MDEQ requests access regardless of previous environmental reports showing no levels of contamination. While the prior reports do not constitute a final closure of a LUST site, they may demonstrate that these old sites do not pose a threat. Presumably, the MDEQ’s effort will result in a reduction in the number of listed contaminated sites throughout Michigan.

If an owner requests additional information, such as a work plan, or somehow delays a response to the request, the MDEQ may classify such a response as a “denial”. In the case of a denial for access, the MDEQ will refer the matter to its Compliance and Enforcement Section for further evaluation. The MDEQ may then conduct a liability determination, which may take several months, to determine if the owner is a liable party. If liable parties are identified, the MDEQ will issue a request under Part 213 for the owner to conduct an initial assessment report or a final assessment report regarding the open LUST release.

If a liable party cannot be found, the site will revert to “orphan” status and the State will continue to spend resources to investigate the LUST release at the site. Court proceedings may be necessary to obtain access.

The MDEQ will typically not provide a complete work plan to the Owner when it requests site access due to time and budget constraints. The owner is typically allowed to take split samples of soil or groundwater samples. Owners have an option to conduct additional work at their sites to control information and otherwise acquire information relevant to the MDEQ’s request. Where time has lapsed and other contaminants may become relevant, it is important to enlist the support of a competent environmental consultant as well as a lawyer to determine the best course of action.

The post Old Tank Sites Subject to New DEQ Initiative appeared first on Dawda PLC.

reinvent government
create more and better jobs
restore our cities
enhance our national and international image
protect our environment
solve problems through relentless, positive action
In support of the Governor’s goals, the MDEQ has partnered with stakeholders to formulate a plan for improvements in Michigan’s environmental programs. This effort is referred to as the Collaborative Stakeholders Initiative (“CSI”). CSI grows out of a series of recommendations prepared by the Office of Regulatory Reinvention and that was submitted to the Governor’s office.

Participants in CSI are taking a closer look at seven key issues facing Michigan’s cleanup and redevelopment programs. They include:

(1) Groundwater and Surfacewater Interface (GSI) pathway;

(2) Cleanup criteria;

(3) Vapor intrusion;

(4) Free product, source removal and Csat;

(5) Brownfield redevelopment;

(6) Part 201 Rules/Operational Memorandum Guidance; and

(7) Due care obligations.

As a backdrop to reviewing these issues and developing recommendations, participants also hope to derive the benefits of an opportunity for exchange and cooperation between the MDEQ, the regulated community and other public stakeholders. Each issue subgroup is in the process of refining their recommendations and developing action plans after having completed several intensive sessions both in Lansing and during a three-day working program at the Kellogg Biological Station on Gull Lake. There will be a public session to present these recommendations on March 15, 2012.

The action plans will include recommendations with respect to Part 201 and Part 213, Part 201 Rules, applicable Operational Memorandums, Guidance Documents, and other policies affecting the implementation of these programs. There will be an opportunity learn more about these recommendations and action plans during a webcast scheduled for March 15, 2012. More details on connecting to the webcast to follow.

As someone involved in the CSI process, it is my belief that the process and this initiative has the potential for being extremely beneficial, and may lead to many changes within Michigan’s cleanup and redevelopment program that will facilitate expedited cleanups and redevelopment while protecting the environment.

The post Reinventing Michigan’s Cleanup and Redevelopment Programs appeared first on Dawda PLC.

In May 2012, a six bill package was signed into law by Governor Snyder to amend the procedures for the cleanup of contamination caused by leaking USTs. This bill package amends Michigan’s Part 213 (Leaking UST Program). The amendments provide greater flexibility in developing a remediation plan and implementing cleanup upon identification of a leaking UST. The amendment directs leaking USTs to be remediated in a manner consistent with American Society for Testing Materials (“ASTM”) Standard Guide for Risk Based Corrective Action as applied to Petroleum Release Site (“RBCA”).

Within 180 days (it previously was 90 days) of confirming the release, the owner shall submit an initial assessment report. It is the responsibility of the owner or operator to confirm that the consultant is qualified. Previously, the MDEQ maintained an approved list of consultants.

There is an ongoing debate among consultants over what effect these changes to Part 213 will have on closure. Previously, consultants could proceed to closure when free product was present less than 1/8 of an inch. The amendments focus on free phase product which includes Non Aqueous Phase Liquids (“NAPL”). This includes migrating NAPL, Mobile NAPL, and Residual NAPL.

The DEQ will be charged with only auditing final site assessment and closure reports rather than reviewing every aspect of a corrective action. If the DEQ decides to audit a report, notice shall be given by the DEQ within 90 days. The DEQ has up to 180 days to complete its audit after receipt of the closure report. The DEQ has been afforded a 270 day time window for review of reports it received in the 6 months before the bill took effect. The DEQ only has one opportunity to audit a report. In the event the DEQ fails to audit, report, or fails to prepare a written response, it will be deemed approved. In the event the DEQ has denied the report, the owner and operator will be provided an opportunity to revise and resubmit the report for approval.

These amendments also correct the confusion over liability protection. Persons that become owners and operators of a site with a UST after June 5, 1995, and have conducted a Baseline Environmental Assessment (“BEA”) would receive liability protection that includes the UST. Other provisions associated with owner and operator liability in the amendment are designed to match the liability provisions within the Part 213 UST Program with the liability provisions in Part 201.

To the extent a person wants to change land use, resource use, or depart from restrictions set forth in the closure report, they will need to undertake the necessary additional corrective action to allow for such use changes.

The amendments also clarified the right to bring an administrative appeal. In the event that there is a dispute between a UST owner and operator and the MDEQ, the owner and operator can proceed to an administrative hearing to resolve such disputes or challenge the MDEQ’s decision before the Response Activity Review Panel originally set up pursuant to Part 201.

The MDEQ intends to provide a training program on these changes to its LUST program. As information becomes available, we will update this blog accordingly.

The post Regulatory Reform in Michigan’s Underground Storage Tank (“ust”) Program appeared first on Dawda PLC.

On January 24, 2012, the Michigan Senate passed a bill to amend Michigan’s Part 213 by revising procedures for the cleanup and management of environmental contamination at LUST sites.

Significant points of the bills:
(1) A requirement that LUST be remediated pursuant to Standard Guide for Risk Based Corrective Action Applied at the Petroleum Release Sites (“RBCA”) which were developed by ASTM. The MDEQ would not develop its own classification system. The MDEQ is prohibited from implementing additional rules for Part 213 of the Act.

(2) The consultants shall submit an initial assessment report within 180 days following a release. The MDEQ would audit the closure report and final assessment and not other submittals or aspects of the corrective action;

(3) With respect to timing, the MDEQ would have 90 days after receipt of the closure report to determine whether it would audit and then have 180 days to complete the audit. The MDEQ would only have an opportunity to audit the report;

(4) If the MDEQ does not perform an audit and a written response, it will be deemed approved. If a report is denied, the owner and operator can revise the report and resubmit it for review. The owner and operator in the alternative, upon receipt of a denial, can seek review by the Response Activity Review Panel (which was established under Part 201), or petition the MDEQ’ s Office of Administrative Hearings for a contested case hearing;

(5) A person may be an innocent purchaser within the meaning of Part 213 if they conducted a BEA, making the UST program consistent with Part 201. It is the MDEQ’s burden of proof to establish liability under Part 213. Liable parties can seek contribution from other liabilities in a civil action.

(6) Parties that are liable could be at risk for up to $50 Million in damages for the destruction of natural resources. The penalty scheme has been revised so that the Attorney General, on behalf of the MDEQ, can commence a civil action against liable parties. The State may pursue a lien to recover costs and damages incurred as a result of a UST. The State’s lien would have priority over other liens;

(7) The State has the authority to enter into covenants not to sue with liable parties under certain circumstances;

The bill package as passed by the Senate has been referred to the House. The House has referred this bill to its Committee on Natural Resources, Tourism and Outdoor Recreation. The Committee will review the Senate Bill to determine whether to recommend approval by the House. We will continue to monitor the passing of these bills.

The post Legislative Update – Leaking Underground Storage Tank Act appeared first on Dawda PLC.