Archived
This content is available here strictly for research, reference, and/or recordkeeping and as such it may not be fully accessible. If you work or study at University of Kentucky and would like to request an accessible version, please use the SensusAccess Document Converter.
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Start Date
15-5-2024 1:00 PM
End Date
15-5-2024 1:30 PM
Description
Fix or Fight: EPA’s Part A and Part B groundwater monitoring deficiency findings Authors Mr. Kevin Solie - United States - Barr Engineering Co. Ms. Kaela Nerhus - United States - Barr Engineering Co. Mr. Jim Aiken - United States - Barr Engineering Co. Abstract The EPA’s proposed and final CCR Rule Part A and Part B determinations are in essence denials, based largely on EPA’s evaluation of the adequacy of groundwater monitoring systems at the facilities. In almost all cases, EPA has found fault (often without accompanying supporting evidence) asserting various elements of the CCR Rule groundwater monitoring systems including statistical methodologies, monitoring well networks and certifications, and previously completed Alternate Source Demonstrations (ASDs) are incomplete or otherwise inadequate. The purpose of this presentation is to offer a critical examination of the EPA positions set forth in its Part A and Part B determinations, and to suggest practical solutions to challenge EPA’s potentially unwarranted positions. Fix or fight? The best answer is likely somewhere in between.
Document Type
Presentation
Fix or Fight- EPA’s Part A and Part B Groundwater Deficiency Findings
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Fix or Fight: EPA’s Part A and Part B groundwater monitoring deficiency findings Authors Mr. Kevin Solie - United States - Barr Engineering Co. Ms. Kaela Nerhus - United States - Barr Engineering Co. Mr. Jim Aiken - United States - Barr Engineering Co. Abstract The EPA’s proposed and final CCR Rule Part A and Part B determinations are in essence denials, based largely on EPA’s evaluation of the adequacy of groundwater monitoring systems at the facilities. In almost all cases, EPA has found fault (often without accompanying supporting evidence) asserting various elements of the CCR Rule groundwater monitoring systems including statistical methodologies, monitoring well networks and certifications, and previously completed Alternate Source Demonstrations (ASDs) are incomplete or otherwise inadequate. The purpose of this presentation is to offer a critical examination of the EPA positions set forth in its Part A and Part B determinations, and to suggest practical solutions to challenge EPA’s potentially unwarranted positions. Fix or fight? The best answer is likely somewhere in between.
