Improving site characterization rhode island s perspective
Download
1 / 11

IMPROVING SITE CHARACTERIZATION Rhode Island’s Perspective - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 101 Views
  • Uploaded on

IMPROVING SITE CHARACTERIZATION Rhode Island’s Perspective. Overview by Leo Hellested, P.E. Chief RI DEM Office of Waste Management 6-6-02. I. Goals/Objectives.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' IMPROVING SITE CHARACTERIZATION Rhode Island’s Perspective' - milek


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Improving site characterization rhode island s perspective

IMPROVING SITE CHARACTERIZATIONRhode Island’s Perspective

Overview by

Leo Hellested, P.E. Chief

RI DEM Office of Waste Management

6-6-02


I goals objectives
I. Goals/Objectives

  • Programmatic Goal: To minimize or eliminate the impacts and risks to human health and the environment which result from releases of oil, chemicals or wastes.

  • Site Characterization Objective: To accurately assess the nature and extent of contamination, including its mobility, toxicity and volume, such that the actual or potential impacts of the release may be evaluated and addressed.


Ii program background and perspective
II. Program Background and Perspective

  • R.I.’s program is not privatized (e.g. no LSP process).

  • Site Investigation Reports (SIR’s) require RI DEM approval.

  • A scope of work (SOW) for the SIR does not require approval (optional in VCP).


Ii program background and perspective cont
II. Program Background and Perspective (cont.)

  • There are no regulatory hurdles inhibiting use of innovative investigation (or remedial) technologies.


Iii ridem issues technical and administrative
III. RIDEM Issues: Technical and Administrative

  • Waste Site Remediation Permit Streamlining Task Force –

    Spring thru fall 2001 - Stakeholder Process

  • Purpose: To identify issues and recommendations for improving the review/approval process for clean up projects - Administrative, regulatory and technical areas.


Iii ridem issues technical and administrative continued
III. RIDEM Issues: Technical and Administrative (continued)

  • Incomplete SIR submissions necessary for final decision making.

  • Insufficient data or data gaps.

  • Unclear text (explanations) in SIR of methodologies and/or rationales used – Reports need to be clear and concise.

  • Lack of guidance materials – unclear RIDEM expectations.


Iii ridem issues technical and administrative continued1
III. RIDEM Issues: Technical and Administrative (continued)

  • Additional training – for both consultants and RIDEM staff.

  • RIDEM review process not commensurate with site risks.


Iv administrative recommendations and outcomes
IV. Administrative Recommendations and Outcomes

  • Developed a submission checklist to standardizing both submissions and reviews

  • Developed a “Marginal Risk Site” policy to expedited review of low/marginal risk sites.

  • Developed joint training opportunities between RIDEM and RISEP (Rhode Island Society of Environmental Professionals).

  • Committed to more “pre-application” meetings between staff and owners/consultants

  • Developed a FAQ’s guide on “How to Hire an Environmental Professional”.


V ongoing efforts on technical issues
V. Ongoing Efforts on Technical Issues:

RIDEM recognizes the benefits of gathering larger data sets, even with less QA for individual data points, to better characterize site contamination.

  • Greater use of direct push technologies and micro-wells (geoprobes).

  • Regular use of field screening techniques including on-site GC labs.


V ongoing efforts on technical issues cont
V. Ongoing Efforts on Technical Issues (cont.):

  • Immunoassays – Currently being used by State TAC contractor on pre-remedial sites and on other federal clean up projects for PCB’s and dioxin (Centerdale Manor Superfund site, and other DoD and pre-remedial sites).

  • XRF technology currently being used and advocated on DoD sites (Newport Navy sites). OWM also is trying to secure funding to purchase its own XRF unit.

  • Passive diffusion samplers used at Centerdale Manor to assess river impacts. Use on other pre-remedial sites being advocated.


Vi remaining issues
VI.Remaining Issues

  • Lab analysis still required for confirmation sampling (typically 10% or more).

  • Dynamic work planning not always consistent with public participation requirements.

  • Issues with identifying environmental receptors and evaluating eco-risk (in particular on state sites and/or urban settings - criteria).

  • Indoor air quality – ongoing issues with VOC’s.

  • Sediments – lack of standards.


ad