Newsletters & Articles

Pennsylvania Regulatory Update: PADEP Renews the NPDES General Permit (PAG-03)

February 1, 2023

After a long wait, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) has finally renewed the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (PAG-03). In order for existing sites to maintain their coverage under the renewed PAG-03 General Permit, you must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the PADEP on or before March 23, 2023. While this renewed permit is similar to the prior PAG-03 permit, there are significant changes that could affect your Facility’s operations. These changes should be discussed with your environmental laboratory and consultants.

As with the prior permit, discharges to High Quality (HQ) or Exceptional Value (EV) waters are excluded from coverage under the General Permit. Accordingly, facilities whose receiving streams have been redesignated as HQ or EV waters are no longer eligible for a General Permit, and must apply for an Individual Permit no later than March 23, 2023.

What’s Required with the NOI Submission?

An updated Preparedness, Prevention and Contingency (PPC) Plan needs to be included with the NOI.

Laboratory analytical results may be required for facilities that discharge to receiving waters with an already specified impairment. For example:

For receiving waters already impaired by excess siltation, sediment and/or flow variability, the discharging facility should report Total Suspended Solids (TSS) with their NOI.

For receiving waters already impaired by nutrients, the discharging facility should report Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen should be reported.

For receiving waters with existing TMDLs for specific pollutants, the discharging facility may need to submit lab data for that specific pollutant.

For outfalls associated with stormwater basins that do not typically discharge, samples may be taken at the basin outflow.

If no samples were taken within the last two years, any samples taken over the previous permit term (since September 23, 2016) may be reported on the NOI.

Facilities should act quickly in order to obtain the required outfall sample results prior to the March 23^rd submission deadline.

What New Monitoring & Reporting Requirements Are There?

The renewed PAG-03 requires increased levels of response for continual exceedances of the “Benchmark Values”. The first requirement is unchanged: two or more consecutive monitoring period exceedances of Benchmark Values triggers the requirement to develop and submit a Corrective Action Plan (CAP), implement additional controls, or apply for an individual permit if notified in writing by DEP. However, after four consecutive exceedances of the Benchmark Values, the renewed PAG-03 now requires permittees to submit the Stormwater BMP Checklist (3800-PM-BCW0083l) to certify that all applicable BMP controls have been considered for implementation. In addition,

new benchmark values of 9.0 S.U. for pH, 120 mg/L COD and 3.0 mg/ for Nitrate and Nitrite-Nitrogen have been added to each appendix that contains monitoring for those parameters; and
the new PAG-03 now requires monitoring for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus in all covered industrial sectors.

New Laboratory Analytical Requirements

Permittees and their labs are now required to use an analytical method capable of meeting the Target Quantitation Limits (TQLs) for the parameters identified in the new PAG-03 General Permit. Failure to achieve the TQLs will be considered non-compliance by the PADEP, even though the TQL’s are an order of magnitude or less than the benchmark values. Based on our discussions with environmental laboratories, most of these TQL’s can typically be achieved, but some Method Detection Limits, for example, total aluminum and ammonia-nitrogen, are slightly below the laboratory’s method detection limit. Note that the environmental laboratory may need to use different analytical methods to achieve the TQL’s. This issue will need to be resolved with the PADEP in the coming months.

Brickhouse Environmental’s experienced staff of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Scientists are already working on several of our clients’ permit renewals, but we are happy and ready to assist you with your stormwater design, permitting and compliance implementation as well.

For more information, please contact Al Yates, P.E.

Pennsylvania’s new MCLs for PFOA and PFOS Will have Significant Impacts on Drinking Water Suppliers, Environmental Due Diligence, and Act 2 Cleanups

January 24, 2023

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) has announced its publication of the PFAS MCL Rule in the January 14, 2023 Pennsylvania Bulletin. The rule became effective as of that date.

The new rule sets the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 14 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and an MCL of 18 ppt for PFOS in drinking water.

PADEP’s new PFAS MCL Rule webpage confirms that the rule applies to all public water systems in the Commonwealth, and that the monitoring requirements have been established for community water systems, nontransient noncommunity water systems, and bottled, vended, retail, and bulk systems (BVRBs). Initial monitoring will be required for 4 consecutive calendar quarters at each entry point (EP) to the distribution systems over the next year or two, depending on the type of system.

The new standards apply not only to public water systems, but also to environmental site cleanups, as these concentrations are also now adopted as new Statewide Health Standards for PFOA and PFOS in groundwater under Pennsylvania’s Act 2 regulations. This creates significant new considerations in Phase I Environmental Site Assessments in Pennsylvania, and may lead to more site owners seeking Act 2 cleanup liability protection in the future.

Brickhouse Environmental has been very active in the monitoring and evaluation of PFAS in groundwater, including source identification and migration studies. If you have questions on PFAS or how the new PFAS MCL Rule may affect your property, please contact David Farrington or one of our other Professional Geologists.

Brickhouse Welcomes Two New Employees

January 23, 2023

Brickhouse Environmental welcomes two new full-time team members, Mr. Ryan Stauffer and Mr. Christopher Hartsky.

Ryan Stauffer

Ryan comes to Brickhouse with over 10 years of experience in environmental consulting. His experience includes conducting environmental site assessments, sampling soil, groundwater, and soil vapor, and completing site characterization and remediation of petroleum contaminated sites throughout the Mid-Atlantic region. Ryan is a graduate of Millersville University with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Geography and a M.B.A from the University of Delaware. When not busy writing technical reports, Ryan enjoys rooting for the Eagles, Phillies, and Flyers with his wife and two sons.

Chris Hartsky

Chris is a graduate from Washington College with a degree in Environmental Science and West Chester University with a certificate in Geographic Information Systems (GIS). He comes to Brickhouse Environmental with 4 years of environmental sampling experience, including specialties in air emissions testing and database management. When Chris is not out leading one of Brickhouse’s field teams, you can find him on the golf course or at a local brewery enjoying a craft IPA.

Does my Business Need a Spill Plan?

January 23, 2023

“I didn’t even know what a Spill Plan is, let alone that I needed one!” This is something we have heard often, and it is understandable. Successful small businesses invest a lot of time and money establishing infrastructure, procedures and employee training to safely manage their process liquids and waste streams. However, they are sometimes unaware of specific regulatory requirements for a Spill Plan, and the benefits that they can provide.

Benefits of a Spill Plan – Some of the benefits of a plan include:

Spill prevention helps to protect workers
Timely and appropriate spill response can prevent discharges to the environment
Both of the above help reduce liability and costs
Regulatory compliance can avoid fines and/or shutdowns

Types of Spill Plans – Some of the more typical spill plans and their regulatory triggers are:

Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan: The EPA requires Facilities with a total aggregate capacity of above-ground oil storage containers greater than 1,320 gallons of oil (containers 55-gallons or greater) or 42,000 gallons of oil stored in buried tanks, which could discharge to navigable water or shorelines, to maintain a SPCC Plan.

Note: “Navigable waters” can include perennial or intermittent streams and/or wetlands.

Facility Response Plan (FRP): The EPA requires Facilities that could reasonably be expected to cause “substantial harm” to the environment by discharging oil into or on navigable waters to prepare and submit Facility Response Plans (FRPs).

State-Specific Spill Plans: Individual states also have their own spill and emergency response plan, which are typically required by various stormwater, water quality, oil & gas, and waste management permits and regulations. For example, Pennsylvania has the Preparedness, Prevention and Contingency (PPC) Plan and New jersey has the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP). These plans can typically be combined with a SPCC Plan.

Additional State-Specific Plans Related to Storage Tanks: For example Pennsylvania’s Spill Prevention Response (SPR) Plan, pertains to aboveground storage facilities with greater than 21,000-gallons of regulated substances.

RCRA Contingency Plan Quick Reference Guide: Recently, the EPA started requiring Small and Large Quantity Generators of Hazardous Waste to maintain a Quick Reference Guide in their RCRA Contingency Plan to better respond to hazardous waste releases and accidents.

Although mandated by different regulations, these spill plans share some common elements. They are created to prevent and respond to releases of oil, or other regulated substances, which could impact human health or the environment. The regulated substances are inventoried and required to be safely stored, such as in a fire box or secondary containment structure. They contain detailed worker training, response, countermeasures and public notification requirements in the event of a release. Finally, spill plans identify the manpower, procedures and equipment dedicated to preventing a spill from occurring or reaching the environment.

Who needs a Spill Plan:

Facilities that generate, manage or store significant amounts of oils or chemicals;
Facilities with greater than 1,320 gallons of aboveground oil storage or 42,000 gallons of below ground storage;
Facilities that require stormwater, water quality, oil & gas, or waste management permits;
Facilities required to implement a spill plan by state or federal regulators (this is often initiated after a spill or leak response); and
Small and Large Quantity Generators of Hazardous Waste.

Brickhouse Environmental’s experienced staff of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Scientists are able to quickly identify the need for a spill plan, and implement the required industrial compliance and reporting solutions. For more information, please contact Al Yates, P.E.

PA Act 2 Challenges — Mercury Vapor Intrusion

January 23, 2023

PADEP’s New Soil Vapor Screening Values Are Helpful (At Some Sites)

2022 brought a new headache to the Act 2 process in Pennsylvania – the need to evaluate possible Mercury vapor intrusion to buildings.

The Problem
One of the requirements of Act 2 has always been that the vapor intrusion pathway to buildings must be evaluated for substances of vapor intrusion concern. But this had previously been reserved for organic compounds in soil or groundwater — not for metals. In 2022, because of its volatility, Mercury was added to the list of regulated substances needing a vapor intrusion assessment as part of PADEP’s Act 2 approval process. And mercury is sometimes detected at concentrations exceeding Act 2 Statewide Health Standards in “historic fill” in urban areas.

The Dilemma
Unfortunately, the mercury vapor assessment process proved to be challenging, as the PADEP had not yet published screening values to perform the evaluation. Also, US EPA Regional Screening Levels are not directly applicable in many instances. And pursuing the Site Specific Standard for Mercury in soil instead of the Statewide Health Standard can add another big layer of unexpected complexity.

A Partial Solution
The process gained some clarity in October 2022, when the PADEP issued vapor intrusion screening values for indoor air, sub-slab, and near source soil gas samples that can be applied within the Act 2 program. These new screening values begin to solve the problem, as they provide a more concrete method for evaluating possible vapor intrusion to onsite and offsite buildings. But you still need to collect soil gas samples to use those screening levels, as screening values are still not yet available for soil or groundwater.

Options:
For sites where mercury vapor is identified as a potential concern, and relief of cleanup liability is desired for mercury in soil, two primary options exist:

Mitigate the vapor intrusion pathway – This option typically involves the use of a vapor barrier and/or sub-slab depressurization system. If not already included in the cleanup plan for your site, the addition of these systems to a building can prove to be an unnecessary expense for sites where mercury exists at low levels or in a form that does not produce appreciable vapors.
Collect soil gas samples to evaluate the vapor intrusion pathway – This option involves the collection of air samples from the subsurface, beneath a building slab, or inside a building to compare to the newly published mercury vapor intrusion screening values. This may provide options that eliminate the need to install potentially costly vapor mitigation systems. While there may be some additional time and cost for this testing, it may be well worth it if it avoids the time and cost needed for installation of a DEP-approved vapor mitigation system.

Evaluation of the threat of vapor intrusion due to mercury is continuing to evolve. Brickhouse has been working with PADEP on several remediation projects involving the issue and continues to find creative ways to ensure the safety of building occupants, avoid significant unnecessary expenses, and work within the regulatory structure to provide liability protections for property owners and land developers.

For more information, or to discuss various options for your property, please contact us at (610) 692-5770 to talk with Steve Huxta or one of our other vapor intrusion experts.

NJDEP Requirements for Evaluating PFAS and Other “Contaminants of Emerging Concern”

June 29, 2022

On August 5, 2021, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) issued updated guidance on requirements for evaluating Contaminants of Emerging Concern (“CECs”), such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

The August 5^thNJDEP update specifically addresses 4 CECs, including: PFAS; 1,4-dioxane; 1,2,3-trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP), and perchlorate.

The requirement to evaluate CECs applies to any site currently undergoing remediation in NJ, as well as sites that have already completed the active remedial process but have ongoing maintenance or monitoring obligations. As an example, for a site where a Remedial Action Permit has already been obtained, but a Classification Exception Area (CEA) is in place, the Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP) for the site will need to conduct a CEC evaluation for the site. Likewise, for sites that are still in the remediation process, the LSRP is required to assess whether one or more of the 4 specified CECs is a potential contaminant of concern at the site.

While this may have slipped under the radar for some, parties with ongoing compliance obligations at a remediated site should understand that a CEC evaluation will be required as part of their next report submission. For instance, NJDEP has updated its Biennial Certification forms to specifically require a CEC evaluation as part of the submittal for sites with Remedial Action Permits.

The NJDEP Guidance for evaluating CECs can be found here: https://www.state.nj.us/dep/srp/emerging-contaminants