1. State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Office of Waste Management Policy Memo 2014-01 Guidelines for the Management of Historically Agricultural Properties for Future Use as Open Space and/or Recreational Land

2.  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

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

4. SiteSite Size# Samples# >RDEC# >I/CDECAvg. (ppm)Range (ppm) Orchard 1 93393166.59ND – 674 Orchard 2 106Not Analyzed Orchard 3 507None 46.36ND – 138 Orchard 4 13.615None 14.686 – 46 Orchard 5 11.6Not Analyzed Orchard 6 6.32None 67.655.3 – 130 Row Crops 7 179None 20.28.5 – 28.9 Row Crops 8 5728None 18.2ND – 38 Row Crops 9 4.57None 11.18 – 23 Orn./Nursery 10 14014None 11.95.3 – 22 Orn./Nursery 11 813None 9.142.7 – 20 Orn./Nursery 12 1.4136None1627.2 – 390 Orn./Nursery 13 0.592None 3819 – 57 Orn./Nursery 14 1.6Not Analyzed Unknown Ag. 15 6.35None 2319.6 – 25.4 ND (non-detect) results evaluated at one half the laboratory MDL/MRL value

5. SiteSite Size # Samples # > 7ppm% > 7ppmAvg. (ppm)Range (ppm)NJD per Rule 12.03 Rule 12.04 options Orchard 193341235%9.19ND – 72.112.04 A Orchard 210633212939%7.63ND – 62.412.04 A Orchard 350655382%30.1ND – 13312.04 B Orchard 413.615320%4.821.2 – 21NJD 1,2 Orchard 511.64924%2.920.76 – 16NJD 1 Orchard 66.3241875%48.80.85 – 140 Row Crops 7 1730620%5.722.9 – 12.7NJD Row Crops 8 5719737%6.321.6 – 1312.04 A Row Crops 9 4.51318%3.61.4 – 9.3NJD 2 Orn./Nursery 10 1401417%4.141.7 – 7.1NJD 2 Orn./Nursery 11 832722%5.16ND – 21NJD 1 Orn./Nursery 12 1.4131185%11.32.8 – 2312.04 A Orn./Nursery 13 0.59672537%7.96ND – 3612.04 A Orn./Nursery 14 1.6282693%9.716 – 1812.04 A Unknown Ag. 15 6.311none 4.952.2 – 6.6NJD 2 1 – Site would be non-jurisdictional per Rule 12.03 with “hot-spot” removal 2 – Site does not meet the minimum sample requirements for Rule 12.03 ND (non-detect) results evaluated at one half the laboratory MDL/MRL Value

6. SiteSite Size# Samples# >RDEC# >I/CDECAvg. (ppm)Range (ppm) Orchard 1 9334910.048ND – 0.42 Orchard 2 106Not Analyzed Orchard 3 5083None0.049ND – 0.152 Orchard 4 13.68420.42ND – 1.7 Orchard 5 11.6Not Analyzed Orchard 6 6.32017120.5290.004 – 2.6 Row Crops 7 178None ND Row Crops 8 57266None0.021ND – 0.1 Row Crops 9 4.513None ND Orn./Nursery 10 14014910.099ND – 0.51 Orn./Nursery 11 822None 0.002ND – 0.024 Orn./Nursery 12 1.493None0.034ND – 0.17 Orn./Nursery 13 0.59Not Analyzed Orn./Nursery 14 1.6Not Analyzed Unknown Ag. 15 6.3Not Analyzed ND (non-detect) results evaluated at one half the laboratory MDL/MRL value

7. SiteSite Size# Samples# >RDEC# >I/CDECAvg. (ppm)Range (ppm) Orchard 1 9334None ND Orchard 2 106Not Analyzed Orchard 3 507None ND Orchard 4 13.641None0.932ND – 1.3 Orchard 5 11.6Not Analyzed Orchard 6 6.3Not Analyzed Row Crops 7 178None ND Row Crops 8 57264None0.292ND – 1.6 Row Crops 9 4.513None ND Orn./Nursery 10 14014None 0.046ND – 0.32 Orn./Nursery 11 8282None0.179ND – 1.6 Orn./Nursery 12 1.41None ND Orn./Nursery 13 0.59Not Analyzed Orn./Nursery 14 1.6Not Analyzed Unknown Ag. 15 6.3Not Analyzed ND (non-detect) results evaluated at one half the laboratory MDL/MRL value

8.  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 12.04 A or 12.04 B

9.  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

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

11.  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

12.  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

13.  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

14.  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

15.  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)

16.  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

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