State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Office of Waste Management Policy Memo Guidelines for the Management of Historically Agricultural Properties for Future Use as Open Space and/or Recreational Land

 Several other states have addressed this issue (NJ, OR, CA, CT)  Intent: provide streamlined, practical, and economically feasible options for managing historically agricultural properties while simultaneously maintaining the Department’s overall mission of protecting human health and the environment.  Common Hurdles ◦ Site Size ◦ Wide-spread application of pesticides resulted in jurisdictional levels

 Soil sampling data from 15 appropriate sites on file  Sample depth 0 – 1’ bgs  Applicable Contaminants ◦ Arsenic ◦ Lead ◦ Dieldrin ◦ Chlordane

SiteSite Size# Samples# >RDEC# >I/CDECAvg. (ppm)Range (ppm) Orchard ND – 674 Orchard 2 106Not Analyzed Orchard 3 507None 46.36ND – 138 Orchard None – 46 Orchard Not Analyzed Orchard None – 130 Row Crops 7 179None – 28.9 Row Crops None 18.2ND – 38 Row Crops None – 23 Orn./Nursery None – 22 Orn./Nursery None – 20 Orn./Nursery None – 390 Orn./Nursery None 3819 – 57 Orn./Nursery Not Analyzed Unknown Ag None – 25.4 ND (non-detect) results evaluated at one half the laboratory MDL/MRL value

SiteSite Size # Samples # > 7ppm% > 7ppmAvg. (ppm)Range (ppm)NJD per Rule Rule options Orchard %9.19ND – A Orchard %7.63ND – A Orchard %30.1ND – B Orchard % – 21NJD 1,2 Orchard % – 16NJD 1 Orchard % – 140 Row Crops % – 12.7NJD Row Crops % – A Row Crops % – 9.3NJD 2 Orn./Nursery % – 7.1NJD 2 Orn./Nursery %5.16ND – 21NJD 1 Orn./Nursery % – A Orn./Nursery %7.96ND – A Orn./Nursery %9.716 – A Unknown Ag none – 6.6NJD 2 1 – Site would be non-jurisdictional per Rule with “hot-spot” removal 2 – Site does not meet the minimum sample requirements for Rule ND (non-detect) results evaluated at one half the laboratory MDL/MRL Value

SiteSite Size# Samples# >RDEC# >I/CDECAvg. (ppm)Range (ppm) Orchard ND – 0.42 Orchard 2 106Not Analyzed Orchard None0.049ND – Orchard ND – 1.7 Orchard Not Analyzed Orchard – 2.6 Row Crops 7 178None ND Row Crops None0.021ND – 0.1 Row Crops None ND Orn./Nursery ND – 0.51 Orn./Nursery None 0.002ND – Orn./Nursery None0.034ND – 0.17 Orn./Nursery Not Analyzed Orn./Nursery Not Analyzed Unknown Ag Not Analyzed ND (non-detect) results evaluated at one half the laboratory MDL/MRL value

SiteSite Size# Samples# >RDEC# >I/CDECAvg. (ppm)Range (ppm) Orchard None ND Orchard 2 106Not Analyzed Orchard 3 507None ND Orchard None0.932ND – 1.3 Orchard Not Analyzed Orchard 6 6.3Not Analyzed Row Crops 7 178None ND Row Crops None0.292ND – 1.6 Row Crops None ND Orn./Nursery None 0.046ND – 0.32 Orn./Nursery None0.179ND – 1.6 Orn./Nursery None ND Orn./Nursery Not Analyzed Orn./Nursery Not Analyzed Unknown Ag Not Analyzed ND (non-detect) results evaluated at one half the laboratory MDL/MRL value

 Lead ◦ Of 154 samples, only 6% exceeded RDEC ◦ Just 1 sample exceeded I/CDEC  Arsenic ◦ Approx. half of the sites could meet the requirements to be considered NJD for arsenic per Rule 12.03, though three would need limited “hot-spot” removal ◦ The remainder of the sites could use the remedial options under Rules A or B

 Dieldrin ◦ 10 sites sampled for dieldrin ◦ Detected above RDEC in 31% of samples, 10% >I/CDEC ◦ When detected, site wide averages of dieldrin seemed to hover around the RDEC  Chlordane ◦ Sampled for on 9 sites, detected above RDEC on 3 ◦ No I/CDEC exceedances ◦ Avg. chlordane levels were below RDEC on all 9 sites

 Vast majority of exceedances were considered “low-level” exceedances  Average contaminant concentrations were lower than expected  Ag policy inspired by Rule 12

 Sites or portions of sites where pesticides were historically applied and only COCs are lead, arsenic, dieldrin, and/or chlordane  End use: ◦ Undeveloped open space (not for recreational use) ◦ Passive Recreation ◦ Active Recreation

 Spills or other activities that would constitute a “release” under CERCLA  “Hot-spots” or concentrated areas of the Ag COCs attributed to spills, leaks, or improper disposal  Areas not utilized as agricultural fields  Areas that have been redeveloped  Any contaminants other than lead, arsenic, dieldrin, or chlordane

 Notification to the Department  Conduct Limited SI for Ag COCs if: ◦ Phase I ESA demonstrates the site or portion of the site subject to the policy was used only for agricultural purposes. ◦ Minimum sampling requirements are met ◦ End result will be a No Further Action Letter relative to the Agricultural Contaminants of Concern  Submit Agricultural Property SIR/RAWP  Program Letter Public Notice RDL/RAL

 Protocol: ◦ Sample for Ag COCs ◦ Discrete grab samples from 0-1’ bgs ◦ Located within the applicable areas  Frequency: ◦ 1 acre – 8 samples minimum ◦ 1 to 5 acres – 8 samples + 2 per additional acre over 1 st acre ◦ Over 5 acres – 16 samples + 1 per additional acre over 5 th acre

 ELUR/SMP restricting the site or portions of the site to specific use  Must meet specific conditions depending on end use ◦ For example: A passive recreation area must meet the following conditions with respect to chlordane:  No individual sample shall be greater than 4.4 ppm (I/CDEC)  No greater than 25% of samples shall exceed 0.5 ppm (RDEC)  The average chlordane concentration shall be below 0.5 ppm (RDEC)

 Offers an alternative to the standard capping remedial approach for large sites that contain lower levels of the Ag COCs as a result of years of proper pesticide use  Allows for averaging of soil data  Combined Ag SIR/RAWP expedites the process to obtain an NFA  Can be used on entire or portions of former Ag sites  Alternative to Residential or I/C reuse

 RISEP Legislative/Regulatory Sub-Committee  Patrick Cavanagh, URI – Intern  Matt DeStefano & Leo Hellested, RIDEM/OWM