Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Engineered Barriers Financial Assurance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MassDEP seeks clearer rules for engineered barriers, monitoring and financial assurance
Summary
MassDEP staff told the advisory committee they will clarify the department’s expectations for engineered barriers (caps/containment) and centralize financial‑assurance mechanisms after finding inconsistent reporting and variable documentation across closed sites.
MassDEP officials told the Wayside Cleanup Advisory Committee they will update guidance and forms governing engineered barriers and the financial-assurance mechanisms (FAMs) that must fund long-term monitoring and maintenance.
Why it matters: Engineered barriers are sometimes used as part of a permanent solution for contaminated soil that cannot practicably be removed. MassDEP said the agency found inconsistencies in how barriers were reported on closure forms and wants to ensure barriers meet MCP requirements and have appropriate long-term funding and enforceable assurances.
What was said: A MassDEP staff presenter summarized the MCP definition for engineered barriers and said the barrier must be built, monitored and maintained to specific regulatory standards. The presenter noted that department review of closure forms found multiple cases where pavement or a building was checked as an "engineered barrier" even though the installation did not meet the MCP definition or the 310 CMR criteria for design, monitoring, maintenance and documentation.
Financial assurance and administration: Eric Folley and Erica Judd from MassDEP’s Bureau of Administrative Services explained that the bureau can assist BWSC in designing and administering FAMs drawn from mechanisms used in other regulated programs (bonds, letters of credit, trust funds). The bureau said it can review proposed FAMs for MCP sites and, if requested, administer the funds under established regulations used for other program areas.
Process and next steps: MassDEP said it will (1) review the closure/form fields (BWSC transmittal forms) to reduce misclassification; (2) update and centralize guidance that defines engineered-barrier design, monitoring and maintenance requirements; and (3) propose an approach to consistent FAM language, monitoring schedules and legal instruments so that funds are available for barrier maintenance over the long term.
What the department asked from stakeholders: MassDEP said it will solicit advisory-committee feedback on draft guidance and clarifying language. The department also encouraged consultants and LSPs to review existing permanent-solution documentation and expect follow-up requests to confirm whether a barrier meets MCP criteria and whether a FAM should be required.
Ending: MassDEP said it will return to the advisory committee with proposed guidance and clarified transmittal forms; bureau staff said they will coordinate legal review and offer administrative support for FAMs where BWSC requests it.
