Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Start Date
14-5-2024 3:00 PM
End Date
14-5-2024 3:30 PM
Description
Proposed CCR compliance timelines for CCR legacy surface impoundments and management units are compressed compared to 2015 CCR Rule deadlines. Site characterization, configuring monitoring well networks, and statistical analysis are critically important in identifying appropriate closure solutions. The regulated community and environmental consultants offered significant comments on the Proposed Rule, emphasizing that legacy sites are inherently complex and will require similar evaluation as 2015 Rule units. The industry is limited in terms of availability of quality consultants, drill rigs, and laboratories, creating constraints in meeting this compressed proposed timeline. Under the proposed Rule, there is less time for site characterization at units that are more difficult to identify than the 2015 CCR units. Carefully executed study is needed to define potential regulated units if compliance deadlines can be met with a similar standard of care shown by the industry thus far under the 2015 Rule. Groundwater analyses will have significant cost and schedule impacts and may not be accurate with invalid statistical data resulting from incomplete or inappropriately compressed sampling/analysis. We will discuss strategies to work toward compliance with effective data developed through streamlined investigations, and what delayed compliance could mean for newly regulated sites.
Document Type
Presentation
Proposed Legacy Rule – Groundwater Compliance Nuances and Lessons Learned
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Proposed CCR compliance timelines for CCR legacy surface impoundments and management units are compressed compared to 2015 CCR Rule deadlines. Site characterization, configuring monitoring well networks, and statistical analysis are critically important in identifying appropriate closure solutions. The regulated community and environmental consultants offered significant comments on the Proposed Rule, emphasizing that legacy sites are inherently complex and will require similar evaluation as 2015 Rule units. The industry is limited in terms of availability of quality consultants, drill rigs, and laboratories, creating constraints in meeting this compressed proposed timeline. Under the proposed Rule, there is less time for site characterization at units that are more difficult to identify than the 2015 CCR units. Carefully executed study is needed to define potential regulated units if compliance deadlines can be met with a similar standard of care shown by the industry thus far under the 2015 Rule. Groundwater analyses will have significant cost and schedule impacts and may not be accurate with invalid statistical data resulting from incomplete or inappropriately compressed sampling/analysis. We will discuss strategies to work toward compliance with effective data developed through streamlined investigations, and what delayed compliance could mean for newly regulated sites.
