* No specific standards for the VCP

* Basically based on state Standards, Criteria and Guidelines (SCGs) applicable to other contam-inated site programs

* Bond Act (for muni-cipal BF program) requires BF remediation objective to meet the same std. for protec-tion of health and the envir-onment that applies to inactive hazardous waste sites

* TAGM #4046 applies the “most stringent cleanup level” of 5 alternative bases for setting soil cleanup objectives

* GW guidance values: all non-saline GW is assumed to be potable and to require “most stringent standards and guidance values.”  Generally assumed to be equal to the MCL.

* Soil cleanup levels are based on 10^-6 excess cancer risk for carcinogens.

DEC officials have stated that:

* State standards must be accounted for on a site-specific basis.

*TAGM #4046 will guide soil cleanup determinations under the VCP until VCP-specific guidance is issued, but DEC will use the TAGM’s evaluation method with an exposure scenario tailored to the circumstances of the site’s contemplated use.

*MDE is required to consider the property’s (and the surrounding area’s) present and future land use and to take such land uses into account in setting clean-up standards.

* Gives the cleanup volunteer and its consultants the flexibility to select from an array of options a set of cleanup standards that they believe will adequately address site-specific risks.  Options include: uniform risk-based stds.; measurable stds. based on site-specific risk assessments; background levels; fed. or state soil stds. or water quality stds.; stds. based on fed. or state MCLs; and/or any other fed. or state stds.

* MDE was also mandated to develop numerical statewide cleanup stds. that are risk-based and that differentiate between residential and non-residential land uses.

* Phase I and II ESAs that are submitted by a VCP applicant must demonstrate to MDE’s satisfaction that the ESA “has ade-quately investigated all potential sources and areas of contami-nation.”  Sec. 7-506 (A) (1)(iv).

*Risk-based soil stds. utilize a carcinogen risk factor of 10^-5 or 10^-6 (for the cumulative cancer risk and the risk-based screening risk level for each chemical numerical value), but also allows use of EPA risk factors (risk range of 10^-4 to

10^-6).

* Innocent owner/operators must clean up soil  contami-nation within the property boundaries to DEP stds.  If the property includes the source of GW or SW contam., the owner/ operator must clean up water-borne contam. to DEP stds.

* To be cleaned up perman-ently, c.21E sites need to maintain a condition that poses no significant risk to health, safety, the environment, and public welfare.

* In “Poten-tially Produc-tive Aquifers” (PPAs)—high and medium yield aquifers that are reasonably foreseeable sources of pub-lic DW—clean-ups must restore GW to DW quality to be considered permanent solutions.  [Changed to “Potential DW Source Areas”].

* Meeting DW stds.is  not required in “Non-Potential DW Source Areas” —covers certain heavily organized land uses.  Other areas can be added upon petition where the aquifer is contaminated but cannot be cleaned up feasibly.

*When "Method 3" (case-by-case risk assessment) is used to characterize risks, DEP has set a calculated Cumulative Receptor Cancer Risk limit of 10^-4.

According to DEP, "This limit is very strict, especially since in the U.S. today the risk of an individual developing cancer is 1 in 4."  [2.5 x 10^-1].

*The soil cleanup criteria were changed from a cancer risk level of 10^-6 to 10^-5.

* Separ-ate clean-up criteria were  developed  for land use cat-egories (residential, commercial, industrial, recreational) using only “reasonable and relevant” exposure pathways and assumptions that “appro-priately character-ize patterns of human exposure.”

* The clean-up category proposed is at the option of the volun-teer, subject to MDEQ approval.

* With respect to the GW contact criteria, if the depth to GW exceeds the depth at which utilities exist or at which sub-surface work is likely to occur, then the GW con-tact path-way can be con-sidered not relevant.

* GW stds. vary throughout the state.

*The aquifer must be designated a “Classification Exception Area” (CEA) where appli-cable GW stds. will not be met for the term of the reme-diation.

* Soil cleanup criteria are set for: Residential Direct Contact, Non-Residential Direct Con-tact, and Im-pact to GW.

* GW classi-fication areas: I = maint. of special ecological resources; II = potable water using conventional treatment; and III = non-pot-able GW.

* SWQSs—designated uses = potable water, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreation, agricultural and industrial supplies, and navigation.

* Is one of the few states with regulations defining in detail HOW to conduct remedial actions.

*The Technical Require-ments for Site Remedi-ation set forth the cleanup guide-lines for all sites in the state.

 * Use-based cleanup cri-teria: GWQSs, SWQSs, and soil cleanup criteria.

* ICs/ECs—e.g., Declaration of Environ-mental Rest-riction; CEA.

* Encapsu-lation is the remedy of choice (pre-sumptive remedy) for sites with historical fill that is con-taminated.

*Soil remed-iation stds. are set at a risk level for carcinogens of 10^-6 (whether or not the site is a BF site).

* Owner or purchaser can choose only one of a combination of 3 clean-up stds. to guide remediation:

-Background std. (clean up to naturally occur-ring or historical concentrations).

-Statewide health std. (derived from medium-specific chemical con-centrations, taking into account use- and non-use as well as residential and non-residential exposure factors at a site)

-Site-specific std. (allows remediator to consider expo-sure and risk factors to establish clean-up levels appropriate for the intended use of the site)

* Also Special Industrial Area designation (sites with no responsible owner or in an “enterprise zone”; cleanup plan must address all immediate, direct or imminent threats based on the intended use of the site).

* For known or suspected carcinogens, soil and GW cleanup stds. are set at exposures which represent a lifetime upper bound risk of between 10^-4 and 10^-6.

* GW will not be considered a current or potential DW source if it has a background dissolved solids concentration >2,500 mg/l.

* Otherwise, current and probable future uses of GW will be determined on a site-specific basis.

* Current DW or agricultural use of GW will be protected.

* A risk assessment is not required if a fate and transport analysis (which takes into account the effects of ICs and ECs) demonstrates that neither present nor future exposure pathways exist.

* Remediation stds. apply to most voluntary and all mandatory cleanups.