Listed  below are common problems identified during audits of QC activities and the appropriate methodologies to be used during corrective actions at leaking underground storage tank releases. 

The QCs and CPs should note that violations of the cited problems leaves them vulnerable to the suspension and revocation process as outlined in the QC/CP rules. If you have any questions, please contact the project manager in the respective RRD district office.

1. ISSUE: The QCs have submitted Final Assessment Reports (FAR) and Closure Reports with an incomplete definition of the horizontal and vertical extent of the soil and groundwater contamination. This is often the case when the contamination has migrated off-site, and the QC has not investigated the off-site properties (including buried utility corridors).
   
   RESOLUTION: The QC should assure that the extent of contamination is completely defined. Defining the extent of contamination (including affected off-site properties) is required under Section 21311a(1)(a) of Part 213,Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended (Act 451).
    

2. ISSUE: Closure Reports are submitted with inadequate documentation of land use restrictions. Closure Reports are submitted with land use restrictions that are either not signed, or have not been filed with the register of deeds. Legal descriptions and survey maps are either inaccurate or are missing. Proofs of receipt by property owners and local units of government are not provided.

RESOLUTION: Storage Tank Division (STD) Operational Memorandum No. 12 provides details on how institutional controls should be processed and has the associated forms for filing with the register of deeds. When the proposed land use restrictions affect off-site properties, the QCs must submit the draft versions of the Notice of Corrective Action, Notice of Aesthetic Disclosure, and Restrictive Covenant for approval by the Remediation and Redevelopment Division (RRD) before recording them with the register of deeds. The QC should review STD Operational Memorandum No. 12 whenever an institutional control is needed and also assure that the instructions provided with the forms for institutional control are followed. When institutional controls are used, the QC should:

• Make sure that the legal description is noted and is accurate.

• The final closure report should include a copy of any FILED notice or restrictive covenant.

• If there is off-site impact, the proposed Notice of Corrective Action, Notice of Aesthetic Disclosure and Restrictive Covenant must be submitted to the RRD with the FAR or draft Closure Report.

• The final Closure Report must include a copy of the notice to local unit of government and the proof of filing with the Closure Report.

3. ISSUE: The Notice to Impacted Parties of Corrective Action, form EQP3852, and the Notice of Migration of Contamination, form EQP4482  (PDF,  Word), are not being submitted to the STD along with proofs of receipt, for facilities with contamination that has migrated off-site (or that is at the property lines) above the Tier I unrestricted residential land use Risk-Based Screening Levels (RBSLs).
   
   RESOLUTION: STD Operational Memorandum No. 12 states, "When a corrective action plan prepared as a result of a release from an underground storage tank indicates impacted property owned or operated by another person and the concentration of contamination exceeds the Tier I unrestricted residential RBSLs, the owner or operator, or a consultant retained by the owner or operator shall notify those persons so impacted pursuant to subsection 21309a(3) of Part 213. Send the notice to the impacted parties before submitting a corrective action plan with the FAR, or before submitting the Closure Report if the FAR was not required."

   
   The Notice of Migration of Contamination must be submitted to the appropriate RRD district office when contamination has migrated off-site or is located at the property boundaries. Submitting this notification is part of the property owner's due care obligations under Section 20107a of Part 201, Environmental Remediation, of Act 451.
    

4. ISSUE: Reports are being submitted with inaccurate, incomplete, or missing cover sheets. The instructions for the report table of contents are not being followed. The QCs are not using the most current versions of the report forms and/or are not consecutively numbering the report pages. The QCs are marking sections of the report as "N/A" without providing an explanation of why the sections are not applicable.

   
   RESOLUTION: The QC should check the DEQ web site to verify that they have the most current versions of the report forms. Copies of the report forms can also be obtained by calling the RRD at 517-373-9837. During the report review process, the QC project manager and/or the CP should verify that the report was completed following the instructions on the report form. If the QC has any questions concerning completing the report forms, they should contact the RRD project manager for their facility.
    

5. ISSUE: Closure Reports are being submitted without attaching the applicable sections of the Initial Assessment Report (IAR) and FAR for sites where the QC proceeds directly to site closure without submitting an IAR or FAR.

   
   RESOLUTION: When a facility is proceeding to closure without submitting an IAR and/or FAR, the QC should attach the sections of the IAR and/or FAR that are not covered in the Closure Report.
    

6. ISSUE: The QCs are not submitting performance monitoring (O&M) groundwater sample data until they submit the Closure Report.

   
   RESOLUTION: The Corrective Action Plan (CAP) should include, as part of the performance monitoring plan, a schedule for submitting the performance monitoring data to the RRD. The QC should submit this data to the RRD after it has been received and reviewed. Audits of the performance monitoring data by the RRD project managers may identify problems that can be corrected before the RRD performs a post-closure audit.
    

7. ISSUE: The QCs are submitting Closure Reports based on groundwater verification samples that are two or more years old.
   
   RESOLUTION: When the QC project manager determines that the most recent groundwater samples are two or more years old, the QC should resample the appropriate monitor wells and follow the groundwater verification sampling guidance in STD Operational Memorandum No. 9.
    

8. ISSUE: Models are being submitted without the information used for the modeling calculations. Inadequate models (e.g., groundwater fate and transport models that do not predict the future leaching of contaminants into the groundwater from the soils) are being submitted.

   
   RESOLUTION: The model(s) used by the QC should be adequate to evaluate all of the relevant contaminant migration and exposure pathways. The models should account for any remaining source areas (e.g., UST systems, free product, leaching from contaminated soils in the vadose zone). The QC must provide all supporting documentation necessary for DEQ staff to evaluate the model's predictions. Please refer to RRD Operational Memorandum 4:  Site Characterization and Remediation Verification (5/2/06) and its Attachment 7:  Groundwater Modeling.  Questions regarding models should be addressed to Richard Mandle, RRD at  mandler@michigan.gov
    

9. ISSUE: The QCs performing Phase 1 site assessments routinely call the DEQ project managers asking for information on sites and groundwater flow directions in order to avoid making appointments to review the applicable site files under the Freedom of Information Act, 1976 PA 442, as amended (FOIA). This may lead to misinformation regarding the site based on the type of questions asked.

   
   RESOLUTION: The QCs should make FOIA appointments with the appropriate DEQ district offices to review the facility files. The QC can then contact the DEQ project manager if he/she still has questions.
    

10. ISSUE: The QC is not on-site at the day or time indicated in the Notice of On-Site Work, and the project manager is not being notified of the change in schedule.
    
    RESOLUTION: The QC should provide at least a 48-hour notice prior to any field activities, unless prior arrangements are made with the DEQ project manager. The QC should provide as much advance notice as possible when fieldwork is cancelled or postponed.
     

11. ISSUE: The QC is not determining the groundwater flow direction.

    
    RESOLUTION: Whenever possible, given the hydrogeologic conditions at the facility, the QC should determine the groundwater flow direction. Direct-push samplers (e.g., Geoprobe) can install temporary monitor wells that can be surveyed and used to collect static water level elevation data. If the hydrogeologic conditions prevent determining the groundwater flow direction, the QC should include an explanation of why the groundwater flow direction was not determined in the IAR, FAR, and Closure Report.
     

12. ISSUE: The QC is not estimating the depth to groundwater for sites where the soil contamination does not extend to the groundwater. Section 10.2.2 (page 49) in the General Guidance for Evaluating and Characterizing Petroleum Releases was amended to address this issue. In permeable soils, petroleum can migrate vertically down to the groundwater without leaving residual soil contamination in the vadose zone above the Tier I soil leaching to groundwater exposure pathway RBSLs.

    
    RESOLUTION: When permeable soils underlie the source of the release, the QC should investigate the vertical extent of the soil contamination until an unimpacted confining layer or groundwater is encountered. Monitor well logs from nearby sites of environmental contamination or nearby water supply well logs can be used as supplemental documentation of the depth to groundwater. The QC should justify any decision not to investigate down to the groundwater in the IAR, FAR, and Closure Report. The QC should address any questions concerning determining the vertical extent of the contamination to the DEQ project manager or geologist.
     

13. ISSUE: The QC is not following Operational Memorandum No. 13 and/or is not providing an adequate justification of the use of natural attenuation as a corrective action.

    
    RESOLUTION: The FAR should include a Risk-Based Corrective Action (RBCA) assessment and feasibility study that justifies the selection of natural attenuation as the corrective action. When the RRD project manager audits the FAR, he/she needs to determine if natural attenuation will be effective and whether there will be any unacceptable exposures before natural attenuation addresses the contamination. The CAP should include a performance monitoring plan, including a contingency plan if natural attenuation is ineffective, that follows the guidelines in Operational Memorandum No. 13.
     

14. ISSUE: The QC is not aggressively recovering free product at facilities with extensive free product.

    
    RESOLUTION: The QC needs to promptly determine the horizontal extent of the free product, the apparent free product thickness in the monitor wells, the volume of free product recovered from the monitor wells, and the recharge rate for the free product into the monitor wells. The QC will use this information to design an appropriate free product recovery system. When there is an extensive volume of free product entering the monitor wells, the QC needs to design and implement an aggressive free product recovery system. Hand bailing and passive recovery devices will not be adequate. The QC should evaluate the need for a continuous recovery system to maximize the free product recovery.
     

15. ISSUE: The QC is not conducting adequate hydrogeological investigations, especially at facilities with complex hydrogeologies.

    
    RESOLUTION: An adequate site characterization is critical to making a RBCA assessment, and for designing and implementing effective corrective actions. This includes determining the horizontal and vertical extent of the contamination, including off-site properties. Sites with complex hydrogeology will require more thorough characterization to identify all of the contaminant migration and exposure pathways. The hydrogeology may affect which corrective action alternatives are selected.
     

16. ISSUE: The QCs are incorrectly classifying facilities as Class 3 or 4 sites when they are Class 1 or 2 sites. The QCs are reclassifying Class 1 sites without documenting that free product has not been present for at least six months.

    
    RESOLUTION: The QC needs to assess all relevant exposure pathways in classifying sites. The QC should follow the guidelines in RRD Operational Memorandum No. 1 and RRD Operational Memorandum 3:  Part 213 Site Classification. The QC cannot reclassify a Class 1 site that formerly had free product until six consecutive monthly inspections document the absence of free product. Questions regarding the site classification should be addressed to the RRD project manager.
     

17. ISSUE: The text in the Closure Report does not explain which exposure pathways are relevant and which cleanup criteria are being used. The Closure Report does not explain why more restrictive exposure pathways are eliminated.

    
    RESOLUTION: The Closure Report text should clearly explain which exposure pathways are relevant and which cleanup criteria are being used. The QC should justify the elimination of exposure pathways and cleanup criteria that are not relevant.
     

18. ISSUE: The QCs are using the indoor air inhalation RBSLs when the site conditions do not fit the generic assumptions that were used to calculate the RBSLs. Examples of this are facilities with shallow groundwater, free product, and/or soils that exceed the soil saturation (C_SAT) exposure pathway RBSLs.
    
    RESOLUTION: The assumptions used to develop the indoor air inhalation exposure pathway RBSLs do not apply when there is a shallow water table, free product is present, or the soil contamination exceeds the C_SAT exposure pathway RBSLs or site-specific target levels. Please refer to Addendum to STD Op Memo 4 Attach 8: Acceptable Indoor Air Concentrations  for further guidance.