Posted: 12 November 2008 at 8:40am | IP Logged

The Webcast glossed over many issues, but I heard suggestion of elimination of the QC/CP program.  In it's current state, that may be a good thing, since the DEQ is using leverage under Part 215 to extort the Qualified Consultants to follow the Op Memos and any other misguided whim of DEQ staff.  

Also, I fear the increased use of "audits" via the various DEQ kangaroo courts for Part 201 sites as well as the LUST sites now.

Posted: 12 November 2008 at 10:10am | IP Logged

The DEQ presentation was very high level.  I like the idea at a glance but the devil is really in the details as you have said. 

Given MDEQ's limited resources, I think this will remove some budgetary strain of operating two programs that can be operated together under a single program.

The fate of the QC/CP program is an interesting question.  I think some form of this program is needed to ensure the integrity of remediation work.  Prior to implementation of the QC/CP program anyone with money enough to buy a photionization detector could call him/herself a consultant.  The quality of work done by these individuals was poor at best.  With the exception of a few individuals grandfathered in under the CP program, I think most of the "bad" consultants were forced out of business.  I don't think we need to go back to those dark ages.  Perhaps this is an opportunity to improve on the existing program without completely re-inventing the wheel.

One concern is how this will affect real estate transactions.  I am most concerned with remediation to Category 3 or 4 standards.  This could complicate real estate transactions for purchaser and seller.  How will this be viewed by the lending institutions?  Will they recognize endpoints other than an approved RAP or closure letter?

There are many sites, particularly LUST, where source removal has not occurred.  Some form of incentive will be needed to assist owner/operators in bringing these sites into compliance.  The guidance for source removal will have to clarified from its current state (GRO, DRO, effective solubility, etc.). 

Posted: 13 November 2008 at 1:06pm | IP Logged

What jumps out at me is the MDEQ would probably try to remove the reference to the ASTM RBCA standard.  I think this standard helps define the MDEQ's authority and makes sense since there are many similarities between Part 213 sites.  I think eliminating this standard would be a mistake. 

There are other more subtle items as well.  "Free phase" is not mentioned in Part 213 but it is mentioned in Part 201.  I am concerned that the MDEQ is proposing to combine Part 201 and Part 213 in an effort to create a regulation that backs up their current policy.  The issue with free phase is a good example.  The MDEQ has implemented a policy with respect to free phase at Part 213 sites (basically requiring removal of free phase for closure) without clear regulation for that policy.  I am concerned the MDEQ wants regulation that requires the removal of all free phase regardless of risk.  I am concerned this is one of their reasons for wanting to combine Part 201 and Part 213. 

There are other items of concern like this.  For instance the definition of what chemicals are regulated under Part 201 and Part 213 and how this affects the MDEQ's authority to require iron and manganese sampling.

Does anyone know what involvement the legislature has had in the MDEQ crafting the new combined 201/213 approach.  Has the MDEQ worked closely with any regulators on this?  Also, does anyone know the backgrounds (educational and professional) of the MDEQ staff who crafted the new combined 201/213 approach?  I am concerned the MDEQ staff who worked on this were career MDEQ officials without engineering, geology or hydrogeology degrees.

Posted: 20 November 2008 at 12:59pm | IP Logged

I think overall the concept is sound and could work with the right input from stakeholders (see my post regarding ops memos and the Illinois program).  However I do not believe MDEQ has gone about it in an open, efficient and transparent way (I'm sure this could be argued by MDEQ and others).  I still believe that stakeholder input into some rulesmaking process is appropriate.  Not thru workgroups or other processes that make recommendations and then leave it up to MDEQ to pick and choose how the program is revised.  Workgroups on the surface seem ok but often exclude the very people the MDEQ is trying to regulate in the process in the end.  In addition it has never been very clear to me exactly how the rulesmaking process works in Michigan!

MPA, Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the MMA and other organizations and specifically their members that will be affected by the revised program all need to get more heavily involved in this revision process as it is occuring right now and in my opinion insist on including the RBCA process.  The question is how.  That I can't answer; perhaps MPA could open a dialogue with these other organizations and contact their legislators and show a united front in some way to the MDEQ. 

These organizations should get ahold of the recent powerpoint presentation by MDEQ and poll their members on the process and start asking questions of MDEQ and why the true RBCA process is not included now before everything is finalized. As a consultant I can only do so much during this process. 

It seems to me that ASTM already went thru a process of streamlining an environmental evaluation process 10 years ago when they came up with the RBCA process.  The question I would ask is why has the MDEQ rejected it and why are they trying to reinvent the wheel?  That doesn't seem very cost effective in this economy.