1. TABLE OF CONTENTS
      2. SECTION V: RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES
      3. A. Solid Waste Facilities
      4. 1. Movement of Excavated Contaminated Media and Other Solids
      5. 2. Disposal Prior to September 7, 1980
      6. Waste, and between September 7, 1980, and October 9, 1993, for Municipal Waste
      7. October 9, 1993, Subject to Federal Closure Requirements
      8. a) Hazardous Waste
      9. b) Municipal Waste
      10. B. Clean Streams Law Interface
      11. 1. Point Source Discharges
      12. 2. Nonpoint Source Discharges
      13. 3. Erosion and Sedimentation (E&S) Control
      14. a) For Earth Disturbances Less Than 5,000 Square Feet (Ft
      15. b) For Earth Disturbances 5,000 Ft
      16. 2to 1 Acre (and Discharge to Special
      17. Protection Waters For Any Size of Earth Disturbance Less Than 1 Acre)
      18. For Earth Disturbances 1 Acre or Greater
      19. d) Post-Construction Stormwater Management (PCSM)
      20. C. Clean Air Act and Air Pollution Control Act Interface
      21. D. Regulated Storage Tank Release Sites
      22. 1. Introduction
      23. 2. Short List of Petroleum Products
      24. 3. Management of Separate Phase Liquid (SPL) under Act 2 and Act 32
      25. a) Management of SPL under Act 32 and Chapter 245
      26. b) Management of SPL under Act 2 and Chapter 250
      27. c) Relationship of SPL to Compliance with Act 2 Standards
      28. i) Background Standard
      29. ii) Statewide Health Standard (SHS)
      30. (a) Groundwater
      31. (b) Soil
      32. iii) Site-Specific Standard (SSS)
      33. d) Management of Light Nonaqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPL) under Act 32
      34. i) Site Characterization and LNAPL Conceptual Site Model
      35. Figure V-1: LNAPL Conceptual Site Model (LCSM) Worksheet
      36. Site Characterization Yes No N/A Comments
      37. Site Characterization Yes No N/A Comments
      38. Site Characterization Yes No N/A Comments
      39. ii) Is the LNAPL Body Migrating?
      40. iii) Remedial Action Plan (RAP)
      41. iv) Demonstrating LNAPL Meets MEP Criteria
      42. v) Closure of Sites with LNAPL
      43. E. HSCA/CERCLA Remediation
      44. 1. Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (HSCA) Sites
      45. 2. Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act (CERCLA)
      46. Sites
      47. F. References

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION V: RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES ....................... V-1
A.
Solid Waste Facilities ................................................................................................................. V-1
1.
Movement of Excavated Contaminated Media and Other Solids................................... V-1
2.
Disposal Prior to September 7, 1980 .............................................................................. V-2
3.
Disposal after September 7, 1980, for Residual Waste and
Construction/Demolition Waste, and between September 7, 1980, and
October 9, 1993, for Municipal Waste............................................................................ V-2
4.
Disposal of Hazardous Waste after September 7, 1980, or Municipal
Waste after October 9, 1993, Subject to Federal Closure Requirements........................ V-3
a)
Hazardous Waste ................................................................................................ V-4
b)
Municipal Waste ................................................................................................. V-5
B.
Clean Streams Law Interface ...................................................................................................... V-6
1.
Point Source Discharges ................................................................................................. V-6
2.
Nonpoint Source Discharges........................................................................................... V-6
3.
Erosion and Sedimentation (E&S) Control..................................................................... V-7
a)
For Earth Disturbances Less Than 5,000 Square Feet (Ft
2
)................................ V-7
b)
For Earth Disturbances 5,000 Ft
2
to 1 Acre (and Discharge to
Special Protection Waters For Any Size of Earth Disturbance Less
Than 1 Acre) ....................................................................................................... V-7
c)
For Earth Disturbances 1 Acre or Greater .......................................................... V-7
d)
Post-Construction Stormwater Management (PCSM)........................................ V-8
C.
Clean Air Act and Air Pollution Control Act Interface .............................................................. V-9
D.
Regulated Storage Tank Release Sites...................................................................................... V-10
1.
Introduction................................................................................................................... V-10
2.
Short List of Petroleum Products.................................................................................. V-10
3.
Management of Separate Phase Liquid (SPL) under Act 2 and Act 32........................ V-11
a)
Management of SPL under Act 32 and Chapter 245 ........................................ V-11
b)
Management of SPL under Act 2 and Chapter 250 .......................................... V-12
c)
Relationship of SPL to Compliance with Act 2 Standards ............................... V-13
i)
Background Standard............................................................................ V-13
ii)
Statewide Health Standard (SHS)......................................................... V-13
(a)
Groundwater ............................................................................. V-13
(b)
Soil ............................................................................................ V-13
iii)
Site-Specific Standard (SSS) ................................................................ V-14
d)
Management of Light Nonaqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPL) under
Act 32................................................................................................................ V-14
i)
Site Characterization and LNAPL Conceptual Site Model .................. V-15
ii)
Is the LNAPL Body Migrating? ........................................................... V-21
iii)
Remedial Action Plan (RAP)................................................................ V-23
iv)
Demonstrating LNAPL Meets MEP Criteria........................................ V-23
v)
Closure of Sites with LNAPL............................................................... V-25
E.
HSCA/CERCLA Remediation.................................................................................................. V-26
1.
Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (HSCA) Sites ................................................................ V-26
2.
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act
(CERCLA) Sites ........................................................................................................... V-27
F.
References................................................................................................................................. V-28

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-1
SECTION V: RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES
Remediation under Act 2 sometimes involves relationships with other environmental statutes (e.g.,
closure of waste management facilities, groundwater pump and treat systems which discharge to a
surface water and require an NPDES permit). Although other Department programs (e.g., Bureau of
Clean Water) will be involved in requests and approvals, the regional Environmental Cleanup and
Brownfields Manager will coordinate these activities. Therefore, all correspondence necessary for the
Act 2 cleanup should be submitted to the attention of the regional Environmental Cleanup and
Brownfields Manager.
A.
Solid Waste Facilities
This section provides a general overview of the interface between Act 2 and the Solid Waste
Management Act (SWMA) (35 P.S. §§ 6018.101-6018.1003). The sections that follow are
meant to provide a broad overview of the interrelationship between these statutes and programs;
they are not meant to be used as a substitute for specific regulations that apply to solid waste
processing or disposal facilities. Solid waste management facilities, including those facilities
that process and dispose of municipal, residual, or hazardous wastes, are primarily regulated
under SWMA. The permitting, bonding and compliance requirements of SWMA are
implemented through policies and regulations adopted as follows: Chapters 260(a) through
270(a) for hazardous waste, Chapters 271 through 285 for municipal waste, and Chapters 287
through 299 for residual waste.
The Management of Fill Policy (August 7, 2010 - Document Number 258-2182-773) provides
the Department’s procedures for determining whether material qualifies as clean fill or regulated
fill under SWMA, and it provides guidance as to whether a permit is required when using fill.
Also, please refer to the Management of Fill Questions and Answers page on the DEP website
for additional information regarding this policy and its interaction with Act 2.
1.
Movement of Excavated Contaminated Media and Other Solids
Under 25 Pa. Code § 287.101(e), the Department will not require a permit for the
movement of residual waste within an Act 2 site (e.g., grading of the site, and placement
back into exploratory holes) so long as the site attains the site-specific standard (SSS) of
Act 2. This applies to Act 2 sites undergoing a site-specific cleanup. A permit is not
required when moving regulated fill from one Act 2 site to a receiving site that is being
remediated to attain an Act 2 site specific standard. Movement of regulated fill between
Act 2 sites must be documented in both the sending and the receiving sites’ cleanup plans
and final reports (FR). Regulated fill material normally would not be moved until after
DEP approves the Remedial Investigation Report (RIR) in the SSS cleanup process. The
remediator is encouraged to review
25 Pa. Code
§ 287.101(e) determine all restrictions
regarding the movement of excavated contaminated media and other solids. Regulated
substances contained in the regulated fill must be incorporated into the notice of intent to
remediate (NIR). This includes sites being remediated under the corrective action
process (CAP) of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 245.
Excavated hazardous waste should be removed for proper disposal under the hazardous
waste generator requirements of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 262(a). Movement of any
contaminated media or solids offsite, other than to another Act 2 site, is the generation of

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-2
waste under
25 Pa. Code
§ 250.3. Under these circumstances, the remediator is subject to
the generator requirements of the SWMA.
2.
Disposal Prior to September 7, 1980
Solid waste management facilities that were permitted under the Pennsylvania SWMA of
1968 (Act 241), or had an approved closure plan or consent order and agreement, that
ceased disposal activities prior to September 7, 1980, are subject to the terms and
conditions of their original permit relating to closure or to the approved closure plan or
consent order and agreement. The permittee may request approval from the Department
for a modification of the permit or closure plan to be consistent with Act 2 standards for
remediation of any release of a regulated substance to soil or groundwater.
Solid waste management areas or facilities that were not permitted or did not have an
approved closure plan that ceased disposal prior to September 7, 1980, may be
remediated under the provisions of Act 2 by either removing the non-media solids and
using any combination of Act 2 standards, or closing in place. Closing in place may be
accomplished by covering the non-media solids with a suitable cover and using pathway
elimination under the SSS and any combination of Act 2 standards for soils and
groundwater outside the perimeter of the cover under
25 Pa. Code
§ 250.9(a). Liability
protection afforded under Section 501 of Act 2 would be provided upon approval of the
FR by the Department. The covering, grading, revegetation, and related closure activities
for waste left in place are to be consistent with best management practices (BMPs) to
prevent pollution, odors, and other public nuisances.
3.
Disposal after September 7, 1980, for Residual Waste and Construction/Demolition
Waste, and between September 7, 1980, and October 9, 1993, for Municipal Waste
Municipal and residual waste disposal activities that occurred after September 7, 1980,
are subject to SWMA, the terms and conditions of permits issued pursuant to SWMA,
and to the municipal and residual waste regulations, including an approved closure plan.
Permitted facilities that are closed (prior to October 9, 1993 for municipal waste
facilities) may use any one or a combination of the remediation standards for releases into
soils or groundwater under 25 Pa. Code §§ 271.113(g), 271.342(b)(4) or 287.342(c). In
addition, the permitted facility may elect to proceed under Act 2 and, upon approval of
the FR obtain the liability protection afforded by Section 501 of Act 2 for the
release(35 P.S. 6026.501). The cause of the release or spill must be addressed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the closure plan or permit. Any relief of
liability afforded under Act 2 relates only to the regulated substances identified and in no
way is to supersede the terms and conditions of the closure plan or permit.
An unauthorized municipal waste landfill that ceased disposal prior to October 9, 1993,
or an authorized construction/demolition waste landfill, residual waste landfill or an
unauthorized disposal impoundment that ceased after September 7, 1980, where the
Department has not required removal of the solid waste on the ground and use of Act 2

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-3
for the remaining contaminated media, must be remediated in accordance with the
following
1
:
Removal of the non-media solids and use of any one or a combination of Act 2
standards for the remaining contaminated media, or
Closing in place by applying the applicable closure standards of the regulated
facility encountered that are specified in 25 Pa. Code Chapters 271, 273, 287, 288
and 289 as required by
25 Pa. Code
§ 250.9(b) of the regulations (unless
applicable operational standards are specifically waived by the Department under
the requirements of such waivers set forth at §§
25 Pa. Code
271.113(d),
287.117(b) of the regulations and Section 902(b) of Act 2), pathway elimination
under the SSS and any one or a combination of Act 2 standards for soils and
groundwater outside the perimeter of the closure area.
In addition, the unauthorized facility can elect to proceed under Act 2 and, upon approval
of the FR, obtain the liability protection afforded by Section 501 of Act 2 for the release.
The Act 2 program would govern remediation at properties where solid or liquid
municipal or residual wastes such as metal, brick, block or debris were disposed without
permit, and became mixed with soil thereby becoming a part of the environmental media.
The remediator would choose the applicable BMPs to include covering, grading,
revegetation, and related activities to prevent pollution, odors and other nuisances that
would apply to the remediation of mixed media. Liability relief afforded by
Act 2
would
only apply to the area characterized and to the contaminants identified in the Act 2 FR. If
the soil/waste mixture is moved offsite, the material must be managed as waste pursuant
to § 250.3 of the regulations and the municipal or residual waste regulations in
accordance with 25 Pa. Code § 287.2 or § 271.2.
4.
Disposal of Hazardous Waste after September 7, 1980, or Municipal Waste after
October 9, 1993, Subject to Federal Closure Requirements
To ensure primacy and program authorizations under RCRA at properties where disposal
of hazardous waste occurred after September 7, 1980, or municipal waste disposal
occurred after October 9, 1993, regardless of whether a permit or approval was obtained,
the remediation and closure of such federally regulated waste management units are
governed by the appropriate SWMA regulations. Waivers of operational standards under
Section 902(b) of Act 2 are generally not applicable unless approved by EPA. The
Department will consult with EPA to ensure that federal closure requirements are
properly applied.
Hazardous waste sites that have RCRA Subtitle C corrective action obligations may
satisfy federal requirements by also participating in the voluntary cleanup process
provided by Act 2. For RCRA facilities with “low” or “medium” priority corrective
action obligations, Act 2 standards may be applied as described below to satisfy both
1
In each of these situations it is assumed that the Department would exercise its enforcement discretion. If the Department
determines that the responsible party/property owner conducted the intentional culpable long-term practice of placing waste
into the environment, Act 97 would apply.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-4
state and federal requirements concurrently. For “high” priority RCRA corrective action
facilities, application of Act 2 standards as described below may also be used, but with
greater interaction with EPA.
a)
Hazardous Waste
If hazardous waste was disposed before September 7, 1980, and continued after
September 7, 1980, but before September 26, 1982 [see 40 CFR § 270.1(c)
incorporated by reference in 25 Pa. Code § 270a.1], without interim status, and
the Department has not required removal of the hazardous waste and use of Act 2
to remaining contaminated media, the remediator must close the “existing”
facility under closure standards provided in
25 Pa. Code
Chapter 265a of the
hazardous waste regulations for the facility unit encountered, and, upon approval
of the FR by the Department, obtain the liability protection afforded by
Section 501(a) of Act 2 (35 P.S. 6026.501).
As examples, typical units encountered are surface impoundments and waste
piles. Closure requirements set forth in 40 CFR § 265.228 (surface impoundment
closure) and 40 CFR § 265.258 (waste pile closure), incorporated by reference in
25 Pa. Code Chapter 265a, require removal of the solids and contaminated
subsoils. To attain clean closure, the remediator should remove solids and
contaminated soils that are above the level of the listing; i.e., characteristically
hazardous solids and soils, and solids and soils contaminated by waste disposal
above the residential Statewide health standard (SHS) for used aquifers. Any soil
or groundwater contamination remaining after clean closure must be remediated
using any one or a combination of Act 2 standards. If clean closure is not
attained, the remediator must close the hazardous waste regulated unit in place
using the closure standards for landfills set forth in 40 CFR § 265.310 and use the
SSS for the in-place closed area. Any release into groundwater or soil outside the
approved in-place closure area is subject to any one or a combination of Act 2
standards (except the Statewide health nonuse aquifer standard, which has not
been SSS).
Hazardous waste facilities created after September 7, 1980, and hazardous waste
facilities existing on September 7, 1980, which continued to receive waste after
September 26, 1982, are subject to the closure, post-closure and corrective action
requirements of 40 CFR Part 264, as incorporated by reference in Chapter 264a.
As examples, a surface impoundment in this category is subject to the closure
requirements of 40 CFR § 264.228 and a waste pile in this category is subject to
the closure requirements of 40 CFR § 264.258. If clean closure is not attained,
the remediator must close the regulated hazardous waste unit in place, using the
closure standards for landfills set forth in 40 CFR § 264.310 and use the site-
specific pathway elimination standard for the in-place closed area. Any release
into groundwater or soils outside the approved in-place closure area is subject to
one or a combination of Act 2 standards (except the Statewide health nonuse
aquifer standard as explained above) at a point of compliance (POC) for
groundwater set forth in 40 CFR § 264.95.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-5
b)
Municipal Waste
If a permitted municipal waste landfill received waste between October 9, 1993,
and December 23, 2000, a release from the landfill of a regulated substance must
be remediated in accordance with a closure plan approved prior to December 23,
2000, or remediation standards in the municipal waste regulations that are similar
to the federal requirements under Subtitle D of RCRA.
A release of a regulated substance from a municipal waste landfill permitted on or
after December 23, 2000 must be remediated in accordance with the remediation
standards in the municipal waste regulations that are similar to the Subtitle D
requirements in § 271.342(b)(2).
At properties where the unauthorized disposal of municipal waste occurred after
October 9, 1993, remediation shall consist of removal of the non-media solids and
the use of any one or a combination of Act 2 standards for the remaining
contaminated media.
Where the Department determines that the removal of the waste, which was not
authorized disposal, is impracticable or will cause unacceptable impacts to public
health or the environment, the remediation shall consist of closing the facility in
place by applying the applicable closure standards of the regulated facility
encountered that are specified in Chapters 271 and 273, as required by
25 Pa.
Code
§ 250.9(b) and by using pathway elimination under the SSS for the non-
media solids on the ground, and any one or a combination of Act 2 standards for
soils and groundwater outside the perimeter of the closure area that is consistent
with the applicable requirements for groundwater remediation standards and POC
set forth in
25 Pa. Code
§ 271.342(b).

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-6
B.
Clean Streams Law Interface
The Department has developed a contaminant dependent hierarchical process described in
Section III.A.3 of this manual for demonstrating attainment of surface water quality criteria.
The waiver provision of
25 Pa. Code
§ 250.406 was included as part of the initial Chapter 250
Land Recycling Program regulations, as promulgated by the Environmental Quality Board on
August 16, 1997. The preamble of this rulemaking explains: “This section was added on final
rulemaking to clarify the relationship between the surface water quality standards and Act 2.”
The preamble further clarifies the intent of the waiver provision in the section stating:
“Section 902(b) of Act 2 authorizes the Department to waive applicable requirements where
responsible persons can demonstrate, among other things, that the proposed remedial action will
attain a standard of performance that is equivalent to that required under the otherwise applicable
requirement through use of an alternative method or approach.”
Act 2 allows for a waiver of certain requirements as specified in Section 902 of the Act (35 P.S.
§ 6026.902). The substance of this waiver provision is provided in
25 Pa. Code
§ 250.406(c).
The waiver provision of
25 Pa. Code
Chapter 250.406 allows the remediator to apply to the
Department for a waiver of the otherwise applicable requirements of Chapter 93 relating to
human health criteria based on the use of alternative site-specific exposure factors or design
conditions associated with the surface water pathway.
In order for a remediator to “demonstrate to the Department that the proposed remedial
alternative will result in attainment of a concentration in the stream that does not exceed human
health criteria” as stated in
25 Pa. Code
§ 250.406 (c)(2) for a waiver of provisions in
25 Pa.
Code
Chapter 93, they would need to use alternative site-specific exposure factors or design
conditions that would demonstrate that human health exposures to the surface water pathway are
controlled. The remediator could make this demonstration using a qualitative evaluation of
alternative site-specific exposure factors. The remediator would not necessarily need to use a
quantitative risk assessment process or submit a risk assessment report.
In cases where the remediator can demonstrate to the Department that future human health
exposures to the surface water pathway are controlled, the Department may issue the waiver.
1.
Point Source Discharges
Surface water discharges associated with contaminated sites are classified as point and
nonpoint sources. A point source is a distinct conveyance from which pollutants are or
may be discharged into a surface water such as a leachate discharge from a disposal unit.
Such point source discharges are required to be permitted as a NPDES discharges. In
other situations, stormwater runoff from a contaminated site discharges through a storm
sewer or surface water may be considered a point source discharge and may also be
subject to NPDES requirements.
2.
Nonpoint Source Discharges
Act 2 requires that any site selecting the SHS or SSS must also demonstrate compliance
with surface water quality criteria when a nonpoint source discharge such as
contaminated groundwater discharges into surface water as summarized in § 250.309(a).

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-7
Within 25 Pa. Code
25 Pa. Code
§ 93.6, Water Quality Standards, the remediator is
reminded that discharges to surface water should also be free of floating materials such as
oil and grease (aesthetic or visible nuisances) in addition to the dissolved-phase impact.
3.
Erosion and Sedimentation (E&S) Control
In addition to evaluating the impact of discharges into surface water, the remediator must
carefully evaluate remedial activities to minimize E&S in conformance with the
requirements of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 102. In-place closures of unregulated and
unauthorized disposal units will satisfy these requirements through the development,
implementation, and maintenance of E&S control BMPs.
Remedial actions implemented during Act 2 cleanups that include any earth disturbance
activities should be undertaken using the following procedures:
a)
For Earth Disturbances Less Than 5,000 Square Feet (Ft
2
)
If the proposed earth disturbance at an Act 2 cleanup site involves an area of less
than 5,000 ft
2
and the potential discharge is to waters other than special
protection, the remediator should implement and maintain applicable E&S BMPs
as outlined in the BMP program guidance manual on the DEP website
(
Pennsylvania Stormwater BMP Manual
, December 2006). Chapter 7 of DEP’s
BMP manual is devoted to Special Management Areas, including Brownfields
sites.
If the earth disturbance involves an area of less than 5,000 ft
2
and the potential
discharge is to waters that are Special Protection (for example, Exceptional Value
or High Quality Waters), then the requirements in the following section apply.
b)
For Earth Disturbances 5,000 Ft
2
to 1 Acre (and Discharge to Special
Protection Waters For Any Size of Earth Disturbance Less Than 1 Acre)
If the proposed earth disturbance at an Act 2 cleanup site involves an area
5,000 ft
2
or greater, the remediator should prepare an E&S plan. All earth
disturbance activities should be conducted in accordance with the E&S plan. The
remediator should have a copy of the E&S plan and all subsequent inspection
reports and monitoring records onsite during all stages of the earth disturbance
activity. The remediator should contact the county conservation district for any
technical assistance prior to preparing the E&S plan. In some cases, the county
conservation district may wish to review the plan voluntarily, or it may require the
review on behalf of the local municipality. In addition, the county conservation
district may inspect the site as a follow-up to the plan review, as part of routine
inspections, or in response to a complaint.
c)
For Earth Disturbances 1 Acre or Greater
If the proposed earth disturbance at an Act 2 cleanup site involves an area of
one (1) acre or more, the planned action may require a general or individual
NPDES permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction activities.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-8
In these cases, the remediator should contact the DEP regional Waterways and
Wetlands Program staff or assistant regional director to schedule a pre-application
meeting. At the pre-application meeting, DEP and county conservation district
staff will provide the remediator with the relevant information regarding the
permit procedures and requirements. It is important to note that in addition to the
development of an E&S Plan, the remediator will be required to develop a post-
construction stormwater management plan for any new structures (e.g. buildings,
parking lots, etc.). The remediator is not authorized to initiate any Act 2 earth
disturbance activities until DEP or the Conservation District issues the permit to
the remediator.
As previously detailed, a portion of Chapter 7 of the DEP’s BMP manual is
devoted to BMPs at Brownfield sites. The remediator should consult with the
manual and ECB regional office staff in the coordination of any required E&S
plan development and all permit applications.
Additional guidance may be found in DEP’s
Erosion and Sediment Pollution
Control Program Manual
, March 2012. The manual may be found on the DEP
website.
d)
Post-Construction Stormwater Management (PCSM)
A remediator proposing a new earth disturbance activity that requires permit
coverage under
25 Pa. Code
Chapter 102 or other Department permit that requires
compliance with E&S control shall be responsible to ensure that a written PCSM
Plan is developed, implemented, operated and maintained in accordance with the
requirements of
25 Pa. Code
§ 102.8.
The remediator should keep in mind that a completed Act 2 cleanup site may
contain existing site conditions which have public health or environmental
limitations. Because of such limitations, the remediator may be able to
demonstrate to the Department that it would not be practicable to complete all
aspects of the E&S PCSM BMPs as outlined and required within
25 Pa. Code
Chapter 102.
25 Pa. Code §
102.8(g)(iii) describes how an applicant who is
developing a Brownfield site with impervious conditions or conditions that
represent a concern to public health or environmental limitation, e.g., cannot
infiltrate stormwater due to residual impacts being addressed through the Act 2
SSS, can demonstrate to the Department that it is not practicable to satisfy the
PCSM requirements pertaining to stormwater volume and quality.
Local municipalities and entities (e.g. Philadelphia Water Department) may have
separate regulations regarding stormwater management obligations post
construction. The remediator of an Act 2 site should be mindful of local
stormwater management compliance issues. These obligations are outside of
DEP’s authority and may require separate permitting application(s).

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-9
C.
Clean Air Act and Air Pollution Control Act Interface
One area of interface is the case of applying remediation technologies (e.g., air strippers or
incineration units) which result in air emissions. In such a situation, a remediator may be
required to obtain a general air quality plan approval and operating permit under 25 Pa. Code
Chapter 127, Subchapter H. Exemptions to the Air Quality permit requirements are listed and
explained in the Air Quality Permit Exemptions document (275-2101-003).
Some pertinent exemptions in this document include an exemption under
25 Pa. Code
§ 127.14(a) regarding the use and occupancy of a building. Other exemptions under
§ 127.14(a)(8) include those regarding sources of uncontrolled VOCs with limited emissions
increases, those considered as de minimis (
25 Pa. Code
§ 127.449) increases, remediation
technologies meeting defined specifications, and any source granted an exemption via a request
and submittal of a Request for Determination (RFD). This exemption request is defined in the
exemptions document as well as on the Air Quality webpage.
Installation of radon-type vapor mitigation systems as part of an Act 2 remediation does not
require a permit if the emission will be of minor significance as defined in
25 Pa. Code
§§ 127.3
and 127.14. These systems do not require testing after installation for purposes of determining
compliance with air emissions criteria. However, the installed radon-type vapor mitigation
systems will need to be tested to demonstrate that sub-slab depressurization is occurring (i.e., the
pressure gradient indicates that advective air flow is out of the structure, rather than into the
structure). Section IV of this manual (Vapor Intrusion) discusses this process in greater detail.
In cases other than remediation technology emissions, care should be taken to conduct the
remediation such that odor (
25 Pa. Code
§ 123.31) and particulate (
25 Pa. Code
§§ 123.1, 123.2)
nuisances will be addressed.
Asbestos is regulated as a hazardous air pollutant under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
Guidance for the management of asbestos is available on the Department’s website as well as
EPA’s website.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-10
D.
Regulated Storage Tank Release Sites
1.
Introduction
Storage tank cleanups conducted pursuant to the Storage Tank and Spill Prevention Act
(35 P.S. §§ 6021.104 – 6021.2104 Act 32 of 1989, as amended) are required to meet one
or more of the standards established under Act 2. Section 904(c) of Act 2 preserves the
CAP for the remediation of releases from storage tank systems regulated by Act 32
(35 P.S. 626.904(c)). Regulated storage tank systems include a wide range of
underground and aboveground tanks containing petroleum products and hazardous
substances. The CAP applies to releases from regulated tank systems for which
remediation (anything beyond notification) was initiated on or after August 5, 1989, the
effective date of Act 32. Remediators who take corrective action under Act 32 and
demonstrate attainment of one or more of the standards under Act 2 will be afforded
liability protection. Where Act 32 applies, remediators are not subject to the notice, fee
and approval provisions contained in Act 2, but reports submitted under the requirements
of Act 32 are subject to review times and deemed approval provisions of
25 Pa. Code
Chapter 245.
A remediator who initiated cleanup prior to a tank becoming deregulated by Act 16 of
1995 (which amended Act 32) should continue to implement the CAP, along with use of
the Act 2 remediation standards, to receive liability protection. Where a tank is not
governed by Act 32 (non-regulated tanks), adherence to the Act 2 administrative process
and cleanup standards is required to receive liability protection. When releases of
petroleum products occur at sites with both regulated and non-regulated storage tank
systems, the remediator may elect to address the releases together, or to address them
separately on a dual track of the Act 2 and Act 32 processes. If the remediator elects to
address the releases together, then combined reports and notices that satisfy the
requirements of each statute, as they apply to each particular tank system, may be
submitted. Department reviews will also be conducted to satisfy the requirements of both
statutes.
For example, a remediator may submit a combined site characterization/RIR that contains
the information required for regulated tank systems under the CAP and unregulated tanks
under Act 2, and it will serve a dual function under both Act 32 and Act 2. It should be
submitted on a timeframe that meets both statutes; thus, if there is no specific time
required to submit the RIR under Act 2, but a site characterization report under Act 32 is
required within 180 days of reporting the release, the site characterization/RIR should be
submitted within 180 days. Compliance with Act 2 notice and public participation
requirements is necessary to receive liability protection for non-regulated tank systems.
The remediator is reminded that the public notification process is abbreviated as
allowable if the FR demonstrating attainment of the background or SHSs for a tank
cleanup is submitted to DEP within 90 days of the release.
2.
Short List of Petroleum Products
The Department has developed an abbreviated list (“short list”) of regulated substances
for specific petroleum products. The short list for releases of petroleum products is

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-11
discussed in detail in this guidance document in Section III, Technical and Procedural
Guidance.
3.
Management of Separate Phase Liquid (SPL) under Act 2 and Act 32
When a liquid (such as gasoline or chlorinated solvent), also referred to as free product, is
released to the environment, accumulations of the free product as a separate phase (SPL)
may occur within soil or bedrock. Depending on the density of the liquid relative to
water, the SPL may migrate under gravity through the subsurface and either remain on or
just below the water table or sink through the water column and accumulate on
impermeable surfaces lower in the aquifer. Substances that are less dense than water, like
most petroleum products, are called Light Nonaqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPL).
Substances that are denser than water, such as chlorinated substances, are called Dense
Nonaqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPL).
The presence of SPL may be found in various media and locations including the soil,
vadose zone, aquifer, surface water, or sediments. SPL may also be present in differing
phases. Residual SPL is SPL in the subsurface that is hydraulically disconnected in the
pore spaces in a porous media or fractures in bedrock/clay. The residual SPL may be
present at concentrations below saturation, may not extend great lateral distances from
the source of the release, and it tends to be relatively immobile. Mobile SPL is SPL that
is hydraulically connected in the pore space or fractures and has the potential to move
under the prevailing hydraulic conditions. Mobile SPL that is stable has the potential to
migrate if the prevailing hydraulic conditions are altered.
If not removed, the presence of SPL may be a long-term management concern at sites
undergoing remediation. SPL might constitute a continuing source of contamination and
could greatly increase the time and cost for post-closure care monitoring. The presence
of SPL introduces complex fate and transport issues and uncertainties regarding the
future migration of contamination and its impact. Remediation should be based on a
thorough site conceptual model.
SPL at contaminated sites should be addressed in the following manner:
a)
Management of SPL under Act 32 and Chapter 245
Under Act 32 and
25 Pa. Code
Chapter 245, Subchapter D, the corrective action
obligation for releases from regulated aboveground and underground tank systems
must include the removal of SPL from the environment to prevent migration into
uncontaminated areas (25 Pa. Code § 245.306(b)(1)). This obligation begins
immediately upon release as required under interim remedial action requirements
discussed below and continues until the SPL body is no longer capable of
migrating into uncontaminated areas.
U.S. EPA regulation 40 CFR § 280.64 requires owners and operators to remove
“free product” to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) as determined by the
implementing agency. As the implementing agency, the Department defines MEP
as the extent of removal necessary to prevent migration of SPL to uncontaminated

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-12
areas and prevent or abate immediate threats to human health or the environment.
MEP is discussed further in this section and Section III of this guidance.
25 Pa. Code
§ 245.306(a)(3)(ii) requires that SPL recovery resulting from a
release from a regulated storage tank system be initiated IMMEDIATELY upon
its discovery to prevent or address an immediate threat to human health and the
environment. This may include the abatement or prevention of vapors from
entering structures and creating unacceptable health, fire or explosion risks.
25 Pa. Code
§ 245.306(b)(1) requires that SPL removal be conducted in a manner
that prevents the spread of contamination into uncontaminated areas. Interim
remedial actions that prevent the further migration of SPL into uncontaminated
areas include, but are not limited to, the following:
Excavation of contaminated soils for treatment or disposal. Excavation
that intends to remove LNAPL with highly contaminated soil should
include any saturated contaminated soils and unconsolidated material at
and just below the water table, to the extent feasible, because a significant
volume of an LNAPL release is contained within and below the vadose
zone. Removal of this mass reduces both contaminant flux into
groundwater and plume migration.
Rapid containment, absorption, and removal of surface releases.
Installation of subsurface extraction or deployment of in-situ destruction
technologies to remove SPL that causes vapor migration or fire and
explosion hazards.
If a sufficient volume of SPL is released into the subsurface, then multiple phases
(e.g. soil, water, vapor) are generally present. As each of these phases behaves
differently, the ultimate remediation to a cleanup standard may require a
combination of corrective action technologies. Initial recovery of SPL is an
especially important aspect of site remediation because improper recovery
techniques may reduce the effectiveness of the treatment and transfer significant
portions of the contaminant mass into other phases.
b)
Management of SPL under Act 2 and Chapter 250
While Act 2 and
25 Pa. Code
Chapter 250 do not specifically mandate SPL
recovery within the property, the Department encourages removal of SPL within
the property to the MEP, as described above, as an immediate or interim response.
The extent of SPL removal will be determined by the standard(s) selected by the
remediator after immediate threats to human health and safety and the
environment have been mitigated. The Department recognizes that the amount of
SPL that can be removed will depend on the hydrogeologic framework of the site,
the type of product, and the remediation technology employed, among other
factors. In cases relying on natural attenuation, removal of SPL may simplify and

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-13
shorten the timeframe for fate and transport analyses, attainment of a standard and
postremediation care monitoring.
c)
Relationship of SPL to Compliance with Act 2 Standards
i)
Background Standard
The background standard is available at sites where SPL is migrating onto
the property from an offsite source. It should be demonstrated that
concentrations of regulated substances in both soil and groundwater at the
source property are not related to any release on the property. Once that is
established, attainment of the background standard should be
demonstrated within the soil and groundwater directly impacted by the
SPL at the POC.
ii)
Statewide Health Standard (SHS)
For an Act 2 remediation using the SHS, the Department urges removal of
SPL throughout the plume to the MEP, as described above.
(a)
Groundwater
The Department has determined that the SHS is not available when
SPL, as LNAPL or DNAPL, is present in POC wells. The
rationale behind development of the saturation and solubility caps
under the promulgated SHS MSCs was that no SPL should be
present at the POC at attainment. At sites where SPL remains
within the interior of the property, attainment at the POC shall be
demonstrated within the groundwater impacted by the SPL.
(b)
Soil
In addition, within the property, the lesser of the direct contact
number to a depth of 15 feet for chemicals of concern and the soil-
to-groundwater pathway number throughout the entire soil column
should be attained in soil that is saturated with the SPL. This soil
requirement applies to all sites including both those where the SPL
has been removed and those where some amount remains.
At sites where applicable soil standards have been attained and the
remediator has determined that unrecoverable SPL remains, a
release of liability under the SHS will not be conveyed until the
remediator has established through monitoring and fate and
transport modeling that any remaining SPL will not migrate to
compliance points.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-14
iii)
Site-Specific Standard (SSS)
Under Act 2, attainment of the SSS when SPL is present at the POC may
be permissible as long as it has been demonstrated that any discharge to
surface water meets the requirements of
25 Pa. Code
§ 250.406, there is no
unacceptable risk-based exposure, and sufficient evidence exists to
demonstrate that SPL is unlikely to migrate to new areas and impact
offsite receptors. If the contamination is from a regulated tank site,
compliance with 25 Pa. Code § 245.306 to demonstrate the SPL has been
removed to the MEP. Activity and use limitations (AULs) that are part of
the postremediation care plan should be included in the environmental
covenant.
d)
Management of Light Nonaqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPL) under Act 32
LNAPL typically has been viewed as SPL that is less dense than water and can be
measured in a well or on a water surface. When measurable LNAPL is not
detected within a well, LNAPL can remain trapped in nearby soils. Depending on
site conditions and how conditions can change, this residual LNAPL may remain
trapped or become mobile. Therefore, it is important to keep the following in
mind:
The absence of measurable LNAPL in a well does not definitively
establish the absence of mobile LNAPL at a site.
The presence of measurable LNAPL in a well does not definitively
establish the size, volume, thickness, or recoverability of LNAPL at the
site or in the vicinity of the well.
The measured LNAPL thickness in a well may not be indicative of the
actual LNAPL thickness or volume within the formation.
The presence of recoverable LNAPL in a well may only indicate that
mobile LNAPL exists in the immediate vicinity of that well.
The observation that LNAPL is no longer accumulating at a significant or
appreciable rate in a well may only indicate that the LNAPL in the vicinity
of the well is no longer mobile under the present conditions.
The mass of residual LNAPL remaining in the soil and/or rock matrix
after recovery to the MEP may be orders of magnitude larger than the
amount of mobile LNAPL that was recovered at the site.
LNAPL may spread in many directions not necessarily coincident with
groundwater gradients (including but not limited to structural influences,
preferential pathways, permeability contrasts, and pumping well
influences).

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-15
LNAPL migration rates may not be the same as the groundwater flow
rates.
Some mobile LNAPL is persistent and can be bailed, but quantities
removed may be relatively small. Product bailing alone rarely achieves
significant LNAPL recovery.
LNAPL exists in residual and non-residual (mobile) phase, so some LNAPL may
remain at the site after reaching removal to the MEP. Although the remaining
LNAPL may take years to degrade, the low recoverability along with a
demonstration of low risk posed by the LNAPL source may make recovery of
remaining LNAPL infeasible or unnecessary. In such instances, evaluating the
site for terminating LNAPL recovery is warranted. Information necessary to
determine when LNAPL removal meets the MEP is identified below.
i)
Site Characterization and LNAPL Conceptual Site Model
25 Pa. Code § 245.309 requires completion of a site characterization. A
complete and concise site characterization is an important step in
identifying the presence, properties, distribution and migration of LNAPL.
Simple visual observations during site work and interpretation of
analytical results can help identify the presence of LNAPL. The
characterization of a site with LNAPL includes the development of an
appropriate LNAPL Conceptual Site Model (LCSM). The level of detail
required for a given LCSM is site-specific and based on the complexity of
environmental conditions at each site. As the corrective action progresses,
the LCSM should be regularly re-evaluated in the light of additional
site/LNAPL data, pilot test data, remedial technology performance
metrics, and monitoring data. A complete and up-to-date LCSM allows
the best possible decisions about application and operation of remedial
technologies to be made and when removal actions are no longer
necessary. Documents that should be used to guide the development of an
LCSM are included in the list of references, below. The LCSM may
require revisions as site conditions change due to remediation and other
site factors. Figure V-1 is a worksheet that can be used when preparing an
LCSM.
Older LNAPL cases which pre-date this guidance may require additional
assessment to update the LCSM for the purposes of making MEP
decisions. Results from an updated LCSM may provide additional
information about LNAPL recovery potential for the site. While
technologies may appear costly or overly complex, the use of these
technologies may assist responsible parties, consultants, and staff to
develop the most cost-effective decision regarding LNAPL recovery or
case closure. Information needed to characterize LNAPL at a site and
develop a thorough LCSM typically includes, but is not limited to:

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-16
Delineation:
LNAPL does not necessarily form a “pancake” on
the groundwater surface, but shares the pore space in the vadose
zone, the capillary fringe, and/or beneath the water table within the
smear zone. Different industry standard practices can be used to
identify LNAPL trapped in soils or bedrock (ranging from shake
test to Laser-Induced Fluorescence (LIF) in conjunction with core
photography).
Sources and Pathway:
Geologic or manmade features such as
fractures in bedrock or clay and fill material adjacent to
underground utilities may also contain LNAPL and may serve as
pathways for enhanced migration of SPL vapor and dissolved
phases. The movement and storage of LNAPL in these features
need to be considered as part of the characterization, and their
presence may significantly increase risk by accelerating potential
migration to receptors.
Volume:
Where possible, the volume (or plausible volume range)
of LNAPL within the subsurface should be established to allow the
development and selection of an appropriate recovery strategy as
well as a basis for the risk evaluation. Historic records for the site
should be reviewed to identify past releases that may have
contributed to the volume of LNAPL.
Age and Chemical/Physical Character:
LNAPL and
groundwater can be analyzed to identify or verify the type of
product as well as assess if the product poses a risk to receptors.
As LNAPL weathers, the physical and chemical properties of the
LNAPL can change. Weathered LNAPL can be more viscous and
therefore less mobile and less recoverable than unweathered
LNAPL. LNAPL properties can also assist in determining a
probable date or timeframe for the product release. Knowing the
amount of time the product has been present compared to the
known impacts (or lack thereof) can provide valuable insight on
whether case closure is advisable.
LNAPL Migration:
LNAPL moving into previously
uncontaminated areas indicates that LNAPL is migrating. It is a
condition requiring immediate recovery under the regulations. The
potential for mobile LNAPL to migrate may depend on geologic
conditions, changing hydraulic or LNAPL gradients as well as
precipitation and groundwater recharge. The presence of other
contaminants may impact migration of LNAPL.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-17
Figure V-1: LNAPL Conceptual Site Model (LCSM) Worksheet
LCSM - describes the physical properties, chemical composition, occurrence and geologic setting of the LNAPL
body from which estimates of flux, risk and potential remedial action can be generated (definition taken from
ASTM E2531-06).
Site Characterization
Yes
No
N/A
Comments
1.
Do you know the past and present site use?
2.
Do you know the geology of the site (i.e.,
soil and bedrock characteristics)?
3.
Do you know the hydrogeology of the site?
3.a.
Unconfined aquifer?
3.b.
Confined/Semi-confined aquifer?
3.c.
Perched aquifer?
4.
Is the source known?
4.a.
If yes, what is the source and quantity
released?
5.
Has the vertical and horizontal extent of the
LNAPL body been delineated?
5.a.
If yes, have direct and/or indirect
indicators been used to detect
presence of LNAPL trapped in soils
and/or bedrock?

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-18
Site Characterization
Yes
No
N/A
Comments
6.
Has dissolved phase or vapor phase plume
data been evaluated?
6.a.
Do any dissolved concentrations in
groundwater approach their effective
solubility?
7.
Have the physical (density, viscosity,
interfacial tension, vapor pressure) and
chemical properties (constituent solubilities
and mole fractions) of the LNAPL been
determined?
8.
Have potential migration pathways been
identified (i.e. fractures in bedrock and clay,
karst features, utilities)?
9.
Are there complete or potentially complete
exposure pathways present (potable wells,
surface water, vapor intrusion, etc.)?
10.
Are there ecological receptors impacted by
the LNAPL body?
11.
Has sufficient gauging data been gathered to
determine if LNAPL is mobile?
11.a.
Has gauging taken place during
drought or after heavy precipitation
events?
12.
Has LNAPL transmissivity been determined?

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-19
Site Characterization
Yes
No
N/A
Comments
13.
Has a qualitative assessment of Natural
Source Zone Depletion (NSZD) been
completed?
14.
Does characterization indicate that the
LNAPL is no longer migrating?

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-20
LNAPL Mobility:
LNAPL needs to exist at saturations greater
than its residual saturation in order to be mobile. It is the mobile
portion of the LNAPL body that is typically recovered by LNAPL
extraction and recovery technologies. However, the presence of
mobile LNAPL in a well does not necessarily indicate that the
LNAPL body is migrating. Gauging or recovery data from
drought and heavy precipitation events may provide mobility data.
LNAPL Recoverability/Transmissivity:
LNAPL Transmissivity
(LNAPL Tn) is a useful metric for determining the recoverability
of mobile LNAPL. Since LNAPL Tn accounts for multiple
LNAPL properties such as density, viscosity, and LNAPL
saturation, LNAPL Tn can be more useful than just the measured
thickness for determining LNAPL recoverability (ASTM E2856).
However, LNAPL Tn can vary over time due to subsurface
conditions such as groundwater fluctuations, corrective action
implementation (reduced LNAPL saturation), or weathering of
LNAPL.
LNAPL Tn tests should be performed at sites where LNAPL is
present to aid in determining the recoverability of the LNAPL.
LNAPL Tn tests can also be completed over time to document the
progress of LNAPL recovery efforts. The ASTM Standard E2856
discusses several LNAPL Tn test methods and how to select the
most appropriate method for site conditions. More information
about LNAPL Tn may be found in the references to this section,
particularly ASTM Standard E2856.
Characterization of LNAPL is found through direct and indirect
indicators. Both types of indicators determine where and how
much LNAPL is on the property and are especially important if the
release history is unknown. The level of detail needed when using
these methods is commensurate with the complexity of the site.
Some direct methods of detecting the presence of LNAPL include:
Direct push technologies that can measure for the presence
of LNAPL such as LIF, Rapid Optical Screening Tool LIF,
Membrane Interface Probes and cone penetrometers.
Observation of LNAPL presence in wells, borings or test
pits.
Field screening tests such as staining, odors, Organic Vapor
Analyzers, Photo Ionization Detectors, Flame Ionization
Detectors, shake test using oleophyllic dyes, paint filter test
(EPA method 9095B) and paper towel tests.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-21
Ultraviolet light boxes and soil cores.
Soil and rock core lab analysis.
Core photography under UV light, pore fluid saturations,
soil properties, fluid properties, and LNAPL fingerprinting.
LIF is used to collect real-time, in-situ field screening of residual
and nonaqueous phase hydrocarbons in undisturbed vadose,
capillary fringe and saturated subsurface soils and groundwater.
Detailed information regarding this technology can be found at
EPA’s Contaminated Site Clean-Up Information website.
LNAPL presence in wells, borings or test pits indicates that
LNAPL is in the surrounding formation. In unconfined conditions,
the LNAPL could rise and fall with the fluctuation of the water
table. However, it is not a reliable indicator of vertical and lateral
extent in the formation or for determining the volume of the
release. The absence of LNAPL in a well does not necessarily
mean the source is eliminated; it may be trapped deeper in the
formation by a high water table.
Some indirect indicators of LNAPL presence in the formation
include:
A persistent dissolved phase plume.
Dissolved phase groundwater concentrations that are close
to the effective solubility of the LNAPL that was released.
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) concentrations (EPA
Method 418.1) that are greater than the Carbon Saturation
(Csat) in a given soil type.
Other potential indirect indicators of LNAPL presence are found in
EPA’s petroleum vapor intrusion guidance document
(510-R-15-001, Table 3, p. 52, 2015).
ii)
Is the LNAPL Body Migrating?
Removal of LNAPL must be conducted to prevent the spread of
contamination into previously uncontaminated zones. Following a release,
LNAPL can move at higher rates than groundwater due to a large LNAPL
hydraulic head. The LNAPL can be upgradient of the release point due to
the mounding effect. Removal of the source will shorten the time until the
LNAPL body stops migrating.
In order to demonstrate that an LNAPL body is not migrating, the
Department requires an evaluation of migration potential. The following

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-22
can be used to make this determination. A more detailed description of
each follows the list. This list is not all inclusive. Some methods that may
be used to demonstrate that LNAPL is not migrating include:
Monitoring results
LNAPL velocity
Recovery rate
Age of the release
Tracer test
Monitoring results are most important in evaluating migration potential.
Assuming that there is an adequate monitoring network and sufficient
temporal data, there are several factors that are evidence for a stable
footprint, which include a stable or decreasing thickness of LNAPL in
monitoring wells, sentinel wells outside of the LNAPL zone that remain
free of SPL, and a shrinking or stable dissolved phase plume.
Calculating the potential LNAPL velocity using Darcy’s Law is also
important in the evaluation. The key parameter is LNAPL conductivity,
which may be estimated from bail-down tests, or from the measured
LNAPL thickness, soil capillary parameters and a model that assumes
static equilibrium. The American Petroleum Institute (API) Interactive
LNAPL Guide is one tool that may be used to estimate the LNAPL
velocity using this model. It is important to recognize that use of Darcy’s
Law would be precluded for some site conditions, such as a fractured
bedrock site.
The recovery rate that is observed as LNAPL is removed from a well is
important to the evaluation. Although not directly correlated to LNAPL
migration, declining recovery rates would generally indicate reduced
potential for LNAPL to migrate.
The age of the release, when known, aids in determining migration
potential. If a relatively long time has transpired since the release, there is
reduced potential for migration due to smearing of LNAPL within soil and
weathering of LNAPL through dissolution, volatilization, and
biodegradation.
Tracer tests using hydrophobic dye can also be used for this evaluation.
The dilution rate of the dye gives an indication of the rate of movement of
the LNAPL. Monitoring wells need to have at least 0.2 feet of LNAPL for
this method to work.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-23
iii)
Remedial Action Plan (RAP)
After a complete Site Characterization as outlined in 25 Pa. Code
§ 245.309 has been completed and when LNAPL recovery continues, a
RAP addressing the technologies and methods to remediate both the
LNAPL and the dissolved phase portion of the contamination is required
under
25 Pa. Code
§ 245.311. The RAP should specify remediation goals
and endpoints that can be obtained with the most cost effective
solutions/technologies currently proven to remediate the identified
contaminants.
If the RAP recommends the ceasing of or no LNAPL recovery, the RAP
should clearly list the lines of evidence that demonstrate the LNAPL is not
recoverable, is stable, is not migrating and poses no risk to human health
and the environment. Once the soil and dissolved phase in groundwater
have met attainment under the selected remediation standard, a Remedial
Action Completion Report (RACR) can be submitted.
iv)
Demonstrating LNAPL Meets MEP Criteria
To determine when LNAPL recovery is no longer necessary or if a case
with LNAPL can be recommended for closure, several lines of evidence
should show that LNAPL has been recovered to the MEP and that the
remaining LNAPL is not migrating and poses no risk. These lines of
evidence should also show that natural attenuation processes are
continuing, further demonstrating the LNAPL body is stable and not
migrating. Lines of evidence should be documented in the RAP and
RACR for Act 32 and in the Cleanup Plan and/or FR for Act 2. Lines of
evidence may include the following:
An estimate, or supportable estimated range, of the total volume of
LNAPL released and present in the subsurface. Volume estimates
help determine dissolved plume longevity and the potential to
migrate to new areas.
A discussion, including supporting data, regarding the importance
of site-specific soil structure, geology/hydrostratigraphy with an
emphasis on the possible existence of macropores, fractures, or
conduits in karst. All potential pathways for migration should be
analyzed to ensure LNAPL migration to new areas is not
occurring.
A discussion with supporting data that establishes whether LNAPL
at the site is a function of groundwater level or confined
conditions. Since LNAPL thicknesses are often exaggerated under
confined conditions, the LCSM must provide adequate
characterization of hydrostratigraphy to determine if confining
layers are present.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-24
A demonstration that constituents in the vapor phase do not present
a risk to potential receptors. All potential pathways for vapor
migration should be analyzed to ensure migration to new areas is
not occurring.
Documentation that demonstrates the areal extent of the LNAPL
plume at the site is stable or decreasing. Monitoring of LNAPL
thickness in wells over time is needed to determine stability.
Documentation that demonstrates the areal extent of the dissolved
phase plume at the site is stable or decreasing.
Documentation that shows concentrations of chemicals of concern
are below the standards attained and dissolved plume is
undergoing attenuation.
An evaluation that shows the effective solubility of remaining
LNAPL and dissolved-phase concentrations are below the
standards attained.
LNAPL Tn data that documents LNAPL recoverability over a
range of aquifer conditions. If LNAPL Tn as measured by
ASTM E2856 is below 0.1 ft
2
/day, then hydraulic recovery is not
feasible. If values exceed 0.1 ft
2
/day, demonstrate that LNAPL
body is not migrating or that Tn values have been decreasing with
recovery efforts and have reached asymptotic conditions.
A qualitative assessment of natural attenuation.
A description of the removal methods and technologies which have
been used and/or evaluated. Evaluation of the results of product
removal including whether data shows asymptotic recovery trends
through seasonal water table variations. Data that demonstrates the
technologies and additional recovery are not effective.
Supporting data which contains current site and area maps that
show all current receptors, preferential pathways (such as utilities),
basements, drinking water wells, and surface water bodies
including High Quality and Exceptional Value streams, wetlands,
and sensitive ecological areas.
Documentation that the NSZD (ITRC, LNAPL-1, 2009) of the
LNAPL body and natural attenuation of the dissolved-phase plume
are continuing at the site and are expected to further mitigate risk
from the release.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-25
v)
Closure of Sites with LNAPL
For purposes of this guidance, recovery to MEP is considered complete if
the following have been demonstrated:
LNAPL remains onsite, but the following have been achieved:
Receptor evaluation demonstrates that remaining LNAPL, dissolved phase
constituents, and associated vapors are not a risk to human health or the
environment, and
i.
Natural Source Zone Depletion of the LNAPL body and natural
attenuation of the dissolved-phase plume are documented as
occurring at the site and are expected to further mitigate risk from
the release;
ii.
Multiple lines of evidence demonstrate that LNAPL had been
recovered to MEP;
iii.
For sites with active LNAPL recovery, evaluation of corrective
actions performed at the site shows asymptotic recovery trends
through seasonal water table variations; and
iv.
Remaining LNAPL is not recoverable, or has low
mobility/recoverability (as evidenced by LNAPL Tn tests).
Situations do exist in which LNAPL can justifiably remain at a site after
case closure. However, the Department should have a full understanding
of the site-specific geological, hydrogeological and receptor risk factors
before closing a case with measurable LNAPL.
If an institutional or engineering control is needed to attain a standard,
then an environmental covenant would be needed.
Note: A closed case may be re-opened if significant previously
unidentified environmental problems related to the original release (for
example, additional LNAPL, extensive saturated soils, or an impacted
receptor) are discovered.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-26
E.
HSCA/CERCLA Remediation
1.
Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (HSCA) Sites
HSCA is the state Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (P.L. No. 108 of 1988; 35 P.S.
§§ 6020.101-6020.1305). HSCA is the state cleanup law that provides for the
remediation of sites contaminated with hazardous substances. HSCA provides the
Department with enforcement authorities to encourage parties who are responsible for the
release of hazardous substances to conduct the necessary response actions. HSCA also
provides the Department with the funding and the authority to conduct response actions
when the responsible parties are unwilling or unable to conduct the appropriate response
action. The responsible parties can then be held liable for those response costs.
HSCA sites are a limited set of sites that have been officially designated by the
Department as meeting the criteria for response action under HSCA. Some HSCA sites
are listed on the Pennsylvania Priority List (PAPL) for remedial response pursuant to
Section 502 of HSCA (35 P.S. § 6020.502). These are the HSCA sites where the
response is expected to cost more than $2 million or take more than one year to conduct.
Pursuant to Section 904(b) of Act 2, “any remediation on a site included on the state
priority list established under ... [HSCA], shall be performed in compliance with the
administrative record and other procedural and public review requirements of ...
[HSCA]” (35 P.S. § 6026.904(b)). For these listed sites, a party interested in conducting
a remedial response can submit a proposal to the Department and work with the
Department to reach a settlement. A proposal to conduct a remedial response should be
in the form of a letter to the regional ECB Manager, not an Notice of Intent to Remediate
(NIR). Responsible parties under HSCA are encouraged to propose an Act 2 remedy
they would like to perform on the HSCA site. The proposal will be evaluated and
published in accordance with HSCA. The Department is responsible for choosing a
remedy that satisfies Act 2, and that considers public comments and the Department’s
analysis of the alternatives, pursuant to Section 506(e) of HSCA. It is possible that the
Department will select an Act 2 remedy other than that proposed by a responsible party
based upon these considerations. Persons who wish to conduct the remediation may
follow the settlement procedures established under HSCA. The settlement process would
follow the procedures established under HSCA. This would result in a binding settlement
agreement which would be subject to the public notice and comment provisions of
HSCA.
Most HSCA sites are not listed on the PAPL for remedial response. These are sites
where a HSCA site study or a HSCA interim response is planned. For these HSCA sites
where the Department has not yet taken an interim response action or committed to a
remedy for the site, a party interested in conducting a voluntary response can submit an
NIR and proceed using the normal Act 2 procedures. The Department would monitor the
progress of the voluntary response action. If the Department determined that the pace
and the scope of the voluntary response was acceptable then no further action pursuant to
HSCA would be required. If the Department determined that the pace or the scope of the
voluntary response was not acceptable, then the Department could proceed with further
action pursuant to HSCA.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-27
2.
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act (CERCLA)
Sites
CERCLA is the federal Superfund law (42 U.S.C. §§ 9601, et seq.). Under CERCLA the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can place sites on the National Priority
List (NPL) “Superfund List” for remedial response. For sites listed on the NPL, EPA
requires that all remedial response actions be conducted pursuant to the procedural
requirements of CERCLA. As a state law, Act 2 does not waive or supersede the
procedural requirements of the federal law, and therefore the Act 2 liability relief cannot
automatically confer release from CERCLA liability. However, the Act 2 remediation
standards may be considered applicable standards for remediations conducted at
CERCLA sites. EPA also has authority under CERCLA to conduct removal response
actions or take enforcement actions at sites that are not listed on the NPL.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page V-28
F.
References
ASTM E2531, Standard Guide for Development of Conceptual Site Models and Remediation
Strategies for Light Nonaqueous Phase Liquids Released to the Subsurface.
ASTM E2856, Standard Guide for Estimation of LNAPL Transmissivity.
EPA. 1996. How to Effectively Recover Free Product at Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Sites: A Guide for State Regulators. EPA 510-R-96-001.
EPA. 2015. Technical Guide for Addressing Petroleum Vapor Intrusion at Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Sites. EPA 510-R-15-001.
ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council) 2009. Evaluating Natural Source Zone
Depletion at Sites with LNAPL. LNAPL-1. Washington, D.C.: Interstate Technology &
Regulatory Council, LNAPLs Team.
www.itrcweb.org
ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council) 2009. Evaluating LNAPL Remedial
Technologies for Achieving Project Goals. LNAPL-2. Washington, D.C.: Interstate
Technology & Regulatory Council, LNAPLs Team.
www.itrcweb.org
API (American Petroleum Institute) Interactive LNAPL Guide.
http://www.api.org/environment-health-and-safety/clean-water/ground-water/lnapl/api-
interactive-lnapl-guide
EPA. Contaminated Site Clean-Up Information.
http://clu-
in.org/characterization/technologies/lif.cfm
EPA.
http://www.epagov

Back to top