realizing the need to minimize these tensions or face losing a vital training area, the Department of the Army (the Army) and the Massachusetts Army National Guard (the Guard) developed a partnership-based plan with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to ensure continued military training that does not harm the Cape’s natural resources.

The first tier of the Guard’s two-tiered plan is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that articulates Environmental Performance Standards (EPS) for training that exceed current regulatory requirements but that still accomplish the military’s training mission. The second tier is a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for long-term environmental management of the MMR.  This MOA created a three-member Environmental Management Commission (EMC) to oversee training on the base to ensure environmental compatibility, an Environmental Officer to work daily with the military, a Community Advisory Council (CAC) and a Scientific Advisory Council (SAC).

This presentation will describe how this MOA was developed and signed by Department of the Army and Commonwealth officials, including the Governor.   This partnering approach is being touted as a national model that meets the needs of the military and the environmental constituencies alike.

Emerging Water Contaminants: Technical, Legal and Policy Challenges

Rula A. Deeb, Ph.D., Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1180, Emeryville, CA 94608,Tel: 510-735-3005, Fax: 510-596-8855, Email: rdeeb@pirnie.com
Michael C. Kavanaugh, Ph.D., P.E., Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1180, Emeryville, CA 94608, Tel: 510-735-3010, Fax: 510-596-8855, Email: mkavanaugh@pirnie.com

Approximately 120 new chemicals are created each year due to ever-improving industry and technology markets. Releases of new contaminants into the environment can occur during production, use and disposal of these chemicals thereby leading to potential contamination of water supply sources. Very few emerging contaminants are regulated. In addition, knowledge gaps regarding emerging contaminants include lack health effects, occurrence (either because these compounds are not measured or because concentrations are below detection limits of readily available analytical techniques) and fate and transport in the environment especially with regards to mobility and persistence. The sources of these compounds are numerous. One source is treated wastewater which is re-injected into groundwater aquifers for indirect potable reuse purposes. Emerging compounds of concern can be classified in various classes. This presentation will focus on contaminants which have emerged in the last 10 years including pharmaceuticals (antibiotics/drugs), personal care products (polycyclic musks), pesticides/herbicides, industrial solvents (1,4-dioxane), gasoline additives (MTBE), disinfection byproducts such as NDMA (N-nitrosodimethylamine), and inorganic compounds such as perchlorate and arsenic. This presentation will present technical, legal and legislative challenges posed by the presence of these contaminants in water. Background information including chemical’s history of use, sources in the environments, nationwide occurrence, physical and chemical properties, behavior in the environment and technologies for removal from soil and water will be presented. In addition, case studies on MTBE, pharmaceuticals and personal care products, 1,4-dioxane, arsenic and NDMA will be discussed.

Top