An Ounce Of Prevention Is Worth A Pound Of Cure
Some clichés ring more true than others and the one above resonates pretty loudly in these troubled times. We are all paying closer attention to the things we can do to protect our employees, our facilities, and our communities. Any type of facility that handles and uses chemicals has seen the need to be more vigilant and more cautious regarding those chemicals. Whether or not you were subject to the EPA’s Risk Management Program (RMP) and/or OSHA’s Process Safety Management (PSM), or were below threshold quantities or changed chemicals and processes, you still need to follow the basic precepts of the RMP General Duty Clause to provide that “ounce of protection.” The security of your facility and its processes has become an important additional element of chemical safety and handling.
Gordon Brookman, President of ERL, has just completed the EPA-approved training in the Sandia Laboratory-developed “Risk Assessment Methodology for Water” (RAM-WSM). He was a participant in the first class of 16 to be trained in this methodology (outside of the “train the trainer” group of specialists) and received intensive instruction in this specific approach to vulnerability assessments developed by Sandia Labs and funded by the EPA for water utilities. While this methodology was developed specifically for water utilities, the approach is easily adapted to most industries that use chemicals and also to wastewater treatment plants.
Environmental Risk Limited (ERL) has assembled a team of experts to perform the diverse elements of an effective vulnerability assessment. ERL’s expertise is in process technology, chemical/hazardous materials control, and emergency response planning; we have extensive experience as consultants to water treatment plants, industrial facilities, and wastewater treatment plants. Our second team member is Interfor, Inc., a world leader in physical security assessment and antiterrorism strategies for business and government agencies. The third member of the team is CACI International, a world leader in information technology security. Together, we can provide the full range of services required to perform a vulnerability assessment. Our plan would be to work with you as a team. Our group of process, environmental, security, and IT specialists perform the actual vulnerability assessment, but for the endeavor to be most successful, it is vital that your core team have significant input.
Lessons Learned: CTDEP Audits of Licensed Environmental Professional Reviews
In 1996, the State of Connecticut adopted Remediation Standards Regulations which better defined the goals of environmental remediation in the state, and specified the technical demonstrations that must be made to document compliance with those goals. Having adopted the RSRs, the CTDEP then authorized partial "privatization" of the oversight program through the licensure of environmental professionals and granted the authority for LEPs to sign off (i.e., "verify") on certain types of sites that remediation had been completed. Different situations allow differing amounts of autonomy for the LEP.
In spite of its promise, implementation of this system has been far from a cure-all. Statistics recently released by CTDEP (see other side) have indicated that much work by LEPs is being rejected as inadequate following CTDEP audits. According to the 4th Quarter 2000 Audit Report, only 15% of verification reports submitted under Section 22a-134 "demonstrated adequate characterization of the site and that the LEP exhibited proper application of the … RSRs." (Note more than 50% of all submittals have been audited.)
Why are so many reports being rejected? It's simple, and complicated, all at once. Reports are being rejected because of poor or inadequate characterization of the site. Unfortunately, while the vast majority of LEPs are competent to do a better job, their studies are often compromised due to cost or schedule limitations imposed by site owners (i.e., clients) usually due to unwillingness or inability to pay for the level of investigation required.
The key to a successful verification is planning. It is essential to identify all Areas of Concern (AOC's) and all Constituents of Concern (COC's) across the entire site, and then systematically make a determination whether any AOC caused a release to the environment. If any releases are discovered, the LEP must document the extent of the problem, determine whether remediation is needed, document that the remediation effort has been effective, and demonstrate that any post remedial monitoring obligations have been completed. Each step of the process builds on the previous steps; each decision is subject to questioning during an audit. With poor planning (especially in the early stages), the project can be kicked far back in the process. With sound planning and implementation, the basis for an LEP's verification will be solid and much less subject to second-guessing by the State.
My advice? If you are reviewing a site in Connecticut, I encourage you to call early in the process and discuss the site with an LEP. By having an open discussion about your goals - including listening to the LEP's strategy - you can lay the groundwork to avoid the aggravations that so often befall poorly planned projects.
LEPs at ERL are:
Gordon Brookman
Richard Desrosiers
David Purington
Conceptual Site Models
Although the term Conceptual Site Model may be one of the newest being used at the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP), rest assured that you will be hearing it more and more in reference to site investigation and cleanups. In a recent call to the CTDEP to discuss a project, the Case Manager's response was "What is your Conceptual Site Model?"
In June 2000, the CTDEP issued its "Draft Site Characterization Guidance Document" which defines a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) as "a representation of an environmental system", consisting of: 1) problem statement 2) existing data evaluation 3) initial hypotheses 4) data gaps 5) additional data 6) refinement to the CSM and 7) model validation. While not a regulation by statute, this draft guidance is being aggressively implemented at the DEP as a means to guide consultants and their clients toward a standard site investigation philosophy.
In its most fundamental use, the "Conceptual Site Model" process is intended to ensure that the CTDEP is provided with sufficient detail to assess investigation procedures and review the outcome of a site characterization. Most commonly it is used to support a verification of compliance with the Remediation Standard Regulations (RSRs). To many people (particularly the responsible party paying the bills) the level of detail required in a CSM may seem excessive. However, in the long run it may ultimately work to the client's advantage by ensuring a better understanding of the nature and extent of the contamination within the various media, leading to more accurate remedial cost estimates or cost-effective technologies.
An added benefit of the CSM comes in the arena of client relations. Due to its comprehensive approach and presentation, the CSM will typically provide the client with a better understanding of the value of the recommended sampling and can serve to provide the client with periodic checks on the site characterization process. Finally, a CSM can resolve in advance many issues that might otherwise be misunderstood by the DEP - and thus ultimately shorten the life of the project.
Given CTDEP's fairly quick embrace of this draft guidance document, we believe this approach will become regulation in the near future. Environmental Risk Limited has incorporated Conceptual Site Models into our site characterization program. We would be happy to share our experiences with you and assist you in evaluating how a CSM might benefit your project immediately.
